NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your view on paganism? Do you think that neo-pagans like Wiccans are just plain satanic, and that the Christians did us a favour by wiping out all of the original European pagan religions? Or do you think that pagan religions are just as good, if not better, than Abrahamic religions?

Personally I think that a whole bunch of gods who make themselves known throughout our daily lives in little ways (or big ways such as earthquakes) makes more sense than one all powerful, all knowing dude and his son who turns water into wine and wrote the Da Vinci Code. But that's just my opinion.

What's your view?

All the Neo-Pagans I know are losers. Annoying losers, at that.

i think neo-paganism is a bit silly but not much more silly than any other religion. the only thing that makes it slightly more silly is its supposed links with ancient and mystical 'celtic' traditions of BCE western europe. which is just bullshit.

i think neo-paganism is a bit silly but not much more silly than any other religion. the only thing that makes it slightly more silly is its supposed links with ancient and mystical 'celtic' traditions of BCE western europe. which is just bullshit.

My thoughts on neo-paganism exactly. A lot of it is based on pseudo-history and mythical links to ancient pagan religions that we really know little of to begin with. All of the truly ancient pagan religions that still exist today tend to fall under the category of organized religion.

Even the "Wiccans" today don't have valid links to Wicca when it was first created by Gerald Gardner. They, along with plenty of other neo-pagan adherents, form their belief system after picking up a "do it yourself" paperback from the bookstore.

I don't mind Neo-Paganism. On the whole it seems to be more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, though that likely has more to do with the fact that they were created in modern times, not any innate quality in the belief system.

Then again, Neo-Paganism is so diverse that categorizing it broadly is probably an error.

Meh. I guess paganism is as 'good' a religion as Christianity or Islam- which is to say it is a bunch of superstitious nonsense.

However, when it comes to being murderous assholes, pagans are light years better than most of the other bloodthirsty theists, so I am more inclined to like a pagan than a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

i have quite a few Neo-pagen friends.. i actually think it is cool... i mean it isn't any more correct then any other religion

personally i think ALL religion is a hoax

but let ppl worship whatever they want
as long as they aren't forcing it on me
i really do not care

My thoughts on neo-paganism exactly. A lot of it is based on pseudo-history and mythical links to ancient pagan religions that we really know little of to begin with.

That's part of all religion, though. Pseudo-history and myth come with the package.

However, when it comes to being murderous assholes, pagans are light years better than most of the other bloodthirsty theists, so I am more inclined to like a pagan than a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

I hear this type of thing a lot. In general, it is because people associate paganism with the liberal New Age and neo-pagan movements of today. If we look at paganism throughout ancient history, it generally isn't any more tolerant or enlightened than Abrahamic theism.

Hinduism gave us the racist and discriminatory caste system, in addition to numerous internal battles justified on the basis of Dharma. Shinto excused and endorsed feudal Samurai warfare. South American paganism in various forms gave us human sacrifice like no other. The Greeks, as intelligent as they were, had little more respect for woman than Christian or Muslim society. Those are some general ideas, we could get into specifics. And, when religions that don't fit into the category of Western monotheism are examined, they aren't as pretty as modern pop culture likes to paint them.

After all, we know that Christian atrocities like the Crusades and the Inquisition were bad, people still talk about them. But you never hear anyone criticize Hinduism as rigorously for its caste system, or the Aztecs for their legacy of state-sponsored human sacrifice in the name of religion. The neo-Pagans, who try to pretend they have roots in ancient paganism, never talk about this as well. I think we all know why.

Now, I'm not saying Abrahamic religions are better. In fact, the term "Abrahamic religions" is a misnomer, they really should be evaluated independently. They aren't all guilty of the same affairs. Contrasting the culture and religion of Judaism vs that of the Aztecs would give a clear example of how an Abrahamic religion is as pure as the driven snow compared to the intolerance and violence shown by a pagan religion.

Of course, today ancient paganism is gone. We have hippy, new age neo-pagans who are all about love and peace. At least in word. When we contrast that with Abrahamic religions, its easy to make the latter look bad. Its also an unfair comparison, as we're contrasting a new movement, developed in a new culture, to older movements that developed in different cultures. To claim that it is better, due to its cultural context, is about as ethnocentric as we can be. And to contrast neo-paganism with the Christianity of the Middle Ages or Judaism in antiquity isn't accurate either.

Of course, I don't believe Neo Paganism and wicca to be true, but I tend to hold them in the same respect as Budhism, as part of the "Generally really peaceful" faiths. Because of this, I tend to respect them more than most people of the more "Warlike" and "angry" faiths. Not to say that every christian is like this, but being christian certainly increases the odds.

That's part of all religion, though. Pseudo-history and myth come with the package.

I was giving a specific example though. I didn't refer to pseudo-history and myth in general, I said pseudo-history and mythical links to ancient paganism.

Another example would be the pseudo-history and mythical link of Mormonism to ancient Israel. The Christian belief in apostolic tradition is an example of a pseudo-history and mythical link as well.

Of course, I don't believe Neo Paganism and wicca to be true, but I tend to hold them in the same respect as Budhism, as part of the "Generally really peaceful" faiths. Because of this, I tend to respect them more than most people of the more "Warlike" and "angry" faiths. Not to say that every christian is like this, but being christian certainly increases the odds.

Wicca, that is, the real Wiccan religion created by Gerald Gardner, isn't as peaceful or non-warlike as modern pop culture likes to portray it. A lot of that has to do with the New Age movement ripping off the name "Wicca" and ignoring the rest of the religion. Then, the paperback New Age version seems peaceful.

However, if you read Gardner's 161 laws of Wicca, its just as dogmatic as the 316 mitzvot you find in the Torah.

To be honest, Wicca and neo-paganism seem incredibly stupid.

I hear this type of thing a lot. In general, it is because people associate paganism with the liberal New Age and neo-pagan movements of today. If we look at paganism throughout ancient history, it generally isn't any more tolerant or enlightened than Abrahamic theism.

Hinduism gave us the racist and discriminatory caste system, in addition to numerous internal battles justified on the basis of Dharma. Shinto excused and endorsed feudal Samurai warfare. South American paganism in various forms gave us human sacrifice like no other. The Greeks, as intelligent as they were, had little more respect for woman than Christian or Muslim society. Those are some general ideas, we could get into specifics. And, when religions that don't fit into the category of Western monotheism are examined, they aren't as pretty as modern pop culture likes to paint them.

After all, we know that Christian atrocities like the Crusades and the Inquisition were bad, people still talk about them. But you never hear anyone criticize Hinduism as rigorously for its caste system, or the Aztecs for their legacy of state-sponsored human sacrifice in the name of religion. The neo-Pagans, who try to pretend they have roots in ancient paganism, never talk about this as well. I think we all know why.

Now, I'm not saying Abrahamic religions are better. In fact, the term "Abrahamic religions" is a misnomer, they really should be evaluated independently. They aren't all guilty of the same affairs. Contrasting the culture and religion of Judaism vs that of the Aztecs would give a clear example of how an Abrahamic religion is as pure as the driven snow compared to the intolerance and violence shown by a pagan religion.

Of course, today ancient paganism is gone. We have hippy, new age neo-pagans who are all about love and peace. At least in word. When we contrast that with Abrahamic religions, its easy to make the latter look bad. Its also an unfair comparison, as we're contrasting a new movement, developed in a new culture, to older movements that developed in different cultures. To claim that it is better, due to its cultural context, is about as ethnocentric as we can be. And to contrast neo-paganism with the Christianity of the Middle Ages or Judaism in antiquity isn't accurate either.
I don't tend to compare them with Christianity in the middle ages. I tend to compare them with christianity today, which is still accompanied by more than it's fair share of bigotry, homophobia, hate, anger, ect. And most neo-pagan's don't worship Aztec gods, or model their beliefs after those of the aztecs. The movement seems more to draw inspiration from the beliefs of people in europe in between the fall of the roman empire and when christianity had taken over almost entirely.

I don't tend to compare them with Christianity in the middle ages. I tend to compare them with christianity today, which is still accompanied by more than it's fair share of bigotry, homophobia, hate, anger, ect. And most neo-pagan's don't worship Aztec gods, or model their beliefs after those of the aztecs. The movement seems more to draw inspiration from the beliefs of people in europe in between the fall of the roman empire and when christianity had taken over almost entirely.

Paganism in Europe wasn't all that pretty either. You're right that many neo-pagans do try to model their belief system after European paganism. Although, we don't actually know that much about European paganism. Not nearly as much as we do about African or South American paganism. So, what happens is they end up making up a lot of stuff, claiming it is rooted in the ancient.

Another example is that they ignore what we do know. There are many neo-pagans today that claim to be "Druids" and follow some sort of Druid path. How many of them sacrifice humans ritually? Real Druids did. Yet, they've ignored that part for their watered-down version.

This is why I don't have much respect for neo-paganism. In general, neo-pagan systems of belief just arent serious. They mouth respect and tradition for the ancients while making up new garbage, blatently, and attributing it to ancient paganism all the while ignoring the parts of ancient paganism that don't fit with their preconceived beliefs. It seems to be founded on hypocracy in that fashion.

I think most students of history or religion will have a hard time picking up neo-pagan literature, for example, and finding anything worthwhile in it.

Not a wicca myself, but I have many wicca friends.
Its about as reasonable as any other religion, it has some very nice ideas-about nature and such like, unlike the christian friends I have, NONE of my wicca friends attempt to convert me or tell me im going to hell or assume that their religion has any more value than any other-they are generally open minded and friendly.not saying all christians arent, but the pagans offend me less and most importantly dont try and convert me.But this is just within my social group so appying this to all pagans/christians would be stupid of me.

Not a wicca myself, but I have many wicca friends.
Its about as reasonable as any other religion, it has some very nice ideas-about nature and such like, unlike the christian friends I have, NONE of my wicca friends attempt to convert me or tell me im going to hell or assume that their religion has any more value than any other-they are generally open minded and friendly.not saying all christians arent, but the pagans offend me less and most importantly dont try and convert me.But this is just within my social group so appying this to all pagans/christians would be stupid of me.

So, just out of curiousity, how did your Wiccan friends become Wiccan?

Another example would be the pseudo-history and mythical link of Mormonism to ancient Israel. The Christian belief in apostolic tradition is an example of a pseudo-history and mythical link as well.

As I said, I think it's true of all, or at least most, religions - one of the major ways in which they legitimize themselves is to claim that they are the true representatives of past belief systems that have been corrupted, misunderstood, or lost by everyone else. Usually, these claims have rather flimsy evidence behind them, but that has rarely mattered to most believers, nor, perhaps, should it.

Christianity is based on this aspect, with the claim that Jesus is the Messiah predicted by the Prophets; Judaism, too, is suffused with examples of this, one example being the supposedly unbroken line of the oral tradition from Moses to the Rabbis. Islam's claim that Mohammed was the successor to Jesus and Moses is in the same category.

So, just out of curiousity, how did your Wiccan friends become Wiccan?

I don't know about that person's friends, but most Wiccans (at least in the US) are searching for a religion that seems right to them, and when they run into Wiccan literature, they find that it seems right to them and they join. It's a very big thing in Wicca - do not attempt to convert anyone.

Edit: Note to Checklandia, Wicca=the religion; Wiccan=a member or something pertaining to the religion (ex. a wiccan athame).

I don't know about that person's friends, but most Wiccans (at least in the US) are searching for a religion that seems right to them, and when they run into Wiccan literature, they find that it seems right to them and they join. It's a very big thing in Wicca - do not attempt to convert anyone.

Well, this would be an example of the New Age movement ripping off the title "Wicca." It isn't a faith-based religion, like Christianity, where belief is all that is necessary to join. Its a conversion-based religion, like Judaism. To become a Wiccan, according to Gardner and all of the early Wiccans who created the silly thing, you actually have to find a coven and join. My experience is that 99% of the "Wiccans" out there have never joined a coven, or just made their own up.

And that is one of my big problems with Wicca today - its not really Wicca. People like this who claim to be Wiccans aren't any more Wiccans than a Goy who reads a book about Judaism and then suddenly claims to be a Jew.

I don't mind Neo-Paganism. On the whole it seems to be more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, though that likely has more to do with the fact that they were created in modern times, not any innate quality in the belief system.

Then again, Neo-Paganism is so diverse that categorizing it broadly is probably an error.

Haha, you haven't met any fundementalist Wiccans have you? Try living in the "cultural" Mecca of Massachusetts. They can be just as closed minded in their views as anybody else.

It's true what you say about Neo-Paganism, its like saying all Protestants are Baptists. Simply not the case.

Personally they don't bother me. People can worship however they darn well please. Its the individual on who you make the basis of judgement, not their politics or religion.

Well, this would be an example of the New Age movement ripping off the title "Wicca." It isn't a faith-based religion, like Christianity, where belief is all that is necessary to join. Its a conversion-based religion, like Judaism. To become a Wiccan, according to Gardner and all of the early Wiccans who created the silly thing, you actually have to find a coven and join. My experience is that 99% of the "Wiccans" out there have never joined a coven, or just made their own up.

And that is one of my big problems with Wicca today - its not really Wicca. People like this who claim to be Wiccans aren't any more Wiccans than a Goy who reads a book about Judaism and then suddenly claims to be a Jew.

Gardner's branch is only one branch of Wicca. Even early on. You can't base everything on his teachings - that's like basing everything for all protestant Christian sects on Lutherans. You can be a protestant Christian without being a Lutheran. Similarly, you can be a Wiccan without being from the Gardner branch.

What's your view on paganism? Do you think that neo-pagans like Wiccans are just plain satanic, and that the Christians did us a favour by wiping out all of the original European pagan religions? Or do you think that pagan religions are just as good, if not better, than Abrahamic religions?

I think that all religions contain part of the truth, and frankly I see little to objectively place one over the other.

Personally I think that a whole bunch of gods who make themselves known throughout our daily lives in little ways (or big ways such as earthquakes) makes more sense than one all powerful, all knowing dude and his son who turns water into wine and wrote the Da Vinci Code. But that's just my opinion.

Well considering what you just wrote, the fact that you see it as not making sense makes a lot of sense. I don't think anyone believes God/Jesus wrote the Da Vinci Code. :p

What's your view?

Pretty nice screen here...

Meh, the way I see it is
Any cult is a religion, and any religion is a cult.

I think that all religions contain part of the truth, and frankly I see little to objectively place one over the other.

Well considering what you just wrote, the fact that you see it as not making sense makes a lot of sense. I don't think anyone believes God/Jesus wrote the Da Vinci Code. :p

Pretty nice screen here...

Beautiful. All of that is just beautiful... :cool:

Gardner's branch is only one branch of Wicca. Even early on. You can't base everything on his teachings - that's like basing everything for all protestant Christian sects on Lutherans. You can be a protestant Christian without being a Lutheran. Similarly, you can be a Wiccan without being from the Gardner branch.

No, this is a New Age teaching. Wicca traditionally never had "branches" and this is the way that the New Age ripoff movement explains the fact that pop culture pseudo-Wicca is not anything like the original Wiccan religion created by Gerald Gardner.

And it isn't similiar to Christianity, because Christianity essentially has an "unknown origin." We don't even know that the guy it was based on is a real person. We have no writings from Jesus, etc.

But Wicca is less than a century old. Some of us were alive when Gardner was. We can read his writings. And most importantly, he invented the religion - it was his religion, his rules. Imagine creating a religion you call "Zarkonism." Then someone rips your religion off, vaguely mimicing it, and calling it "Zarkonism" as well. Then when it is pointed out to them that it isn't actually Zarkonis, they say "oh, P&P's Zarkonism is only one branch."

Its insulting for one. Its also factually inaccurate for another. Trying to mimic someone's philosophy, then stealing the name they gave to their philosophy and claiming that your new philosophy is a "branch" of it is just absurd. This is what the New Age movement has done to it.

So, just out of curiousity, how did your Wiccan friends become Wiccan?
do you know, I havent asked most of them,Im pritty sure my friend si's mother is a wiccan , and I know he introduced it to my friend kate, but I think many of them found books of some kind.To be fair to them I will have to ask them.

What's your view on paganism? Do you think that neo-pagans like Wiccans are just plain satanic, and that the Christians did us a favour by wiping out all of the original European pagan religions? Or do you think that pagan religions are just as good, if not better, than Abrahamic religions?

Personally I think that a whole bunch of gods who make themselves known throughout our daily lives in little ways (or big ways such as earthquakes) makes more sense than one all powerful, all knowing dude and his son who turns water into wine and wrote the Da Vinci Code. But that's just my opinion.

What's your view?

*Sighs*Probably not for the last time. Wicca is not Pagan. It is based on Christianity and none of the other Pagans I've ever met consider Wicca Pagan. It is not representative of Pagan beliefs, and only seems to resemble them superficially.

I'm Ecceltic Pagan. No, I don't think Paganism is evil. Nor do I believe the gods I believe in are all powerful.

I don't know about that person's friends, but most Wiccans (at least in the US) are searching for a religion that seems right to them, and when they run into Wiccan literature, they find that it seems right to them and they join. It's a very big thing in Wicca - do not attempt to convert anyone.

Edit: Note to Checklandia, Wicca=the religion; Wiccan=a member or something pertaining to the religion (ex. a wiccan athame).

I know, it was a typo.

Beautiful. All of that is just beautiful... :cool:

Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciates me being a smart-ass. :D

Well, this would be an example of the New Age movement ripping off the title "Wicca." It isn't a faith-based religion, like Christianity, where belief is all that is necessary to join. Its a conversion-based religion, like Judaism. To become a Wiccan, according to Gardner and all of the early Wiccans who created the silly thing, you actually have to find a coven and join. My experience is that 99% of the "Wiccans" out there have never joined a coven, or just made their own up.

And that is one of my big problems with Wicca today - its not really Wicca. People like this who claim to be Wiccans aren't any more Wiccans than a Goy who reads a book about Judaism and then suddenly claims to be a Jew.
And who are you to judge a person's religion? Why do Gardner and the first founders have some mystical rule over what is and is not wiccan? If a person did study judaism, and believed wholeheartedly in Yahweh and the Torah, then who are you to say that he isn't a jew?

Haha, you haven't met any fundementalist Wiccans have you? Try living in the "cultural" Mecca of Massachusetts. They can be just as closed minded in their views as anybody else.

I don't doubt. Do any of them believe that non-believers will burn in agony for eternity?

I always miss the damn n key!
are you a wiccan?(just out of curio)
I have seen quite a few of my friends do rituals, and have ceremonies such as Ostara andSamhain(I dont know whether these are correct)so I know a bit about it,such as use of chalice and calling the watchtowers ect.

If a person did study judaism, and believed wholeheartedly in Yahweh and the Torah, then who are you to say that he isn't a jew?

If he "believed wholeheartedly in Yahweh and the Torah," assuming "Torah" includes the Oral Torah he would consent with Tropical Sands' statement and seek to convert.

*Sighs*Probably not for the last time. Wicca is not Pagan. It is based on Christianity and none of the other Pagans I've ever met consider Wicca Pagan. It is not representative of Pagan beliefs, and only seems to resemble them superficially.

I'm Ecceltic Pagan. No, I don't think Paganism is evil. Nor do I believe the gods I believe in are all powerful.

Wicca is quite pagan. In fact, this is common knowledge. So much so, its in wikipedia right at the very beginning. Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca):

"Wicca is a Neopagan religion and a religious movement found in many different countries, though most commonly in English-speaking cultures."

Although, to be fair, we should say its neopagan. That is, a new hybrid pagan religion rather than any pagan religion that exists today that has historical roots. Like Hinduism, Voodoo, etc. If you're an eclectic pagan, that would fall under the category of neopaganism as well But you said Ecceltic - different word or misspelling of eclectic?

If you mean eclectic, isn't that essentially just picking and choosing what you want to believe out of previous religions?

If he "believed wholeheartedly in Yahweh and the Torah," assuming "Torah" includes the Oral Torah he would consent with Tropical Sands' statement and seek to convert.

That sounds pretty accurate. I don't think I could have phrased it better myself.

No, this is a New Age teaching. Wicca traditionally never had "branches" and this is the way that the New Age ripoff movement explains the fact that pop culture pseudo-Wicca is not anything like the original Wiccan religion created by Gerald Gardner.

And it isn't similiar to Christianity, because Christianity essentially has an "unknown origin." We don't even know that the guy it was based on is a real person. We have no writings from Jesus, etc.

But Wicca is less than a century old. Some of us were alive when Gardner was. We can read his writings. And most importantly, he invented the religion - it was his religion, his rules. Imagine creating a religion you call "Zarkonism." Then someone rips your religion off, vaguely mimicing it, and calling it "Zarkonism" as well. Then when it is pointed out to them that it isn't actually Zarkonis, they say "oh, P&P's Zarkonism is only one branch."

Its insulting for one. Its also factually inaccurate for another. Trying to mimic someone's philosophy, then stealing the name they gave to their philosophy and claiming that your new philosophy is a "branch" of it is just absurd. This is what the New Age movement has done to it.

No, there were two branches early on, and then the New Age movement made it okay to do pretty much anything as long as you followed the basic rules. As opposed to only Gardner's branch and then the New Age movement.

Furthermore, if that's problematic, then all protestent Christians are terrible New Age people too. Which is not the case.

Wicca is quite pagan. In fact, this is common knowledge. So much so, its in wikipedia right at the very beginning. Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca):

"Wicca is a Neopagan religion and a religious movement found in many different countries, though most commonly in English-speaking cultures."

Although, to be fair, we should say its neopagan. That is, a new hybrid pagan religion rather than any pagan religion that exists today that has historical roots. Like Hinduism, Voodoo, etc. If you're an eclectic pagan, that would fall under the category of neopaganism as well But you said Ecceltic - different word or misspelling of eclectic?

If you mean eclectic, isn't that essentially just picking and choosing what you want to believe out of previous religions?

Wiki isn't always right. Like I've said, almost every other Pagan I've met's agreed with me on that, and a number of them have spent many hours researching the subject.

That's a typo on my part, sorry. And yes, you're right about it being a mixture, but I give credit to my sources and do not claim them to be some new and unique religion, simply my own personal blend, if you will.

Wicca is quite pagan. In fact, this is common knowledge. So much so, its in wikipedia right at the very beginning. Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca):

"Wicca is a Neopagan religion and a religious movement found in many different countries, though most commonly in English-speaking cultures."

Although, to be fair, we should say its neopagan. That is, a new hybrid pagan religion rather than any pagan religion that exists today that has historical roots. Like Hinduism, Voodoo, etc. If you're an eclectic pagan, that would fall under the category of neopaganism as well But you said Ecceltic - different word or misspelling of eclectic?

If you mean eclectic, isn't that essentially just picking and choosing what you want to believe out of previous religions?

But Wicca is not pagan. It's NEOpagan. There actually is a difference. And wikipedia isn't inherently correct, even if it's pretty good.

I always miss the damn n key!
are you a wiccan?(just out of curio)
I have seen quite a few of my friends do rituals, and have ceremonies such as Ostara andSamhain(I dont know whether these are correct)so I know a bit about it,such as use of chalice and calling the watchtowers ect.

Who are you saying that to? Me?

And who are you to judge a person's religion? Why do Gardner and the first founders have some mystical rule over what is and is not wiccan? If a person did study judaism, and believed wholeheartedly in Yahweh and the Torah, then who are you to say that he isn't a jew?

Well, Gardner has a rule over it because he created it. If you read his works, he was very clear and explict with the rules regarding Wicca as well. Being a modern religion, he was probably more clear than most ancient religions.

Just like if you created a religion, you would have a rule over it. It would be perfectly valid to call anyone who distorted it or ripped off the name, but threw everything else out, not a member of that religion.

But Wicca is not pagan. It's NEOpagan. There actually is a difference. And wikipedia isn't inherently correct, even if it's pretty good.

Right - no group that we call "pagan" today, as a religious title, is actually pagan. They virtually all fall under the category of neopaganism. The only religions that can honestly be called "pagan" are those with ancient roots, and they tend to have their own names - like Hinduism, Shinto, Voodoo, etc. Those are religions that are pagan, by definition, and not created in modern times.

On that note, to clarify, there is no religion called "Pagan." Its a classification, a term used to describe religions that are non-Abrahamic and/or non-monotheistic.

And I agree that wikipedia isn't inherently correct. It just reiterates common knowledge. When something occurs on wikipedia like this, it almost says "that person should have known better."

Well, Gardner has a rule over it because he created it. If you read his works, he was very clear and explict with the rules regarding Wicca as well. Being a modern religion, he was probably more clear than most ancient religions.

Just like if you created a religion, you would have a rule over it. It would be perfectly valid to call anyone who distorted it or ripped off the name, but threw everything else out, not a member of that religion.

No, actually, not if the change is made by an inside movement from its members. If someone outside just ripped off the name, then yes, but if the members of the religion have an internal movement, then no, because it has become their religion as well.

Right - no group that we call "pagan" today, as a religious title, is actually pagan. They virtually all fall under the category of neopaganism. The only religions that can honestly be called "pagan" are those with ancient roots, and they tend to have their own names - like Hinduism, Shinto, Voodoo, etc. Those are religions that are pagan, by definition, and not created in modern times.

On that note, to clarify, there is no religion called "Pagan." Its a classification, a term used to describe religions that are non-Abrahamic and/or non-monotheistic.

And I agree that wikipedia isn't inherently correct. It just reiterates common knowledge. When something occurs on wikipedia like this, it almost says "that person should have known better."

Good. We're on the same page, then.

No, there were two branches early on, and then the New Age movement made it okay to do pretty much anything as long as you followed the basic rules. As opposed to only Gardner's branch and then the New Age movement.

There were never "branches" except for people who ripped Gardner off and then stole the title of Wiccan. Gardner coined the term and created the religion. The only ones who ever claimed there were branches of it are the ones that ripped it off and needed to validate their theft.

Wiki isn't always right. Like I've said, almost every other Pagan I've met's agreed with me on that, and a number of them have spent many hours researching the subject.

Wikipedia isn't wrong in this case. If you look at the tenents of Wicca, and check the definition of "pagan" in the dictionary, you'll see that it is by definition a pagan religion:

"1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3 : NEO-PAGAN"

New Agers love to play word games like this, though. "I'm not a pagan, I'm a Wiccan." "I'm not a Wiccan, I'm a pagan." "I'm not a pagan, I'm a modern Witch" "I'm not a Witch, I'm a Ceremonial Magician." ad nauseum

There were never "branches" except for people who ripped Gardner off and then stole the title of Wiccan. Gardner coined the term and created the religion. The only ones who ever claimed there were branches of it are the ones that ripped it off and needed to validate their theft.

No, there were two branches. There was Gardner's, and then there was a schism early on that resulted in a second branch. It was internal, and it was early enough that I can say that there were two branches early on. But it wasn't a rip-off case, it was an actual internal schism, which makes the second branch legit instead of ridiculously stupid (I hate it when people rip off religion names too). This can be seen because it isn't all distorted - the two are very alike, just not quite the same.

Who are you saying that to? Me?
yeah, you dont have to tell me, but I am interested!

No, actually, not if the change is made by an inside movement from its members. If someone outside just ripped off the name, then yes, but if the members of the religion have an internal movement, then no, because it has become their religion as well.

A change to Wicca wasn't made by its internal members. A few original members left Wicca, like Alex Sanders, and then started new pagan systems that were influenced by Wicca and stole the name "Wicca." Wicca still existed as its own religion exactly as Gardner created it.

Your statement would be like me, as a Jew, starting to worship a three-headed god and then claiming its part of Judaism simply because I'm a Jew.

No, there were two branches. There was Gardner's, and then there was a schism early on that resulted in a second branch. It was internal, and it was early enough that I can say that there were two branches early on. But it wasn't a rip-off case, it was an actual internal schism, which makes the second branch legit instead of ridiculously stupid (I hate it when people rip off religion names too). This can be seen because it isn't all distorted - the two are very alike, just not quite the same.

I don't think conflicts in Gardner's religion make split-offs as a result of a schismm legitimate. He created the religion almost single-handedly. If I created a cult, and then someone in my cult got pissy, and I kicked them out, and then they started a new cult based on mine that stole my name, I'd call that a rip off.

Wikipedia isn't wrong in this case. If you look at the tenents of Wicca, and check the definition of "pagan" in the dictionary, you'll see that it is by definition a pagan religion:

"1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3 : NEO-PAGAN"

New Agers love to play word games like this, though. "I'm not a pagan, I'm a Wiccan." "I'm not a Wiccan, I'm a pagan." "I'm not a pagan, I'm a modern Witch" "I'm not a Witch, I'm a Ceremonial Magician." ad nauseum

There is a distinct difference within the general group. Sort of like calling a Calvanist a Baptist or a Catholic, simply because they're all Christian. Wicca is a specific type of neopagan religion, and the current use for "pagan" belongs to a specific group type of neopagan. Furthermore, "pagan" and "wiccan" relate to the person's religion, while "witch" relates to magickal activities, so a person can be a pagan or wiccan without being a witch, and a person can be a witch without being a pagan or wiccan.

It's a belief system, the same as any other and fullfills a human need to believe in something greater than themselves. In that regard, it is no less or more than more 'traditional' religions.

In regards to human want to feel special in a group, it does really well. Small, outside and fringe, it fully allows its members to feel that they are wise and the keepers of special knowledge that outsiders cannot and do not posess.

In terms of members, eh, I've meet some extraordanary Wiccans who live their religion and truly treat all well. Just as I have met Christians who try to carry the Cross and walk the path of Jesus.

And I've met some real bastards/bitches who hit you over the head that they're special and we should be careful around them because they know magic. Just as I have met those who also use their religion as a weapon.

The dirrerence between a cult and a religion is only measured in the number of members.

I personally don't have a problem most religions unless they try to force their beliefs on me. I personally don't believe in anything super natural and i think that they are mosty wrong but that's their problem not mine and their beliefs are no more or less correct than any other religous beliefs.

I don't think conflicts in Gardner's religion make split-offs as a result of a schismm legitimate. He created the religion almost single-handedly. If I created a cult, and then someone in my cult got pissy, and I kicked them out, and then they started a new cult based on mine that stole my name, I'd call that a rip off.

But that's different. Last I checked, they weren't kicked out. It was an internal schism. So, closer to protestantism than your example.

All the Neo-Pagans I know are losers. Annoying losers, at that.

I have to agree here. The ones I've encountered seem to think they're special or that they should get some different treatment or that they areon some other plain of life because they are "Neo-Pagan" when, in reality, they are just a little too wacked out of their head for anything else. Me, I prefer classical style paganism, (i.e. what the Catholic Church annihilated) though I am agnostic.

Well, Gardner has a rule over it because he created it. If you read his works, he was very clear and explict with the rules regarding Wicca as well. Being a modern religion, he was probably more clear than most ancient religions.

Just like if you created a religion, you would have a rule over it. It would be perfectly valid to call anyone who distorted it or ripped off the name, but threw everything else out, not a member of that religion.
So are you saying that all of the protestant religions arn't, in fact, christian?

I've always believed that people should be able to worship whatever they want, or not worship anything if they choose, as long as they don't hurt anyone else or force their beliefs on me.

There is a distinct difference within the general group. Sort of like calling a Calvanist a Baptist or a Catholic, simply because they're all Christian. Wicca is a specific type of neopagan religion, and the current use for "pagan" belongs to a specific group type of neopagan. Furthermore, "pagan" and "wiccan" relate to the person's religion, while "witch" relates to magickal activities, so a person can be a pagan or wiccan without being a witch, and a person can be a witch without being a pagan or wiccan.

It seems like its coming down to semantics again. I would agree that witch generally refers to people's magical habits, but I've heard just as many new agers say that "witchcraft" is a religion and that being a witch is their religion. In fact, I think the Supreme Court did state that witchcraft was considered a religion under law at one point.

And pagan is another broadly used term in the new age community. I'm not aware that one pagan group holds claim to that title alone. If you go someplace like witchvox.com, there are dozens of groups, many polar opposites, that all refer to themselves as pagan. And wiccan groups that refer to themselves the same way.

Calvanism, on the other hand, is a form of Christian theology and the name of a system created by John Calvin. Its a very specific term, unlike pagan. Baptist and Catholic are also pretty clear too. Each of those groups fall under the umbrella term of "Christianity" just like Wicca, Voodoo, neopaganism in all forms, etc. all fall under the umbrella term of paganism. They all fit the definition of the word.

yeah, you dont have to tell me, but I am interested!

I'm a rather weird mixture of religions and philosophies. Wicca is one of them, yes. After a lot of research...

I don't doubt. Do any of them believe that non-believers will burn in agony for eternity?

Yeah, quite intolerant of them, believeing in an aspect of their religion.

So are you saying that all of the protestant religions arn't, in fact, christian?
The problem with that analogy is that when the protestant split happened, Jesus and the orginal church fathers had been dead (Well, dead and resurected in Jesus's case) for well over 1,000 years. The sicism there was based more upon the various traditions that had grown up outside of the actual Bible and their place within Christianity.

In this case though, the founder was still alive and kicking, making it hard to argue that there was a disagreement in inturpritation of a holy text or rituals.

But that's different. Last I checked, they weren't kicked out. It was an internal schism. So, closer to protestantism than your example.

Its nothing at all like Protestantism. I explained this previously, as Christianity has an ambiguous origin whereas Wicca does not. We know who created Wicca, we have writings from the person that explictly prohibit the possibility of other Wiccan groups not under the lineage or authority of Gardner's tradition, like his 161 laws. This is unlike Christianity in any way. The NT never talks about other sects, and their status within Christianity. It never even uses the term "Christianity" as a reference to a religion, but only "Christians." The two really can't be compared here.

Yeah, quite intolerant of them, believeing in an aspect of their religion.

Religious beliefs can be very intolerant. I don't see why people's intolerance should be excused because their religion agrees with them.

It seems like its coming down to semantics again. I would agree that witch generally refers to people's magical habits, but I've heard just as many new agers say that "witchcraft" is a religion and that being a witch is their religion. In fact, I think the Supreme Court did state that witchcraft was considered a religion under law at one point.

And pagan is another broadly used term in the new age community. I'm not aware that one pagan group holds claim to that title alone. If you go someplace like witchvox.com, there are dozens of groups, many polar opposites, that all refer to themselves as pagan. And wiccan groups that refer to themselves the same way.

Calvanism, on the other hand, is a form of Christian theology and the name of a system created by John Calvin. Its a very specific term, unlike pagan. Baptist and Catholic are also pretty clear too. Each of those groups fall under the umbrella term of "Christianity" just like Wicca, Voodoo, neopaganism in all forms, etc. all fall under the umbrella term of paganism. They all fit the definition of the word.

Specific groups. Plural. I forget what it is that makes certain groups pagan vs. only neopagan. I think that the pagans follow a specific pagan religion whereas neopagans follow the general idea, but I'm not sure... any pagans, neopagans, or wiccans want to help me on this one?
(And to a certain extent, it does just get used without regard to the more formal differences anyway, so, it really doesn't matter).

The problem with that analogy is that when the protestant split happened, Jesus and the orginal church fathers had been dead (Well, dead and resurected in Jesus's case) for well over 1,000 years. The sicism there was based more upon the various traditions that had grown up outside of the actual Bible and their place within Christianity.

In this case though, the founder was still alive and kicking, making it hard to argue that there was a disagreement in inturpritation of a holy text or rituals.

Exactly. Imagine if Jesus was alive, he started a religion, called it Christianity, wrote down in multiple books (more pages than currently in the NT) how it is to operate, and then Judas split off and tried to start a religion called "Christianity" alongside Jesus', based in part on Jesus' teachings.

Specific groups. Plural. I forget what it is that makes certain groups pagan vs. only neopagan. I think that the pagans follow a specific pagan religion whereas neopagans follow the general idea, but I'm not sure... any pagans, neopagans, or wiccans want to help me on this one?
(And to a certain extent, it does just get used without regard to the more formal differences anyway, so, it really doesn't matter).

I'm sure there are pagans out there that claim fervently that they are pagan, whereas Wiccans are not and neopagans are not. However, its a game of semantics. According to the definition of the word, they are all pagans. It would be like a Baptist claiming that only Baptists are Christians. Objectively, via the dictionary, we know better.

To get anywhere, we have to use an objective definition of the word, one that is commonly recognized in the English language. I wouldn't believe a pagan whho tells me that other pagans aren't pagan any more than I would believe a Christian who says other Christians aren't real Christians. I just check their belief system against the definition of the word and come to a conclusion.

I'm a rather weird mixture of religions and philosophies. Wicca is one of them, yes. After a lot of research...

thats cool, im still searching,twas born a catholic, dabbles in wicca and now im just not sure.

The problem with that analogy is that when the protestant split happened, Jesus and the orginal church fathers had been dead (Well, dead and resurected in Jesus's case) for well over 1,000 years. The sicism there was based more upon the various traditions that had grown up outside of the actual Bible and their place within Christianity.

In this case though, the founder was still alive and kicking, making it hard to argue that there was a disagreement in inturpritation of a holy text or rituals.

Wicca is based upon pagan beliefs, so there can be disagreement in interpretation of these beliefs and how to best reconcile them. Plus, as I said, once you've got members, the religion becomes theirs too. If the schism is internal, it is legit.

If we got with TS's Judas example, the split is based upon one person ripping off the religion, not a group of members creating their own sect of the overall idea.

I'm sure there are pagans out there that claim fervently that they are pagan, whereas Wiccans are not and neopagans are not. However, its a game of semantics. According to the definition of the word, they are all pagans. It would be like a Baptist claiming that only Baptists are Christians. Objectively, via the dictionary, we know better.

To get anywhere, we have to use an objective definition of the word, one that is commonly recognized in the English language. I wouldn't believe a pagan whho tells me that other pagans aren't pagan any more than I would believe a Christian who says other Christians aren't real Christians. I just check their belief system against the definition of the word and come to a conclusion.

I'd go more with they're all neopagans. Not only does that work the same way as you are saying here, but it's pretty much accepted as accurate in the neopagan world too.

thats cool, im still searching,twas born a catholic, dabbles in wicca and now im just not sure.

Find whatever works for you and don't let anyone bully you into anything. :) It's the only way to do it.
Good for you for trying to find who you are rather than blindly accepting something that isn't you.

People can worship whatever they want, but I don’t pretend Pagans are any less deluded than any other religion.

Wicca is based upon pagan beliefs, so there can be disagreement in interpretation of these beliefs and how to best reconcile them. Plus, as I said, once you've got members, the religion becomes theirs too. If the schism is internal, it is legit.

If we got with TS's Judas example, the split is based upon one person ripping off the religion, not a group of members creating their own sect of the overall idea.

Wicca explictly states in its 161 laws numerous things that prohibit the breakaway of members to create a new sect. Gardner intended to keep a cult-like control on members that way. He was also there, and alive, to reconcile any disagreements in interpretation. So, explain to me how members of Wicca can violate their own rules, ignore Gardner, and go off to create a new sect and that not be a rip-off? How can they steal Gardner's religion, contrary to his laws and wishes, and that not be a rip-off?

Pagans are crazy. But then again... so are Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews...

Wicca explictly states in its 161 laws numerous things that prohibit the breakaway of members to create a new sect. Gardner intended to keep a cult-like control on members that way. He was also there, and alive, to reconcile any disagreements in interpretation. So, explain to me how members of Wicca can violate their own rules, ignore Gardner, and go off to create a new sect and that not be a rip-off? How can they steal Gardner's religion, contrary to his laws and wishes, and that not be a rip-off?

Because once it becomes a religion with members, it becomes their religion, and their interpretations become just as valid as his. Thus, they can create a new sect with a few less rules if need be, and it is perfectly legit. It is now their religion.

Wicca explictly states in its 161 laws numerous things that prohibit the breakaway of members to create a new sect. Gardner intended to keep a cult-like control on members that way. He was also there, and alive, to reconcile any disagreements in interpretation. So, explain to me how members of Wicca can violate their own rules, ignore Gardner, and go off to create a new sect and that not be a rip-off? How can they steal Gardner's religion, contrary to his laws and wishes, and that not be a rip-off?
Gardner does not excersize total dominion over the ideas he came up with. In Gardner's time, most Wiccan's didn't agree with the 161 laws, and it caused a split in the faith, causing Gardner's views to lose relevancy. A religion is just like any movement, and while your free to whine and complain when it moves away from you, you can't really do anything about it.

Wicca is based upon pagan beliefs, so there can be disagreement in interpretation of these beliefs and how to best reconcile them. Plus, as I said, once you've got members, the religion becomes theirs too. If the schism is internal, it is legit.
The problem being that Wicca is a modern invention and is not a continuation of the orginal pagan beliefs. Again, it would be as if Martin Luther decided to nail his ideas to the door instead of just going and talking to Jesus about which way is correct.

If we got with TS's Judas example, the split is based upon one person ripping off the religion, not a group of members creating their own sect of the overall idea.
Whether or not they are really Wiccan or not is beyond my actual judgement as my knowledge of Wicca is very layman. I studied about it when I was searching for my own beliefs and have read up on it, so I'm not going to pass judgement on how legit the spit was.

However, I will say that attempting to compare it to the reformation is not a good analogy for reasons listed above. If your founder is alive and writing, it's really hard to state clearly that he has been misundertood by a portion of believers and that your (not you personally) portion has it right. You have the chance to ask him about it after all.

Find whatever works for you and don't let anyone bully you into anything. :) It's the only way to do it.
Good for you for trying to find who you are rather than blindly accepting something that isn't you.
If theres one thing I dont do, it is blindly accept what others tell me, Im a philosophy student so what do you expect.
Good for you too for having the guts to worship in the way you choose without having to suscribe to any religion.

Gardner does not excersize total dominion over the ideas he came up with. In Gardner's time, most Wiccan's didn't agree with the 161 laws, and it caused a split in the faith, causing Gardner's views to lose relevancy. A religion is just like any movement, and while your free to whine and complain when it moves away from you, you can't really do anything about it.

I think the split occured because Gardner was an ass, rather than that they didn't agree with his 161 laws. The offshoots were just as rigid as Gardner's sect, they didn't become the free-for-all pseudo-Wicca of today. People still had to be invited to join covens, be initiated after a year probationary period, etc. In fact, I don't have that much of a problem with those type of deals. What really bothers me is the kiddos who pick up a paperback, read it, and then claim to be Wiccans. Not only would they be rejected by Gardner, were he alive, they would have been rejected with those other early spin-off versions.

And honestly, I think if Gardner were alive today, and this occured in 2006, he could claim that Wicca was his intellectual property and sue others who use it without express consent. He really would have what you call total dominion over it.

Because once it becomes a religion with members, it becomes their religion, and their interpretations become just as valid as his. Thus, they can create a new sect with a few less rules if need be, and it is perfectly legit. It is now their religion.

So, just following your theory here, lets see if this applies to other religions:

I'm a Jew, Judaism is my religion. Is my interpretation as valid as that of a rabbi?

And, can I create a new sect with less rules and new interpretations, since mine are just as valid?

If yes, and I create a new sect that says God is really the Golden Calf, is it Judaism too?

So, just following your theory here, lets see if this applies to other religions:

I'm a Jew, Judaism is my religion. Is my interpretation as valid as that of a rabbi?

And, can I create a new sect with less rules and new interpretations, since mine are just as valid?

If yes, and I create a new sect that says God is really the Golden Calf, is it Judaism too?

1) Yes. But realize that my Christian section of my mix is Quaker, where we believe that everyone is equal, etc., and that your beliefs are the most valid for you. We have no ministers (or, equally accurate, we're all ministers).
2) Yep. But you might be the only follower.
3) Same as 2.

The problem being that Wicca is a modern invention and is not a continuation of the orginal pagan beliefs. Again, it would be as if Martin Luther decided to nail his ideas to the door instead of just going and talking to Jesus about which way is correct.

...

However, I will say that attempting to compare it to the reformation is not a good analogy for reasons listed above. If your founder is alive and writing, it's really hard to state clearly that he has been misundertood by a portion of believers and that your (not you personally) portion has it right. You have the chance to ask him about it after all.

I don't think it should be compared to the reformation either, but it's more accurate than what TS is using, which is my point. It is its own situation, with certain similarities to what happened with Christianity, and certain differences.

If theres one thing I dont do, it is blindly accept what others tell me, Im a philosophy student so what do you expect.
Good for you too for having the guts to worship in the way you choose without having to suscribe to any religion.

YAY!
I'm probably going to minor in philosophy (major in psych and "English with emphasis in Creative Writing). I was in philosophy club in high school, and was the first person to create a fully comprehensive definition of religion (meaning the president of the club couldn't ask any more clarifying questions or find any flaws) in the club. :D

I have quietly been a Pagan for a very long time. Like any other religion, you have those who call themselves adherents who decidedly not anywhere near serious about it.

I have made some study of the various faiths and this one has one quality above all others. It's outlook.

Do as you will, and do ye no harm. Respect the planet you live on. Respect others despite their differences. Sometimes, I fail in these areas, but they are very good principles to aspire to.

A nice, positive outlook on things. Especially after being Roman Catholic, where if you don't dot the 'i' and cross your 't' you are going to hell.

I think the split occured because Gardner was an ass, rather than that they didn't agree with his 161 laws. The offshoots were just as rigid as Gardner's sect, they didn't become the free-for-all pseudo-Wicca of today. People still had to be invited to join covens, be initiated after a year probationary period, etc. In fact, I don't have that much of a problem with those type of deals. What really bothers me is the kiddos who pick up a paperback, read it, and then claim to be Wiccans. Not only would they be rejected by Gardner, were he alive, they would have been rejected with those other early spin-off versions.

And honestly, I think if Gardner were alive today, and this occured in 2006, he could claim that Wicca was his intellectual property and sue others who use it without express consent. He really would have what you call total dominion over it.
No, he wouldn't. If he trademarked Wicca (something I don't think he could do if he wanted it to be a recognised religion) Then he could keep people from publishing things under the name, but he couldn't keep anyone from practicing their own version of it. Kinda like if Douglas Adams were alive today, he couldn't stop me from worshipping him and using the Hitchhikers guide as my holy text.
The "Solitary practitioner" movement is simply another variation of Wicca.

I applaude everyone for not turning this into a generic religion bashing thread, and merely discussing paganism's history and belief system, or if neopaganism is truly paganism :)

dang, no clapping smilie..

Okay, the occultist (i.e. me. Nice, I always wanted to refer to myself in the Third Person! :D) thinks it's time to speak his mind:

This discussion is semantics, mostly. I've seen non-wicca stuff that works (I'm not wiccan) much like wicca stuff does. I've seen similar principles being applied, from Wicca, into other occultism and paganism branches. Successfully. Also, if I apply only one principle of, say, mr. Aleister Crowley, to my works, but it's an important principle, am I not "following" him, to an extent? The same goes for mr. Gardner, even because his ideas did NOT spontaneously bloom on his mind. He ALSO researched, applied principles from other pagans/neopagans and so on. But occultism is a far more empirical art than you seem to think. I'm a chaoticist, a line based on Crowley and A. O. Spare, among others. Yet I can apply wicca principles if I feel like it. And a wiccan that wants to apply Spare's principles to their work is welcome to it as well. It doesn't work like the other religions. Gardner is not God, neither is Crowley. They aren't the Pope either. And if they saw themselves as so, it'd be their problem. They might be two very skilled occultists, but it doesn't mean they should be followed without room for innovation. If it doesn't work like that in an university (good thing, or else we'd not have, say, electricity), it shouldn't work in the case of pagans. Most pagan religions have no figurehead. There are big shots, yes, but they offer guidelines, not rules. Or: Everyone follows guidelines, not rules. And it works. To quote:

Nine words serve the techmage best: Keep what works. Fix what's broke. Dump the rest.

Of course, I don't believe Neo Paganism and wicca to be true, but I tend to hold them in the same respect as Budhism, as part of the "Generally really peaceful" faiths. Because of this, I tend to respect them more than most people of the more "Warlike" and "angry" faiths. Not to say that every christian is like this, but being christian certainly increases the odds.

What it comes down to is "culture trumps religion." Christ taught peace, love, equality - all of the new age things we find so enlightened. But, his teaching was aimed at one group - Jews - a sexist (though not as sexist as others at that time and in that place), racist, elitist, exlusive and intolerant group of people. Most of them pretty much rejected it. Those that accepted it put their own twist on it. It was not aimed at Greeks, Romans or European pagans, yet they adopted it and skewed it to fit their cultural bias, they did not skew their culture to fit Christianity. The same thing happens with all religions, the old religion falls into obscurity, but not without influencing the new religion - which seems to adopt all the bad things about the old.

Christianity adopted sexism, racism, elitism, exclusivity and intolerance - all of which Christ eschewed. Check all modern religions, like Islam, you'll see the same trend.

As Wicca and other New Age religions gain in respectability and influence, we'll see the same giving in to cultural bias. Because, as Catholicism found it, you can't fight 'em, so you have to assimilate 'em - and that means becoming a hybrid of the old and new.

Well, this would be an example of the New Age movement ripping off the title "Wicca." It isn't a faith-based religion, like Christianity, where belief is all that is necessary to join. Its a conversion-based religion, like Judaism. To become a Wiccan, according to Gardner and all of the early Wiccans who created the silly thing, you actually have to find a coven and join. My experience is that 99% of the "Wiccans" out there have never joined a coven, or just made their own up.

And that is one of my big problems with Wicca today - its not really Wicca. People like this who claim to be Wiccans aren't any more Wiccans than a Goy who reads a book about Judaism and then suddenly claims to be a Jew.
Isn't Christianity also a conversion-based religion, inasmuch as its original adherents were all converts and it continues efforts to convert non-believers to this day?

As to what is "Wicca" -- well, what is "Wicca" if it is not what these people say it is? Gardner didn't coin the word "Wicca," after all. Hell, he wasn't even the original creator of the religion's conceptual foundation. We can thank writers like Margaret Murray, with her book "The God of the Witches" (near total speculation based on very little scholarship), for outlining (read: making up) a religious model that Gardner just put into practice, with his own twists added. And I may be wrong but did he even call it "Wicca"? I thought he called it "Witchcraft."

I see Gardner as just one of the people involved in the early stages of what became neopaganism. He had very strong ideas about what it all meant and how it should go. Others disagreed with him and launched their own experimental groups. So what? It was all a brand spanking new concept in its first stages of development.

No, he wouldn't. If he trademarked Wicca (something I don't think he could do if he wanted it to be a recognised religion) Then he could keep people from publishing things under the name, but he couldn't keep anyone from practicing their own version of it. Kinda like if Douglas Adams were alive today, he couldn't stop me from worshipping him and using the Hitchhikers guide as my holy text.
The "Solitary practitioner" movement is simply another variation of Wicca.
The "solitary practitioner" movement may even turn out to be somewhat closer to the ancient model of European paganism than the modern coven is. In general, in any religion, as soon as you start holding organized rituals led by trained priests/priestesses/druids/etc, what you have is a clergy, and if you have a clergy, it implies a congregation of non-clergy whose spiritual needs are being served by the clergy. Right now, in neopaganism, it's all clergy and no congregation.

In ancient pagan Europe, outside of the Mediterranean city-states, there were relatively few sects or cults that were organized enough to need a clergy. Many were served by individual practitioners on the model of shamans and/or leaders of social groups -- like hunter societies, warrior societies, men's societies, women's societies, etc -- who were regular members but also served as priests/priestesses for ritual observances for their groups' gods. We know this from both the writings of Greek and Roman historians and modern archeological evidence.

So if the ancient model was one of individuals and small groups doing whatever their traditions said or whatever their visions said in a rather informal way, then the solitary practitioner who communes with his/her gods on his/her own terms may be seen as a somewhat more accurate recreation of an ancient way.

Possibly.

Okay, the occultist (i.e. me. Nice, I always wanted to refer to myself in the Third Person! :D) thinks it's time to speak his mind:

This discussion is semantics, mostly. I've seen non-wicca stuff that works (I'm not wiccan) much like wicca stuff does. I've seen similar principles being applied, from Wicca, into other occultism and paganism branches. Successfully. Also, if I apply only one principle of, say, mr. Aleister Crowley, to my works, but it's an important principle, am I not "following" him, to an extent? The same goes for mr. Gardner, even because his ideas did NOT spontaneously bloom on his mind. He ALSO researched, applied principles from other pagans/neopagans and so on. But occultism is a far more empirical art than you seem to think. I'm a chaoticist, a line based on Crowley and A. O. Spare, among others. Yet I can apply wicca principles if I feel like it. And a wiccan that wants to apply Spare's principles to their work is welcome to it as well. It doesn't work like the other religions. Gardner is not God, neither is Crowley. They aren't the Pope either. And if they saw themselves as so, it'd be their problem. They might be two very skilled occultists, but it doesn't mean they should be followed without room for innovation. If it doesn't work like that in an university (good thing, or else we'd not have, say, electricity), it shouldn't work in the case of pagans. Most pagan religions have no figurehead. There are big shots, yes, but they offer guidelines, not rules. Or: Everyone follows guidelines, not rules. And it works. To quote:

Nine words serve the techmage best: Keep what works. Fix what's broke. Dump the rest.
Spoken like a true esotericist -- more interested in substance than form. :)

YAY!
I'm probably going to minor in philosophy (major in psych and "English with emphasis in Creative Writing). I was in philosophy club in high school, and was the first person to create a fully comprehensive definition of religion (meaning the president of the club couldn't ask any more clarifying questions or find any flaws) in the club. :D
I'm majoring in philosophy and computer science. Beats the crap out of your minor.:p So care to enlighten us all and share your definition?

I'm majoring in philosophy and computer science. Beats the crap out of your minor.:p So care to enlighten us all and share your definition?

Well, herein lies the problem - this was two years ago-ish. I can't quite remember it.... not in words...

Spoken like a true esotericist -- more interested in substance than form. :)
Well, that is what's more important. The quintessential nature of it is what most applies itself. The superficiality of form restricts perspective and disallows an abundance of free thought, which is the staple of true spiritualism.

Well, herein lies the problem - this was two years ago-ish. I can't quite remember it.... not in words...
Ah, so the answer and the question cannot exist in the same universe at the same time, eh?;) You should have written it somewhere for easy access.

Ah, so the answer and the question cannot exist in the same universe at the same time, eh?;) You should have written it somewhere for easy access.

What? I don't get the first part...

Yes, I probably REALLY should have. *sniff* Basic idea (and realize that I'm writing this at, like, 11:00PM and I'm a morning person, so...) is that a religion is a set of beliefs created by a person; adapted and followed by a person to achieve a better self (so, yes, each and every person technically follows a different religion from everyone else). The titles, then, that we give to certain "religions" are actually categories based upon similarities - baptists, for instance, all have different religions that were originally created by the same person. Religion and philosophy, of course, overlap, but are not inherently the same.

Well, that is what's more important. The quintessential nature of it is what most applies itself. The superficiality of form restricts perspective and disallows an abundance of free thought, which is the staple of true spiritualism.
Agreed, absolutely.

What? I don't get the first part...

Yes, I probably REALLY should have. *sniff* Basic idea (and realize that I'm writing this at, like, 11:00PM and I'm a morning person, so...) is that a religion is a set of beliefs created by a person; adapted and followed by a person to achieve a better self (so, yes, each and every person technically follows a different religion from everyone else). The titles, then, that we give to certain "religions" are actually categories based upon similarities - baptists, for instance, all have different religions that were originally created by the same person. Religion and philosophy, of course, overlap, but are not inherently the same.
And you call yourself a philosophy minor! Hmph. Have you taken Physics?

But that doesn't account for the fundamental religious ideals of morality and how they can differ so much. A "better self" isn't necessarily something people have in mind. Religion has become for many another social gala of no quintessential importance. It's just another routine exercise that they have been conditioned to perfrom. It provides no spiritual service to them, whatever they would have you think. And religion can be so much more than a tool for self-improvement. It provides a reason for living and an explanation for life itself, however fictional and ridiculous it might seem. It also provides a place for a person to belong, where she feels wanted and needed. It isn't simply a category, but a social structure designed to accomodate a particular group. It's really a survival tactic we haven't outgrown as a society.

Agreed, absolutely.
Naturally. I knew you would.

No tease there? Not even a little?;)

Naturally. I knew you would.

No tease there? Not even a little?;)
Wait for it...


:p

Wait for it...


:p
Much better now.:D

And you call yourself a philosophy minor! Hmph. Have you taken Physics?

But that doesn't account for the fundamental religious ideals of morality and how they can differ so much. A "better self" isn't necessarily something people have in mind. Religion has become for many another social gala of no quintessential importance. It's just another routine exercise that they have been conditioned to perfrom. It provides no spiritual service to them, whatever they would have you think. And religion can be so much more than a tool for self-improvement. It provides a reason for living and an explanation for life itself, however fictional and ridiculous it might seem. It also provides a place for a person to belong, where she feels wanted and needed. It isn't simply a category, but a social structure designed to accomodate a particular group. It's really a survival tactic we haven't outgrown as a society.
I agree when talking about religion as a social construct, but there is another aspect and function to religion which is entirely personal and which, in my opinion, is a survival tactic that we should not outgrow. But I'm not going to explain myself tonight.




How's that for a tease, just a little one? ;)


EDIT: 2 in 1 thread. I'm too generous to you. :p

I agree when talking about religion as a social construct, but there is another aspect and function to religion which is entirely personal and which, in my opinion, is a survival tactic that we should not outgrow. But I'm not going to explain myself tonight.




How's that for a tease, just a little one? ;)


EDIT: 2 in 1 thread. I'm too generous to you. :p
She discussed the personal part, so I focused on the undiscussed social aspects. Of course, there can be the spirituality, which I consider entirely personal, but it isn't always present.

I await your explanation, for your post leaves much elaboration to be desired.
You really are too generous, mistress. I don't deserve you.;)

And you call yourself a philosophy minor! Hmph. Have you taken Physics?

But that doesn't account for the fundamental religious ideals of morality and how they can differ so much. A "better self" isn't necessarily something people have in mind. Religion has become for many another social gala of no quintessential importance. It's just another routine exercise that they have been conditioned to perfrom. It provides no spiritual service to them, whatever they would have you think. And religion can be so much more than a tool for self-improvement. It provides a reason for living and an explanation for life itself, however fictional and ridiculous it might seem. It also provides a place for a person to belong, where she feels wanted and needed. It isn't simply a category, but a social structure designed to accomodate a particular group. It's really a survival tactic we haven't outgrown as a society.

Actually, it means that I'm rejecting that as religion. I'm saying that is NOT religion. That is social structure.

And I said that I'm thinking about having a philosophy minor, not that I am one (plus, I suck at physics). In case you didn't catch on, I graduated from high school last night. Meaning, I haven't TAKEN any philosophy classes yet. Back off!

I think all who believe in gods are mistaken, but if they choose to believe, then they have the right to do so.

Actually, it means that I'm rejecting that as religion. I'm saying that is NOT religion. That is social structure.

And I said that I'm thinking about having a philosophy minor, not that I am one (plus, I suck at physics). In case you didn't catch on, I graduated from high school last night. Meaning, I haven't TAKEN any philosophy classes yet. Back off!
But that particular social structure is an essential part of considering religion because so many people find "religion" in such a structure. You cannont simply dismiss that.

I didn't suck at Physics. I graduated from high school almost a month ago, so I haven't had any philosophy courses either. Except for the particular brands of Physics 210 and English 110/204 that I had. Took all the philosophy I could derive from them. You should have it as something if you're truly interested.

But that particular social structure is an essential part of considering religion because so many people find "religion" in such a structure. You cannot simply dismiss that.

I didn't suck at Physics. I graduated from high school almost a month ago, so I haven't had any philosophy courses either. Except for the particular brands of Physics 210 and English 110/204 that I had. Took all the philosophy I could derive from them. You should have it as something if you're truly interested.

Yes I can. That isn't religion. That's the need for social structure and belonging, as found in psychology (which I have had courses in! XD). Not religion.

Managed to get a little personal philosophy from the beginning of physics too, but then I got lost, so... yeah. English - well, when we had "Humanities" which is somehow English in high school. It involved a lot of philosophy.

Meh. I guess paganism is as 'good' a religion as Christianity or Islam- which is to say it is a bunch of superstitious nonsense.

However, when it comes to being murderous assholes, pagans are light years better than most of the other bloodthirsty theists, so I am more inclined to like a pagan than a follower of an Abrahamic religion.

What are you talking about?? They eat babies in satanic rituals! Are there only five others besides myself who see through the web of lies to the witches they are? Burn them!

What are you talking about?? They eat babies in satanic rituals! Are there only five others besides myself who see through the web of lies to the witches they are? Burn them!

Er...
Are you being serious or no?

Well, I won't say the discussion over the defintion of "Wicca" "neo pagan" "pagan" etc is pointless. Knowledge relies on analysis and definition, categories and relationships between abstract entities.

However, that said, it seems to me that the general question of "what do you think" was addressing the huge, _extremely_ heterogenous mix of people who are essentially spiritual anarchists (and I mean that as a compliment). Some of them belong to large consensually formed associations of belief, mythology and conduct norms. Some belong to small groups. Many belong to a "group" of just themselves with aloof but amiable ties to "similar thinking folks". (or occasionally hostile alienation and isolation from (almost?) everyone :) )

Some of them are "daft" and have no logical or consistent structure; some of them are extremely rational and have exhaustively defined all logical elements and relations within their system and its relations to the outside world.

There's a lot of factors that go into any belief system and a few particular to this category of one...

- Historical fidelity (and how much research goes into making stirivings in this regard "accurate and authentic" (and how much reasonably verified facts can be _found_ about old or ancient data)

- Ethical principles (how many, how organized, what your motivation should be, what your motivation _is_ (in practice), what underlying themes, how the mythology reinforces the ethics, etc.)

- Cosmology (the universe's origins, purpose, divine agency (if any) through what means (if applicable), future, the nature of human consciousness and its role in the grand design or accident)

- Social customs and norms (which are pretty sparse and terse, frankly, in most folks in this general 'sector' of spiritual/philosophical orientation, because most of them came to this by conscious apostasy, rebellion, or a personal quest, and are challenged to see how customs and norms can have a positive function)

- Magickal practice (how, why, what for, etc....I'm not saying much here because i could never sense or interact with any of these forces, and I have no idea how relevant my limited understanding of the theory was)

For most folks in this general bent, I've noticed eclecticism. It _is_ DIY all the way, and they're proud of it. I mention these categories to note that given the heterogeny in though, there is almost NO consensus on any of this. You could try to find a "lowest common denomenator" but since almost all of us are working with sample sizes that are very small (I was taught to have confidence you need about 50-100, and preferably far closer to 100 than 50, as well as excellent participation rates in any study...) this would be mostly speculative.]

Still, that's what this thread is about in part is speculation ?

Most of the folks in this regard whom I've known have this profile:
---> Some interest in historical ties and a few particular historical themes and concepts that resonate deeply, but little scholastic interest so that it is more a matter of imaginative motif than religious traditions in these regards.
--->Wildly varying ethical structures, tending to a stereotypical "secular humanist" grab bag (enlightened self interest, how you act shapes how you impell the world to work around you, both towards and from you, "honesty is the best policy", be generous when you can, and hope it inspires those who know you to help you in your own hour of need, etc) of (mostly) logically founded beliefs. Most believe in karma.
--->cosmology:a blend (or sometimes pastiche) of historical myths in the same sort of vein as historical fidelity, with strong borrowing from the Scientific worldview and/or (ironically) Christianity
--->social customs and norms: almost none, often a formal profession of "everyone must figure it out for themselves, though some things might be fairly common
--->Magickal practice : one or two strong talents they feel they have, but which do not talk about (and frequently do not really refine or practice, even within their own systems because whatever makes them think it is working does not seem to be amiable to logical analysis or refinement.) Regarded basically as "if there's something that screams out "use magick" do so but otherwise they leave it alone. (for various reasons)

So....my opinion of people with _these_ characteristics is simple.

They are the living embodiments of "your mileage may vary". They're all using a similar "product", but the results vary a lot. Some are prosperous and typical members of society, others are marginalized or outcasts. They're frequently misanthropic (even the "successful" ones) and typically discontent with life and the world. A few have a true inner peace. Most don't. They tend not to refer explicitly to their beliefs in justifying or explaining their actions (even to themselves, I think) and so are strong examples of belonging to "The Church of What I Was Going to Do Anyway" (which is what almost everyone belongs to in some degree, immo).

Just like most religions/philosophies. :)

I do find they tend to be smarter, more compassionate, and creative. But they also tend to be eccentric, stubborn, given to spurious logic, and tending to be a bit more "down" than "normals".

Overall, I find them slightly better company than most humans I've known, but I haven't known any Jews to compare to, so I have hopes there may be small but meaningful competencies in that religious sector. However, it mostly seems to be because that the type of person who goes this way is somewhat like me, and I think I'm sort of ok. They just followed a different path. (yes, paths can matter deeply sometimes, but mostly, again it's that "Church of What I Was Going to Do Anyway" factor)

However, there is a larger community that I am dimly aware my sample is _not_ representive of , and yah, they're basically aimless spiritual wanderers with nothing they truly hold sacred, just things they like to wrap their actions up in. I don't like them at all, and I think their lives possibly might have been worse for finding a license to "not bother if it's a bother". (which many of the Faith-justified Christians sects (and others _also_ grant).

Meep.

Well, that is what's more important. The quintessential nature of it is what most applies itself. The superficiality of form restricts perspective and disallows an abundance of free thought, which is the staple of true spiritualism.

Sola fide, huh?

Charlemagne should have killed more!
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c009113/images/charlemagne-carte.jpg

Hole in the theory: Satanism isn't Wiccan, Pagan, or even Neo-pagan. It's a radical flipside form of the Abrahamic religions. Satan = Lucifer which came from the Bible. Just because you thumb your nose at YHWH doesn't make you pagan. I look at Satanism and say, backwards, forwards, slantways or running up a hill, it's still the Our Father.

The only religion I think that can be truly called Paganism is Hinduism. They didn't have a Christian-fueled purge and even the country's Muslims are having trouble conquering it, whenever they try. I'm using antiquity as a yardstick: Hinduism goes back to the beginnings of the Indic culture and continues in an unbroken line to this day. Wiccan and Neopaganism did not, they're reformist religions in that they're trying to rebuild themselves after a catastrophe.

The old pagan religions had lots of really, really f*cked-up things they were responsible for, too. Many of them, including the Norse and the Romans, used human sacrifice, it wasn't just the Aztecs. Using that qualifier, Wicca and Neopaganism are preferable to the old religions since they DO NOT utilize human sacrifice, and mostly frown (or at least take in the proper context) on animal sacrifice, too. Gods and Goddess forfend we ever get big enough to do that again. If you think about it, the Jihadist movement in Islam -- with their suicide bombers -- relies as heavily on human sacrifice as the Aztec state religion did.

In another regard, I consider Wicca and Neopaganism to be superior to the old pagan religions in that the Burning Times made us wiser, or at least of a more mystical/internalized spirituality. In antiquity, you didn't join Paganism or Wicca, it was what you were and what you believed. Today, the Wiccan and Neopagan movements are entirely recruited through individual cause. They are *chosen* by the individual participants instead of inculcated. Children are put under a protective working because their parents want them to survive and grow up because they love them, but that protection does not require that the child be Pagan or Wiccan all their life. Most of them choose to continue and are initiated, some don't and are not penalized socially for their decision. The only other religious group I know of that does this is the Amish.

In the main, most of my fellow Neopagans and Wiccans are intellectual types who chose their current spirituality and who are sincere folks trying to resurrect a corpse. One doesn't pass through death without being transformed, after all...

For the record, I'm an eclectic Neopagan.

Yes I can. That isn't religion. That's the need for social structure and belonging, as found in psychology (which I have had courses in! XD). Not religion.

Managed to get a little personal philosophy from the beginning of physics too, but then I got lost, so... yeah. English - well, when we had "Humanities" which is somehow English in high school. It involved a lot of philosophy.
But what psychology doesn't teach you (so have I) is that human characteristics are intertwined sometimes beyond clinical separation. Not everything is so black and white as it seems. What you call "religion" is really "spirituality." Religion is composed of both the individual and social aspects. You cannot simply claim one part doesn't exist to suit your perspective of the definition. Religion may fulfill many needs, but that doesn't mean not all of those fulfilling properties are separate from the notion of religion itself. Those needs play into the whole spiritual realm. People not only seek fulfillment of belonging and suchlike from other people, but from the hope that some being is keeping an eye one them, that something is protecting them and coddling them as a parent might a small child, something beyond the mere helplessness they feel in the scope of the world around them. And people can, within the structure develop and explore each others' spirituality. Usually they don't, can't or won't, but it does happen. So the social structure is relevant to the discussion at least in such a manner. It also tends to secularize and diminish the significance of spirituality and must be recognized as an essential part of religion, for good or ill.

My Physics teacher was a scholar and unofficial philosopher. He taught me much without teaching me anything. I didn't have Humanities. But I always enjoyed entertaining my teacher with my depth of insight despite my lack of effort. I always did my papers the morning they were due and got A's on all of them. Best in the class, even. No competition at all.

Personally, I think neo-paganism is pretty cool, and count myself as a sometime believer, but not in terms of the whole "we've got a history directly stretching back to the paleolithic era" thing; just in terms of revering mother earth.
I don't conisder myself a witch or even a wiccan, really, or even do any kind of magic. I just revere nature. It's fun. (Just making that clear.:p )

As far as I'm concerned, there is no God, or gods, or flying spaghetti monsters, or anything else that could be considered a diety.

BUT!

People should worship whatever they wish. That is their right. So long as they DO NOT HARM ANYONE with it--and yes, that includes making laws based upon morals stemming from the beliefs and other, similar ways of forcing it upon others--I'm fine with it. It's those that push it on others that piss me off.

Hell, my sister is neo-pagan. My girlfriend is neo-pagan. My other sister combines neo-paganism and Christianity. My parents are Christians. Not a one of them has tried to force any of their beliefs on me at all, nor have I mocked their beliefs. People may worship freely. That is their right.

What's your view on paganism? Do you think that neo-pagans like Wiccans are just plain satanic, and that the Christians did us a favour by wiping out all of the original European pagan religions? Or do you think that pagan religions are just as good, if not better, than Abrahamic religions?

Personally I think that a whole bunch of gods who make themselves known throughout our daily lives in little ways (or big ways such as earthquakes) makes more sense than one all powerful, all knowing dude and his son who turns water into wine and wrote the Da Vinci Code. But that's just my opinion.

What's your view?

I think pagans are just troublemaking scum.
Let 'em worship their way into Hell. :D

i may be a bit biased, seeing as i am Wiccan, and i've grown up in a Wiccan community, but i personally think that if you're going to have a religion, then Wicca is the way to go. no holy book to follow, no set times to "go to church", no "church" at all in fact, no need to look all formal for rituals, we can wear lots of pretty costumes, we can have rituals to celebrate holidays in pretty redwood groves instead of a stuffy building, handfastings aren't long and boring like church weddings, women have full rights in regards to everything (unlike Islam), and no need to kill all infidels (again, unlike Islam, where it seriously does say in the Koran "kill all infidels").

i thought religion was silly untill i was about ten, and i still think it's a little silly, but it's fun. being a teenager is really easy in Wicca, because 1) we're allowed to swear, 2) there's not really "sins" that you can commit. we only have one "commandment" and that is "do what ye will, and harm none."

i'm not trying to sound like a missionary trying to convert people or anything, i'm just trying to defend my religion, or at least give people reasons not to hate it.

<33:p

Hole in the theory: Satanism isn't Wiccan, Pagan, or even Neo-pagan. It's a radical flipside form of the Abrahamic religions. Satan = Lucifer which came from the Bible. Just because you thumb your nose at YHWH doesn't make you pagan. I look at Satanism and say, backwards, forwards, slantways or running up a hill, it's still the Our Father.

The only religion I think that can be truly called Paganism is Hinduism. They didn't have a Christian-fueled purge and even the country's Muslims are having trouble conquering it, whenever they try. I'm using antiquity as a yardstick: Hinduism goes back to the beginnings of the Indic culture and continues in an unbroken line to this day. Wiccan and Neopaganism did not, they're reformist religions in that they're trying to rebuild themselves after a catastrophe.

The old pagan religions had lots of really, really f*cked-up things they were responsible for, too. Many of them, including the Norse and the Romans, used human sacrifice, it wasn't just the Aztecs. Using that qualifier, Wicca and Neopaganism are preferable to the old religions since they DO NOT utilize human sacrifice, and mostly frown (or at least take in the proper context) on animal sacrifice, too. Gods and Goddess forfend we ever get big enough to do that again. If you think about it, the Jihadist movement in Islam -- with their suicide bombers -- relies as heavily on human sacrifice as the Aztec state religion did.

In another regard, I consider Wicca and Neopaganism to be superior to the old pagan religions in that the Burning Times made us wiser, or at least of a more mystical/internalized spirituality. In antiquity, you didn't join Paganism or Wicca, it was what you were and what you believed. Today, the Wiccan and Neopagan movements are entirely recruited through individual cause. They are *chosen* by the individual participants instead of inculcated. Children are put under a protective working because their parents want them to survive and grow up because they love them, but that protection does not require that the child be Pagan or Wiccan all their life. Most of them choose to continue and are initiated, some don't and are not penalized socially for their decision. The only other religious group I know of that does this is the Amish.

In the main, most of my fellow Neopagans and Wiccans are intellectual types who chose their current spirituality and who are sincere folks trying to resurrect a corpse. One doesn't pass through death without being transformed, after all...

For the record, I'm an eclectic Neopagan.my mom's ex-teacher is an eclectic neopagan.

She discussed the personal part, so I focused on the undiscussed social aspects. Of course, there can be the spirituality, which I consider entirely personal, but it isn't always present.

I await your explanation, for your post leaves much elaboration to be desired.
You really are too generous, mistress. I don't deserve you.;)
It's in keeping with the distinction you drew in another post between religion as a social construct and spirituality as a personal experience. I'm just adding the opinion that the personal experience of spirituality is connected to a way of experiencing and understanding reality, and processing that understanding into a, hopefully, balanced and harmonious way of interacting with the world. As a variety of human thought, I see spirituality as a tool with which to address and overcome very primal fears and anxieties in each individual, and that, in itself, is good for society. I actually think spirituality is a more important "survival tactic" than ritualized religious practice. Because it originates in the individual, I don't think society will ever "outgrow" it, and because of the beneficial effects it can have, I don't think we should try to outgrow it.

But what psychology doesn't teach you (so have I) is that human characteristics are intertwined sometimes beyond clinical separation. Not everything is so black and white as it seems. What you call "religion" is really "spirituality." Religion is composed of both the individual and social aspects. You cannot simply claim one part doesn't exist to suit your perspective of the definition. Religion may fulfill many needs, but that doesn't mean not all of those fulfilling properties are separate from the notion of religion itself. Those needs play into the whole spiritual realm. People not only seek fulfillment of belonging and suchlike from other people, but from the hope that some being is keeping an eye one them, that something is protecting them and coddling them as a parent might a small child, something beyond the mere helplessness they feel in the scope of the world around them. And people can, within the structure develop and explore each others' spirituality. Usually they don't, can't or won't, but it does happen. So the social structure is relevant to the discussion at least in such a manner. It also tends to secularize and diminish the significance of spirituality and must be recognized as an essential part of religion, for good or ill.

My Physics teacher was a scholar and unofficial philosopher. He taught me much without teaching me anything. I didn't have Humanities. But I always enjoyed entertaining my teacher with my depth of insight despite my lack of effort. I always did my papers the morning they were due and got A's on all of them. Best in the class, even. No competition at all.

Yes I can. :D No, what I'm saying is that that isn't religion, although yes, most people put it with their religion. I'm saying that it's something else. I'm not saying what it is or anything, I'm just saying that it isn't religion.

Sounds like you guys had an understandible physics program, which is more than can be said for my school... :rolleyes:

Yes I can. :D No, what I'm saying is that that isn't religion, although yes, most people put it with their religion. I'm saying that it's something else. I'm not saying what it is or anything, I'm just saying that it isn't religion.

Sounds like you guys had an understandible physics program, which is more than can be said for my school... :rolleyes:
I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, but if you're going to say that what most people call "religion" isn't religion, you are going to have to come up with an explanation of what you think it actually is.

I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, but if you're going to say that what most people call "religion" isn't religion, you are going to have to come up with an explanation of what you think it actually is.

I did! That's the whole point of a definition.

I did! That's the whole point of a definition.
If you already defined it, why did you say this?
Originally Posted by Pride and Prejudice
<snip>I'm not saying what it is or anything, I'm just saying that it isn't religion.<snip>

If you already defined it, why did you say this?

No, I'm saying that the social part isn't religion, but that I'm not going to say what the social part is. I defined religion itself earlier.

No, I'm saying that the social part isn't religion, but that I'm not going to say what the social part is. I defined religion itself earlier.
Yeah, I got that. What I'm saying is that, if you acknowledge that most people include the ritualized social constructs in their standard definitions of religion, but you are saying we should not do that, then you're going to have to try, at least, to say what you think those social constructs really are -- politics, cultural identity, etc -- or order to justify why we should separate them from the concept of "religion." You can't just look at 1000s of years of practice and say, "Well, this part isn't really a valid part of it, so we're just going to ignore it," and expect people to accept that argument. If it's not religion, you are eventually going to need to have some idea of what it is.

It's in keeping with the distinction you drew in another post between religion as a social construct and spirituality as a personal experience. I'm just adding the opinion that the personal experience of spirituality is connected to a way of experiencing and understanding reality, and processing that understanding into a, hopefully, balanced and harmonious way of interacting with the world. As a variety of human thought, I see spirituality as a tool with which to address and overcome very primal fears and anxieties in each individual, and that, in itself, is good for society. I actually think spirituality is a more important "survival tactic" than ritualized religious practice. Because it originates in the individual, I don't think society will ever "outgrow" it, and because of the beneficial effects it can have, I don't think we should try to outgrow it.
Spirituality, no, won't be outgrown. Not by all, anyway. But society itself tends to have more secular motives. Those we should try to outgrow, not spirituality itself. I don't think it's a tool so much as an essential part of us as humans. We naturally seek the source of the greatest power, for whatever purpose.

Yeah, I got that. What I'm saying is that, if you acknowledge that most people include the ritualized social constructs in their standard definitions of religion, but you are saying we should not do that, then you're going to have to try, at least, to say what you think those social constructs really are -- politics, cultural identity, etc -- or order to justify why we should separate them from the concept of "religion." You can't just look at 1000s of years of practice and say, "Well, this part isn't really a valid part of it, so we're just going to ignore it," and expect people to accept that argument. If it's not religion, you are eventually going to need to have some idea of what it is.

I said that it's the need to be in a group, but FD started having a hissy fit, so I'm not giving it a name anymore.

i love pagans, they seem to be the ultimate woman present

i love pagans, they seem to be the ultimate woman present

What about the guys?

What about the guys?

pagans are presents for everyone

pagans are presents for everyone

Right... I fail to see how this is true, but okay...

Right... I fail to see how this is true, but okay...

are you a pagan?

i love pagans, they seem to be the ultimate woman present

I have read this sentence several times, and it still doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about?

Yes I can. :D No, what I'm saying is that that isn't religion, although yes, most people put it with their religion. I'm saying that it's something else. I'm not saying what it is or anything, I'm just saying that it isn't religion.

Sounds like you guys had an understandible physics program, which is more than can be said for my school... :rolleyes:
No, I had the wisest man alive for Physics. The program itself was horrible. He made it feasible, and next year it will have improvements, but I won't be there, naturally.

And as to the rest, well, I don't think pressing the point will get me any further. End of that argument's road.

I have read this sentence several times, and it still doesn't make sense.

What are you talking about?

i'm talking about why i like pagans... der

i'm talking about why i like pagans... der

What do you mean by the "ultimate woman present"?

are you a pagan?

What does that have to do with anything?

No, I'm saying that the social part isn't religion, but that I'm not going to say what the social part is. I defined religion itself earlier.
I maintain that you defined "spirituality" earlier, not religion.

What does that have to do with anything?

why can't you answer the question?

why can't you answer the question?

Because I want to know why you want to know, so that I know if I want to answer that question...

Plus, I'm eclectic, and this has been somewhat explained on another thread!

why can't you answer the question?
She shouldn't if it isn't relevant.

Because I want to know why you want to know, so that I know if I want to answer that question...

Plus, I'm eclectic, and this has been somewhat explained on another thread!

"selective, not following any one school of thought"?

im a pagan, that's why i wanted to know

i'm sorry i have not been lucky enough to view such a thread

She shouldn't if it isn't relevant.

well... who asked you?

Hinduism gave us the racist and discriminatory caste system, in addition to numerous internal battles justified on the basis of Dharma. Shinto excused and endorsed feudal Samurai warfare. South American paganism in various forms gave us human sacrifice like no other. The Greeks, as intelligent as they were, had little more respect for woman than Christian or Muslim society. Those are some general ideas, we could get into specifics. And, when religions that don't fit into the category of Western monotheism are examined, they aren't as pretty as modern pop culture likes to paint them.



lol yea the greeks didn't even sleep with women. The he's were she's, the she's were he's, the he's slept with he's, the she's slept with she's, and the trannies slept with everyone.

lol yea the greeks didn't even sleep with women. The he's were she's, the she's were he's, the he's slept with he's, the she's slept with she's, and the trannies slept with everyone.

oh my life, really?

I think it's fine when people are serious and know what they're talking about. My beliefs would probably be classified as neopagan, at least when I bother to get off my apathetic-agnostic ass about them. But the problem is that it's been so popularized people have a lot of misconceptions about it. If they just really liked Willow on Buffy, or if they think neo-Wicca is the same as the ancient Irish religion, then they need some sense injected into their heads.

"selective, not following any one school of thought"?

im a pagan, that's why i wanted to know

i'm sorry i have not been lucky enough to view such a thread

Ah. Wiccan-Quaker, with some interest in the Buddhist philosophy. Yes, I've managed to get Wicca and... er... Quakerism?... to reconcile. It's actually quite easy when you know the two really well.

Eclectic - taking what you like from various different religions.

I think it's fine when people are serious and know what they're talking about. My beliefs would probably be classified as neopagan, at least when I bother to get off my apathetic-agnostic ass about them. But the problem is that it's been so popularized people have a lot of misconceptions about it. If they just really liked Willow on Buffy, or if they think neo-Wicca is the same as the ancient Irish religion, then they need some sense injected into their heads.

Or when they think that Wicca is like Charmed, although at least that's closer to Wicca than Willow's bit... but not by much...

I think it's fine when people are serious and know what they're talking about. My beliefs would probably be classified as neopagan, at least when I bother to get off my agnostic ass about them. But the problem is that it's been so popularized people have a lot of misconceptions about it. If they just really liked Willow on Buffy, or if they think neo-Wicca is the same as the ancient Irish religion, then they need some sense injected into their heads.

People do indeed seem to think "pagan" is just another word for Wiccan. Even some "pagans" seem to think that.

Have you noticed that a lot of genuine reconstructionist religions are now making a point of distancing themselves from the term "pagan"?

I feel especially sorry for the Celtic recons. Those guys have enough trouble without having their gods "used" by every DIY "Wiccan" and her dog and having to put up with everyone thinking they follow the Rede and all the rest.

Ah. Wiccan-Quaker, with some interest in the Buddhist philosophy. Yes, I've managed to get Wicca and... er... Quakerism?... to reconcile. It's actually quite easy when you know the two really well.

Eclectic - taking what you like from various different religions.

aha it seems with your eclectic ways you are one step ahead of the game, no?

yes, I am with you on the buddhist philosophy, certainly

aha it seems with your eclectic ways you are one step ahead of the game, no?

yes, I am with you on the buddhist philosophy, certainly

Well, yes, as my religion/spirituality fits me, not me fitting it, which is they way it should be. Religion/spirituality should enhance a person, not kill them.

Well, yes, as my religion/spirituality fits me, not me fitting it, which is they way it should be. Religion/spirituality should enhance a person, not kill them.

once again, i agree. it is a fool who believes otherwise

once again, i agree. it is a fool who believes otherwise

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the majority of the world. :rolleyes:

Which, unfortunately, seems to be the majority of the world. :rolleyes:

yes

well... who asked you?
Don't be a prick.:rolleyes:

Eclectic - taking what you like from various different religions.
Actually, it just means "universal," or "drawing from a variety of sources." Your definition is a bit too esoteric.

Actually, it just means "universal," or "drawing from a variety of sources." Your definition is a bit too esoteric.

No, that definition was the one given on the thread with the poll. Not MY definition. "Drawing from a variety of sources" is the proper definition of eclectic, yes. Which is sorta the idea occurring, so I understand where the person got his/her definition from...

Don't be a prick.:rolleyes:

why is that being a prick?

No, that definition was the one given on the thread with the poll. Not MY definition. "Drawing from a variety of sources" is the proper definition of eclectic, yes. Which is sorta the idea occurring, so I understand where the person got his/her definition from...
That definition is flawed.
"We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/Borg-Intro.jpg

why is that being a prick?
If you don't understand something so simple, then I won't waste my time trying to explain it.

If you don't understand something so simple, then I won't waste my time trying to explain it.

gannet

FD and Muravyets: You're right. However, if you WANT to apply form because you feel like it WORKS, it's A-OK. Form is allowed, and even recommended, only not over substance, and not preventing OTHER forms either. :)

(I've seen magickal works using even comic book characters. And working. Perfectly.)

I said that it's the need to be in a group, but FD started having a hissy fit, so I'm not giving it a name anymore.
Fine by me, but you're not going to carry your argument that way. That is, if it ever comes up in a debate where you're trying to persuade somebody to switch from opposing you to agreeing with you.

FD and Muravyets: You're right. However, if you WANT to apply form because you feel like it WORKS, it's A-OK. Form is allowed, and even recommended, only not over substance, and not preventing OTHER forms either. :)

(I've seen magickal works using even comic book characters. And working. Perfectly.)
I don't denounce form altogether, just that substance should determine form, not the other way around.

Spirituality, no, won't be outgrown. Not by all, anyway. But society itself tends to have more secular motives. Those we should try to outgrow, not spirituality itself. I don't think it's a tool so much as an essential part of us as humans. We naturally seek the source of the greatest power, for whatever purpose.
I don't know if spirituality is about getting in touch with a source of the greatest power or if it's about establishing and maintaining harmony between inner and outer realities, or maybe both, but in general, we agree. :)

I don't denounce form altogether, just that substance should determine form, not the other way around.
Ditto. Although good form is a must with shared experiences. I read an old account once about Tibetan Bon shamans and lamas performing spirit coercions -- to tame troublesome ghosts at cemeteries or what have you. If the shamans were performing the ritual for a non-shaman audience, it was dramatic form, with music and dance and the whole works. Same if a master shaman was leading a novice in the ritual. But if a master were doing it alone, or if a bunch of masters were doing the ritual together, they just sat in silent meditation. This was because the masters understood the spiritual substance of the matter and did not need to express what they were doing outwardly. The ritual forms were for bringing all levels of mind into the reality of the moment.

Fine by me, but you're not going to carry your argument that way. That is, if it ever comes up in a debate where you're trying to persuade somebody to switch from opposing you to agreeing with you.

I'm not arguing it! FD asked what the definition was that I came up with in philosophy club! Sheesh!

I'm not arguing it! FD asked what the definition was that I came up with in philosophy club! Sheesh!
Okay, okay.

I don't know if spirituality is about getting in touch with a source of the greatest power or if it's about establishing and maintaining harmony between inner and outer realities, or maybe both, but in general, we agree. :)
That is the greatest power: balance.

That is the greatest power: balance.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Ditto. Although good form is a must with shared experiences. I read an old account once about Tibetan Bon shamans and lamas performing spirit coercions -- to tame troublesome ghosts at cemeteries or what have you. If the shamans were performing the ritual for a non-shaman audience, it was dramatic form, with music and dance and the whole works. Same if a master shaman was leading a novice in the ritual. But if a master were doing it alone, or if a bunch of masters were doing the ritual together, they just sat in silent meditation. This was because the masters understood the spiritual substance of the matter and did not need to express what they were doing outwardly. The ritual forms were for bringing all levels of mind into the reality of the moment.
Yes, but the form can be molded to the substance. That's the essential point of it. They didn't create a substance that fit inside the form.

I wholeheartedly agree!
Because you recognize the truth.:)

Because you recognize the truth.:)

Yup. Something I've known and recognized for a long time.

Yup. Something I've known and recognized for a long time.
Well, some anyway. I doubt you recognize all truth.:p

Well, some anyway. I doubt you recognize all truth.:p

Yes, yes I do :D

Yes, yes I do :D
So what's the meaning of life?:p

So what's the meaning of life?:p

To keep God from getting lonely.

To keep God from getting lonely.
Sorry, wrong religion.:p Try again.

Sorry, wrong religion.:p Try again.

Doesn't matter if that's not your religion. It's still the meaning of life.

Doesn't matter if that's not your religion. It's still the meaning of life.
Are you trying to tell me my life has no meaning because it has no God?:p

Are you trying to tell me my life has no meaning because it has no God?:p

Yes. Clearly.
<_<
>_>
:D :D :D :D

Yes. Clearly.
<_<
>_>
:D :D :D :D
Well, you're half right. There is no God.:p But you still have the wrong answer.

Well, you're half right. There is no God.:p But you still have the wrong answer.

No, I have the right answer. Read the beginning of Genesis. :D

My best friend is Wiccan, so I really take exception to people making light of her beliefs.

No, I have the right answer. Read the beginning of Genesis. :D
You missed the "wrong religion" thing, didn't you? That book has no real value to me. The whole thing is one over-embellished historical account.

You missed the "wrong religion" thing, didn't you? That book has no real value to me. The whole thing is one over-embellished historical account.

Your religion is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. My answer is right. :D

Your religion is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. My answer is right. :D
Nope. That's my line. Your answer is not universally applicable, and therefore wrong.
http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/Borg-Intro.jpg

Nope. That's my line. Your answer is not universally applicable, and therefore wrong.
http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/Borg-Intro.jpg

Yes it is. We will assimilate all who find it not applicable. With laws. And bills. And Congress, once we can get the right people voted in... :D

FD and Muravyets: Exactly. Essence determines form, which is why every occultist has a different style. Even within a given ideology.

Yes it is. We will assimilate all who find it not applicable. With laws. And bills. And Congress, once we can get the right people voted in... :D
That makes you evil, not right.

That makes you evil, not right.

Blasphemy! You will be assimilated! :D

FD and Muravyets: Exactly. Essence determines form, which is why every occultist has a different style. Even within a given ideology.
No, no. Essence should determine form. Where the problem lies is with the masses who think that form should determine essence.

Blasphemy! You will be assimilated! :D
I've already broken those bonds. You can't enslave me. I'm too far along the path of enlightenment. In the opposite direction of your kind.:p

I've already broken those bonds. You can't enslave me. I'm too far along the path of enlightenment. In the opposite direction of your kind.:p

Enlightenment is irrelevant. Resistence is futile. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!!!!!11111 :D

(same here in the real, not joking, world)

Paganism, free masons, catholics are all the same, based on lies and myths.

I will re-write the Scriptures to make it more funny...

Okay well, I think it's stupid to generalise paganism...like you can't generalise Abrahamic religions at all...also, someone said this (dunno how to do the quote thing):
To be honest, Wicca and neo-paganism seem incredibly stupid.
For anyone of you who say stuff like that, then i think it's incredibly stupid to make statements like that unless you've really looked into a religion and come to truely understand it, you have to know what you're talking about.
It just seems to me that a lot of the people who are posting are very ignorant about this whole topic...

Enlightenment is irrelevant. Resistence is futile. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!!!!!11111 :D

(same here in the real, not joking, world)
*develops lethal computer virus and spreads it throughout the Collective*:p

(I can tell. But I think I've made it a little further. Not gloating or patronizing, just noting our relative positions.)

*develops lethal computer virus and spreads it throughout the Collective*:p

(I can tell. But I think I've made it a little further. Not gloating or patronizing, just noting our relative positions.)

(I don't think so. Maybe, but you haven't gotten to see most of my enlightenment-related stuff yet. So far I've just spoken about religion and politics.)

No, no. Essence should determine form. Where the problem lies is with the masses who think that form should determine essence.

Again right, FD. Do tell, are you an occultist?

This is the god I think I'm gonna pay lipservice to now -

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

(I don't think so. Maybe, but you haven't gotten to see most of my enlightenment-related stuff yet. So far I've just spoken about religion and politics.)
(Doesn't matter. I can see enough. Some of your spam responses tell me as much as well.)

Again right, FD. Do tell, are you an occultist?
Always right.:p And no, I'm not an occultist. At least, I don't think I am.:p

(Doesn't matter. I can see enough. Some of your spam responses tell me as much as well.)

No, trust me. You haven't seen anything to tell you what you need to make that assumption.

This is the god I think I'm gonna pay lipservice to now -

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

"Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again," said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. "Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand."

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called "an unending cycle of violence."

"I don't care how holy somebody claims to be," God said. "If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again."

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

"I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important," said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. "I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?"

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as "wonderful, pious people," calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

"This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason," God said. "There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club."

Continued God, "Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain."

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

"I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time," God said. "The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades."

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: "Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp."

"Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!" God said. "The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?"

"I'm talking to all of you, here!" continued God, His voice rising to a shout. "Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!"

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders began to shake, and He wept.

NICE!!!

Yeah, I love The Onion

Always right.:p And no, I'm not an occultist. At least, I don't think I am.:p

Okay, but, still, you've shown some grasp of important tidbits. :)

Yes, but the form can be molded to the substance. That's the essential point of it. They didn't create a substance that fit inside the form.
Yes.

That is the greatest power: balance.
Yes to this too.

No, no. Essence should determine form. Where the problem lies is with the masses who think that form should determine essence.
Or who think the form is the essence.

Another example is that they ignore what we do know. There are many neo-pagans today that claim to be "Druids" and follow some sort of Druid path. How many of them sacrifice humans ritually? Real Druids did. Yet, they've ignored that part for their watered-down version.


Actually, it is debated whether this was actual, or was Roman and later Christian propaganda. Due to the fact that Druidry came under attack from two different groups that hated it, it is one of the religions most completely wiped out. What little information we do have on it mostly comes from the Romans and Christians, who were, well, trying to wipe it off the face of the Earth (and they largely succeeded).

It is thought that most of Druidic traditions, myths and rituals were passed down orally. All religions tend to believe that they'll be around forever, so they perhaps didn't see a need to write it down. Whoops.

It is thought that most of Druidic traditions, myths and rituals were passed down orally. All religions tend to believe that they'll be around forever, so they perhaps didn't see a need to write it down. Whoops.
I had always theorised that it was in order to make sure that people learnt it in order, and with the blessing of an elder druid.

I had always theorised that it was in order to make sure that people learnt it in order, and with the blessing of an elder druid.

Likely. There was probably more than one reason. The idea that their religion would be around forever was probably part of why they didn't see any reason to write it down, and what you've just said gave them a good reason not to.

I had always theorised that it was in order to make sure that people learnt it in order, and with the blessing of an elder druid.

They had to pass things on orally,
for they were analphabetic.

They had to pass things on orally,
for they were analphabetic.

Actually, by the time Caesar conquered Gaul, they were writing some things down, at least not religious ones, using Greek and Latin script (at least Caesar apparently said so).

Actually, by the time Caesar conquered Gaul, they were writing some things down, at least not religious ones, using Greek and Latin script (at least Caesar apparently said so).

*one raised eyebrow*
So they managed to write their own name and all that?

Not quite enough to pass down much in the way of instructions, really.

*one raised eyebrow*
So they managed to write their own name and all that?

Not quite enough to pass down much in the way of instructions, really.

More like day to day things, most likely. Notes, lists, other such mundane things.

For the lack of religious documents, in addition to the idea that almost all religions have that they're going to be around forever and the reason saxnot mentioned of greater supervision, by the time their society started using writing, the tradition had probably already been long-established, and we all know how religions tend to resist change. Also, with both the Romans and later the Christians trying to wipe out their religion, it seems unlikely that if any religious documents ever existed (doubtful for the already mentioned reasons), the Romans/Christians would have done their best to destroy them.

More like day to day things, most likely. Notes, lists, other such mundane things.

For the lack of religious documents, in addition to the idea that almost all religions have that they're going to be around forever and the reason saxnot mentioned of greater supervision, by the time their society started using writing, the tradition had probably already been long-established, and we all know how religions tend to resist change. Also, with both the Romans and later the Christians trying to wipe out their religion, it seems unlikely that if any religious documents ever existed (doubtful for the already mentioned reasons), the Romans/Christians would have done their best to destroy them.

*yawn*
The point remains the same.
They did not have the capacity to pass their culture on beyond their own existence.
Therefore, they are an irrelevant phenomenon.

I think your religion is as silly as any other.

Except Scientology, it takes religion to a whole new level of whacky.

I think your religion is as silly as any other.

Except Scientology, it takes religion to a whole new level of whacky.

Scientology is no organised religion, it merely is organised theft.

No, trust me. You haven't seen anything to tell you what you need to make that assumption.
Perhaps not. It makes no difference. You need no help finding the path, so my energies are better spent elsewhere, not bickering with you about who's further. I am curious to observe, however, to see if my impressions are wrong.

Okay, but, still, you've shown some grasp of important tidbits. :)
Aye, you are correct. I do recognize many important facets of occultism. My religion is the universe, after all.

They had to pass things on orally,
for they were analphabetic.
I thought they used Ogham. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but... yeah...

Yes.
Naturally.:)

Yes to this too.
But of course.

Or who think the form is the essence.
Usually a derivative of what I said. They think form should determine essence. Therefore, by their logic, the form must be the essence.

Scientology is no organised religion, it merely is organised theft.
And remember kids, "Friends don't let friends be scientologists."

Again minding: You CAN apply some form, but it should be the form YOU pick.

So are you saying that all of the protestant religions arn't, in fact, christian?

I'll say it and in fact with that very reasoning. it'd be like a classicaly (sp?) trained french chef trying to pass of an italian dish as a branch of french quisine (sp? again) they're both food, but they're not both french.

similarly a protestant and a catholic are both people but when the prot churches split off they ceased to hold to original christianity and founded something that could legitimately(sp?) be called un-christian though not definitively anti-christian.

when a road forks both sides are not still called elm st.

Again minding: You CAN apply some form, but it should be the form YOU pick.
Ah, but that is still molding form to the essence, not the other way around.

I'll say it and in fact with that very reasoning. it'd be like a classicaly (sp?) trained french chef trying to pass of an italian dish as a branch of french quisine (sp? again) they're both food, but they're not both french.

similarly a protestant and a catholic are both people but when the prot churches split off they ceased to hold to original christianity and founded something that could legitimately(sp?) be called un-christian though not definitively anti-christian.

when a road forks both sides are not still called elm st.

disagreement. your problem is by your definition of what is truly a Christian. Christianity is defined by the following of Christ's teachings, and so long as their doctrines are still logically congruent with the teachings and explained as such, yes they are still Christian.

a note here: if you grow a tree, its branches are part of that tree, no matter how you wish to put it. in other words, Christianity is an umbrella term for protestants, catholics, eastern orthodoxy, oriental orthodoxy, restorationists, etc., and so it does not matter if it follows early Christianity or not, but so long as they sync with Christ's teachings, they are Christian.

your idea of true Christianity, however, is that it (for some strange reason or other) must follow early Christianity. do you see the problems, then? what if early Christianity could have been wrong? you can't tell, of course, but it's always a possibility.

I'll say it and in fact with that very reasoning. it'd be like a classicaly (sp?) trained french chef trying to pass of an italian dish as a branch of french quisine (sp? again) they're both food, but they're not both french.

similarly a protestant and a catholic are both people but when the prot churches split off they ceased to hold to original christianity and founded something that could legitimately(sp?) be called un-christian though not definitively anti-christian.

when a road forks both sides are not still called elm st.
It's really more like changing lanes than diverging roads.

Ah, but that is still molding form to the essence, not the other way around.

Precisely. :)

Precisely. :)
Then stop being so circular!:p

Or who think the form is the essence.

:eek: Scary! Those people really DO scare me...

Perhaps not. It makes no difference. You need no help finding the path, so my energies are better spent elsewhere, not bickering with you about who's further. I am curious to observe, however, to see if my impressions are wrong.

Furthermore, after the initial bit, having someone tell you doesn't help - you have to find it on your own. In fact, in some cases, it hinders it...

:eek: Scary! Those people really DO scare me...
They are the unrestrained masses. They should scare you. Their tyranny is the worst.

They are the unrestrained masses. They should scare you. Their tyranny is the worst.

*shivers* Oo, don't remind me... *hides*

Then stop being so circular!:p

I'll think about it. :p

Furthermore, after the initial bit, having someone tell you doesn't help - you have to find it on your own. In fact, in some cases, it hinders it...
Yes, it can. But I'm not trying to help you by telling you. You may pick up on little things I have realized that you haven't, or I may notice things you have seen that I haven't, but that is still our own respective quests for understanding.

Yes, it can. But I'm not trying to help you by telling you. You may pick up on little things I have realized that you haven't, or I may notice things you have seen that I haven't, but that is still our own respective quests for understanding.

Exactly! And that's the way it should be.

*shivers* Oo, don't remind me... *hides*
Sorry. I'm reading Democracy in America at the moment.

I'll think about it. :p
As you wish. Think well, at least.;)

Exactly! And that's the way it should be.
Naturally. I would have it no other way. I really appreciate those who need no nudging in that direction. They always fascinate me to no end.

Btw, "Pain" by Jimmy Eat World is Teh Pwnz0r of songs.

Naturally. I would have it no other way. I really appreciate those who need no nudging in that direction. They always fascinate me to no end.

Btw, "Pain" by Jimmy Eat World is Teh Pwnz0r of songs.

"Sweet Surrender" by Sarah McLachlan is very insightful, although "Black and White" is more fun.

"Sweet Surrender" by Sarah McLachlan is very insightful, although "Black and White" is more fun.
I may investigate your claims later. What sort of music is it?

I may investigate your claims later. What sort of music is it?

It's... well... it's... erm... something like... eh...
It's Sarah McLachlan. :( Sorry. Can't do better for finding you the genre name.

Personally, I like Illari for Easy Listening. Very much soul music. *nods* Have a few others like it to, but Illari is the best.

It's... well... it's... erm... something like... eh...
It's Sarah McLachlan. :( Sorry. Can't do better for finding you the genre name.

Personally, I like Illari for Easy Listening. Very much soul music. *nods* Have a few others like it to, but Illari is the best.
Okay. I'm curious now, so I'll prolly do that in six or seven hours. You may be inclined to remind me if you're around.

Okay. I'm curious now, so I'll prolly do that in six or seven hours. You may be inclined to remind me if you're around.

I suppose technically, she's sort of between rock and pop, but her music isn't really like either in the stereotypical sense, so I never want to call it either of those... Sweet Surrender - you have to listen to the words to find what I'm talking about there. Black and White - mostly just the sound that I appreciate.

And Illari's music is almost impossible to find, but the best stuff ever!

I suppose technically, she's sort of between rock and pop, but her music isn't really like either in the stereotypical sense, so I never want to call it either of those... Sweet Surrender - you have to listen to the words to find what I'm talking about there. Black and White - mostly just the sound that I appreciate.

And Illari's music is almost impossible to find, but the best stuff ever!
I gathered as much. I like both the sound and the lyrics to "Pain," but some songs just have better music or lyrics. And I'll test your propaganda later.:p

I gathered as much. I like both the sound and the lyrics to "Pain," but some songs just have better music or lyrics. And I'll test your propaganda later.:p

You gathered as much... which, what I said about Sarah McLachlan, or what I said about Illari? Heh, I'd like to see you try to test what I'm saying about Illari...