Justin's understanding of Wicca

[technomage]

Greetngs,

I'm starting this thread to converse with mickiel on the nature of Wicca, but anyone is more than welcome to participate.

I have learned to do as you suggest, we can surely talk. My humble appoligies to you.

Mickiel, you never need apologize to me for an honest mistake, or for not knowing something. Believe me, as much as I may know (or may think that I know), there is far more that I do not know.

Please explain what Wiccan is or means.

From the outside, Wicca is a religion. However, at its most fundamental level, Wicca is like Christianity--both your understanding, and the "mainstream" understanding--Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

The problem is, I could write a book about what Wicca is, and still not answer your questions. I can give you a rough academic understanding, but the fundamental truth of Wicca is something that can only be experienced. However, I do need to say this as a side-note: I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else to Wicca; my only purpose is to explain my understanding of that relationship.

Wicca is a collection of beliefs, myths, rituals, philosophy, and ethics that is designed to allow one to experience and understand their relationship to the Creator. We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin, and of hell. When we die, we rejoin the Creator ... however, most Wiccans will tell you that we are reborn, but franklly, I have my profound doubts that what makes me "me" will ever be born on this earth again.

At this point, though, unless I were to write a book, I could talk for days and never fully explain Wicca. What questions do you have, and I will do my best to answer them.

Justin

[NormATive]

...Wicca is a collection of beliefs, myths, rituals, philosophy, and ethics that is designed to allow one to experience and understand their relationship to the Creator. We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

Heh! Sounds all too familiar. The myths of my childhood religion includes talking snakes and dead men walking!

Do you see, as I do now, that the myths were useful in ages past to comprehend things beyond contemporary knowledge? And that myth is eventually replaced by tradition that symbolically represent the "truth" hidden within the liturgy?

For example, the stories of Jesus healing lepers has a twofold meaning. One, is as a fulfillment (redaction, actually) of messianic prophecy for the followers wishing to stay within traditional Judaism. But also, for those splitting to follow Paul, it served to provide background for the growing god-man theology.

So, now that we know people don't really rise from the dead, and snakes don't tell lies, we group all of these stories into traditional little liturgies and festivals. The philosophy within the story remains, however. The gold in the dross of Christianity is that love conquers all, and we should treat our neighbour as ourself.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin, and of hell. When we die, we rejoin the Creator ... however, most Wiccans will tell you that we are reborn, but franklly, I have my profound doubts that what makes me "me" will ever be born on this earth again.Justin

I think that separation thing is unique to Christianity. I believe it is the essence of humankind's emergence into the modern era. Previously, the gods (and G-d) dealt communally with human creatures. With the separation theology, it became an individual striving toward G-d. Sin, hell, and damnation are on our heads - say the right words (incantations, i.e; sinner's prayer), do the right things (rituals, like baptism, sexual purity, etc...), and everything is hunky-dory.

I don't know about eternity and all, but I definitely celebrate today! In that, I am more Wiccan than Christian. But, I accept the core values of Judaism and Christianity. You know; a kind word turns away wrath, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and come to the aid of the defenseless.

I just don't buy the myths anymore. Maybe the mysticism, but not the magic. I think making it through the day with a smile at the end of it is magic enough.

How does your religion help make you a better you? Do you still believe any of the myths?

NORM

[Heathen Dawn]

Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

Not all Wiccans believe in a Creator. I don’t think even all the first Wiccans did. Wicca is just as compatible with a creatorless pantheism (universe all there is) as with panentheism.

I’d say Wicca is a relationship with the Gods or with nature or with both.

Heh! Sounds all too familiar. The myths of my childhood religion includes talking snakes and dead men walking!

[…]

So, now that we know people don't really rise from the dead, and snakes don't tell lies, we group all of these stories into traditional little liturgies and festivals. The philosophy within the story remains, however. The gold in the dross of Christianity is that love conquers all, and we should treat our neighbour as ourself.

That would be Liberal Christianity. The trouble with liberal religion in general is that it has the juice taken out of the religion. It’s like comparing the symbolic (Protestant) view of the Eucharist with the literal (Catholic) one—the latter mindblowing, amazing, the former trite and banal.

I read a great part of the mythologies literally: Zeus really does send thunderbolts upon people. I don’t care what others think, I can’t have it any other way.

[technomage]

Do you see, as I do now, that the myths were useful in ages past to comprehend things beyond contemporary knowledge?

Ehhh... Norm, that's a drastic reification. Yes some myths are used to provide an explanation, within the specific cultural context, for phenomena and events that are beyond contemporary knowledge, but that is far from the only purpose for myths.

Myths serve many purposes (this list is not exaustive):
1: They relay normative cultural expectations within a specific cultural context--such as the story of Zipporah's "emergency circumcision" of Moses' child as a way to transmit the cultural importance of circumcision;
2: They provide cultural information for otherwise inexplicable phenomena--such as the story of Ai--literally, "Ruins"--as an explanation of "What are those ruins over there?"
3: They provide context for elements within the culture, the origin of which has been forgotten--such as the story of the one day's supply of oil lasting for eight days as an explanation of Channukha.

Were any of these events historic? Without meaning to be insulting, the only possible response is to consider such a question to be completely irrelevant. To my mind, the historicity of the events in the story is completely and utterly beside the point--the point of these myths is not to recount history, but to provide the cultural context.

And that myth is eventually replaced by tradition that symbolically represent the "truth" hidden within the liturgy?

That is certainly one possible course of events, but I do not believe it is the only one.

I think that separation thing is unique to Christianity. I believe it is the essence of humankind's emergence into the modern era. Previously, the gods (and G-d) dealt communally with human creatures. With the separation theology, it became an individual striving toward G-d. Sin, hell, and damnation are on our heads - say the right words (incantations, i.e; sinner's prayer), do the right things (rituals, like baptism, sexual purity, etc...), and everything is hunky-dory.

Hmmm.... Again, I have to disagree, historically at least. The concept of the individual striving towards God goes back at least as far as the Oriental Mystery Religions, and perhaps back to Zoroastrianism (in the orient), and back to Platonism (in Greece). In a completely secular view, it is the ideals of Hellenic Neo-Platonism and the methodology of Oriental Mystery Religions combined with the theology of a new Judaic schism (called "the Way" at first) that one will find the roots of modern Christianity.

Let us assume for a moment that the secular view is completely accurate: does that devalue Christianity? Well, those who hold to a literalist interpretation of Scripture state that it does: that view goes back to Paul, who stated that if Christ is not raised, then Christian faith is worthless. But it is a view that some Christians are accepting today.

I don't know about eternity and all, but I definitely celebrate today! In that, I am more Wiccan than Christian. But, I accept the core values of Judaism and Christianity. You know; a kind word turns away wrath, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and come to the aid of the defenseless.

On this we can agree--indeed, I feel that my practice of Wicca benefits from these core values, and I have striven to inculcate them into my practice, and my teaching.

How does your religion help make you a better you? Do you still believe any of the myths?

Um ... "Answer subject to change without notice...?" :sheepish grin:

Seriously, I both do and don't. Let's look really quick at my version of the Creation Myth (Warning: this myth is rated PG-13.)

A Wiccan Creation Myth

Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All.

And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One.

And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love.

And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One).

And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One).

And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love.

And thus was everything made that was made.

Now, do I believe that this was the literal beginning of the Universe? In a religious context, I do, because it establishes that the Universe was created in love, and that we--as members of that Creation--are the Children of the Lord and Lady. In a scientific context, I fully accept and support mainstream scientific research ... and we'll just leave any jokes about the "Big Bang that started the universe" for a later time.... :hehe

[mickiel]

At this point, though, unless I were to write a book, I could talk for days and never fully explain Wicca. What questions do you have, and I will do my best to answer them.

Justin[/QUOTE]


Please give a breif synops on the views of Wicca in these areas;

Who will ultimately be saved?

The so called trinity.

Who created evil?

Why God created mankind in weakness first?

Since they are simular to christianity, why have they not merged with them?

Who are the leaders of Wicca? Please explain what these leaders are called. ( pastors, prophets, ...?)

Explain the particular term Wicca, break it down and explain to me where this spelling of the term came from. Does each individual letter stand for a word within itself?

Thank you for this kindness. I have never heard of Wicca before. I must say that I bear a strong dislike for christianity, if Wicca is simular, then I expect my reaction toward it to be simular. Religon is one of mankinds greatest handicaps, and sheilds from God. Yet they think it a great help.

Peace, Mickiel.

[technomage]

Who will ultimately be saved?

Mickiel, if (as most Wiccans believe) there is no sin and no hell, there is nothing to be "saved" from. In the context that I think you mean, this means that all who live will rejoin the Creator. Will there be some form of punishment for those who are evil, or reward for those who are good? I do not know: the Lord and Lady have not said anything about it to me. I do have my doubts, however.

The so called trinity.

The Lord and the Lady are my own understanding of the Creator. The Christian Trinity is their understanding of the Creator. I have no problem with that ... because if the symbol allows you to have even a measure of understanding of the Substance, then the symbol is "true"--or, at the very least, is useful.

I do believe that some symbols--"God Names," if you will--allow a generally greater understanding than others: in other words, I don't feel that a vengeful, hateful God-Name (such as Set or Loki) allows for a tremendous understanding. And I also believe that some people do better with one symbol as opposed to another: for example, I personally can gain a greater understanding with the Lord and the Lady than I was able to gain looking to the Trinity. But I have never seen a God-Name that was totally useless for gaining a measure of understanding for someone, somewhere.

Who created evil?

"Evil" is a human concept. We define certain things as evil, and with some of those things (such as murder, rape, genocide, betrayal, dishonor, and the like) I believe there is a moral element. However, with some things (like natural disaster, accident, disease and untimely death), I feel the use of the word is erroneous--certainly understandable, but fundamentally these are not "moral" circumstances.

I have a more in-depth discussion of my views of evil on my website.

Why God created mankind in weakness first?

To my mind, we are not created "in weakness." We have our human limitations; we are mortal beings, subject to age, disease, and accident; we have free will, and therefore may make of our lives what we choose to make ... or we may even strive to make our lives according to our desires and fail.

Yet we also have our strengths. We have curiosity and hope; we have intellect and intuition; we have strength and love. These are our strength, but because we also have free will, we may choose to use these gifts for good, or for evil--and remember, these are human defined terms.

I have a Teaching Myth that discusses these and other issues on my website.

Since they are simular to christianity, why have they not merged with them?

Wicca and Christianity are similar in some respects, but dissimilar in many. I've discussed this as well on the website: What Is Earthstar Wicca.

Who are the leaders of Wicca? Please explain what these leaders are called. ( pastors, prophets, ...?)

Well, we do have teachers and those whom we respect, but each and every Wiccan is their own "primary" clergy. There are no real "leaders," per se, and though there are notable Wiccans, I honestly can't think of too many that I would be willing to claim. This is mostly because the ones that I know of who are public figures have become that way by selling their knowledge: I feel that my knowledge can be given as a gift, but to sell it dishonors the Lorsd and Lady, who gave it to me freely.

For those Wiccans who work together as groups, the leaders of a particular group may be called the High Priest and the High Priestess ... or they might just be called by their names, depending on the traditions of that particular group.

Explain the particular term Wicca, break it down and explain to me where this spelling of the term came from. Does each individual letter stand for a word within itself?

There is some disagreement about the origin of the word Wicca. Wicca is an Anglo-Saxon word that means a witch (specifically a male witch: Anglo-Saxon for a female witch was wicce), however, Wicca as a religion dates back only to the 1940s.

Now, this is a very subjective definition: there is a more objective definition at Wikipedia that will actually get you a wider picture of Wicca.

Justin

[NormATive]

Ehhh... Norm, that's a drastic reification. Yes some myths are used to provide an explanation, within the specific cultural context, for phenomena and events that are beyond contemporary knowledge, but that is far from the only purpose for myths.

Myths serve many purposes...Were any of these events historic? Without meaning to be insulting, the only possible response is to consider such a question to be completely irrelevant. To my mind, the historicity of the events in the story is completely and utterly beside the point--the point of these myths is not to recount history, but to provide the cultural context.

I guess I didn't 'splain myself very well. This was exactly my point. The myths don't have to reflect reality to have meaning. The myths themselves - indeed, much of the symbology in the telling itself - (many were relayed orally, btw) contain the real message.

The concept of the individual striving towards God goes back at least as far as the Oriental Mystery Religions, and perhaps back to Zoroastrianism (in the orient), and back to Platonism (in Greece).

With the possible exception of Plato, I don't see that in any ancient writings I've examined. Nearly every reference to deity is concerned with the community as a whole, not individuals. Do you have historic examples where the ancients did so? I'm even including the ancient Hebrews here, because, prior to the Second Temple era (and even beyond in my opinion), Judaism was tribally based. I don't think the individual was contemplated until the time of the Hillel school in the first century BC.

In a completely secular view, it is the ideals of Hellenic Neo-Platonism and the methodology of Oriental Mystery Religions combined with the theology of a new Judaic schism (called "the Way" at first) that one will find the roots of modern Christianity.

Agreed.

Let us assume for a moment that the secular view is completely accurate: does that devalue Christianity? Well, those who hold to a literalist interpretation of Scripture state that it does: that view goes back to Paul, who stated that if Christ is not raised, then Christian faith is worthless. But it is a view that some Christians are accepting today.

I think once you remove the resurrection from Christianity, it comes to life. THEN, it becomes a way (hence, The Way) of life rather than an orientation of belief. IMO, Paul was the worst thing to happen to the sect of Judaism that became Christianity.

Let's look really quick at my version of the Creation Myth (Warning: this myth is rated PG-13.)

A Wiccan Creation Myth

Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All.

And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One.

And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love.

And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One).

And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One).

And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love.

And thus was everything made that was made.

Now, do I believe that this was the literal beginning of the Universe? In a religious context, I do, because it establishes that the Universe was created in love, and that we--as members of that Creation--are the Children of the Lord and Lady. In a scientific context, I fully accept and support mainstream scientific research ... and we'll just leave any jokes about the "Big Bang that started the universe" for a later time.... :hehe

That's interesting. It reminds me of the kabbalistic readings on the Shekinah of G-d. This was a male/female spirit sent by G-d to roam the earth to influence mankind for the good, and to discern evil. My memory of it is vague, because I read it in Hebrew, and my Hebrew isn't all that great. If I understood the text correctly, the Shekinah was part of the group present when G-d created the human species.

Then there is the Golem - but, that's another thread!

NORM

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=Justin

Thank you Justin. I have more curiositys but it perhaps best I examine your website first. I am sure many answers await me there. I'll join back in here later.

Mickiel.

[NormATive]

That would be Liberal Christianity. The trouble with liberal religion in general is that it has the juice taken out of the religion. It’s like comparing the symbolic (Protestant) view of the Eucharist with the literal (Catholic) one—the latter mindblowing, amazing, the former trite and banal.

I don't consider it liberal or conservative. Those labels are meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Symbolism doesn't have to be trite and banal if you believe the philosophy behind them to be true and worthy as I do. I think the symbolism (metaphor, really) of "healing" is quite profound despite the fact that I don't believe Jesus ACTUALLY miraculously healed anyone.

In my way of thinking, it is moreso. Once you learn the tricks, magic becomes rather boring.

I read a great part of the mythologies literally: Zeus really does send thunderbolts upon people. I don’t care what others think, I can’t have it any other way.

Zeus - Static Electricity. You say po-ta-TOE, I say po-TAH-toe. Either way, if you stand in it's way, you're fried!

NORM

[technomage]

[QUOTE=mickiel][QUOTE=Justin

Thank you Justin. I have more curiositys but it perhaps best I examine your website first. I am sure many answers await me there. I'll join back in here later.[/QUOTE]

Well and good ... however, I will warn you: my website is only about 10% finished, so there are missing sections, broken links, and unanswered questions galore. Watch out for dust, construction debris, and cat-calling workmen.

Justin

[technomage]

I guess I didn't 'splain myself very well. This was exactly my point. The myths don't have to reflect reality to have meaning. The myths themselves - indeed, much of the symbology in the telling itself - (many were relayed orally, btw) contain the real message.

Ah! Yes, I misunderstood you--it sounded like you were arguing for rejection of the myths. Sorry about that.

With the possible exception of Plato, I don't see that in any ancient writings I've examined. Nearly every reference to deity is concerned with the community as a whole, not individuals. Do you have historic examples where the ancients did so?

Well, we know the Myster Schools did--Initiation was a personal interaction with the Divine, not a corporate transaction ... well, OK, not necessarily a "personal religion" the way we think of it today, but it wasn't on a tribal basis anymore. And you get some of that sense in the literature of the time: Apuleius' account of initiation into the Isis Mysteries is the best example I can think of. (If you've not read The Golden Ass by Apuleius, it's also hilariously funny, even for a 21st century reader.)

I'm even including the ancient Hebrews here, because, prior to the Second Temple era (and even beyond in my opinion), Judaism was tribally based. I don't think the individual was contemplated until the time of the Hillel school in the first century BC.

Absolutely ... and I've been meaning for weeks to research the Hillel School and see how much their teachings influenced Christianity, but I only have so many hours in my day.

I think once you remove the resurrection from Christianity, it comes to life. THEN, it becomes a way (hence, The Way) of life rather than an orientation of belief.

I can see your point ... but I also have to see the point of view of the Christians who feel they have to insist on a real, historical, physical resurrection. We all walk by the light we have.

IMO, Paul was the worst thing to happen to the sect of Judaism that became Christianity.

Ever read Rudyard Kipling's "The Disciple"?

That's interesting. It reminds me of the kabbalistic readings on the Shekinah of G-d. This was a male/female spirit sent by G-d to roam the earth to influence mankind for the good, and to discern evil. My memory of it is vague, because I read it in Hebrew, and my Hebrew isn't all that great. If I understood the text correctly, the Shekinah was part of the group present when G-d created the human species.

There are similarities ... and I have practiced and studied the (Westernized) Kabbalah, so I know that the tale of the Shekinah was some influence.

Then there is the Golem - but, that's another thread!

Aigh! Let's not get TOO far off on a tangent!

Justin

[NormATive]

Well, we know the Myster Schools did--Initiation was a personal interaction with the Divine, not a corporate transaction ... well, OK, not necessarily a "personal religion" the way we think of it today, but it wasn't on a tribal basis anymore. And you get some of that sense in the literature of the time: Apuleius' account of initiation into the Isis Mysteries is the best example I can think of. (If you've not read The Golden Ass by Apuleius, it's also hilariously funny, even for a 21st century reader.)

I'm not too terribly familiar with that in any detail. I'll certainly look into it.

... and I've been meaning for weeks to research the Hillel School and see how much their teachings influenced Christianity, but I only have so many hours in my day.

I'm Jewish on my mother's side, but was raised as a Christian. When I went to study Judaism, Rebbe had me read Hillel's teachings because she thought it would be familiar to me. I remarked how similar the sayings were (ex: do not do unto your neighbour what you would not want brought on yourself), and said "Hillel must have studied the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. It was then I learned that Hillel predated Jesus by 100 years!

... but I also have to see the point of view of the Christians who feel they have to insist on a real, historical, physical resurrection. We all walk by the light we have.



Ever read Rudyard Kipling's "The Disciple"?

Yes! Absolutely! Touche!

Rudyard Kipling - The Disciple

He that hath a Gospel
To loose upon Mankind,
Though he serve it utterly--
Body, soul and mind--
Though he go to Calvary
Daily for its gain--
It is His Disciple
Shall make his labour vain.

He that hath a Gospel
For all earth to own--
Though he etch it on the steel,
Or carve it on the stone--
Not to be misdoubted
Through the after-days--
It is His Disciple
Shall read it many ways.

It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.

It is His Disciple
Who shall tell us how
Much the Master would have scrapped
Had he lived till now--
What he would have modified
Of what he said before.
It is His Disciple
Shall do this and more....

He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
(Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!

NORM

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

That is not at all what I have understood about Wicca.

C.S. Lewis

An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

© source where applicable

Isn't that third view what Wicca teaches? Sure, there are beings around, but the focus is not primarily on relating to them.

We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

So then there cannot be a real relationship? If the images are mainly symbolic.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin..l.

That's pretty wild, though!

G.K. Chesterton

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

© source where applicable

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

That is not at all what I have understood about Wicca.

C.S. Lewis

An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

© source where applicable

Isn't that third view what Wicca teaches? Sure, there are beings around, but the focus is not primarily on relating to them.

The New Age view of God? Of course there are plenty of New Age Wiccans, but they’re not all. The Gods are believed to be personal.

G.K. Chesterton

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes.

© source where applicable

Who did? Jews and Christians, maybe. But not all ancient masters of religion acknowledge any so-called “fact” of sin. And more: the concept of sin widely differs between Judaism and Christianity, as I noted on this thread.

G.K. Chesterton

original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.

© source where applicable

It’s the one part of Christian theology which has been disproved! Evolution, therefore no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin!

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

C.S. Lewis: A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

Heathen Dawn: The New Age view of God? Of course there are plenty of New Age Wiccans, but they’re not all. The Gods are believed to be personal.

Yes, I know, I acknowledge that, but isn't the main point about the "life-force," or whatever you wish to call it, which is impersonal? The Gods tap it, the people tap it...

Mention of the Gods, by the way, brings up a point, have you inquired into their motives? Why are they inclined to be of assistance, I wonder? Assuming they are...

Chesterton: original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.

HD: It’s the one part of Christian theology which has been disproved! Evolution, therefore no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin!

Well, I don't want to broaden the discussion to bring in evolution, but I think Chesterton's point here was primarily about the reality of sin, not so much about original sin.

So ... must we deny the cat? Just because there is disagreement about which specific acts are evil, doesn't mean these people are also disagreeing about the reality of sin. Disproving the reality of sin, would be astonishing, indeed...

Blessings,
Lee