Attn: Mountain Man. Where the rubber hits the road: Wicca vs. Christianity

[Durthorin]

...
Aren't they just? The ways of the Lady, on the other hand, are usually pretty straight-forward. That doesn't mean She can't be a real pain in the butt sometimes, but it's usually for our benefit. But never our destruction or damnation.

Arion

*wince* A lesson I learned over... and over before it stuck.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Augustine2004]

You still don’t seem to be getting the point that hypocrisy does not mean that Christianity, say, is not the true way. The Conquistadors were indeed nominally Christian, but their behavior was often not. Seeing that you immediately reject Christianity. Communism often seemed to have espousers that were more ‘faithful,’ but IMO was all the more awful. The Conquistadors certainly didn’t kill as many people or enslave them as Red Russia and Red China did. That’s not to excuse the Spaniards, but to emphasize you’re making a mistake to look at people’s acts as a guide to what is the true way.

Certainly, for success in any endeavor that doesn’t depend on blind luck, self-mastery and self-knowledge are usually indispensable. I think I now understand what you mean by Wiccan power.

I wouldn't venture to label hypocrisy as evil, but I'd certainly call if a potentially devastating weakness. And I don't slight ethics -- far from it. Wicca and the other traditions delve into personal and societal ethics pretty extensively. I'll concede that it's harder without an artificial external yardstick as a benchmark, but then again Wisdom is organic and fluid in nature, as are most ethical situations.

Ethics, for all the philosophizing through the millenna, is not settled. Many systems of ethics have been proposed, but we have yet no compelling philosophical reason to choose one of them. We do have evidence of conscience and common elements of morals throughout the world. For example, the commandment to not murder is found virtually everywhere. However, philosophy does not seem to have gotten anywhere in Ethics otherwise.

I don't think I know what you mean by, 'Wisdom is organic and fluid in nature, as are most ethical situations.' Certainly, we have to put our ethical principles in an hierarchy--or they will conflict or we will have to decide on a case-by-case basis which principle among others should take precedence.

and if the faith in question is set up to encourage hypocrisy, even by accident, it leads to a stronger vein of hypocrisy in the followers of that faith.

I would like to have a specific example or more.

Actually, there's quite a lot of evidence. I refer you to Mircia Eliade and other secular religious studies professionals who have documented the purge of female elements from Judaism, Christianity and Islam repeatedly during their formative years.

Wow, they know more than the Bible authors about the beginnings of Judaism.

Jehovah especially had an axe to grind with the Goddesses of the Ancient Near East, which is pretty regularly demonstrated throughout the OT.

The Bible does say Jehovah is a jealous god. It also says it's the one God. The Goddesses and all the other gods are chimeras

And in the first three centuries of the common era, the Church Fathers went after the Goddess cults of the Roman Empire with a vengeance and sought to purge any vestige of Goddess-oriented practice and iconography from Christianity. Look at how thoroughly the Gospel of Mary was suppressed, for example. Of course a lot of those pagan Goddesses were re-invented as saints, once their more "offensive" attributes were purged.

'Vengeance'? Anyway, I'm not going to defend Roman Catholicism.

The key phrase is "not supposed to" . . . but the evidence is pretty strong that women have been demeaned and subjected to derision throughout the history of Christiandom. Again, while the faith may not technically be hypocritical, when it comes to the practice of the faith the way the religion is structured certainly encouraged such hypocrisy. Had the early Church Fathers had the sense to equate the Holy Spirit with the Goddess, and build a real Holy Family, no doubt the history of the religion and the world would be quite different.

Again, I will not defend Roman Catholicism or anything like that (Eastern Orthodoxy perhaps should be included also). I agree, no doubt history would be different . . ., but better? The right world? I beg to differ. Again, I would still like a detailed discussion of how 'the religion' is structured to encourage hypocrisy. I can believe R.C. is guilty of that, but I certainly would appreciate evidence or documentation.

Only it doesn't. China, certainly, enjoyed a sophisticated civilization long before Abraham, and while the Classical world was concurrent with the development of Judaism, archeology and history suggest that the Pentatuch, wherein the fable of Genesis and Adam & Eve was written for the first time, came after the development of the earliest elements of Classical civilization.

OK, so you don't believe the Bible's account of the starts of the Universes and of humanity. Civilization started with Adam and Eve; you boggle at that notion, rolling your eyes around like marbles inside a tumbling ball.

And I think your contention about the virtue of a civilization is highly culturally dependent. How does one measure virtue? And where does a civilization begin and end? Murky waters, those.

Writing as an amateur philosopher, I quite agree.

Clarify, please. Are not male and female necessary for the survival of the species?

Yes, but how does it follow that the Godhead must be dually sexed?

I contend that my religion is based upon human universals, and that's a biggie.

Do you know what David Hume said, that you can't logically derive 'ought' statements from 'is' statements? Now, defining ‘religion’ is like trying to catch a greased teflon-coated pig. However, I am rather doubtful about scientifically founding and developing a religion.

I consider a religion that lacks a strong feminine element, including a feminine Godhead, is by definition crippled.

YOUR definition.

Considering how patriarchal the ancient Semites were (and, of course, the early Church Fathers and the early Muslims) it isn't unreasonable to conclude that their religion, as a reflection of their society (or the other way around, if you like) developed an anti-woman/anti-Goddess bias early on and kept returning to that principal throughout most of the history of the Big Three.

I won’t speak for Islam. Let me point out that an anti-woman/anti-Goddess bias (YOUR term) exists today, even though the world is much less 1/4 Christian-Judaist in terms of actual faith. It’s true that men do stuff that women generally don’t do. It’s also true that women do stuff that men are simply unable to do.

but then some subjective truths ("love conquers all", etc.) often trump our "objective" reality.

I guess you teach that having a good attitude is necessary and possible, no matter how bad things seem. I’m not sure, however, in view of your reply to franktalk.

My bad. But you're so certain of the veracity (or lack thereof) of heavily documented history books written within the last century, yet you accept the "history" of Genesis with regards to Adam & Eve? Do you hold Moses to the same academic standards as Churchill?

First, you seem to think Pat Buchanan didn’t base his history on documents, nor was Human Smoke. Second, you don’t realize histories are necessarily selective. What gets into them depends on the bias of the authors. A book by a Communist will differ considerably from a book by an anti-state guy.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...7978680&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Be...7978716&sr=1-1


I believe Jesus Christ was a real guy. I believe his claims as recounted in the Bible. So, if Jesus Christ endorsed Moses’ teachings, . . .

Um, the utter contradiction of the palentological and archeological record with the myth as related in Genesis? Would that do?

I’m not sure. I’m struggling to understand what Genesis means. I think two things:
* Science is not yet completely settled. And it may yet turn out to be wrong. Many times the Bible was declared to be wrong, and later science wound up with egg on its face. (Permit a joke here - no wonder chickens aren’t plentiful now.)
* We don’t yet have the correct interpretation or understanding of Genesis. Glenn Morton’s efforts to achieve that are interesting nonetheless.

There's no more historical evidence of Adam & Eve than there is for the creation stories in the Upanishads, the Enuma Elish, or any number of Eastern texts. I accepts them all equally -- as hagiography. Every human culture has myths and legends about the origins of man and the universe. Most are derivative or syncretic with other, older myths and legends. That's fine -- each of them has a lot of subjective truth, wisdom and magick in them, and I welcome that. It's when someone tries to insist that their particular tribe's legends should be accepted as objective history that I object. The fact that nearly every square inch of our globe has at one time or another been under water, for instance, does not prove the veracity of the Flood myth in the OT. It more strongly suggests that the ancients who originally told the myth had ancestors who experienced a particularly devastating flood (not uncommon in the fertile crescent) and the oral history of that flood was incorporated into the myth by a canny and literate Egyptian priest (Moses) in an attempt to give his followers a sense of community and legitimacy while they wandered in the desert. So, I suppose this is opinion, but well-informed opinion.

OK. Do you not agree, though that absence of evidence is not evidence of fiction as opposed to fact?

Were not the ancient Greeks (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, et. al.) the developers of logic and reason?

Before that, it was a matter of sheer luck that humanity survived that long.

I'd say that was pretty strong evidence -- although there's evidence to suggest that the disciplines of logic and reason were independently discovered or re-discovered in the early Buddhist communities of India. Which passage of the OT are you suggesting puts forth logic and reason in so coherent a manner as the Greeks?

I think the Bible as we have it now was a transcription, if that’s the correct term, of a much more ancient oral body of educational stuff. You’re too impressed by books versus folksay.

Who says I can't?

What!? What did you read out of my post? Or do you really think you can thwart God’s plan for the universe? Satanic ego.

And do you mean God the Demiurge (the "Nature's God" of the Deists), or Jehovah, the National God of Israel?

Neither. God of us all.

God either created Evil or he didn't. The former indicates a lack of benevolence, and the later suggests a lack of omnipotence. Saying that no one can possibly understand the mysterious mind of god is a cop-out. Doing so excuses just about any serious problem in reason and erodes the intellectual integrity of the faith. I can't accept that essential hypocrisy without a far more profound and compelling reason than "because I said so." if Jehovah was detail-oriented enough to lecture the Hebrews on the dangers of pork and shellfish, surely he could have managed a little basic cosmology?

It’s not for creatures to tell the Creator what is evil and what is good. God did tell us not to murder, but it doesn’t follow that God is not to create someone like Hitler or allow a huge tsunami that kills thousands of people. As for trying to cop-out with saying that I don’t know why, try this exercise:
Imagine coming up to Picasso. You ask, ‘Why did you paint Guernica [click here to see an image
http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/WarAr...s/Picasso.html
] in such a strange way?’ Now, tell us what you think Picasso’s response would be.

[franktalk]

tmancour ,

That was very helpful. Thanks for the information.

Now I understand there are different spirit dimensions. Are these difference levels of spiritual existence? And does one elevate with learning and experience from one to another? If so who determines that?

The Goddess of the earth, is this for the universe or does each earth have their own? Are the spirits limited to this world or do they move about on different worlds?

[tmancour]

tmancour ,

That was very helpful. Thanks for the information.

Now I understand there are different spirit dimensions. Are these difference levels of spiritual existence? And does one elevate with learning and experience from one to another? If so who determines that?

Well, different traditions offer different explicit answers to that, so "your mileage may vary". But the general consensus among the Wise is that the process is shared between the Gods, the Ancestors, and yourself. Think of existence as a university, where every lifetime is a class. The Gods are your instructors, your Ancestors are fellow classmen, but you control which classes to take (with advisement) between incarnations. There isn't a real "hierarchy", as much as a curriculum. You may spend several incarnations working on the basic, required courses, but every now and then you can take a few fun electives. Most of my previous incarnations were of the "Freshmen English 101" variety, where I learned things like the value of friendship, love, hard work and creative thinking. I'm sure I've got plenty left to do, of course, but I'm in no hurry to graduate. That's about as good an analogy as I can think of.

The Goddess of the earth, is this for the universe or does each earth have their own? Are the spirits limited to this world or do they move about on different worlds?

Both. The Goddess and the God are both primal Demiurgic deities, but other manifestations are more earthy. Since most folks have a hard time conceptualizing the Cosmic Gods as useful personal forces in their lives, we often conceive of Them as more anthropomorphic and personable. Think of the raw, naked energy that comes from our Sun in the form of light and heat as a symbol for the radiance and power of the Cosmic forces -- what Monotheists usually think of in terms of an almighty Demiurgic Cosmic God. That naked force would be deadly and withering if you attempt to face it and contend with it daily, and it soon proves to be overwhelming. That same light, when reflected by the full Moon and/or filtered through our atmosphere, is far more bearable. It's the same light, diminished, but still useful. Since most of us don't have the innate strength and forebearance to endure the concept and reality of the naked power of the Cosmic Deity, our minds help us filter our relationship to it with helpful aspects and manifestations of Divinity.

There's an old Wiccan saying that many of us like: "All Gods Are One God, and All Goddesses Are One Goddess." The Goddess of the Earth is a reflection of the Cosmic All-Mother, the same in rough concept, except that the Earth Mother is often seen as being the mother of all plants and animals and men in our world, while the Cosmic Mother is seen as being the mother of all Galaxies, stars, and planets. Same deity, but a different manifestation at a higher octave. Still more personally, conceptualizing the Goddess as the All-Mother, while often helpful, might not be the most useful thing in a meditation or prayer. So the individual practitioner sometimes invokes another, more personal aspect of the divinity. In my case (and, I believe, Durthorin's) the Goddess I most often invoke is actually Brighead, the Celtic Athena, an elemental fire-goddess who the Christians adopted as St. Brigit. In that aspect the Goddess, while still reflective of Her Cosmic and Earthly aspects, is more concerned with the creative elements of fire, magick, smithcraft, poetry, fiction, healing, midwifery, children, crafts, baking and righteous vengeance. For some Wiccan's that's a little too specific, so they are content to invoke the All-Mother or one of the other manifestations. But the same spark of divinity that enflames the Cosmic Goddess is present in the specific aspect of the divinity you invoke.

This is, of course, very much at odds with the Abrahmic conception of divinity, which sees the Cosmic Demiurge (male variety) as the only really valid conceptualization of divinity -- the God of Adam, Abraham and Job. But even within the Abrahamic lore it's recounted over and over again how Man cannot bear to view the naked face of God. Hence all the burning bushes, descending doves and angelic messengers. The Cosmic principal is just too vast for most human beings to get their minds around, and it's not particularly useful on a day-to-day basis, which is why each of the Big Three has developed ritualistic means to commune with Divinity without belaboring its Cosmic nature. In Judaism it's the maintenance of the Covenant that is emphasized; in Christianity it's the relationship with the much-more personable avatar Jesus (and to a lesser extent Mary and the Saints). In Islam the communion is distilled into five daily prayers that allow a brief and intense experience that culminates, ultimately, in the Haj ritual. But only the most devout mystics who don't have anything better to do can experience the Cosmic Divinity aspect for any length of time . . . and in a lot of cases it drives them mad.

Helpful?

[tmancour]

Ethics, for all the philosophizing through the millenna, is not settled. Many systems of ethics have been proposed, but we have yet no compelling philosophical reason to choose one of them. We do have evidence of conscience and common elements of morals throughout the world. For example, the commandment to not murder is found virtually everywhere. However, philosophy does not seem to have gotten anywhere in Ethics otherwise.

True. Ethics are highly variable, both by culture and individual. That's part of the richness of the Human Condition. It's also a potential trouble spot in neighborly relations. Case in point: When European colonists first settled America, the Natives sought to "welcome" them by including them in a kind of ritualized warfare that had its own separate code of ethics and morality that emphasized personal bravery and a stoic nature in the context of an "honor" culture. That meant that when one of the persistent raids the Indians were used to doing on each other since time immemorial led to the taking of hostages and captives, the Indians "honored" their prisoners by means of gruesome tortures that allowed them to demonstrate their bravery and stoic nature. To the Christians, however, these tortures were abominations and cruelty in the sight of God, and under their cultural ethical system, founded on Christianity and Chivalry, it gave them a justification for wiping the heathens out wholesale. Oops.

I don't think I know what you mean by, 'Wisdom is organic and fluid in nature, as are most ethical situations.' Certainly, we have to put our ethical principles in an hierarchy--or they will conflict or we will have to decide on a case-by-case basis which principle among others should take precedence.

But don't they? "Cut-and-dried" ethical issues are never a problem. Joe kills his neighbor, Joe goes to jail for murder. But if Joe's neighbor was threatening Joe and his family, the ethics of the situation get a little more murky. If Joe's neighbor was threatening Joe and sleeping with Joe's wife behind his back, the situation is even more murky. If Joe's wife is pregnant and Joe's neighbor is claiming to be the dad, then the waters are very muddy indeed. So while in principal the ethics of murder are straightforward, with the acknowledgement that murder is morally reprehensible, the facts of each ethical situation are, indeed, what determine your ethics on a case-by-case basis. In particularly murky situations we can look to our customs and ethical laws for guidance, but where the rubber meets the road we turn to Wisdom to resolve such cases on an individual basis.

I would like to have a specific example or more.

Okay. Take the example above. The Ten Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill", which seems straightforward enough. Don't kill people. Good rule of thumb. A Commandment from On High, even, engraved in stone and unequivicable. Yet every religion who has adopted that Commandment as part of its base moral code uses public executions to enforce it's temporal rule and theological dominance, even when the taking of life seems pretty darned restricted by Holy Writ. There are all sorts of great justifications created to get around the law, but the fact remains that the civilizations and religions founded on "Thou Shalt Not Kill" have done a fair amount of killing over the years in apparent violation of their primary code of morality. I call that hypocrisy, and when the same document that pushes a "no kill" law as a direct commandment from God also has people slaughtering Philistines with gay abandon a few pages later, you can see why I might consider that institutionalized hypocrisy.

Wow, they know more than the Bible authors about the beginnings of Judaism.

In point of fact, they do. The "bible authors" were not historical scholars, they were priests and holy men divinely inspired to write their visions and experiences down. In most cases they didn't quote their sources or provide supporting documentation for their claims. Nor did they look at their writings in a larger historical and cultural context, or have the benefit of archeology and comparative religion. Modern secular scholars have had that benefit, and have been able to establish some pretty solid information and several astute theories about the formation of various religions. A useful analogy here is sports: a star athlete might know everything necessary to compete and achieve in his chosen venue, but it would be a mistake to see that accomplishment, however noteworthy, as equivalent to a sports historian, an exercise physiologist, or even a crazed fan who absorbs every bit of minutia about the game and its origins.

The Bible does say Jehovah is a jealous god. It also says it's the one God. The Goddesses and all the other gods are chimeras

But Christianity isn't the only religion to have made that claim -- why is the Bible necessarily more compelling or valid than any other religious text? I'd have to establish that before I could treat any claims within the Bible with any more veracity than the others. And after 40 years of listening to preachers and theologians, I still haven't found a compelling enough reason for me to do so.

And that brings me to a question: is all Good from God? Or is it possible that one can be a perfectly Good person and still be "ungodly"?

'Vengeance'? Anyway, I'm not going to defend Roman Catholicism.

Perhaps not. But you cannot deny that the every question you pose about Christianity is filtered through a thousand years of the Catholic Church's control of the religion. Or do you favor the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Church as more legitimate carriers of the Word of God during that interlude? Or were there just no real Christians around during that time? This is one of the things I find intellectually annoying about discussing Christianity with Christians -- their unwillingness and inability to take responsibility for the entirety of their faith, wanting only to emphasize the "good" Christians and distance themselves from the "bad" ones. As such, it makes all denominations about the same in my mind. I value religions that are willing to take responsibility, I suppose.

Again, I will not defend Roman Catholicism or anything like that (Eastern Orthodoxy perhaps should be included also). I agree, no doubt history would be different . . ., but better? The right world? I beg to differ. Again, I would still like a detailed discussion of how 'the religion' is structured to encourage hypocrisy. I can believe R.C. is guilty of that, but I certainly would appreciate evidence or documentation.

My above-referenced issue with the Ten Commandments is an example, but there are plenty more. I suppose part of my beef is with the very idea of a religion being based on a legal contract (the Covenant). I believe that this legalistic interpretation of religion, while fascinating, is ultimately encouraging of hypocrisy. Consider the commandment to rest on the sabbath. Apart from modern and medieval interpretations about this, the ancient Hebrews, instead of just adhering to this commandment steadfastly, went out of their way to find ways around the commandment in an effort to pay attention to the letter of the law while violating its spirit. When the Sabbath fell while a Jew was on a journey, for instance, instead of sitting tight and possibly getting behind schedule, it was decided that a real journey was moving ten miles or more from where you ate. So the Jews in question would send their non-Jewish servants ahead nine miles ahead to set a meal, after which they were free to move another nine miles for another meal, etc. That's a kind of religious hypocrisy that is set up by a legalistic religion.

OK, so you don't believe the Bible's account of the starts of the Universes and of humanity. Civilization started with Adam and Eve; you boggle at that notion, rolling your eyes around like marbles inside a tumbling ball.

Yes . . . because the account doesn't match any of the established facts. Science has pretty well established that according to the archeological record there was no point in prehistory where there were just two people. We evolved, and lived in large populations on the this planet, for the last hundred thousand years. Civilization as such has been here for at least ten-thousand, perhaps more. When the story in Genesis isn't congruous to any of the other established facts, one must either abandon all reliance on the scientific method and go back to thinking the earth is flat, or one must reconsider the "truth" of the Garden of Eden as hagiography and myth.

Yes, but how does it follow that the Godhead must be dually sexed?

Because the alternative is that the Godhead is either sexless (which contradicts the Bible's version of events, since Jehovah made Adam in his own image and created Eve as an afterthought) or Jehovah has a penis and is decidedly Male in gender. If Jehovah is Male, then what point are male generative organs if there are no female generative organs around? Does God have a vestigial penis? That seems a little far-fetched, even for the whackiest of Christians. A dual-Godhead reflective of male and female polarity is more elegant and makes more sense from a theological perspective.

Do you know what David Hume said, that you can't logically derive 'ought' statements from 'is' statements? Now, defining ‘religion’ is like trying to catch a greased teflon-coated pig.

True -- because religion is many different things all at once. It has a social, economic, cultural, and spiritual componant, and trying to conflate all of these into one institution, or even in one body of thought, is fraught with a minefield of problems. But for my purposes I use this definition: "Religion is the intellectual exercise used to describe an individual or culture's total response to the rest of the universe." All of my other reasoning descends from that axiom.

However, I am rather doubtful about scientifically founding and developing a religion.

Understood. I wouldn't say that Wicca and Neo-Paganism is scientifically founded, but the religion, as it has evolved, has become well-informed by scientific theory and principals without being overwhelmed by them. Science and religion only work at odds to each other with revelatory faiths, particularly textual-based ones. But Neo-Paganism is an openly syncretic religion, which sees science, reason, logic, as well as other spiritual disciplines as useful servants. Science adds to our understanding of the universe we seek to relate to, and is flexible enough to not be hidebound doctrinally to minor points.

YOUR definition.I won’t speak for Islam. Let me point out that an anti-woman/anti-Goddess bias (YOUR term) exists today, even though the world is much less 1/4 Christian-Judaist in terms of actual faith. It’s true that men do stuff that women generally don’t do. It’s also true that women do stuff that men are simply unable to do.

It might be "much less" than 1/4 of the population, but the global bureaucratic infrastructure of laws and custom is based on the Christian European model, and that has a profound influence (some good, some bad) on the entire globe. I won't speak here to Hindu and Buddhist countries, much less tribal religions (many of which have been heavily influenced by Islam or Christianity at this point) but within "Christiandom" it's interesting to note that those nations where women enjoy the greatest equality and freedom, legally and culturally, are the Scandinavian countries where church attendance and identification with Christianity has fallen to historically low levels. Iceland is a great example, because of it's unique position as the only "European" nation to never really give up Paganism as its cultural bedrock. Iceland was converted to Christianity in the 14th century by royal decree from Denmark. While there were monasteries and churches present at the time, the people still practiced Norse paganism and kept pagan social customs long after they had been abandoned by the rest of Europe. It's remote location kept it insulated from the religious wars of the Reformation, and the Icelanders didn't mind what other people called their religion. It remained a relatively intact Pagan culture until WWII, when the British and Americans began using it as a base for trans-Atlantic populations. The cultural clash was profound. Young unwed mothers were not derided and scorned from society the way that they were in Europe and America. Bastardy was common and inheritance decided by custom. Adultery and "fornication" of various sorts was tolerated as a social issue, not a religious one. A minor but important point was the fact that Icelanders didn't have surnames, the way that the rest of Christian-derived civilization had developed, and darned few "Christian" names. To this day the phone books there list everyone by first-name-father's-child, like Eric Thorvaldson, or Dagnir Ericsdottir.

The key here is to see the profound difference between the social customs and legal systems (which shape society and culture) where the Church and Christian values were not heavily influential for a thousand years. In the Icelandic culture, which was still culturally pretty patriarchal, women enjoyed freedoms and rights far in excess of their Christian peers in more "civilized" places, and did not suffer any Church-imposed stigma to their sexuality.

I guess you teach that having a good attitude is necessary and possible, no matter how bad things seem. I’m not sure, however, in view of your reply to franktalk.

Which part? Yes, a good attitude usually gets a lot more accomplished, and is therefore a staple on the Path of Wisdom. Crappy attitudes get you nowhere.

First, you seem to think Pat Buchanan didn’t base his history on documents, nor was Human Smoke. Second, you don’t realize histories are necessarily selective. What gets into them depends on the bias of the authors. A book by a Communist will differ considerably from a book by an anti-state guy.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...7978680&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Be...7978716&sr=1-1

I actually accept that as an axiom. My point is that while you accept that idea about modern historians, when viewing the Bible as history you don't seem to want to entertain that perhaps those Biblical historians who wrote the texts were themselves selective and in possession of biases that made their way into their work and were later mistaken for "divine".

I believe Jesus Christ was a real guy. I believe his claims as recounted in the Bible. So, if Jesus Christ endorsed Moses’ teachings, . . .

I'll grant that Jesus was a real guy. I'll grant that there are some impressive claims made in the Bible. But I'll go further and state that a conclusion as to exactly what his teachings and beliefs were cannot be established without an examination of all source material, evaluated in context, including the Apocrypha and the Nag Hammadi scrolls. The teachings of Jesus were not limited to the book that came out of the Council of Nicea, when viewed in that context, despite the doctrinal issues involved. And while Jesus seems to endorse the teachings of Moses, one has to keep in mind that he was a Jew preaching to Jews, and that he was building on the concepts of history, prophecy and law that came out of the Jewish tradition. Since the Jews claimed to have an exclusive agreement with the Cosmic God, and Christianity grows out of that tradition, then one cannot separate Christian religion from Judaism and look at the message of Jesus without the heavy filter of Judaism. Or it least if you did, they cut your head off and burned you at the stake or something for a thousand years, which is bound to stifle such debate. There's a lot of value and wisdom in the teachings of Jesus, but one can appreciate those without necessarily adopting the entire semitic tribal religion in the process.

I’m not sure. I’m struggling to understand what Genesis means. I think two things:
* Science is not yet completely settled. And it may yet turn out to be wrong. Many times the Bible was declared to be wrong, and later science wound up with egg on its face. (Permit a joke here - no wonder chickens aren’t plentiful now.)

Example, please?

* We don’t yet have the correct interpretation or understanding of Genesis. Glenn Morton’s efforts to achieve that are interesting nonetheless.

After five thousand years, you still haven't figured it out? And who gets to decide who's interpretation and understanding is valid?

OK. Do you not agree, though that absence of evidence is not evidence of fiction as opposed to fact?

Mayhap. I'd more properly say that a lack of evidence reduces the supportability of a particular proposition. There are thousands of pieces of scientific evidence that deny the literal interpretation of Genesis. There are a few dozen pieces of evidence, mostly self-referential and provided by biased sources, which support the literal interpretation of Genesis. The preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that the actuality of historical events differs significantly from the account as told in Genesis. QED.

Before that, it was a matter of sheer luck that humanity survived that long.I think the Bible as we have it now was a transcription, if that’s the correct term, of a much more ancient oral body of educational stuff.

Actually, the way that the Torah and the other books of the OT were put together within the Hebrew tribal religion are fairly well understood. And when reading the OT comparatively with extensive tribal histories from other cultures and even literate hagiographies (The Upanishads, the Enuma Elish, and the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance) there are strong similarities in structure and composition, suggesting that most oral history traditions are similar in nature if not scope or content.

You’re too impressed by books versus folksay.

The irony of that comment coming from a Christian is delicious. Thank you!

What!? What did you read out of my post? Or do you really think you can thwart God’s plan for the universe? Satanic ego.

I just don't think you're in possession of God's plan for the universe. I think it's more complicated and sophisticated than can be related in one book. Or in any book. And Satan is a Christian divinity, not one o' mine. I'll cop to the ego, though, on the basis that it's the foundation for the creative impulse. Blame Jehovah for making me that way.

Neither. God of us all. It’s not for creatures to tell the Creator what is evil and what is good.

But according the Christian tradition, by virtue of the Fall of Man we have that knowledge. Is all Good from God? Can there be recognizable Good without God? Is all that God does inherently Good? Was his prohibition from Adam eating from the Tree based on his fear of being judged by his own creations? Is God capable of doing Evil (like, say, wiping out all of humanity with a flood) and escaping responsibility for it? Does God have a conscience? Lots of important questions, there. And not much clear guidance from the Primary Source Material.

From my perspective, like pornography, I know Good and Evil when I see it. I would rather be a Good pagan than a hypocritical Christian -- which is what I would be, should I ever (Goddess forbid!) convert. But since I reject that cosmology with the rest of the Bible, it really doesn't trouble me any.

God did tell us not to murder, but it doesn’t follow that God is not to create someone like Hitler or allow a huge tsunami that kills thousands of people. As for trying to cop-out with saying that I don’t know why, try this exercise:
Imagine coming up to Picasso. You ask, ‘Why did you paint Guernica [click here to see an image
http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/WarAr...s/Picasso.html
] in such a strange way?’ Now, tell us what you think Picasso’s response would be.

Easy. "Because that's the way I saw it." He was responding to events. If the Universe at large is God's response to some traumatic event in his past (which would explain a lot about Jehovah's character, actually) that would be one thing. But according to doctrine the Universe is his sole creation, and he has sole responsibility for it's function. He's not reacting to reality, he's creating it. Big difference.

[Augustine2004]

To the Christians, however, these tortures were abominations and cruelty in the sight of God, and under their cultural ethical system, founded on Christianity and Chivalry, it gave them a justification for wiping the heathens out wholesale. Oops.

Perhaps you misswrote (‘wholesale’ = genocide?). However it seems as though you blame true Christianity for the failings of people. That’s not logical. You ought to know that the Bible itself gives us a great many stories of people failing to uphold true Judaism or Christianity. The Crucifixion of Jesus is a case in point. Again, you err in rejecting Christianity on the basis of the acts of people, or you are taking cheap shots at Christianity by pointing at certain acts.

But don't they? "Cut-and-dried" ethical issues are never a problem. Joe kills his neighbor, Joe goes to jail for murder. But if Joe's neighbor was threatening Joe and his family, the ethics of the situation get a little more murky. If Joe's neighbor was threatening Joe and sleeping with Joe's wife behind his back, the situation is even more murky. If Joe's wife is pregnant and Joe's neighbor is claiming to be the dad, then the waters are very muddy indeed. So while in principal the ethics of murder are straightforward, with the acknowledgement that murder is morally reprehensible, the facts of each ethical situation are, indeed, what determine your ethics on a case-by-case basis. In particularly murky situations we can look to our customs and ethical laws for guidance, but where the rubber meets the road we turn to Wisdom to resolve such cases on an individual basis.

We do need judges. You know that there’s a whole book in the Bible called Judges.

Okay. Take the example above. The Ten Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill", which seems straightforward enough. Don't kill people. Good rule of thumb. A Commandment from On High, even, engraved in stone and unequivicable. Yet every religion who has adopted that Commandment as part of its base moral code uses public executions to enforce it's temporal rule and theological dominance, even when the taking of life seems pretty darned restricted by Holy Writ. There are all sorts of great justifications created to get around the law, but the fact remains that the civilizations and religions founded on "Thou Shalt Not Kill" have done a fair amount of killing over the years in apparent violation of their primary code of morality. I call that hypocrisy, and when the same document that pushes a "no kill" law as a direct commandment from God also has people slaughtering Philistines with gay abandon a few pages later, you can see why I might consider that institutionalized hypocrisy.

Are you sure it’s not ‘murder’? Deliberate killing for selfish reasons. Some Christians do say, ‘kill,’ but others say, ‘not just “kill”, but “murder” is the verb, the action that is prohibited.’

In point of fact, they do. The "bible authors" were not historical scholars, they were priests and holy men divinely inspired to write their visions and experiences down. In most cases they didn't quote their sources or provide supporting documentation for their claims. Nor did they look at their writings in a larger historical and cultural context, or have the benefit of archeology and comparative religion. Modern secular scholars have had that benefit, and have been able to establish some pretty solid information and several astute theories about the formation of various religions. A useful analogy here is sports: a star athlete might know everything necessary to compete and achieve in his chosen venue, but it would be a mistake to see that accomplishment, however noteworthy, as equivalent to a sports historian, an exercise physiologist, or even a crazed fan who absorbs every bit of minutia about the game and its origins.

The ancients didn’t practice history like we do today. You seem to think, therefore, it’s to be rejected or is grossly inferior. Phooey! Besides, Abraham’s encounters with God or his angels, for one thing, you just won’t believe, just because there’s no evidence other than eyewitness testimony.

But Christianity isn't the only religion to have made that claim -- why is the Bible necessarily more compelling or valid than any other religious text? I'd have to establish that before I could treat any claims within the Bible with any more veracity than the others. And after 40 years of listening to preachers and theologians, I still haven't found a compelling enough reason for me to do so.

A major reason I became Christian is that I came to believe that Christianity has a historical basis second to none. Jesus Christ was a real person according to most serious historians–that’s what I’ve read anyway. The Bible has been examined and investigated many, many times over the centuries, and it always seems to come through. Sure, doubters pop up all the time, but they never seem to manage to come up with anything new. All of the doubts have been addressed, with only some mysteries remaining. Have you seen www.tektonics.org yet?

And that brings me to a question: is all Good from God? Or is it possible that one can be a perfectly Good person and still be "ungodly"?

Well, the universe is ‘very good.’ One can keep all the Commandments but one–and fail to be a perfect saint. He would be a great sinner in fact. The one commandment would be what Jesus called the first great commandment.

Perhaps not. But you cannot deny that the every question you pose about Christianity is filtered through a thousand years of the Catholic Church's control of the religion.

Not total, surely.

Or do you favor the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Church as more legitimate carriers of the Word of God during that interlude?

All I will answer here is, I’m Protestant.

Or were there just no real Christians around during that time? This is one of the things I find intellectually annoying about discussing Christianity with Christians -- their unwillingness and inability to take responsibility for the entirety of their faith, wanting only to emphasize the "good" Christians and distance themselves from the "bad" ones. As such, it makes all denominations about the same in my mind. I value religions that are willing to take responsibility, I suppose.

Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to take responsibility for Dubya’s actions as President. See, his Dad said in a Newsweek article that Dubya read the Bible cover to cover more than once. (I don’t remember the exact wording.) I don’t think Dubya was ever really Christian, but you . . . phooey.

My above-referenced issue with the Ten Commandments is an example, but there are plenty more. I suppose part of my beef is with the very idea of a religion being based on a legal contract (the Covenant).

Yeah, right, don’t bow to my Lord.

I believe that this legalistic interpretation of religion, while fascinating, is ultimately encouraging of hypocrisy. Consider the commandment to rest on the sabbath. Apart from modern and medieval interpretations about this, the ancient Hebrews, instead of just adhering to this commandment steadfastly, went out of their way to find ways around the commandment in an effort to pay attention to the letter of the law while violating its spirit. When the Sabbath fell while a Jew was on a journey, for instance, instead of sitting tight and possibly getting behind schedule, it was decided that a real journey was moving ten miles or more from where you ate. So the Jews in question would send their non-Jewish servants ahead nine miles ahead to set a meal, after which they were free to move another nine miles for another meal, etc. That's a kind of religious hypocrisy that is set up by a legalistic religion.

Jesus himself attacked the legalism of his day, like what you cited above.

Yes . . . because the account doesn't match any of the established facts. Science has pretty well established that according to the archeological record there was no point in prehistory where there were just two people. We evolved, and lived in large populations on the this planet, for the last hundred thousand years. Civilization as such has been here for at least ten-thousand, perhaps more. When the story in Genesis isn't congruous to any of the other established facts, one must either abandon all reliance on the scientific method and go back to thinking the earth is flat, or one must reconsider the "truth" of the Garden of Eden as hagiography and myth.

I thought until now that you agreed that we can’t be sure our current science is reliable enough. Archeology has a rather tremendous record of overturned theories by now. Consider The Bible Unearthed for example. Not a stellar example of a reliable source of facts about the ANE.

Because the alternative is that the Godhead is either sexless (which contradicts the Bible's version of events, since Jehovah made Adam in his own image and created Eve as an afterthought) or Jehovah has a penis and is decidedly Male in gender. If Jehovah is Male, then what point are male generative organs if there are no female generative organs around? Does God have a vestigial penis? That seems a little far-fetched, even for the whackiest of Christians. A dual-Godhead reflective of male and female polarity is more elegant and makes more sense from a theological perspective.

Nature is female, I suppose, with a *blush* and ovaries. I think you’re a whacko.

But for my purposes I use this definition: "Religion is the intellectual exercise used to describe an individual or culture's total response to the rest of the universe." All of my other reasoning descends from that axiom.

’Axiom’? I’ve never seen a definition called that before. I suspect you need to retake courses in logic, if you have taken those before. But that’s only what I’d call ‘one’s personal philosophy.’ What of the Church militant or the Church invisible, for example?

Understood. I wouldn't say that Wicca and Neo-Paganism is scientifically founded, but the religion, as it has evolved, has become well-informed by scientific theory and principals without being overwhelmed by them. Science and religion only work at odds to each other with revelatory faiths, particularly textual-based ones. But Neo-Paganism is an openly syncretic religion, which sees science, reason, logic, as well as other spiritual disciplines as useful servants. Science adds to our understanding of the universe we seek to relate to, and is flexible enough to not be hidebound doctrinally to minor points.

You do understand that science, if I’m not oversimplifying things, proceeds from the assumption that there is no spiritual dimension to the Universe? No God; no Goddess; no ancestors waiting to be reincarnated; etc.?

It might be "much less" than 1/4 of the population, but the global bureaucratic infrastructure of laws and custom is based on the Christian European model, and that has a profound influence (some good, some bad) on the entire globe. I won't speak here to Hindu and Buddhist countries, much less tribal religions (many of which have been heavily influenced by Islam or Christianity at this point) but within "Christiandom" it's interesting to note that those nations where women enjoy the greatest equality and freedom, legally and culturally, are the Scandinavian countries where church attendance and identification with Christianity has fallen to historically low levels. Iceland is a great example, because of it's unique position as the only "European" nation to never really give up Paganism as its cultural bedrock. Iceland was converted to Christianity in the 14th century by royal decree from Denmark. While there were monasteries and churches present at the time, the people still practiced Norse paganism and kept pagan social customs long after they had been abandoned by the rest of Europe. It's remote location kept it insulated from the religious wars of the Reformation, and the Icelanders didn't mind what other people called their religion. It remained a relatively intact Pagan culture until WWII, when the British and Americans began using it as a base for trans-Atlantic populations. The cultural clash was profound. Young unwed mothers were not derided and scorned from society the way that they were in Europe and America. Bastardy was common and inheritance decided by custom. Adultery and "fornication" of various sorts was tolerated as a social issue, not a religious one. A minor but important point was the fact that Icelanders didn't have surnames, the way that the rest of Christian-derived civilization had developed, and darned few "Christian" names. To this day the phone books there list everyone by first-name-father's-child, like Eric Thorvaldson, or Dagnir Ericsdottir.

Interesting, but you still take people’s acts as pointers to the true Way. Again, if nobody is on it, you would shake your head and say, no, that’s not the true way, and go off on a fruitless search. When you determine which way is the most popular, you exclaim, Aha! That is the way I’ll go, it’s the true one.

The key here is to see the profound difference between the social customs and legal systems (which shape society and culture) where the Church and Christian values were not heavily influential for a thousand years. In the Icelandic culture, which was still culturally pretty patriarchal, women enjoyed freedoms and rights far in excess of their Christian peers in more "civilized" places, and did not suffer any Church-imposed stigma to their sexuality.

Yes, Iceland was rather free, not just for women.

I actually accept that as an axiom. My point is that while you accept that idea about modern historians, when viewing the Bible as history you don't seem to want to entertain that perhaps those Biblical historians who wrote the texts were themselves selective and in possession of biases that made their way into their work and were later mistaken for "divine".

One has to go with what one has. No conclusive evidence concerning what is outside my body. I have to judge what I think I know and make decisions on that. I don’t think I can just be ‘undecided.’ I don’t think that’s possible. Better be extremely wrong than moderately right. The latter position is just simply mistaken anyway. At least maybe there’s a chance something will happen to cause me to go from being wrong to being right.

I'll grant that Jesus was a real guy. I'll grant that there are some impressive claims made in the Bible. But I'll go further and state that a conclusion as to exactly what his teachings and beliefs were cannot be established without an examination of all source material, evaluated in context, including the Apocrypha and the Nag Hammadi scrolls. The teachings of Jesus were not limited to the book that came out of the Council of Nicea, when viewed in that context, despite the doctrinal issues involved. And while Jesus seems to endorse the teachings of Moses, one has to keep in mind that he was a Jew preaching to Jews, and that he was building on the concepts of history, prophecy and law that came out of the Jewish tradition. Since the Jews claimed to have an exclusive agreement with the Cosmic God, and Christianity grows out of that tradition, then one cannot separate Christian religion from Judaism and look at the message of Jesus without the heavy filter of Judaism. Or it least if you did, they cut your head off and burned you at the stake or something for a thousand years, which is bound to stifle such debate. There's a lot of value and wisdom in the teachings of Jesus, but one can appreciate those without necessarily adopting the entire semitic tribal religion in the process.

Nonsense. What are the 2 Great Commandments? Heavy filter of Judaism! You look at trivial things and make decisions on that basis.

Example, please?

Newton’s theories were regarded as the ultimate, final ‘verdict’ of science. Then after 1905–Special Relativity! Later, General Relativity! Quantum Mechanics began even earlier. Now people are hard at work on a theory of everything–and seemingly not succeeding.

After five thousand years, you still haven't figured it out? And who gets to decide who's interpretation and understanding is valid?

Oh, wow, you HAVE figured it out! Wow. Do bestoweth unto us your understanding, please. Well, it’s possible the point is that you think the Bible ought to give an answer to every important question that is solid, comprehensive, easily understandable. Like, what is the temperature of the core of Betelgeuse? It’s not enough for you to know the 2 Great Commandments. Ah, no, those are pitifully inadequate.

Mayhap. I'd more properly say that a lack of evidence reduces the supportability of a particular proposition. There are thousands of pieces of scientific evidence that deny the literal interpretation of Genesis. There are a few dozen pieces of evidence, mostly self-referential and provided by biased sources, which support the literal interpretation of Genesis. The preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that the actuality of historical events differs significantly from the account as told in Genesis. QED.

Why ‘the literal interpretation’? I don’t know what you think that is. You’re a whacko for thinking it’s the correct way to interpret it, methinks. I guess you don’t think Glenn Morton’s interpretation is worth some attention.

Actually, the way that the Torah and the other books of the OT were put together within the Hebrew tribal religion are fairly well understood. And when reading the OT comparatively with extensive tribal histories from other cultures and even literate hagiographies (The Upanishads, the Enuma Elish, and the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance) there are strong similarities in structure and composition, suggesting that most oral history traditions are similar in nature if not scope or content.

Wow, accepting all those what historians and archaeologists say already, even though the evidence is probably far from being all in.

The irony of that comment coming from a Christian is delicious. Thank you!

You won’t accept Moses’ account, which may have been based on a good deal of folksay.

I just don't think you're in possession of God's plan for the universe. I think it's more complicated and sophisticated than can be related in one book. Or in any book. And Satan is a Christian divinity, not one o' mine. I'll cop to the ego, though, on the basis that it's the foundation for the creative impulse. Blame Jehovah for making me that way.

No, I don’t know what the plan is, beyond what the Bible says. I do believe there’s a plan. Incidentally, both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity suggest that the universe is already complete, including its future. Our individual consciousnesses hurtle through space-time in a way I don’t comprehend. Our memories are of the past only; we don’t actually experience the present, until it becomes past. And then what we know of the past is only what we can remember–correctly.

But according the Christian tradition, by virtue of the Fall of Man we have that knowledge.

Really? Maybe Adam and Eve did. However Abel’s death seems to suggest Cain’s parents failed to teach him to stay on the true way.

Is all Good from God? Can there be recognizable Good without God? Is all that God does inherently Good? Was his prohibition from Adam eating from the Tree based on his fear of being judged by his own creations?

Genesis said that after the universe was created, God thought it was ‘very good.’ I think the last question above is ridiculous.

Is God capable of doing Evil (like, say, wiping out all of humanity with a flood) and escaping responsibility for it?

Nobody can arrest God and put him on trial. Nobody can sentence him and put him in jail or execute him. If that’s not the sort of answer you’re seeking, and I don’t think so, then let me try again. Of course he is responsible, in that he did cause natural disasters or allow them to occur.

Does God have a conscience?

No, of course not, what he did is good.

And not much clear guidance from the Primary Source Material.

Wicca is transparently clear, maybe, but is it correct? The true way?

From my perspective, like pornography, I know Good and Evil when I see it.

Not if Wicca is not the true way.

I would rather be a Good pagan than a hypocritical Christian -- which is what I would be, should I ever (Goddess forbid!) convert.

If I had to choose, well, I don’t know. Maybe better a good pagan.

But since I reject that cosmology with the rest of the Bible, it really doesn't trouble me any.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘that cosmology . . . ‘ ’In the beginning . . .’?

[What would Picasso’s answer be, why did he paint Guernica that way?] Easy. "Because that's the way I saw it." He was responding to events. If the Universe at large is God's response to some traumatic event in his past (which would explain a lot about Jehovah's character, actually) that would be one thing. But according to doctrine the Universe is his sole creation, and he has sole responsibility for it's function. He's not reacting to reality, he's creating it. Big difference.

I think you missed the point. Picasso could have painted Guernica in any number of other ways. Instead he chose this specific, idiosyncratic way.

[37818]

37818 ,

The big difference between Matthew and Luke is when the events detailed occur relative to the signs. In Matthew the signs occur first. In Luke the events occur before the signs. This means we are to treat these as separate events. Now Luke does contain some end times information but it is given after a statement which changes the time frame. This would be the time of the Gentiles.

I check Roberson's Gospel Harmony, I do not see that. I see different details. But no different order of events being described.

If you think I missed what you are referring to. Give the 2 sets of parallel references which their sequence are reversed between Matthew (24:1-25:46) and Luke (21:5-36.)

Thanks.

[Augustine2004]

I check Roberson's Gospel Harmony, I do not see that. I see different details. But no different order of events being described.

If you think I missed what you are referring to. Give the 2 sets of parallel references which their sequence are reversed between Matthew (24:1-25:46) and Luke (21:5-36.)

Thanks.

franktalk, if the signs are not for the events, what were they for?

Again I caution readers to not assume too much about the temporal sequence without explicit timing phrases.

[franktalk]

tmancour ,

Thanks for answering my questions. I am beginning to understand a little of what your beliefs are.

So where does evil come from? Are there some who tap into the pagan spirituality for power and go against the will of your Goddess?

Is there any indwelling of a spirit in your beliefs? Outside of your own spirit of course.

[Durthorin]

tmancour ,

Thanks for answering my questions. I am beginning to understand a little of what your beliefs are.

So where does evil come from? Are there some who tap into the pagan spirituality for power and go against the will of your Goddess?

Is there any indwelling of a spirit in your beliefs? Outside of your own spirit of course.

I can't answer for Tmanour, but in many Pagan theologies.. it is not evil per say but imbalance. A person who wishes power over others.. and uses fear, pain, murder to do so.. is inherently out of balance with the Gods, the spirits and his community. He creates like a rock thrown into water ripples that move outward then return.. It is a concept that what we send forth into the world is returned to us. Christianity recognizes this concept as well, "As you sow, so shall you reap." What we do not have is a devil or Satan to be the author of this kind of evil. Each of us is responsible for or decisions or acts and the repercussions of those acts. So in context, Evil comes from the individual. As for those that seek personal power vis knowledge and position within the Pagan community. Yes, we have had an no doubt will have them. I like to think that the structure Pagan community and the average personality of Pagan's make this harder.. As a group we tend to question authority and be reluctant followers. The very initiatory system that was earlier discussed seems in most traditions I know to encourage that mind set. While Pagan communities are usually small and close knit.. A person known for doing something left handed would find themselves very quickly isolated or talking to their elders.

Drawing Down the Moon.. is a ritual that invokes the Goddess directly into the Priest or Priestess.

[Augustine2004]

I can't answer for Tmanour, but in many Pagan theologies.. it is not evil per say but imbalance. A person who wishes power over others.. and uses fear, pain, murder to do so.. is inherently out of balance with the Gods, the spirits and his community. He creates like a rock thrown into water ripples that move outward then return.. It is a concept that what we send forth into the world is returned to us. Christianity recognizes this concept as well, "As you sow, so shall you reap." What we do not have is a devil or Satan to be the author of this kind of evil. Each of us is responsible for or decisions or acts and the repercussions of those acts. So in context, Evil comes from the individual. As for those that seek personal power vis knowledge and position within the Pagan community. Yes, we have had an no doubt will have them. I like to think that the structure Pagan community and the average personality of Pagan's make this harder.. As a group we tend to question authority and be reluctant followers. The very initiatory system that was earlier discussed seems in most traditions I know to encourage that mind set. While Pagan communities are usually small and close knit.. A person known for doing something left handed would find themselves very quickly isolated or talking to their elders.

H'mm . . . not so bad. So, whence the bad PR? The Bible condemns witches, but perhaps they are not the same as your kind of witch.

Drawing Down the Moon.. is a ritual that invokes the Goddess directly into the Priest or Priestess.

' . . .invokes the Goddess directly into the Priest or Priestess.' I have no clear idea what that means.

My above-referenced issue with the Ten Commandments is an example, but there are plenty more. I suppose part of my beef is with the very idea of a religion being based on a legal contract (the Covenant). I believe that this legalistic interpretation of religion, while fascinating, is ultimately encouraging of hypocrisy. Consider the commandment to rest on the sabbath. Apart from modern and medieval interpretations about this, the ancient Hebrews, instead of just adhering to this commandment steadfastly, went out of their way to find ways around the commandment in an effort to pay attention to the letter of the law while violating its spirit. When the Sabbath fell while a Jew was on a journey, for instance, instead of sitting tight and possibly getting behind schedule, it was decided that a real journey was moving ten miles or more from where you ate. So the Jews in question would send their non-Jewish servants ahead nine miles ahead to set a meal, after which they were free to move another nine miles for another meal, etc. That's a kind of religious hypocrisy that is set up by a legalistic religion.

Jesus himself attacked the legalism of his day, like what you cited above.

My answer should have been better. How about this:

Jesus himself attacked the hyperlegalism of some Jews in his day. I guess, though, that’s not what you meant. So, you favor the lawless form of anarchy?

[Durthorin]

H'mm . . . not so bad. So, whence the bad PR? The Bible condemns witches, but perhaps they are not the same as your kind of witch.

The Christian view of witches is that we "are" Christains.. That we acknowledge Jesus and Yaweh and as a personal decision contract and swear fealty to Satan/The Devil for personal gain. The most common view of witches in Christian society is that we are in essence the foot soldiers of evil. The reality is like anything far different than the myth.


[QUOTE=Augustine2004;2834191
' . . .invokes the Goddess directly into the Priest or Priestess.' I have no clear idea what that means.
[/QUOTE]


"Drawing Down the Moon" is also the title of a book by National Public Radio reporter, Margot Adler— Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today—originally published in 1979. Adler writes:
"... in this ritual, one of the most serious and beautiful in the modern Craft, the priest invokes into the priestess (or, depending on your point of view, she evokes from within herself) the Goddess or Triple Goddess, symbolized by the phases of the moon. She is known by a thousand names, and among them were those I had used as a child. In some Craft rituals the priestess goes into a trance and speaks; in other traditions the ritual is a more formal dramatic dialogue, often of intense beauty, in which, again, the priestess speaks, taking the role of the Goddess. In both instances, the priestess functions as the Goddess incarnate, within the circle."

In some Christian denominations and this is a stretch so forgive, it might be equated with the gift of prophecy or speaking in tongues. There are analogs. It is a direct request for the Gods to use the priest or priestess to communicate.

Jesus himself attacked the hyperlegalism of some Jews in his day. I guess, though, that’s not what you meant. So, you favor the lawless form of anarchy?[/indent]

Law does not make men peaceful anymore than a leash makes a wolf safe. Both tend to lull someone into trusting it until the law or the leash breaks. Wicca and most Pagan faiths teach and demand a sense of total responsibility for your actions and the consequences of those actions. One might say that our faith does not leash the wolf, but requires it to choose to be a sheepdog if it wishes to live within the community. To put it in Christian terms the Lion will lay down with the lamb when the lion chooses.

[Augustine2004]

The Christian view of witches is that we "are" Christains.. That we acknowledge Jesus and Yaweh and as a personal decision contract and swear fealty to Satan/The Devil for personal gain. The most common view of witches in Christian society is that we are in essence the foot soldiers of evil. The reality is like anything far different than the myth.

I don’t think that’s correct. Witches are condemned in the Bible because they do not subject themselves–their whole being–to God (the First Great Commandment) and turned people away from God. Instead witches rely on magic rather than look to God to keep them safe from evil. My goodness, I thought you are not a Christian.

"Drawing Down the Moon" is also the title of a book by National Public Radio reporter, Margot Adler— Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today—originally published in 1979. Adler writes:
"... in this ritual, one of the most serious and beautiful in the modern Craft, the priest invokes into the priestess (or, depending on your point of view, she evokes from within herself) the Goddess or Triple Goddess, symbolized by the phases of the moon. She is known by a thousand names, and among them were those I had used as a child. In some Craft rituals the priestess goes into a trance and speaks; in other traditions the ritual is a more formal dramatic dialogue, often of intense beauty, in which, again, the priestess speaks, taking the role of the Goddess. In both instances, the priestess functions as the Goddess incarnate, within the circle."

Are such ceremonies indeed more consequential than seeing a great drama, say, the greatest Hamlet movie? If so, what are the benefits unique to the ceremonies?

In some Christian denominations and this is a stretch so forgive, it might be equated with the gift of prophecy or speaking in tongues. There are analogs. It is a direct request for the Gods to use the priest or priestess to communicate.

I have to confess I don’t know the purpose of speaking in tongues, unless they are supposed to be miracles with the purpose of providing evidence that God is real and has powers far beyond human powers. I can’t recall any example of one speaking in tongues who was also simultaneously prophesying.

Law does not make men peaceful anymore than a leash makes a wolf safe.

I quite agree.

Both tend to lull someone into trusting it until the law or the leash breaks.

I agree one must constantly be on guard. Incidentally, we must not rely on the police too much. See if any evildoing can’t be dealt with privately. Yes, vigilante justice is supposed to be bad, but unfortunately the police is not always good. In that case what choice do we have other than that? Lawsuits may work, but that can take years and enormous amounts of money. The public must still be roused from its torpor, sloth, stupidity, and miseducation anyway.

Wicca and most Pagan faiths teach and demand a sense of total responsibility for your actions and the consequences of those actions. One might say that our faith does not leash the wolf, but requires it to choose to be a sheepdog if it wishes to live within the community. To put it in Christian terms the Lion will lay down with the lamb when the lion chooses.

My goodness! If your claim is anywhere near the truth, Christendom is actually worse than Wicca and most Pagan faiths. I wonder if you see the first and second Great Commandments as part of the Law?

[franktalk]

Durthorin ,

Thanks for the information. Is there a site that describes the rites and rituals for the pagan community?

Just so you know I am a Christian with no desire to leave that faith. I have been studying different forms of belief and I thought I would learn about the pagan / Wicca life. I can see the attraction that it must have. It more closely fits with natural science on a day to day basis. It also is not highly structured on ancient documents so that it can evolve with time. Being connected to science that would be a familiar path.

I hope you don't mind but when I have a good foundational understanding I wish to chat about how does one come to a belief in Wicca and what evidence if any is used in the conversion process. It could be of course that I am way off in my questions. But I am sure you understand that all faiths have some path that people take, I would like to know what kind of path people take to get to your beliefs.

[Durthorin]

I don’t think that’s correct. Witches are condemned in the Bible because they do not subject themselves–their whole being–to God (the First Great Commandment) and turned people away from God. Instead witches rely on magic rather than look to God to keep them safe from evil. My goodness, I thought you are not a Christian.

Perhaps I should have stressed thats a Chrstian/Cultural view of what a witch is.. that is not to say its the Biblical view.. though one could argue from your statement that its somewhat supported by the Biblical view. " Witches are condemned in the Bible because they do not subject themselves–their whole being–to God" Consider, Why should we? He is after all, not our god. I worship Brighid, Danu, The Morrigan .. Lugh the Master of all arts and skills. It would to quote a friend of mine "Its like they have their Grandfather that they love and respect.. and demand that you ignore your own grandfather to love theirs.. Weird."

Are such ceremonies indeed more consequential than seeing a great drama, say, the greatest Hamlet movie? If so, what are the benefits unique to the ceremonies?

Ritual is often jokingly referred to as prayer with props. Every faith has its rituals, some small some large.. but their purpose is to bring you into a state where you hear the Divine. I would therefore say the benefit is not unique.. for it exists in many ways within a Southern Baptist Church service, A Catholic High Mass.. etc..

I have to confess I don’t know the purpose of speaking in tongues, unless they are supposed to be miracles with the purpose of providing evidence that God is real and has powers far beyond human powers. I can’t recall any example of one speaking in tongues who was also simultaneously prophesying.

Its is one of the gifts, its purpose eluded me when I was a Christian.. but in this context, The Goddess speaks.. in many cases what is said has deep meaning for those listening. Some times its advice, sometimes a warning.. sometimes comfort.. when receives from it what one is ready to receive with and open heart and spirit.


e

. I agree one must constantly be on guard. Incidentally, we must not rely on the police too much. See if any evildoing can’t be dealt with privately. Yes, vigilante justice is supposed to be bad, but unfortunately the police is not always good. In that case what choice do we have other than that? Lawsuits may work, but that can take years and enormous amounts of money. The public must still be roused from its torpor, sloth, stupidity, and miseducation anyway. My goodness! If your claim is anywhere near the truth, Christendom is actually worse than Wicca and most Pagan faiths. I wonder if you see the first and second Great Commandments as part of the Law?

Its is part of your law. It is something you should note.. the first two commandments are not... about living in peace, not about moral behavior.. they are about your God telling you that he's number one and anyone worshiping anyone else is going to catch it. You an I can agree on social codes that make stealing and murder wrong.. but I shall not agree to allow you to force me to be a Christian or destroy my places of worship.. because your god is "jealous" that I love my Gods. An unfortunately the history shows that Christians historically and often used conversion by the sword. Thus, the leash of law.. I will not prove to you the validity of my path.. I will punish you if you follow another.. thus leading to Conversion by the Sword..

Blessed Be, Dur