PDA

View Full Version : Bad Pagan Sites?



AoibhellFaeryMoon
August 31st, 2006, 09:42 AM
Let's discuss the really BAD Pagan sites. I know that a lot of newbies try to find information on the 'net. Let's post the bad and ugly, here!

Infinite Grey
August 31st, 2006, 10:17 AM
niiiiiiiiiiice AV! :)

Twinkle
August 31st, 2006, 10:24 AM
Not to ruin your fun....but I'm not sure that slandering other sites is really appropriate.

I don't think MW would like to be listed on another Forum Board as a bad site.

It's a matter of opinion what's considered a bad site.

Kaylara
August 31st, 2006, 10:42 AM
*Administrator Mode*

Well, you are correct in that Twinkle, and I'm going to warn this thread that no slandering will be allowed to go on. However if you want to discuss the negative traits of another site, I don't see a problem with that. Just keep it civil people.

AoibhellFaeryMoon
August 31st, 2006, 10:45 AM
niiiiiiiiiiice AV! :)

;)

AoibhellFaeryMoon
August 31st, 2006, 10:45 AM
Not to ruin your fun....but I'm not sure that slandering other sites is really appropriate.

I don't think MW would like to be listed on another Forum Board as a bad site.

It's a matter of opinion what's considered a bad site.

So we can slander Christian sites with joyousness and bad taste, but we cannot comment on what we consider a bad Pagan site?

I would say that's an unbalanced scale.

Kaylara
August 31st, 2006, 11:45 AM
I don't think we should be slandering anyone's site. But there is a difference between commenting on a bad site and slandering it.

Tim
August 31st, 2006, 12:43 PM
It's creative criticism vs. blatant bashing. What is "bad" is highly subjective.

dragoncrone
August 31st, 2006, 05:33 PM
I'm curious why you didn't say "There are a lot of newbies here, let's let them know about some other really good Pagan sites."

Do you have some issues with other places which will be released by venting?

AoibhellFaeryMoon
August 31st, 2006, 07:28 PM
If you've noticed, I haven't posted any sites.

There are a lot of bad sites out there...like the ones claiming D&D to be Wicca, or Satanism to be Paganism. I figured maybe newbies who wouldn't normally have a "filter" for websites would find this thread useful.

Lock it, if you will.

*shrug*

Xander67
August 31st, 2006, 10:29 PM
through my cyber travels, I have seen MANY sites which would only confuse you if you dont know any better...

there is alot of disinformation out there, and for someone who is new to paganism, wanting to learn , it is hard.

my advice to anyone, new or old is to take what you read with a grain of salt. ANYONE can put up a website.. just because a website says the sky is blue on mars, does not mean the sky is blue on mars. Look at the website's author. some sites will quote sources and provide info as to where thier info is comming from. also it is important to watch out for the poopyganda... that is simply when it is sooo obvious that the author doesnt know what they are talking about, but they make it sound good..

BeachWitch
January 10th, 2008, 05:28 PM
Bad Pagan Sites - Top 4 Traits:

Any web site with the word "jesus", "christian"; "christ", or "savior" in the URL and claiming to have a Pagan FAQ or Wiccan "education" page.

Any web site where the sole source of information on Pagan/Wiccan/Heathen practices is The Teen Witch Kit.

Any site which references the "burning times" - for goodness sake read up on history, use the Library.

Any site which makes a claim that Wicca is an "ancient religion" - my Scots-Irish great-great-great granny has no idea WTF a watchtower is or what the hell it's guarding.

BlackLili
January 10th, 2008, 06:03 PM
If you've noticed, I haven't posted any sites.

There are a lot of bad sites out there...like the ones claiming D&D to be Wicca, or Satanism to be Paganism. I figured maybe newbies who wouldn't normally have a "filter" for websites would find this thread useful.

Lock it, if you will.

*shrug*

What makes you decide what is and isn't "proper" Paganism? Not being argumentative, but I know a number of witches who consider themselves, at least in part of their practices, Satanic. Or what about the kids who whole-heartedly believe in those D&D deities, to the point of finally researching and attempting to work with them?

I'm not bagging on you, I promise. All I'm doing is being the Devil's Advocate in this because I have made statements like you just did here. And I had it pointed out to me by one of those D&D worshipping freaks that they had just as much a right to their fiction as Christians have to theirs, and other Pagans have to ours.

No one has a right to say what is good or bad when it comes to another's beliefs. Not if you purport to believe all religions to be equal.

Rick
January 10th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Bad Pagan Sites?

Oh... sorry...

I thought this was the thread about sites where we Evil Pagans hang out...

Don't mind me, carry on...

BeachWitch
January 11th, 2008, 01:49 AM
What makes you decide what is and isn't "proper" Paganism? Not being argumentative, but I know a number of witches who consider themselves, at least in part of their practices, Satanic. Or what about the kids who whole-heartedly believe in those D&D deities, to the point of finally researching and attempting to work with them?

I'm not bagging on you, I promise. All I'm doing is being the Devil's Advocate in this because I have made statements like you just did here. And I had it pointed out to me by one of those D&D worshipping freaks that they had just as much a right to their fiction as Christians have to theirs, and other Pagans have to ours.

No one has a right to say what is good or bad when it comes to another's beliefs. Not if you purport to believe all religions to be equal.

While I appreciate your sentiment, there is no historical or theological data to support the D&D deities. And that thinking, as well as the permissiveness in the rest of the community in recognizing the fiction as legitimate Paganism is irresponsible at best.

We have a tradition. It varies by Culture and Pantheon. Pagans who claim to have a tradition with no affiliation to deity are simply Athiests wearing Pagan clothing.

This is exactly the type of mis-information that this thread is referring to. Promoting fantasy as religion does no one any good.

Oh and yes, there is a standard for what is and isn't Proper Paganism. Sure the guideline are loose, but they are there, for Wicca, Witchcraft and the Shamanic traditions.

Theres
January 11th, 2008, 02:20 AM
While I appreciate your sentiment, there is no historical or theological data to support the D&D deities. And that thinking, as well as the permissiveness in the rest of the community in recognizing the fiction as legitimate Paganism is irresponsible at best.
unfortunately there are many who simply cannot tell the difference between theology and pop culture.
pity, that.

BlackLili
January 11th, 2008, 03:11 PM
While I appreciate your sentiment, there is no historical or theological data to support the D&D deities. And that thinking, as well as the permissiveness in the rest of the community in recognizing the fiction as legitimate Paganism is irresponsible at best.

Actually, I have to differ with you here. While i don't play the game, I know there are several deities who are mentioned in their guides that are based on the deities of ancient cultures, often Babylonia and Sumeria. Yes, it's a loose base, and the details are largely fictionalized, but the kid who made the statement had a point when he said it. The point being that they are free to research whatever gods they choose, for whatever reason - even if they're inspired by a game.


We have a tradition. It varies by Culture and Pantheon. Pagans who claim to have a tradition with no affiliation to deity are simply Athiests wearing Pagan clothing.
I beg your pardon - this "we" you speak of, are you speaking for me as well? Because I am also a Pagan. I follow no reconstruction of any path, with no clear lineage or tradition, and am just as much a Witch as my grandmothers before me. I worship no separate deities, and claim no specific affiliation. By your definition, this would make me an Atheist? I find your logic in this statement to be a very large assumption. You may have it in your head who "counts" as Pagan and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is, as an umbrella term, anyone who feels like using that as their label is just as justified in using it as anyone else.


This is exactly the type of mis-information that this thread is referring to. Promoting fantasy as religion does no one any good.
Whoa! I'm so sorry! I had no idea that virgin pregnancies, folks being raised from the dead, and demonic possession had been proven as fact in last week's Popular Science! All religions are based on fantasy. It's whatever you make it for yourself. You can't prove religion. You can attempt to prove a lineage, you can attempt to prove a tradition's history, but when you come down to it, we all worship Invisible Superior Beings. Just because you can prove that someone else worshiped your Invisible Superior Being 2,000 years ago doesn't mean that mine is any less "real".


Oh and yes, there is a standard for what is and isn't Proper Paganism. Sure the guideline are loose, but they are there, for Wicca, Witchcraft and the Shamanic traditions.
Says who? What's your source? Who is it you think I should be deferring to in this instance, if not trusting in my own intellect?

Look, all I'm saying here is what Xandar said above us. Anyone can make a website. Anyone can have a belief. Just because you don't recognize it or understand it doesn't make it less valid. (Because if you think that it does, then follow your logic down what Jefferson called the "slippery slope" which means in this case, what's to say that someone else wouldn't tell you that Paganism in general is just fantasy and not a religion at all since it's not something they recognize - by your logic they would be right.)

You might not like when someone tells you they worship a water sprite from the Battle Moon of Endor, but you can't say their faith isn't as "real" as yours.

Ben Gruagach
January 11th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Personally I think BlackLili makes some excellent points. Judging someone else's religious path as "bad" based on rather questionable things like how old it might or might not be, or how much of its mythology is "fantasy", is hardly objective.

Perhaps it would be better to instead explain why we personally don't like whatever websites we want to critique. Here are some things that I'd like to see explored for instance:

- historical accuracy: does the website show a good grasp of the history it presents?

- sources cited: does the website identify where the information or ideas came from?

- statements of fact or opinion: are statements on the website presented as hard fact when they are actually just an opinion?

- originality: does the website present original information or is it just a rehash of information that is easily available in many other sites and sources?

- layout and presentation: is the site attractive and easy to navigate?

I'm sure there are lots of other things that we could discuss in critiquing a website. Let's just be clear about presenting our own opinions as opinions though as taste is a very personal thing and is hardly universal fact.

RainInanna
January 11th, 2008, 05:09 PM
What makes you decide what is and isn't "proper" Paganism?

Being a human being who can make my own decisions and have my own opinions gives me just as much right to consider LaVeyan Satanism not to be Pagan, or D&D not to be Wicca. Just as others have the right to feel it can be, I have the right to feel it can't be. Just because I disagree with them does not mean I prevent them from believing what they like, but we are all intelligent beings with the right, if not responsibility, to form our own opinions.

Of course people have a right to believe the relevant "fiction" they choose, and in turn, others have a right to disagree. We go to online forums to share opinions. Not just to play a game of who has the right to believe what and who's a big fat meanie head.

Sea-Sin
January 11th, 2008, 06:35 PM
All religions are based on fantasy. It's whatever you make it for yourself. You can't prove religion. You can attempt to prove a lineage, you can attempt to prove a tradition's history, but when you come down to it, we all worship Invisible Superior Beings. Just because you can prove that someone else worshiped your Invisible Superior Being 2,000 years ago doesn't mean that mine is any less "real".
Exactly...

PrincessKLS
January 11th, 2008, 07:57 PM
I do know a site but I can't name it here since it's a rival site of MysticWicks :(

BlackLili
January 11th, 2008, 07:59 PM
Being a human being who can make my own decisions and have my own opinions gives me just as much right to consider LaVeyan Satanism not to be Pagan, or D&D not to be Wicca. Just as others have the right to feel it can be, I have the right to feel it can't be. Just because I disagree with them does not mean I prevent them from believing what they like, but we are all intelligent beings with the right, if not responsibility, to form our own opinions.

Of course people have a right to believe the relevant "fiction" they choose, and in turn, others have a right to disagree. We go to online forums to share opinions. Not just to play a game of who has the right to believe what and who's a big fat meanie head.

Actually, that was exactly my point. We all have the right to choose for ourselves what we believe - and no one else has the right to tell us that our faith is invalid, or wrong, or "less real" because it's not something that they themselves believe.

As for saying what is and isn't Paganism - let's get elementary for a moment:

"any of various religions other than Christianity or Judaism or Islam" - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=paganism

"Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "an old country dweller, rustic") is a term which, from a Western perspective, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or cultic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheism religions in particular." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

"1.pagan spirit or attitude in religious or moral questions. 2.the beliefs or practices of pagans. 3.the state of being a pagan." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paganism



I wasn't being a "big fat meanie head" nor was I calling anyone else that - I am simply stating that for someone who calls themselves a Pagan who believes in the validity of all religions, we cannot out of hand dismiss someone else's faith just because we find it silly or hard to believe. By definition, being a Pagan is anything not related to a "main stream" religion. Nothing more or less.

(Note: If it seems like this is a topic close to my heart, that's because it is. My ancestors, in the fairly recent past, were tortured in camps and forced to flee their homelands because someone took it upon themselves to decide officially what counted as a "real" religion - and it wasn't what they believed.

I believe in the tolerance and open-mindedness espoused by many Pagans I have known, and try to foster that mentality in others.

This doesn't mean I don't understand that some sites can be inaccurate in their facts, or take pure fiction and attempt to pass it off as historical accuracy. That isn't what I'm referring to though. I'm referring to this as a matter of faith, and tolerance.)

RainInanna
January 11th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Actually, that was exactly my point. We all have the right to choose for ourselves what we believe - and no one else has the right to tell us that our faith is invalid, or wrong, or "less real" because it's not something that they themselves believe.

Of course I have the right to tell you I disagree with you. Even when I think D&D is not Wicca. Even when I say Satanism isn't Paganism in my opinion. Even if you don't like it. I have just as much right to think, form an opinion, and post it here, as you do. Just as much right as you have to think my belief on this is wrong. And of course you do, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Even sweeping that aside, no one said Satanism is wrong, someone said it's not Paganism. For goodness sake, I used to be a Satanist!

It's the difference between saying a toad is wrong, or saying a toad is not a mammal. One is a value judgment, one is a matter of classification with no value judgment whatsoever.

I never said Satanism or D&D are wrong, I said they aren't Paganism or Wicca. Whatever value judgment you got out of it was your own.

RainInanna
January 11th, 2008, 08:31 PM
Incidentally, no LaVeyan Satanist I know would call themself a Pagan because LVS is considered a philosophy, not a religion, and considers belief in an outside deity to be idiotic if not sinful. LaVey actually made disparaging remarks about Wiccans and "white light" Pagans in The Satanic Bible for that reason. I was a LaVeyan Satanist myself for awhile, although ultimately I prefer to work with some form of the Sacred. Atheists, Buddhists, and Taoists are three other examples of folks who are not Christian, Judaic, or Islamic, but often would not like to be called Pagan.

Luciferian Satanists can be a little less clear on the subject, since they may actually work with or worship a deity and consider themselves Pagan. I do believe David19 is interested in that subject, should you want to learn more.

SilverClaw
January 11th, 2008, 08:55 PM
I do know a site but I can't name it here since it's a rival site of MysticWicks :( yep I can imagine who your referring to to .


Let's discuss the really BAD Pagan sitesI know of several of them and have long left them. And I do not view them as bad due to their beliefs, it is either it is how they treat their members and thier out right hypocrisy and slander that gets to me and either that or how I have been treated personally.

BlackLili
January 11th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Incidentally, no LaVeyan Satanist I know would call themself a Pagan because LVS is considered a philosophy, not a religion, and considers belief in an outside deity to be idiotic if not sinful. LaVey actually made disparaging remarks about Wiccans and "white light" Pagans in The Satanic Bible for that reason. I was a LaVeyan Satanist myself for awhile, although ultimately I prefer to work with some form of the Sacred.
So what does this mean for Satanic Witches and/or Satanic Wiccans? Not popular paths, but they most definitely exist. I believe it was LaVey's daughter who literally wrote the book on being a Satanic Witch.


Atheists, Buddhists, and Taoists are three other examples of folks who are not Christian, Judaic, or Islamic, but often would not like to be called Pagan.
Atheists and Agnostics can immediately be removed from the issue because they are also philosophies, by definition. The debate over whether or not Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc are considered to be Pagans or not seems to boil down to each person's regional or societal situation. There are some religious factions in the U.S. who very much lump ALL non-Christian religions together under the Pagan umbrella. Because it is such a variable term in and of itself, I don't know that there's a real objective, empirical answer to that quandry. Personally, I don't consider them to be Pagans in the current popular sense either, and most who I know who follow those paths tend to agree.

PrincessKLS
January 11th, 2008, 09:15 PM
I don't know why but anymore I have trouble finding pagan message boards when I do search engines. Maybe there's not a lot of them anymore. When I was a teenager they seemed vast.

RainInanna
January 11th, 2008, 09:22 PM
So what does this mean for Satanic Witches and/or Satanic Wiccans? Not popular paths, but they most definitely exist. I believe it was LaVey's daughter who literally wrote the book on being a Satanic Witch.

I have no idea whatsoever how people could reconcile Satanism and Wicca. I don't see how it's possible. Maybe they're referring to Luciferian Satanism?

I don't particularly like LaVey's daughter, and haven't read her book. I suspect her idea of Witchcraft is very different from what I consider it to be, and what I consider Paganism.

SilverClaw
January 11th, 2008, 10:55 PM
I don't know why but anymore I have trouble finding pagan message boards when I do search engines. I Still find them but it is a case of finding one that can challenge me, or teach me anything that is hard to find..

Xentor
January 11th, 2008, 11:15 PM
yep I can imagine who your referring to to.


I do know a site but I can't name it here since it's a rival site of MysticWicks :(

Oh grow up. Talking about this one (http://dolphin.esosoft.net/erisbarandgrill.com/)?

I hope not, because that hardly qualifies as a pagan site.

Protagonist
January 11th, 2008, 11:25 PM
C'mon, everyone. There are bad sites. It doesn't even have anything to do with what they're preaching. There are just some places online that're frankly terrible.

If the background is animated and the text isn't legible, I would call it a bad site. If there's huge cruft on every page and it takes three years to load, it's not worth your time. I'm not even asking for validation; just legibility most of the time. Oh yeah, and if you think y'all pagans have bad sites to worry about, you should see some of the Christian websites! Broken tags all the way down, and huge .wav files, not to mention bad javascript.

...I realize I may possibly have just insulted a good portion of Myspace. Sorry...

Xentor
January 11th, 2008, 11:29 PM
C'mon, everyone. There are bad sites. It doesn't even have anything to do with what they're preaching. There are just some places online that're frankly terrible.

If the background is animated and the text isn't legible, I would call it a bad site. If there's huge cruft on every page and it takes three years to load, it's not worth your time. I'm not even asking for validation; just legibility most of the time. Oh yeah, and if you think y'all pagans have bad sites to worry about, you should see some of the Christian websites! Broken tags all the way down, and huge .wav files, not to mention bad javascript.

...I realize I may possibly have just insulted a good portion of Myspace. Sorry...
Don't fail the Myspace members. The Myspace system makes it way too easy to create crap. Anyone and their grandmother can build a bad web page with Myspace! (And if you happen to work for Myspace, then yes, I mean you.)

Autumn
January 11th, 2008, 11:37 PM
C'mon, everyone. There are bad sites. It doesn't even have anything to do with what they're preaching. There are just some places online that're frankly terrible.

If the background is animated and the text isn't legible, I would call it a bad site. If there's huge cruft on every page and it takes three years to load, it's not worth your time. I'm not even asking for validation; just legibility most of the time. Oh yeah, and if you think y'all pagans have bad sites to worry about, you should see some of the Christian websites! Broken tags all the way down, and huge .wav files, not to mention bad javascript.

...I realize I may possibly have just insulted a good portion of Myspace. Sorry...
:yayah:

Although I got a giggle out of the fact that that other website requires registration to even view...

WynterWynd
January 12th, 2008, 12:00 AM
Don't fail the Myspace members. The Myspace system makes it way too easy to create crap. Anyone and their grandmother can build a bad web page with Myspace! (And if you happen to work for Myspace, then yes, I mean you.)

:hehehehe:Too true!!

I love the ones (come on, you know I'm being facetious) where the back ground is hideous and the font is either in a matching (damn near) color or they went to the other side of color spectrum so it clashes like crazy...you know, an eyeball beeder!
Its got more clip art plastered on the thing than a junior high schoolers notebook.....and EVERY bit of information they are handing out has come out of some Llewelyn (sp?) publication verbatim!

Lupagreenwolf
January 12th, 2008, 02:28 AM
So what does this mean for Satanic Witches and/or Satanic Wiccans? Not popular paths, but they most definitely exist. I believe it was LaVey's daughter who literally wrote the book on being a Satanic Witch.

Having read that book years ago, I still remember that it didn't even remotely resemble Wicca--or neopaganism in general. It was more "Here's how to use psychology and a little bit of energy work to seduce any man, even married ones that you work with". So, totally different definition of "witch".

BeachWitch
January 12th, 2008, 03:39 PM
There are a lot of young people here on MysticWicks who probably don't know Paganisms most recent history. For the record, Satanism has never been considered Pagan, not now, not 20 years ago, not 60 years, not ever. In fact you can trace this argument right back to Gardner/Crowley/LeVey. I think there were a few talk shows in the 70's (Merv Griffin was one, can't remember the other) where they publicaly went at each other over the subject.

Before I start on the quotes, I want to point out that anyone who is so impolite in their responses and in their defense of their position should probably spend more time in study. When you have education as your ammunition, defense is the first trait to fall away.


I beg your pardon - this "we" you speak of, are you speaking for me as well? Because I am also a Pagan. I follow no reconstruction of any path, with no clear lineage or tradition, and am just as much a Witch as my grandmothers before me. I worship no separate deities, and claim no specific affiliation. By your definition, this would make me an Atheist? I find your logic in this statement to be a very large assumption. You may have it in your head who "counts" as Pagan and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is, as an umbrella term, anyone who feels like using that as their label is just as justified in using it as anyone else.
Witchcraft or Wicca without Deity affiliation is Magic. There are plenty of magicians out there who are very good at what they do. It doesn't make them Pagan. For example, Criss Angel, Lance Burton and David Copperfield are perfect examples of "witchcraft without deity". They are master magicians and have never once invoked Deity in their shows. The bottom line is that Pagans DO HAVE affiliation with Deity.
Additionally, our great-great-great granny's DID have an affiliation with one god or goddess or another (those of us who come from familial lines).


Whoa! I'm so sorry! I had no idea that virgin pregnancies, folks being raised from the dead, and demonic possession had been proven as fact in last week's Popular Science! All religions are based on fantasy. It's whatever you make it for yourself. You can't prove religion. You can attempt to prove a lineage, you can attempt to prove a tradition's history, but when you come down to it, we all worship Invisible Superior Beings. Just because you can prove that someone else worshiped your Invisible Superior Being 2,000 years ago doesn't mean that mine is any less "real".
Excuse me, the American Gods book review should be somewhere in the Literature thread. Neil Gaiman has made a wonderful case for creating new Gods. But isn't that off topic? Maybe this is where the Neo-Pagan label is appropriate.

In reference to standards, again, it seems a lot of the new-young pagans are unfamiliar with the Code of Chivalry. This Pagan Code (sometime referred to the Witches Code of Chivalry) is one of the oldest codes of conduct we as a group know. (There is a Standard published in the 1970's for the government recognition of Wicca/Witchcraft and Paganism... I can't find the link.... when the brain fog lifts I will come back and provide it for you)

And finally, the fantasy of D&D. While the gods/goddesses are probably legitimate, their correspondences are not accurate. It is comparable to someone using the Stargate interpretations of Egyptian or Khemetic deity. It's fantasy, a made up story that someone is attempting to legitimize as an ancient Pagan belief. Archaeologists and Anthropologists have researched ancient Pagan religions and have documented the deities found in these cultures. Changing the deities to fit some game or sci-fi show is not legitimate Paganism and is detrimental to our religion.


You might not like when someone tells you they worship a water sprite from the Battle Moon of Endor, but you can't say their faith isn't as "real" as yours.

It is perfectly fine to believe in this fantasy and even to call it YOUR religion. It is even better if the fantasy game leads the player to our religion and any legitimate path within our family of beliefs. But do not attempt to apply false history to the fantasy. Do not insult my respectable, magestic and ancient religion with the Fluff and Puff of "My Little Pony Paganism". At some point you need to grow up. When I was a teenager this type of belief was acceptable. When you enter society and expect to reap the benefits of a legally accepted religion, you do no one any good and you undermine the legitimacy of our faith by insisting that Zolgon of Planet Qwark is your patron Deity.

I am very firm in my beliefs. I have embraced Paganism since a very early age, being taught by my grandmother and grandfather who were taught by their grandparents. Paganism, Witchcraft, Shamanism and Wicca are not fasion statements or rebellious acts of the pre-teen world. These are valid, protected and legally accepted religions. Propogating this false "anything goes" attitude is and will be the downfall of our religion as a whole.

patch
January 12th, 2008, 03:46 PM
I'd say the bad sites are the ones opened by people who have read one book by someon like silver ravenwold, decided they are an authority and opened a website.

These sites are 10 a penny, so misinformation spreads fast.
Often, these websites just stick the word 'wicca' in the title somewhere, even when they are not even remotely such.

BlackLili
January 12th, 2008, 05:29 PM
Witchcraft or Wicca without Deity affiliation is Magic. There are plenty of magicians out there who are very good at what they do. It doesn't make them Pagan. For example, Criss Angel, Lance Burton and David Copperfield are perfect examples of "witchcraft without deity". They are master magicians and have never once invoked Deity in their shows. The bottom line is that Pagans DO HAVE affiliation with Deity.
Additionally, our great-great-great granny's DID have an affiliation with one god or goddess or another (those of us who come from familial lines).

No, I'm sorry. Those men you just mentioned are stage illusionists, not witches. They do not do the same thing, so not see their illusions as "real" magic, and do not believe in it as a path, except maybe the path of show-business. They are not master magicians in any sense other than the entertainment point of view. Crowley was a master magician. Gardner was a master magician. Sybill Leek was a master magician. David Copperfield and Criss Angel are showmen. Houdini was a showman. This argument mixes apples and oranges here.



Excuse me, the American Gods book review should be somewhere in the Literature thread. Neil Gaiman has made a wonderful case for creating new Gods. But isn't that off topic? Maybe this is where the Neo-Pagan label is appropriate.
I see this as splitting hairs. From a certain point of view, all Pagans in this day and age, with the exception of Recons and those Traditionalists who come from families with unbroken lineages (of which there are far fewer than people tend to claim,) all other current Pagans are practicing some form of Neo-Paganism. Neo simply means new, and by comparison to long-established major religions, Wicca having been created in the 1950's is still new. You're right though, it's OT, so I'll stop there.


In reference to standards, again, it seems a lot of the new-young pagans are unfamiliar with the Code of Chivalry. This Pagan Code (sometime referred to the Witches Code of Chivalry) is one of the oldest codes of conduct we as a group know. (There is a Standard published in the 1970's for the government recognition of Wicca/Witchcraft and Paganism... I can't find the link.... when the brain fog lifts I will come back and provide it for you)
No need, I'm actually quite familiar with the Witches' Chivalric Code, which I have a copy of here. This one was taken specifically from Ed Fitch's "The Crystal Well". As a side note, this seems to be related far more closely to Wicca than Witchcaft in general, judging by when it was written and by whom.

1. Chivalry is a high code of honor which is of most ancient Pagan origin, and must be lived by all who follow the Old Ways.
2. It must be kenned that thoughts and intent put forth on this Middle-Earth will wax strong in other worlds beyond and return…brining into creation, on this world, which had been sent forth. Thus one should exercise discipline, for “as ye do plant, so shall ye harvest.”
3. It is only by preparing our minds to be as Gods that we can ultimately attain godhead.
4. This above all to thine own self be true.
5. A Witch’s word must have the validity of a signed and witnessed oath. Thus, give thy word sparingly, but adhere to it like iron.
6. Refrain from speaking ill of others, for not all truths of the matter may be known.
7. Pass not unverified words about another, for nor hearsay is, in large, a thing of falsehood.
8. Be thou honest with others, and have them know that honesty is likewise expected of them.
9. The Fury of the moment plays folly with the truth, to keep ones head is a virtue.
10. Contemplate always the consequences of thine acts upon others. Strive to harm none.
11. Diverse covens may well have diverse views on love between members and with others. When a coven, clan, or grove is visited or joined, one should discern quietly their practices, and abide thereby.
12. Dignity, a gracious manner, and a good humor are much to be admired.
13. As a Witch, thou hast power, and thy powers wax strongly as wisdom increases. Therefore exercised discretion in the use thereof.
14. Courage and honor endure forever. Their echoes remain when the mountains have crumbled to dust.
15. Pledge friendship and fealty to those who so warrant. Strengthen others of the Brethren and they shall strengthen thee.
16. Thou shalt not reveal the secrets of another Witch or another coven. Others have labored long and hard for them, and cherish them as treasures.
17. Though there may be differences between those of the Old Ways, those who are once-born must see nothing, and must hear nothing
18. Those who follow the mysteries should be above reproach in the eyes of the world.
19. The laws of the land should be obeyed whenever possible and within reason, for in the main they are been chosen with wisdom.
20. Have pride in thyself, and seek perfection in the body and in the mind. For the Lady has said “How canst thou honor another unless thou give honor to thyself first?”
21. Those who seek the Mysteries should consider themselves as select o the Gods, for it is they who lead the race of humankind to the highest of thrones and beyond the very stars.If you are referencing this particular code to bolster your argument that some folks' beliefs just aren't as "legitimate" as someone else's, I see no connection. This, as I reread it, simply says to me, "be a good person, seek your own truths, and follow your own paths." Nothing in here about standards that a faith is to be held against.

Also, to reference this as a standard code against the use of fiction/fantasy in religion, I will point out that there is not only a quote from Shakespeare, but a Tolkien reference in there as well. My statement still stands that all religion is based on fantasy, simply some of differing longevities.


It is perfectly fine to believe in this fantasy and even to call it YOUR religion. It is even better if the fantasy game leads the player to our religion and any legitimate path within our family of beliefs. But do not attempt to apply false history to the fantasy. Do not insult my respectable, magestic and ancient religion with the Fluff and Puff of "My Little Pony Paganism". At some point you need to grow up. When I was a teenager this type of belief was acceptable. When you enter society and expect to reap the benefits of a legally accepted religion, you do no one any good and you undermine the legitimacy of our faith by insisting that Zolgon of Planet Qwark is your patron Deity.

I am very firm in my beliefs. I have embraced Paganism since a very early age, being taught by my grandmother and grandfather who were taught by their grandparents. Paganism, Witchcraft, Shamanism and Wicca are not fasion statements or rebellious acts of the pre-teen world. These are valid, protected and legally accepted religions. Propogating this false "anything goes" attitude is and will be the downfall of our religion as a whole.

I'm sorry to disagree here with you again, but I think at this point, I take issue with your tone. I am not a Wiccan, nor ever claimed to be one. I am a Witch. No one else speaks for my religion. I know many like me older and younger, but none of us share the same set of beliefs. To speak of "the downfall of our religion as a whole" to me smacks of the dictatorial attitude I grew up with, in the faith I left.

To dismiss my points as "my little pony" fluff and evidence of a fashion statement tells me that you have missed my point entirely. You're right, teenage rebellion is not a thing on which to build a faith. But that wasn't what I'm talking about. It's fine if you want to tell someone that two Pagans don't believe the same thing, but there is no one Pagan religion. There is no one Witch's faith. To make a sweeping statement like you just did above rankles me as someone free to make her own path. I may disagree with your path, but the fact remains that we are both considered Pagan in this time and place in the world's history. By ourselves and society at large. My argument in this thread has been only to point out that it is as it should be, in that.

~Belladonna~
January 16th, 2008, 02:36 PM
Any site which makes a claim that Wicca is an "ancient religion" - my Scots-Irish great-great-great granny has no idea WTF a watchtower is or what the hell it's guarding.

LMAO :hehehehe:

~Belladonna~
January 16th, 2008, 02:40 PM
While I appreciate your sentiment, there is no historical or theological data to support the D&D deities. And that thinking, as well as the permissiveness in the rest of the community in recognizing the fiction as legitimate Paganism is irresponsible at best.

We have a tradition. It varies by Culture and Pantheon. Pagans who claim to have a tradition with no affiliation to deity are simply Athiests wearing Pagan clothing.

This is exactly the type of mis-information that this thread is referring to. Promoting fantasy as religion does no one any good.

Oh and yes, there is a standard for what is and isn't Proper Paganism. Sure the guideline are loose, but they are there, for Wicca, Witchcraft and the Shamanic traditions.

What's are D&D Deities :huh:

Lunacie
January 16th, 2008, 02:47 PM
D&D is Dungeons and Dragons.
AD&D is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

role playing games

~Belladonna~
January 16th, 2008, 02:58 PM
D&D is Dungeons and Dragons.
AD&D is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

role playing games

Thank You!

:)

Whitewolf
January 16th, 2008, 03:32 PM
Any site claiming that Wicca is an ancient religion. Like, WTF? It's not ancient. I don't know where they got that from.

LadyWinter
January 16th, 2008, 03:51 PM
Oh grow up. Talking about this one (http://dolphin.esosoft.net/erisbarandgrill.com/)?

I hope not, because that hardly qualifies as a People site.

Nope but it qualifies as a good site to some people...me included obviously by my sig.....It doesnt qualify as P a g a n?


Winter

LadyWinter
January 16th, 2008, 03:54 PM
There are a lot of young people here on MysticWicks who probably don't know Peopleisms most recent history. For the record, Satanism has never been considered People, not now, not 20 years ago, not 60 years, not ever. In fact you can trace this argument right back to Gardner/Crowley/LeVey. I think there were a few talk shows in the 70's (Merv Griffin was one, can't remember the other) where they publicaly went at each other over the subject.

.

Why is Satanism considered not P a g an?

Winter

patch
January 16th, 2008, 04:28 PM
Why is Satanism considered not P a g an?

Winter

It depends on what dictionary definition you use.
The one I go by is pagan= 'Any religion that is not one of the abrahamic faiths (judaism, christianity, islam)' or 'Any religion that isn't mainstream'

So in my view ( and oxford english dictionary) Satanism IS paganism.

Ben Gruagach
January 16th, 2008, 05:05 PM
It depends on what dictionary definition you use.
The one I go by is pagan= 'Any religion that is not one of the abrahamic faiths (judaism, christianity, islam)' or 'Any religion that isn't mainstream'

So in my view ( and oxford english dictionary) Satanism IS paganism.

Unless you consider Satanism to be a form of (reverse) Christianity -- at least those varieties of Satanists who rely on Christian mythology fit that bill.

If it fits into the Christian category then it's by definition not Pagan.

Ben Gruagach
January 16th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Any site claiming that Wicca is an ancient religion. Like, WTF? It's not ancient. I don't know where they got that from.

Where'd they get that idea?

Gerald Gardner (and he based his ideas on Margaret Murray).

All the people after Gardner who claimed that Wicca was an intact ancient religion were just repeating what they had heard. There are some today who are still working hard to try and prove that Wicca is a pre-Christian survival (although they have an awfully tough bit of convincing to do now to prove it.)

RainInanna
January 16th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Where'd they get that idea?

Gerald Gardner (and he based his ideas on Margaret Murray).

And isn't that a funny little thought?

Anyway, as to the Satanism discussion, LaVeyan Satanism (which is usually what people refer to when they say Satanism, I think) isn't a religion. It's a philosophy, not even spirituality. As I said, Luciferian Satanism may be more iffy since I understand it can be a religion and does have deity - if you do a search on it I'm sure there's threads on it here at MW. And as Ben mentions, devil worship is another kettle of fish.

Xentor
January 16th, 2008, 06:36 PM
Nope but it qualifies as a good site to some people...me included obviously by my sig.....It doesnt qualify as P a g a n?


Winter

Though it might be a good site for some, but it does not necessarily intend to be a p a g a n site. Last time I checked, a lot of the discussions revolved around defacing web sites and upsetting the general (internet) populace. One doesn't have to be involved in either to be p a g a n. But being involved in either does make you a person I wish to avoid. Thus I choose to avoid the entire site.

Lunacie
January 16th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Although I haven't actually visited that particular site, I've seen many of their members on other forums and they seem focused on bad-mouthing other web sites and other people rather than having actual discussions about anything I would find meaningful. Their premise sounds good, but their execution is rather twisted.

SilverClaw
January 16th, 2008, 07:36 PM
Why is it ok for the Bar and Grill to be mentioned and even linked to in this thread but yet other threads that mention the the Bar and Grill get closed right away?

patch
January 17th, 2008, 01:12 PM
Unless you consider Satanism to be a form of (reverse) Christianity -- at least those varieties of Satanists who rely on Christian mythology fit that bill.

If it fits into the Christian category then it's by definition not Pagan.

Not really. Satan in any sense still isn't the god of abraham (YHVH).

Lunacie
January 17th, 2008, 02:55 PM
Not really. Satan in any sense still isn't the god of abraham (YHVH).

But he is part of that mythos, neh?

Ben Gruagach
January 17th, 2008, 02:58 PM
Not really. Satan in any sense still isn't the god of abraham (YHVH).

I'm not so confident that it's that simple. After all, there are some Christians (gnostics for instance) who believe that the god of the New Testament is not the same being as the god of Abraham and the Old Testament. So if they still count as Christians (since they base their religion on the New Testament and worship the god of the New Testament) why shouldn't other religious groups that base themselves on the mythology of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam not fall in that category, and therefore fall outside the Pagan category?

BeachWitch
January 17th, 2008, 05:12 PM
Ah Ben, you are one MWer that I have missed dearly. So glad you are still here. The thread seems to be sort of hi-jacked by this topic.

I had the pleasure of spending time with a Satanist when I lived in San Pedro. He was my neighbor and we walked our dogs together. According to him, Satanism has nothing to do with deity whatsoever. In a very rudimentary explanation, one could say that true Satanism is a form of Atheism... at least according to him.

So Ben is correct. Satanism is not classified as Pa ga nism based on the two scenarios given - either a form of Atheism or as a derivitive of the Christian faith.

There is a third choice, which could be classified as Pa gan and that is Chaos or Followers of Set. This is very clearly a Pa gan religion. However, once again, any website which refers to this particular path as Satanism is misguided.

LadyWinter
January 18th, 2008, 08:56 AM
Though it might be a good site for some, but it does not necessarily intend to be a p a g a n site. Last time I checked, a lot of the discussions revolved around defacing web sites and upsetting the general (internet) populace. One doesn't have to be involved in either to be p a g a n. But being involved in either does make you a person I wish to avoid. Thus I choose to avoid the entire site.

That site aside, do you consider Discordians and Subgeni p a g a ns?

Just curious on your thoughts :hahugh:

WInter

LadyWinter
January 18th, 2008, 08:58 AM
Ah Ben, you are one MWer that I have missed dearly. So glad you are still here. The thread seems to be sort of hi-jacked by this topic.

I had the pleasure of spending time with a Satanist when I lived in San Pedro. He was my neighbor and we walked our dogs together. According to him, Satanism has nothing to do with deity whatsoever. In a very rudimentary explanation, one could say that true Satanism is a form of Atheism... at least according to him.

So Ben is correct. Satanism is not classified as Pa ga nism based on the two scenarios given - either a form of Atheism or as a derivitive of the Christian faith.

There is a third choice, which could be classified as Pa gan and that is Chaos or Followers of Set. This is very clearly a Pa gan religion. However, once again, any website which refers to this particular path as Satanism is misguided.

So Atheists arent p a g a n?

Winter

LadyWinter
January 18th, 2008, 09:01 AM
Although I haven't actually visited that particular site, I've seen many of their members on other forums and they seem focused on bad-mouthing other web sites and other people rather than having actual discussions about anything I would find meaningful. Their premise sounds good, but their execution is rather twisted.

Meh to each their own. I have found the site full of good people that I consider friends...which is rare on the internet. I have also gained comparable knowledge from that site and enjoy the discussions there. We all travel paths....some ways are just a bit more twisted.:hehehehe:

Winter

Philosophia
January 18th, 2008, 09:02 AM
Here is a very good link that explains this issue well:

Is Satanism "Pagan"? (http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera///pagan/Is-Satanism-Pagan.html)

RainInanna
January 18th, 2008, 10:19 AM
That site aside, do you consider Discordians and Subgeni p a g a ns?

What are Discordians or Subgeni? So far the only ones I've seen claim that label are just trolls, though I'm sure there's more to it then that?

Nitefalle
January 18th, 2008, 10:51 AM
So Atheists arent p a g a n?

Winter

Why would Atheists be Pa gan? And let's go beyond the dictionary term because there are a few different ones floating around.

Xentor
January 18th, 2008, 02:02 PM
That site aside, do you consider Discordians and Subgeni p a g a ns?

Just curious on your thoughts :hahugh:

WInter
Yeah, no problem. One of my wife's good friends is a discordian (she introduced him to that path). I like discordianism and subgeniism in general. I just happen not to like certain specific individuals who identify themselves with those paths.


So Atheists arent p a g a n?

Winter
No... they are atheists.

Ben Gruagach
January 18th, 2008, 03:29 PM
If we're looking at the list of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Pagan, atheists are "none of the above."

Windsmith
January 18th, 2008, 07:11 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but out of curiosity, why are people writing "P a g a n" and "Pa gan"? Are there firewall issues?

Xentor
January 18th, 2008, 07:19 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but out of curiosity, why are people writing "P a g a n" and "Pa gan"? Are there firewall issues?

It might be because we're using the MW@home skin to display the board. It changes the word 'pagan' into 'people' on purpose.

Windsmith
January 18th, 2008, 07:33 PM
It might be because we're using the MW@home skin to display the board. It changes the word 'pagan' into 'people' on purpose.Oh, right! I'd forgotten that. I tried using that skin for a while and gave it up for that reason - I could never tell when people meant "people," and when they meant "Pagan" and the system had swapped it out. I got very confused.

Thanks, Xentor.

BeachWitch
January 19th, 2008, 02:03 AM
Here is a very good link that explains this issue well:

Is Satanism "Pagan"? (http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera///pagan/Is-Satanism-Pagan.html)

Thanks for the link.
So this is a very good example of a "Good Pagan Site".


Are Satanists "Pagan" in the sense of being naturally a part of the "Pagan community"? Some of us are, but many of us probably are not. Even if there weren't so much Pagan hostility toward Satanists, many Satanists still would probably not fit in very well with the Pagan community. which espouses some specific beliefs and values that are different from the beliefs and values espoused by most Satanists (though there is more overlap than most Pagans are willing to acknowledge). For example, many Satanists don't revere "Nature" in quite the same way that many Pagans do. There do exist quite a few Satanists who do revere "Nature", but who think of "Nature" in harsher terms than most Pagans do. Also, many Satanists don't find the typical Pagan public ritual to be very congenial.

I think that paragraph right there sums up the argument nicely. Not only do Satanists NOT consider themselves Pagan, they do not fit in to the community at large.

Great reference by the way, thanks for posting it!

BeachWitch
January 20th, 2008, 07:12 PM
I beg your pardon - this "we" you speak of, are you speaking for me as well? Because I am also a Pagan. I follow no reconstruction of any path, with no clear lineage or tradition, and am just as much a Witch as my grandmothers before me. I worship no separate deities, and claim no specific affiliation. By your definition, this would make me an Atheist? I find your logic in this statement to be a very large assumption. You may have it in your head who "counts" as Pagan and who doesn't, but the fact of the matter is, as an umbrella term, anyone who feels like using that as their label is just as justified in using it as anyone else.


Says who? What's your source? Who is it you think I should be deferring to in this instance, if not trusting in my own intellect?
ours.

The brain fog has lifted. I was wrong in my original post, the year was not 1972, it was 1974. The American Council of Witches formed the Principles of the Wiccan Belief, which at the time included Neo-Paganism.

While the majority of the members here on MW are not old enough to remember 1974, at that time there were just Wiccans and Heathens. The ide of a pagan without a faith or coven or grove was unheard of and in fact violated the philosophy behind the founding Mothers and Fathers of Wicca and eventually Neo-Paganism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm

These principles were the stepping stones to meeting court tests for religion, which lead us to our present federally protected Neo-Pagan religions.

So, yes, there are guidelines, yes they are well established and yes they are used to define the Neo-Pagan Religion and provide the bedrock required to be recognized as a federally protected religion.

To those who claim that the Principles do not apply to their belief due to the fact that it is Wiccan in nature should examine their faith closely. Unless the claimant derives from Fornseidhr, all variations of Neo-Paganism, Paganism, Witchcraft, Wicca, Asatru, Vanatru, Theodism, derive from the works of Gerald Gardner and his ilk. That places all of Paganism emerging or re-emerging in circa 1950-1960.

For those of us who were brought up in the faith, and can trace our lineage back to pre-1899 (I know there are several of us here on MW as we have conversed over the years), these Principles give us the protection our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents never had. The recognition that our faith is protected now should be a testament to the beliefs our families have taught us and passed down through the generations.

Side Note: Shamanwise and I are having a debate on wether Paganism existed in any form prior to the work Gardner did in the 1950's. I say there was no Pagan practices prior to 1950 and that Neo-Paganism as it stands today is the result of Gardner's work. (This does not include the works completed under the Aradia PRoject and the 1899 discovery of the Stregha Coven in Italy - that is purely witchcraft and not pagan or neo-pagan).

Shamanwise says maybe - maybe not. Gardner may not have had the "all" impact on Paganism.

Tell us what you think........

Ben Gruagach
January 20th, 2008, 07:57 PM
Side Note: Shamanwise and I are having a debate on wether Paganism existed in any form prior to the work Gardner did in the 1950's. I say there was no Pagan practices prior to 1950 and that Neo-Paganism as it stands today is the result of Gardner's work. (This does not include the works completed under the Aradia PRoject and the 1899 discovery of the Stregha Coven in Italy - that is purely witchcraft and not pagan or neo-pagan).

Shamanwise says maybe - maybe not. Gardner may not have had the "all" impact on Paganism.

Tell us what you think........

Could you provide a link to that thread if it exists? I'd like to participate in it (as I'd like to respectfully disagree with some of the things you stated in your post just now about modern Pagan history... and I'll happily provide citations of sources.)

If it was a discussion you were having in email or offline, then perhaps you could start a thread here on MysticWicks for this interesting historical discussion. It could go in the History section, or in the Just Pagan section, or in one or another of the Paths sections.

We should probably try and keep this particular thread more on the topic of bad Pagan sites though.

BeachWitch
January 20th, 2008, 09:26 PM
Ask and you shall receive

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3411291#post3411291

YoungSoulRebel
January 29th, 2008, 05:33 AM
So what does this mean for Satanic Witches and/or Satanic Wiccans? Not popular paths, but they most definitely exist. I believe it was LaVey's daughter who literally wrote the book on being a Satanic Witch.

Which daughter? He had two.

If you're thinking about the book entitled The Satanic Witch, that was actually by Anton LaVey himself, and is hardly about "witchcraft" in the Wiccan any other Pagan sense, in fact, there are several passages which specifically denounce Wicca. "LaVeyan Witchcraft", let's call it, is not about spells and incantations -- it redefines "witch" to mean "a woman who uses her sexuality or other distinctly feminine qualities to manipulate men and get what she wants". He also goes on extensively about his black stockings and white panties fetish, with an almost disturbing amount of detail -- there's a specific portion of one particular chapter where you'd swear he was masturbating as he wrote, just because he gets more and more detailed and enthusiastic, and then suddenly ... he stops and goes on to his next thought.



If the background is animated and the text isn't legible, I would call it a bad site. If there's huge cruft on every page and it takes three years to load, it's not worth your time. I'm not even asking for validation; just legibility most of the time. Oh yeah, and if you think y'all pagans have bad sites to worry about, you should see some of the Christian websites! Broken tags all the way down, and huge .wav files, not to mention bad javascript.

Totally agreed. If one is creating a website, it just makes sense that they're obviously looking for it to inform, enlighten, inspire, or at least amuse more people than just themselves and a few friends -- if this is not the case, then it's not really that difficult to password protect its content. If a website is even potentially hard on the eyes, then it's probably not going to attract many visitors and thus it will fail its goals.



Witchcraft or Wicca without Deity affiliation is Magic. There are plenty of magicians out there who are very good at what they do. It doesn't make them Pagan. ... The bottom line is that Pagans DO HAVE affiliation with Deity.
Additionally, our great-great-great granny's DID have an affiliation with one god or goddess or another (those of us who come from familial lines).

Thanks.

I think it would also be wise to point out that language evolves and definitions of words change -- two-hundred years ago, Atheists were considered "pagans", but not any-more. Dictionaries also contain a lot of now-outdated definitions of certain words just because nobody thought to update things. "Pagan" now seems to have a rather fixed definition among archaeologists and similar academics, as well as the overwhelming majority of people who self-identify as such, as "one who practises a religion reconstructed from, based on, or inspired by the pre-Christian polytheistic religions of Europe", but you'll be hard pressed to find a modern dictionary that mentions said definition, despite very obvious academic usage, simply because nobody's realised it hasn't been edited yet.



Unless you consider Satanism to be a form of (reverse) Christianity -- at least those varieties of Satanists who rely on Christian mythology fit that bill.

If it fits into the Christian category then it's by definition not Pagan.

Actually, Satanism as defined by Anton LaVey is rather "reverse Christianity":

Christianity - God exists outside the self / Satanism - God exists within the self

...and that's one example.

Inverse Christianity, on the other hand, is where the God of Christianity is "inverted" and made the bad guy, while Satan is made the good guy -- kind of like Bizarro Christianity.

LadyWinter
January 29th, 2008, 12:52 PM
What are Discordians or Subgeni? So far the only ones I've seen claim that label are just trolls, though I'm sure there's more to it then that?

Yes they are real religions and not just trolls and there are some people who take it very seriously (or not lol) depending on who you talk to.

Winter

LadyWinter
January 29th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Why would Atheists be Pa gan? And let's go beyond the dictionary term because there are a few different ones floating around.

I was asking for general consensus. SOme people classify those who dont believe in christianity as p a g a n. I was just wondering what peoples thoughts were on the subject. I am aware of the dictionary thanks.

WInter

LadyWinter
January 29th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but out of curiosity, why are people writing "P a g a n" and "Pa gan"? Are there firewall issues?

If I dont write it as p a g a n it comes up people and I dont like that word.

WInter

YoungSoulRebel
January 31st, 2008, 01:56 AM
If I dont write it as p a g a n it comes up people and I dont like that word.

WInter

What an unusual word to dislike. Most people surveyed seem to dislike "moist".

Terra Mater
March 25th, 2008, 04:16 AM
What I found interesting about this thread-turned-debate is that in every case, the word "witch" is defined by post-Gardinerian definition and not pre-Gardinerian.

Am I to take it that those of us who do not adhere to the modern code of ethics are less witchy and/or less acceptable?

Fine, I am used to that. Less acceptable doesn't make my ways "wrong" just "unpopular". A lot of very good things are unpopular - sense, two parent nuclear families, and sobriety in college, just to name a few.

BlackLili
March 25th, 2008, 01:27 PM
What I found interesting about this thread-turned-debate is that in every case, the word "witch" is defined by post-Gardinerian definition and not pre-Gardinerian.

Am I to take it that those of us who do not adhere to the modern code of ethics are less witchy and/or less acceptable?

Fine, I am used to that. Less acceptable doesn't make my ways "wrong" just "unpopular". A lot of very good things are unpopular - sense, two parent nuclear families, and sobriety in college, just to name a few.
Um...What?

It's one thing to come into a thread that's months old and comment on it. It's something altogether different to come into a thread that's months old and comment that you take offense to a perceived slight that may or may not actually have ever been intended - and had nothing to do with either the OP or the resulting discussion.

Terra Mater
March 25th, 2008, 06:19 PM
Um...What?

It's one thing to come into a thread that's months old and comment on it. It's something altogether different to come into a thread that's months old and comment that you take offense to a perceived slight that may or may not actually have ever been intended - and had nothing to do with either the OP or the resulting discussion.


Forgive me, it was late and I didn't notice the date when I commented. I had hit the "new posts" button and it was on the third page of listings, didn't realize that the coding for MW would turn up a months dead post n a new post search. Now I know that it does, I will pay more attention.

As for the supposed perceived slight, there was none, was only making a comment for clarification.

As for whether it had anything to do with the discussion, if you didn't see it, I am not gonna bother trying to explain it, its a moot point anyway.

LadyWinter
March 27th, 2008, 05:08 PM
What an unusual word to dislike. Most people surveyed seem to dislike "moist".

I have always preferred the word P A G A N.....I also prefer the word rhutabaga but alas have not found a common daily way to use it yet.

Winter

Meadhbh
March 28th, 2008, 05:46 PM
Heres a real winner: http://www.geocities.com/druidsoedhin/druidsoedhin.html

I'll give a few choice quotes:

Druids (male) and Fae (female)
(No females were called druids, fae are well fae)

Lugh is a warm, bright image surounded by 3 lions who dance in shapes. Lugh is never depicted as violent or cruel
(Lets see those Irish lions. And we all know that Lugh kindly asked the formor to please go away.)


The Druids spent most of their time in groves and gardens. They had an alchemy view of the world in that there are 4 elements, earth, air, fire and water.
( Thats right folks druid alchemy, never mind the three realms of sea, land, and sky thing.)

The Druids evolved to be the gardeners or as the monks who cared for the walled gardens
(The truth comes out druid became gardeners)

Each clan has a tree or plant symbol based on the Druidic 13 months based on Dryads, tree spirits
( Well seeing how the tree calander didn't come out to much later and dryads are greek.)

agnostic Pagan-Romans
(Did the Romans know this?)

Ben Gruagach
March 28th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Well, the site you linked might not be the best, but you might want to rethink some of your conclusions...


Lugh is a warm, bright image surounded by 3 lions who dance in shapes. Lugh is never depicted as violent or cruel
(Lets see those Irish lions. And we all know that Lugh kindly asked the formor to please go away.)

No question that Lugh was known to fight (as were many Celtic deities) so the depiction of Him as "never violent" is pretty questionable. The comment about lions though is not on the mark though -- if we look at Celtic relics such as the Gundestrop cauldron it's clear that the Celts did know about a lot of different animals including large cats which they likely called lions.

Check plate A at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundestrup_cauldron for a photo of a section of the cauldron that shows large cats over at the right hand side of the image.

The cauldron also depicts what are clearly elephants so assuming that Celts and Druids would only know about animals that were native in Ireland is not quite correct. There's also a long history of big-cat sightings in the UK and Ireland that go back hundreds if not thousands of years -- even if they were bogus sightings, people obviously knew about big cats.


The Druids spent most of their time in groves and gardens. They had an alchemy view of the world in that there are 4 elements, earth, air, fire and water.
( Thats right folks druid alchemy, never mind the three realms of sea, land, and sky thing.)

I'm not sure why you would assume that Druids knew nothing of what we call alchemy today. And knowing the sky-earth-sea trinity was prominent does not exclude the earth-air-fire-water quatrology either. We don't have enough evidence to say it definitely was not there, while we do have lots of evidence that people in the ancient worlds traveled around a lot and therefore there is a really good chance the Druids likely did know about foreign philosophies and religions.


The Druids evolved to be the gardeners or as the monks who cared for the walled gardens
(The truth comes out druid became gardeners)

Each clan has a tree or plant symbol based on the Druidic 13 months based on Dryads, tree spirits
( Well seeing how the tree calander didn't come out to much later and dryads are greek.)

While the Druids probably had their own words for the various spirits and entities in Nature, it's not surprising that a modern Druid might use terms commonly understood to refer to the same thing -- calling a tree spirit a dryad is not a stretch.

The tree calendar, while not conclusively proven as part of ancient Druid teachings, is also not conclusively proven to have been a modern invention attributed to the Druids. I know modern writers have fleshed out (sometimes with a lot of creative license) what they thought the tree calendar might have been. The evidence of druid calendars that we have in the form of the Coligny calendar, while not necessarily supporting the idea of "tree" months, does confirm that lunar months were important thus giving roughly 13 months in a year.

Meadhbh
March 31st, 2008, 05:56 PM
You brought up some good points. However on you tube there are some realted vidoes that I didn't mention simply because they were not on the sight. But seen its come up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHPWO8H5tI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtdsboBFrpE

She says Lugh is the god of the Swede Celt druids, and that the Swedes used the loin as a symbol because of their long blond hair. It is also inclued that the druids gods where neither male nor female.

As far as the druid and alchemy I'm sure they could have ran across it, but they did not develope it themselves. Which I think is the idea that she is trying to get across. Yes there are three spirits that could been seen as dryad like but again dryad is a greek word and we are not talking about Greece, please people do not do this.

Stoirmeacha
March 31st, 2008, 06:39 PM
"Swede Celt Druids"? WTH? The word Celt denotes a type of language. The Swedes spoke a Germanic language, not a Celtic one...

Ben Gruagach
March 31st, 2008, 08:10 PM
"Swede Celt Druids"? WTH? The word Celt denotes a type of language. The Swedes spoke a Germanic language, not a Celtic one...

There is a lot of overlap. The Celts did inhabit the lands around the Danube at one point in their history... Remember too that the famous Celtic artifact, the Gundestrop Cauldron, is named after the location where it was found -- Gundestrop, Denmark.

There's more about Celtic history (including the controversies about what exactly counts as Celtic) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

Meadhbh
April 1st, 2008, 04:30 PM
There were celtic tribes in northern europe in the past. But she also mentions something about the Normans right around there. So if we talking about the latter Viking invasions of the British Isles then they were germanic by that point in time.

YoungSoulRebel
April 15th, 2008, 02:24 PM
-- even if they were bogus sightings, people obviously knew about big cats.

Seeing as the languages of the Keltoi have far more in common with Sanskrit than Latin or ancient Greek, they definitely didn't originate in Gaul, Ireland and Wales -- in fact, a cursory lesson in history says as much, as several existing ancient Greek authors report first-hand conversations with the wise men of the Keltoi and, for one reason or another, anthropological geneticists have discovered evidence of "Greek" genetics among the modern Irish. Basically, there is no reason to believe that the ancients Keltoi had never heard of big cats -- unless of course, you're one of those people who believes that "Keltic" is just another word for "Irish", or you feel there is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any antropolo9gical evidence for a mass emigration to the islands of Britannia and Erne, in which case: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



I'm not sure why you would assume that Druids knew nothing of what we call alchemy today. And knowing the sky-earth-sea trinity was prominent does not exclude the earth-air-fire-water quatrology either. We don't have enough evidence to say it definitely was not there, while we do have lots of evidence that people in the ancient worlds traveled around a lot and therefore there is a really good chance the Druids likely did know about foreign philosophies and religions.

Well, we also don't have evidence of space travel prior to the mid 20th Century. While it's highly reasonable to believe that they did, at some point and in some ways, incorporate air-fire-water-earth elements, this is because we have evidence that they directly communicated with peoples who had those elements incorporated into their beliefs; while evidence of communicating directly with peoples who could have shared any knowledge that can in any way be defined as "alchemy" is a lot shakier, due to one very simple reason: mystery paths, as these were rather well-known, both then and now, for sharing very little of their knowledge with "outsiders".



While the Druids probably had their own words for the various spirits and entities in Nature, it's not surprising that a modern Druid might use terms commonly understood to refer to the same thing -- calling a tree spirit a dryad is not a stretch.

It is, though, a stretch to claim one is called such in a Druidic context without any information explaining why one is doing such, and arguably not even then, depending on, basically, how "Recon" one is claiming their path to be.



She says Lugh is the god of the Swede Celt druids, and that the Swedes used the loin as a symbol ...

I know you meant to type "lion", but your typo gave the sentence a whole new meaning that I'm sure you never intended. LOL



As far as the druid and alchemy I'm sure they could have ran across it, but they did not develop it themselves. Which I think is the idea that she is trying to get across. Yes there are three spirits that could been seen as dryad like but again dryad is a greek word and we are not talking about Greece, please people do not do this.

Exactly. It's nothing more than pulling random things out of a cultural grab bag to use a Greek and (and thus associated Greek concept) of a tree spirit within a Keltic setting. While the Greek nymphai and Keltic sidhe/fae(?) are similar in concept, they're hardly the same, and while some classes of sidhe seem actively malicious toward humans, the typical nymphe classes are generally more ambivalent.

Meadhbh
April 15th, 2008, 04:23 PM
Exactly the problem is when people keep using words interchangeably. There is a lot that can be said for dryads and some of the sidhe being the same thing. The cloest one that comes to mind is the Ghillie Dhu prefer birch trees to all others and jealously guard them from humans. Persons traversing enchanted woods must take care not to be grabbed by the long green arms of a Ghillie Dhu, or they could be enslaved into the service of the guardian forest spirit forever. Which is not the actions of dryads as far as I know.

trueseeker
July 4th, 2009, 09:45 PM
through my cyber travels, I have seen MANY sites which would only confuse you if you dont know any better...

there is alot of disinformation out there, and for someone who is new to paganism, wanting to learn , it is hard.

my advice to anyone, new or old is to take what you read with a grain of salt. ANYONE can put up a website.. just because a website says the sky is blue on mars, does not mean the sky is blue on mars. Look at the website's author. some sites will quote sources and provide info as to where thier info is comming from. also it is important to watch out for the poopyganda... that is simply when it is sooo obvious that the author doesnt know what they are talking about, but they make it sound good..

Hey and the burning question?Why is so much disinformation there?Is it christians that are knowledgeable of paganism just because their job is to keep the new 'children' out?Or as I oftently heard some elders that want to keep the craft for themselves?This is very annoying to me.It's been 10 years since I study and I have practically nothing but information and theories and 'elders' contradicting each other,books contradicting each other.Where in the world to look?Where is the truth,so I can practically value my 10 years spent with my nose hidden in books?Who can judge information,who is abilitated enough to say this is hot and this is not?I really need answers.Please have mercy on me...I feel kind of weary and chased up in a loong run or race...race for the truth,for definitions,for the practically practice,for the good,for the bad,for a noble cause..there is a lot...

trueseeker
July 4th, 2009, 10:37 PM
What makes you decide what is and isn't "proper" Paganism? Not being argumentative, but I know a number of witches who consider themselves, at least in part of their practices, Satanic. Or what about the kids who whole-heartedly believe in those D&D deities, to the point of finally researching and attempting to work with them?

I'm not bagging on you, I promise. All I'm doing is being the Devil's Advocate in this because I have made statements like you just did here. And I had it pointed out to me by one of those D&D worshipping freaks that they had just as much a right to their fiction as Christians have to theirs, and other Pagans have to ours.

No one has a right to say what is good or bad when it comes to another's beliefs. Not if you purport to believe all religions to be equal.

Oh yes,about personal beleifs,but when manipulation and disinformation are ravaging good,valuable people where is the justice?If someone hasn't got any right to shed some light on what it is TRUE and REAL and WHAT IT IS NOT why won't they??Will spare others the confusions and lost time :)Religions are equal yes but note the word RELIGION what the new people want to know is science of the craft,how you learn,how you study,how you apply,how you get the outcomes you want,how to be succesfull and use your time efficiently.That's why they are called Occult Sciences!If do not have the right true info the equasion fails...and leads to dissapointment...

Morgaine_cla
July 4th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Greetings,

I think there are several aspects to this:


Some people make everything up because they think that's what everyone else is doing. They see a pagan path as something not far removed from quilting... a piece of this, a piece of that, a few of my own touches and there you have it! Their own pagan creation, which is now an official religion on which they are the indisputable experts... This probably describes more sites than we'd care to think...

Some people are frustrated by the idea of having to discipline themselves to study and practice. They want to get right out there and start leading or being pagan celebrities, so they skip past the learning part to the expert part. Being an expert means having "the right answer" to every question. Since they have no answers of their own, they copy and paste other people's answers. Since they have no knowledge or experience they can't very well explain things more clearly for newbies.

Even some famous Pagans and Druids don't keep up with the latest academic theories. They're more comfortable thinking of the theories they know as "facts" -- which is how they keep presenting them. But even amongst the best scholars disagreements are emerging on even basic assumptions. If you don't keep current on the research you soon find yourself expounding theories that were once "facts" but have now fallen from grace.
A very few sites present entirely different answers because their answers come from different cultures or cultural perspectives. Mainstream society considers these histories "myths" not because they are less factual, but because what they teach might subvert mainstream culture. Sites like this are rare gems, if what you're looking for is in the line of native European Paganism, but be prepared to be ridiculed if you use them. While we all claim to revere native beliefs, most of us restrict that reverence to contemplations of history and are not likewise inclined towards native approaches in use at the present moment.
And finally, some people are simply hostile to Paganism, and the rubbish they publish is intended to undermine and marginalise Pagans/Druids and their Paths. Some of these sites are obvious; others are not and you may really have to read the fine print to recognise them for what they are.

There are, I am sure, other reasons for all the disinformation but these are the commonest reasons known to me. Together, they create a real obstable course to discovery. I avoid the obstacle course by:


Using only recognised scholars for my sources;
Keeping abreast of the latest thinking in academic circles; and

Remembering that there are not historical "facts". Facts are subject to change as new evidence emerges and with shifts in academic trends. All scholars can offer us is theories... so if we are trying to reconstruct something done in time long past, we do well to remember that today's "facts" can easily become tomorrow's "fiction".

Most of all, enjoy the exploration. Don't get so caught up in finding the answers that you forget that the whole point is the journey you're taking while seeking them.

Be well and be blessed--

trueseeker
July 4th, 2009, 10:52 PM
There are common elements that are used in workings and common practices among different paths.Wich strictly relates to scientific methods.There is common knowledge in all religions,common elements.If the craft would be more scienced there won't be so much arguing between pagans,but the differences respected.While it's not ok to corner someone religion,we must stay on the truth side on similarities and diffrences in the occult processes,there are practicioneers that have achieved good results but don't beleive in a certain deity and are not religious at all.They do their energywork in a scientific way.

trueseeker
July 4th, 2009, 10:59 PM
Thank you Morgaine_cla for the deep answer.Can you tell me your sources?Also what do you think?Can occult sciences finnaly become fully science in their own right?Blessings for you too!
I agree with you Morgaine_cla!It's true some are just frustrated to study and want to become stars,and create a fiction after all,that it's ranked at a religion,so they can benefit from the right of not being discussed.They put religion like an axioma that cannot be demostrated but it's true.But this is a sofism.You are saying there are unbeleivers that practice paganism?That are still stuck there at FAQ at DOes magic exist? or Do spell work? or Let's play magic and spells like D and D? amazing it might actually be true what you say :)
Well,my heart it's in the right place,I hope to find the practical truth and get a positive outcome of it,and hopefully get some grain books :) About the academic circles you are talking about do you dwell in such circles and who do you consider valable true academics?

Morgaine_cla
July 6th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Greetings,

I am honoured if my words were useful or spurred you on to useful avenues of contemplation and exploration.

I draw my information from several sources:


What I was taught by my mentors (folklore, oral tradition lore and practices, etc.);
What I have discovered through direct observation and experience; and
What I have discovered from Primary (intuitive) Sources.

However, I also verify all of this information through at least 3 "outside", scientific and academic sources. My sources for verification are:


Science;
Academia; and

Comparative studies.

I refer to scientific and academic papers, journals, etc. published by people from top universities and colleges, mainly. Archaeologists, folklorists, literary and linguistic experts, geologists, forensics experts, etc. I look for "the top names" and I also try to keep up on current debates, disagreements, etc. between experts (of which there are quite a few). For example, in the area of literature I might look at collections of material at Cambridge or Oxford, or if what I am looking for is in Welsh, something by an eminent Welsh native scholar with the U. of Wales, etc. Where ancient sites are concerned, I try to actually visit the sites myself and spend extended periods of time exploring them and seeing/experiencing the evidence for myself.

If I cannot find verification of a belief, practice, of concept in at least three of these outside sources, then it is either rejected or put "on the back burner" until such time as verification emerges. Since facts constantly change, I must be prepared to change my views as more evidence emerges, which means giving up the idea of having "one, unchanging right answer" to anything, and embracing the idea that the answers will (and must) evolve as my knowledge and understanding evolves.

This process of verification is something I do for myself, so that I know exactly how and why something is "true" for our Tradition. I cannot provide verification for anyone else; each person must do it for themselves in order for it to have any real, lasting value. There is a very great difference between knowing that the sky appears blue because I see it, and just accepting someone else's word for it. We must each come to Truth through our own efforts, I feel.

So to sum up, my root sources lie in our Tradition, but everything the Tradition teaches and practices, and every personal discovery that is made, is tested by each practitioner through this process of verification. So we're working in a sort of laboratory full of Druids collaborating to verify what is true, rather than a roomful of experts each claiming to have sole possession of it.

I do think that it is possible for Paganism and Druidry to regain their ancient credibility, if we as practitioners are willing to test the truth of our work and let our understanding evolve, rather than submit to the temptation to accept someone else's answers merely because they claim to be authorities. I believe we must each learn to think for ourselves and be more tolerant of the process needed to grasp an evolving truth. I believe we must cast aside the modern habit of coddling the ego and embark on real explorations, and the more willing we become to share what we discover, and the more trustworthy we become with the information exchanged, the more "valid" our work will become -- in reality, and in the eyes of the world.

I find Stephen Hawking, Gwyn & Thomas Jones, Nicholas Mann, the Bodleian Library, and sites like Archaeological News and Science Daily (which bring together current relevant news articles in one place) and similar resources especially helpful when doing research.

I hope you have found this helpful and may your journey be blessed!

trueseeker
July 6th, 2009, 08:35 PM
Yes,that's what I thought it should be good.I saw a lot of people ,especially new confused,I was myself confused even after 10 years of reading ,that's why I seeked MW out.As you said some people are just lazy to learn,and prefer to fiction and if picked on they jump right out at you yelling 'you have no right to judge my religion' yes,right if some people beleive the Planet Earth is flat,it does not mean it's also true.But if they make 'I beleive the Earth in flat' a religion you have no right to pick on them :)) Actually there is a society right in our modern times that refuses to document and stubbornly beleives the earth is flat :)) What do you think about that?

Lunacie
July 7th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Yes,that's what I thought it should be good.I saw a lot of people ,especially new confused,I was myself confused even after 10 years of reading ,that's why I seeked MW out.As you said some people are just lazy to learn,and prefer to fiction and if picked on they jump right out at you yelling 'you have no right to judge my religion' yes,right if some people beleive the Planet Earth is flat,it does not mean it's also true.But if they make 'I beleive the Earth in flat' a religion you have no right to pick on them :)) Actually there is a society right in our modern times that refuses to document and stubbornly beleives the earth is flat :)) What do you think about that?

That's right, we don't have any right to be disrespectful to a person just because we think their beliefs are idiotic. However, we do have the right to say, "I don't agree with your beliefs, and here is the reason."

So much of science has been proven and then disproven and replaced with new truth that it's kind of silly to get into an argument about it though.

trueseeker
July 7th, 2009, 01:19 PM
But it's true that the Earth it's not flat.If you get up in a high tower you can observe the curve of the Earth.Also establishing a point A for departure and a point B on the other side of the planet you can end up without returning on the same road on point A.So the Earth is not flat,and I don't need no scientist to tell me that.
I think so it's with the occult techniques and believes and practices.I have not found a single book that I could trust.No one single sustainable author to demonstrate practically what they claim.But I hope to find one,or one book someday...Well,I guess I test everything..

Lunacie
July 7th, 2009, 01:27 PM
But it's true that the Earth it's not flat.If you get up in a high tower you can observe the curve of the Earth.Also establishing a point A for departure and a point B on the other side of the planet you can end up without returning on the same road on point A.So the Earth is not flat,and I don't need no scientist to tell me that.

Why the "but"?

I said we can certainly disagree with beliefs that we find idiotic without being disrespectful and calling the believer an idiot. Do you really think you can change their beliefs by showing them your proof? Don't you think others have already tried that? Why argue with them?

trueseeker
July 8th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Why the "but"?

I said we can certainly disagree with beliefs that we find idiotic without being disrespectful and calling the believer an idiot. Do you really think you can change their beliefs by showing them your proof? Don't you think others have already tried that? Why argue with them?

Who was disrespectful? I did not say idiot in any of I wrote.And I do not argue,if I have verified any fact by myself,I demonstrate it ,and if the people see the reality ok,if not they are not idiots,but people who will believe a certain thing,just because they have a fixed idea that is how reality should be about that certain thing,even if it conflicts directly with the truth.Christians for example would never accept that there were humans created before Adam,by other Gods,even if the story is there in Genesis,written directly into their Bible.Yet they refuse to acknowledge that.I have studied the original versions in Hebrew,and there in Genesis it sais that Elohim,who is a world in it's plural form that means godS or pantheon have created humans in their likeness,in a verse before A god(1 another certain God) named Jehova or Yahweh created Adam,as his own into his likeness human.The 1(singular) god Yahweh put his man into a certain garden on Earth which he called Eden.In sustaining this,there is also another verse that says after Cain murdered Abel he recieved a sign of his murder and he went to live with people in the city called Edom,and he took a wife from there.A city full of people!How come,since from the point of view of god Yahweh there were only 3 people alive on Earth,Adam,Eve and Cain?This is also written in Ali Jilwah book,in the original version.Also I saw this taken on some blog by Oberon Zell Ravenheart ,in relation to some even when he made fun of some Jehovas Witnesses.

Lunacie
July 9th, 2009, 09:33 AM
Who was disrespectful? I did not say idiot in any of I wrote.And I do not argue,if I have verified any fact by myself,I demonstrate it ,and if the people see the reality ok,if not they are not idiots,but people who will believe a certain thing,just because they have a fixed idea that is how reality should be about that certain thing,even if it conflicts directly with the truth.Christians for example would never accept that there were humans created before Adam,by other Gods,even if the story is there in Genesis,written directly into their Bible.Yet they refuse to acknowledge that.I have studied the original versions in Hebrew,and there in Genesis it sais that Elohim,who is a world in it's plural form that means godS or pantheon have created humans in their likeness,in a verse before A god(1 another certain God) named Jehova or Yahweh created Adam,as his own into his likeness human.The 1(singular) god Yahweh put his man into a certain garden on Earth which he called Eden.In sustaining this,there is also another verse that says after Cain murdered Abel he recieved a sign of his murder and he went to live with people in the city called Edom,and he took a wife from there.A city full of people!How come,since from the point of view of god Yahweh there were only 3 people alive on Earth,Adam,Eve and Cain?This is also written in Ali Jilwah book,in the original version.Also I saw this taken on some blog by Oberon Zell Ravenheart ,in relation to some even when he made fun of some Jehovas Witnesses.

So much confusion over the printed word. :lol:

I didn't say you were being disrespectful, just pointing out that it's possible to disagree with an idea without making it look like the person themselves are somehow flawed.

We've had several threads here about the original meaning of some of the words and phrases in the bible, and how mis-interpreted and mis-translated it has been. Again, we can disagree with those mis-interpretations and mis-translations without flaming the person who's ideas we are disagreeing with.