Curious

[MistOfTheSea86]

I have been reading a bit and I have noticed that when something from the bible is referenced it is always from the bible that the idea is from, but wouldnt it be vice versa? That many of the earth-based religions are older than Christianity so Christianity would be the one who used the idea? <----Confuzzled :D Please help

[emraldshadowcat]

Good question.....:confused::huh:

[Avena]

:confused: for example? :confused:

[Mairwen]

Isn't this discussion taking place elsewhere, too?

[Myst]

Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
I have been reading a bit and I have noticed that when something from the bible is referenced it is always from the bible that the idea is from, but wouldnt it be vice versa? That many of the earth-based religions are older than Christianity so Christianity would be the one who used the idea? <----Confuzzled :D Please help

Huh?

And just so I can say I did say something half intelligent here - just because Paganism is believed to be older then Christianity doesn't mean Christian beliefs are all based on Pagan beliefs or even that Pagan beliefs have not changed a little due to the influence of Christian beliefs. Besides that, depending on what you're talking about, the idea could have come from Wicca which is much newer then Christianity *or* Pagan religions that do predate it.

[amberlaine]

Another thing to keep in mind is that obviously some form of pagansism predates Christianity. BEfore Christ, peopel still had religion, and not everybody as Jewish, so that leaves a bunch of other folks. BUT, just because those people were pagan, the likelihood of those religions still existing today? Very slim. Very, very slim. (And yes, some do still exist, like Hinduism.) But many are just...gone. Even though many neo-pagans are attempting to re-create the religion of their ancestors, most neo-pagans are not so much re-creating the actuality of their religion so much as re-kindling the memory and the passion of the old religion. The religion that they have created is still very much a new religion.

[Keron]

Most of the history concerning witchcraft dating from the Burning Times and before are ashes-- burnt during the Inquisition. Therefore, books written nowadays probably refer to the bible because of the lack of information about witchcraft before Christianity. Did I get the spelling correct? ?

[slvr_phoenix]

Mist Of The Sea, I think that you'll have to start your question over from scratch, as we're all very confuzzled just trying to figure out what you're asking. ;)

And amberlaine, while I respect and appreciate the thought that went into your post, I have to disagree with your opinions. From a larger point-of-view, those reviving paganism today are making their path every bit a revival of the old religion, and not creating a new religions. Yes, there are others who are creating new religions, as Paganism is an extremely broad category, but there are also those truely reviving the old ones.

I look at it like this: The 'Southern Baptist' church certainly never existed back when Christianity was first started. Baptism was a part of the ceremonial aspects, but the actual 'Southern Baptist' church certainly didn't exist because the United States didn't even exist yet and the term 'Southern' is referring to the southernmost states of the United States. Yet a 'Southern Baptist' is just as much a Christian as any of the other Christian churches. The ceremonies, tools, terms, etc. of a 'Southern Baptist' are certainly new. However the underlying religion itself is the same old Christianity.

The same is true of the true revivals of the old Pagan ways today. The tools may have changed with the times. The ceremonies may have changed with the times as well. But the underlying religion hasn't changed. It's still the old Pagan religion, just with a new look. The same as 'Southern Baptism' is still the old Christian religion, just with a new look.

[Myst]

Originally posted by amberlaine
not everybody as Jewish, so that leaves a bunch of other folks. BUT, just because those people were pagan, the likelihood of those religions still existing today? Very slim. Very, very slim.

Amberlaine, I agree whole heartedly with you. This is what most Neopagans don't realize. The possibility of the Old Religions existing as clearly as they supposedly have been, through the passage of time and countless people, is slim. Most Wiccans and Neopagans today fail to realize that their paths are largely based on new beliefs and that it is almost impossible to prove a lot of basis in the Old Religions. Even some Fam Trads will find it impossible to prove lineage and history back very far, just because records were not maintained. Yes people passed the information down through speech, but if you've ever played telephone you know how well that works.

[amberlaine]

silver:

please re-read my most paying attention to my usage of the words "most" and "many". I"m fairly certain I didn't say "all".

The number of pagans who are truly trying to reconstruct the nature of some ancient religion is quite small in comparison to the number of pagans who are walking a new path. Compare the number of Greek Reconstuctionalists to the number of Wiccans, for example, and Wiccans outweigh the former by a landslide. And even the Greek Recons will admit that they can never truly recreate the religion of the past--they just hope to rekindle that old spirit as best as possible.


Myst:

Glad to know there are still some thinking neo-pagans out there that haven't been brainwashed by this "it is the old religion!" nonsense. :rolleyes:

[Xander67]

well the Bible itslef is one of the oldest and most controversial books ever written....

most religions, as pointed out earlier, base thier fundamentalism and ethics on the bible....

I guess the mistake would be, to assume, or to identify the bible soley with christianity.. I made that mistake once, and boy was I embarrased when I asked why it was referenced in scott cunningham's candle magick book...

I hope this last part is not off topic if it is, please accept my appology, i found it noteworthy...

of interest here is the fact that no Lodge of Masons could be "at work" without the open bible... although masonry is not a religion, belief in a supreme being is a requirement..we are free to worship our own God...

[Mairwen]

Originally posted by amberlaine
Glad to know there are still some thinking neo-pagans out there that haven't been brainwashed by this "it is the old religion!" nonsense. :rolleyes:

I hear that!:D

[Avena]

Why do we have to practice "the old religion" at all? Why do we have to try to recreate it as good as possible?
Why do we rely on old texts like the Bible or the Talmud, the Edda, the Vedas or whatever?
Why not create a completely new kind of religion?
People always need certificates, texts or "workbooks" to base their faith on. Why do some think that you necessarily have to belong to a kind of religion that was created thousands of years ago? Everything that has its origin in this century seems to be put in the "New Age - Esoteric" corner. But even Christianity as it is practiced today isn't at all the same as the religion practiced by Jesus and his followers.

Nobody can seriously say that he is practicing a religion that was practiced exactly the same way 2000 years ago.
But also nobody has the right to criticise somebody else's believe just because it is completely new, and not based on any ancient texts.

We're living in a modern century, why not practice a modern religion?

(I'm afraid this has not much to do with Mist's original question but I had to talk my mind...)

[Myst]

Whoa. No one here said you had to base your beliefs on the Old Religion, or any of the rest. NO ONE here said if you don't base your belief on ancient texts et cetera then you aren't practicing a valid religion, or criticized Wiccans etc.

All that amberlaine and I (and Mari) said was that a lot of neopagans don't realize that modern beliefs may or may not be based as much on the Old Religion as some people seem to think - NONE of us said that that made neopagan beliefs unacceptable.

[Euphoria]

I agree with both Myst AND Avena,

ALthough i base my faith on the "old ways" i realise that a lot of my beliefs are either new or modernised versions of the first.
I am not afraid to add new ideas to my beliefs as in my oppinion life is every changing and so should religion.

I know this is slightly (*ok a wee bitty more than slightly) off topic but it seemed to follow where the conversation was leading

:heartthro Charysma :heartthro

[Xander67]

I am in agreement with The gals on this one,

what is wrong with a bit of innovation, some spiritual principles are jsut as valid today as they were back then, and then again there are some that need to be altered a bit to allow for the evolution of the human psyche and enlightenment of consciousness... as it has been said "its a new day, times are changeing" I feel a good foundation is needed ..but we must also watch out for the changes that only benifit ONE or a few, if innovation is to occur, it must be for the benifit of ALL and the furthering of the great work.....

thats how i feel on it....I feel that there is a "Big Picture" and we are all a part of it, whether we work behind the scenes or have a starring role....um, where'd that come from , LOL guess my qaballa teacher would have a few chuckles on that one, he likes to use those kinds of analgys.:)

[Avena]

Originally posted by Myst
Whoa. No one here said you had to base your beliefs on the Old Religion, or any of the rest. NO ONE here said if you don't base your belief on ancient texts et cetera then you aren't practicing a valid religion, or criticized Wiccans etc.

All that amberlaine and I (and Mari) said was that a lot of neopagans don't realize that modern beliefs may or may not be based as much on the Old Religion as some people seem to think - NONE of us said that that made neopagan beliefs unacceptable.

Did I quote anybody? No.
Did I use anybody's name? No.
Did I disagree with anybody's opinion? No.

So you don't have to defend yourself (nor amberlaine, nor Mari). I was just annoyed because of the eternal discussion about what's better old or new. But that didn't necessarily refer to anything discussed on this board or said in this thread. So sorry if you felt attacked ;)

[Myst]

Maybe next time saying "Why do some people believe that we have to practice 'the old religion' at all?" instead of "Why do we have to practice "the old religion" at all?" would have made it clearer - to me, the latter is asking *us* why we think that, not asking why other people suggest that.

However, that much is clear now, so thank you for taking the time to clarify. I appreciate it. :)

[Keron]

Actually, I never *quite* hesitate to incorporate new ideas into wahtever I'm doing if it's a logical one. Go with the flow, people!

[Myst]

Wait, wait, Mist still hasn't told us what this thread was about has he?

lol

[Avena]

No he hasn't...He doesn't seem very interested in his own thread anyway.

[Margie]

Then I guess this was a self induced discussion. MIST-what the heck is going on? I'm wondering if he found anything of use (not insulting the conversation-but wondering if perhaps the question was answered by chance) ;)

[Avena]

Originally posted by Margie
Then I guess this was a self induced discussion. MIST-what the heck is going on? I'm wondering if he found anything of use (not insulting the conversation-but wondering if perhaps the question was answered by chance) ;)

what was the question again? 8O