Wiccas: Why do you just blame the Christians?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Wiccans will tell us about the "Burning Times" and are quite indignent over the supposed "persecutions" that their earliest adherents suffered at the hands of Christians, but historical records show that witches have always been a "disliked" group of people. The Sumerians put them to death, as did the Persians, Greeks and Romans.

So why just blame Christians for your troubles, when nobody liked you?

[BlackOpal12]

Wiccans will tell us about the "Burning Times" and are quite indignent over the supposed "persecutions" that their earliest adherents suffered at the hands of Christians, but historical records show that witches have always been a "disliked" group of people. The Sumerians put them to death, as did the Persians, Greeks and Romans.

So why just blame Christians for your troubles, when nobody liked you?

Welcome to third grade, folks. "Why shouldn't I pick on him? Everybody else does! He should be used to it by now!"

As a sidenote, when you say "Witches" and refer to Persians, Greeks, and Romans, you are speaking of a very different types of witches - "witch," historically speaking, does not refer to practitioners of a single religion, but of practicers of nature-based/heterodox/non-traditional relgions.

Why do you pick fights just for the sake of fighting, FS33AD?

[technomage]

Wiccans will tell us about the "Burning Times" and are quite indignent over the supposed "persecutions" that their earliest adherents suffered at the hands of Christians, but historical records show that witches have always been a "disliked" group of people. The Sumerians put them to death, as did the Persians, Greeks and Romans.

So why just blame Christians for your troubles, when nobody liked you?

First and foremost, FS33, those Wiccans who whine about Christians and the "Burning Times" are historically ignorant. Their complaints are no more genuine Wicca than if you were to complain about a "Conspiracy of Witches" casting spells on the Church, or some such nonsense.

As a sidenote, when you say "Witches" and refer to Persians, Greeks, and Romans, you are speaking of a very different types of witches - "witch," historically speaking, does not refer to practitioners of a single religion, but of practicers of nature-based/heterodox/non-traditional relgions.

With all due respect, my friend, I must disagree--historically speaking, "witches" are perceived as practicing within the predominant religion. That's a lengthy historical argument to make, but look at the brief illustration: the Medieval/Rennaisance image of "witches" was not that of a Pgan, but of one former Christians who abandoned their baptism and worshipped the Anti-God (Satan). It was not until 18th and 19th century Romanticism that they were suspected of being non-Christians. or of never having been baptized.

Justin

[FirstSunday33ad]

Welcome to third grade, folks. "Why shouldn't I pick on him? Everybody else does! He should be used to it by now!"

As a sidenote, when you say "Witches" and refer to Persians, Greeks, and Romans, you are speaking of a very different types of witches - "witch," historically speaking, does not refer to practitioners of a single religion, but of practicers of nature-based/heterodox/non-traditional relgions.

Why do you pick fights just for the sake of fighting, FS33AD?

I'm not saying "pick on em, everybody else does" I'm saying "hey don't just say Christians were mean to you, apparently so was everybody else."

[MuggleOrSquib]

I think the term 'witch' has more than one meaning. A modern worshipper of Inana would be called a witch in a number of modern circles, but would have been a typical Sumerian (and not a witch) 4,000 years ago.
We could look at the Native American traditions for some guidance, as there is a similar distinction there, or we could look at pagan sub-Saharan African practices, where someone accused of witchcraft might well be murdered. The question ultimately comes down to what we mean by the word.

On reflection, it appears to me that the victims of 'the burning times' were victims of a false identification between the practicioners of various pre-Christian European religions and the practicioners of sorcery/witchery/'Kaspum' (Babylonian term)

The Navajo skin-walkers and the West African Leopard-men are not witches in the wiccan sense of the word, but are the sort of practicioners who are always viewed as a threat to the community and all its members. These would be practicioners of a sort of 'Kaspum'.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[BlackOpal12]

I'm not saying "pick on em, everybody else does" I'm saying "hey don't just say Christians were mean to you, apparently so was everybody else."

But the reality is that the current paradigm in most Western cultures is mainly Christian - ask TLM, he's happy to bring it up anytime someone questions the veracity of the Ten Commandments as the basis of Western Law. It is most understandable to focus one's anger at the most obvious of "oppressors," as it were - in the 1950's, African-Americans were not focusing their anger and time in responding to the grievances committed against them by the Chinese natives still in China, but at the European-Americans who were running the country. This is the same idea - the Christians are seen as "running" this little social experiment, and therefore, are the final rhetorical location where the "buck stops."

[tmancour]

Wiccans will tell us about the "Burning Times" and are quite indignent over the supposed "persecutions" that their earliest adherents suffered at the hands of Christians, but historical records show that witches have always been a "disliked" group of people. The Sumerians put them to death, as did the Persians, Greeks and Romans.

So why just blame Christians for your troubles, when nobody liked you?


1. You are confusing "sorcerers" with witches; anthropologically the two may be interchangable, but in a Religious Studies context they are very different. Get your terms straight.

2. "the Burning Times" refers not just to the Witchhunts (which mostly ensnared other Christians) but the cultural/religious genocide practiced by Christianity on an unwilling Pagan population. Legend has it that the first Christians came to Britain and broke bread with the Druids, who welcomed them as fellow seekers and mystics. Within a few hundred years Christians were slaughtering pagans wholesale, demonizing our gods, and generally being rude bullies about their religion. We don't like that.

3. We don't just blame Christians for our troubles. We blame Christians for most of the troubles that everyone in the 21st century has to endure. Your religion has a lot to answer for.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[FirstSunday33ad]

1. You are confusing "sorcerers" with witches; anthropologically the two may be interchangable, but in a Religious Studies context they are very different. Get your terms straight.

2. "the Burning Times" refers not just to the Witchhunts (which mostly ensnared other Christians) but the cultural/religious genocide practiced by Christianity on an unwilling Pagan population. Legend has it that the first Christians came to Britain and broke bread with the Druids, who welcomed them as fellow seekers and mystics. Within a few hundred years Christians were slaughtering pagans wholesale, demonizing our gods, and generally being rude bullies about their religion. We don't like that.

3. We don't just blame Christians for our troubles. We blame Christians for most of the troubles that everyone in the 21st century has to endure. Your religion has a lot to answer for.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham


Aren't these the same druids who burned people alive in WickerMen???

Seems like your religion has a collect call or two as well.

[technomage]

1. You are confusing "sorcerers" with witches; anthropologically the two may be interchangable, but in a Religious Studies context they are very different. Get your terms straight.

The distinction is a modern anachronism, and your "religious studies context" is twentieth century. Get your history straight.

2. "the Burning Times" refers not just to the Witchhunts (which mostly ensnared other Christians) but the cultural/religious genocide practiced by Christianity on an unwilling Pagan population. Legend has it that the first Christians came to Britain and broke bread with the Druids, who welcomed them as fellow seekers and mystics. Within a few hundred years Christians were slaughtering pagans wholesale, demonizing our gods, and generally being rude bullies about their religion. We don't like that.

Speak for yourself--I have no particular "dislike" of Christians based on a fantasy history, though I do have a grave dislike of the dishonest and dishonorable practice of false witness. Get your likes and dislikes straight.

3. We don't just blame Christians for our troubles. We blame Christians for most of the troubles that everyone in the 21st century has to endure. Your religion has a lot to answer for.

And you may rest assured that with such a glaring historical ignorance, you're guaranteed to repeat the mistakes you accuse Christians of making. Don't believe me? Read Hegel.

Justin

[FirstSunday33ad]

But the reality is that the current paradigm in most Western cultures is mainly Christian - ask TLM, he's happy to bring it up anytime someone questions the veracity of the Ten Commandments as the basis of Western Law. It is most understandable to focus one's anger at the most obvious of "oppressors," as it were - in the 1950's, African-Americans were not focusing their anger and time in responding to the grievances committed against them by the Chinese natives still in China, but at the European-Americans who were running the country. This is the same idea - the Christians are seen as "running" this little social experiment, and therefore, are the final rhetorical location where the "buck stops."

So in other words, you hate us simply because we are an easy target?

Hmmm. Oh well, I've heard worse reasons to hate someone.

[technomage]

So in other words, you hate us simply because we are an easy target?

Just as long as you're not including me in that "You." :wink:

[MuggleOrSquib]

Arion,
Given the radical Roman antipathy to druidism, and the destruction of Anglesey by the PAGAN Roman army, I would tend to guess that outside Scotland and Ireland most of druidic culture in the British Isles was destroyed while Christianity remained a minority and illegal faith. If any druidic institutions survived in Britain until the Saxon invasion, they were probably destroyed by the Saxons.

For the Romans, the Druidic path was the spiritual path of their ancestral enemies, which was to be entirely eliminated if possible. For the Saxons, the Druidic path would not differ from Brythonic Christianity, as the spiritual paths of their enemies on the battlefield. The practicioners, in that they would be supporting the warriors through their prayers/meditations..., should be slaughtered lest the battle go against the Saxons. Otherwise, there was no particular opposition among the Saxons, as far as I know.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[tmancour]

Aren't these the same druids who burned people alive in WickerMen???

Seems like your religion has a collect call or two as well.


Actually, we stabbed, drowned, and hung people, too. But I'd like to point out that when human sacrifice was practiced, it was almost exclusively on condemned prisoners and prisoners of war -- a sanctified execution -- or by volunteers.

We almost never do that now. And we almost never conducted genocide, cultural or physical.

Arion

[technomage]

Otherwise, there was no particular opposition among the Saxons, as far as I know.

Actually, by the time of the Saxon invasion of Britain, Britain was substantially Christian--the Saxons were Pagans invading Christian Britain. They were, however--like the Britains before them--quickly and peacibly Christianized.

See, that's the big thing everyone forgets: most of the Barbarian Invasions (both pre- and post-Constantine) were not people who wanted to tear down Rome, but peoples who wanted to gain Rome's power and wealth. So what's the first thing they do when they invade Roman territory? They become Roman!

Christianity "conquered" Rome not by the sword, but by popularity. In turn, Christianity did not "conquer" the surrounding Pagans nearly so much as the surrounding Pagans eagerly sought it as part of Roman culture.

[MuggleOrSquib]

And we almost never conducted genocide, cultural or physical.

Arion
As to cultural genocide, the adoption of Celtic culture by the Welsh and Cornish occurred so far back that it is currently impossible to ascertain whether it was imposed or merely adopted.
On the other hand, as to physical genocide, the fact that a descendant of Cheddar Man (pre-Celtic) is currently living in England, and that both the Welsh and the Cornish (genetically non-Celtic) survive supports your contention.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[tmancour]

The distinction is a modern anachronism, and your "religious studies context" is twentieth century. Get your history straight.

A "modern anachronism" is an oxymoron. There is a big difference between "priest/ess of the gods" and "practitioner of unethical magick". My history is fine.

[QUOTE=A Cup of Mystery]
Speak for yourself--I have no particular "dislike" of Christians based on a fantasy history, though I do have a grave dislike of the dishonest and dishonorable practice of false witness. Get your likes and dislikes straight.


Which is why I said "legend". My dislike is not of Christians -- most of them -- just Christianity in the form in which it is currently practiced. And the reasons for my dislike are pretty clear. The "conquest" of Christianity in Europe was a slow, painstaking process, which usually involved the slow and methodical conversion of urban centers and the nobility at first, slowly trickling down to the rural populations over generations. Once it was a majority religion it moved pretty quickly to violently squash any competitor. After the Christian conquest of Europe, however, the Great Age of Exploration did quite a bit to impose the faith on native populations in Africa and the Americas at the point of a sword.


And you may rest assured that with such a glaring historical ignorance, you're guaranteed to repeat the mistakes you accuse Christians of making. Don't believe me? Read Hegel.


I've read plenty of Hegel. And I am not historically ignorant -- far from it. I mentioned a legend as a metaphor, and I mentioned the cultural (and occasionally physical) genocides perpetrated by Christian missionaries, which are pretty clear cut. And I seriously doubt my religion will repeat those mistakes -- we're too lazy and un-egotistical to want to impose our view of reality on everyone else.

Arion

[tmancour]

Arion,
Given the radical Roman antipathy to druidism, and the destruction of Anglesey by the PAGAN Roman army, I would tend to guess that outside Scotland and Ireland most of druidic culture in the British Isles was destroyed while Christianity remained a minority and illegal faith. If any druidic institutions survived in Britain until the Saxon invasion, they were probably destroyed by the Saxons.

For the Romans, the Druidic path was the spiritual path of their ancestral enemies, which was to be entirely eliminated if possible. For the Saxons, the Druidic path would not differ from Brythonic Christianity, as the spiritual paths of their enemies on the battlefield. The practicioners, in that they would be supporting the warriors through their prayers/meditations..., should be slaughtered lest the battle go against the Saxons. Otherwise, there was no particular opposition among the Saxons, as far as I know.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

You are essentially correct.

I hate the Romans. :teeth:

But the Christian conquest of Ireland did directly pit the Druids against the missionaries. And the missionaries were not universally adverse to hiring mercenaries or co-opting friendly princes to wipe out troublesome druids.


Arion

[tmancour]

Actually, by the time of the Saxon invasion of Britain, Britain was substantially Christian--the Saxons were Pagans invading Christian Britain. They were, however--like the Britains before them--quickly and peacibly Christianized.

See, that's the big thing everyone forgets: most of the Barbarian Invasions (both pre- and post-Constantine) were not people who wanted to tear down Rome, but peoples who wanted to gain Rome's power and wealth. So what's the first thing they do when they invade Roman territory? They become Roman!

Christianity "conquered" Rome not by the sword, but by popularity. In turn, Christianity did not "conquer" the surrounding Pagans nearly so much as the surrounding Pagans eagerly sought it as part of Roman culture.

Again, essentially correct. Indeed, the Celtic Church was able to get established without even the veneer of Roman civilization.

But later in the Middle Ages there was quite a push (by the Teutonic Knights, in particular) to lay waste to the remaining pagan areas of Europe.

I've often thought that the biggest advantage and draw that Christianity had was writing. The importance of literacy to a text-based religion no doubt made acquiring that religion a popular thing for the nobility -- and promises of immortality no doubt played well in the provinces.

Arion

[technomage]

A "modern anachronism" is an oxymoron.

Not an oxymoron--merely a redundancy. You've shown some selective deafness when this topic was discussed before, so I figured saying the same concept twice might penetrate.

There is a big difference between "priest/ess of the gods" and "practitioner of unethical magick".

When you're talking "sorcerers and witches," you're talking two form of magic, that may be ethical or not ethical. Priest/priestess would not be called "witch or sorceress." And magick is not spelled with a "k" outside of Uncle Al's monkeying with the Queen's English.

My history is fine.

If you're trying to conflate pre-Christian Celtic religious practices--or even pre-Roman--with anything you do today, then your history comes out of books that would better serve for personal hygiene on your nether anatomy.
Which is why I said "legend". My dislike is not of Christians -- most of them -- just Christianity in the form in which it is currently practiced. And the reasons for my dislike are pretty clear. The "conquest" of Christianity in Europe was a slow, painstaking process, which usually involved the slow and methodical conversion of urban centers and the nobility at first, slowly trickling down to the rural populations over generations. Once it was a majority religion it moved pretty quickly to violently squash any competitor.

Long live the History Myth, straight from the pages of Leland, Murray, and Gardner! Hip, hip, HOORAY!

Try some real history (http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html) for a change.

After the Christian conquest of Europe, however, the Great Age of Exploration did quite a bit to impose the faith on native populations in Africa and the Americas at the point of a sword.

Oh, and I thought your problem was with how Christianity was practiced today rather than with how it was practiced in the Age of Conquest. :ahem:

And I seriously doubt my religion will repeat those mistakes -- we're too lazy and un-egotistical to want to impose our view of reality on everyone else.

So were the Christians of the First Century--not the lazy part, but the unegotistical.

But it does not matter to me, Terry--I will gladly agree with you that religiously-motivated genocide is wrong. But I also feel that religiously-motivated rudeness, such as you are displaying, is also wrong. Right now I don't choose to engage in a debate of whether or not the one wrong was real--the so-called "Burning Times" was not real enough to justify your rudeness and dishonesty.

[BlackOpal12]

So in other words, you hate us simply because we are an easy target?

Hmmm. Oh well, I've heard worse reasons to hate someone.

What is this "you," FS33AD? I'm not pagan - I'm Buddhist. I have no qualm with Christianity as a whole - any given Christian, perhaps, but that is a matter of personal differences rather than ideology.

As a second point, you are over-simplifying what I said. Christians are the reigning paradigm - hence, it is a socio-political reality that the buck stops with them. Christians are not hated because they are the only ones who ever did anything - they are hated because they are the ones who are the majoritive control of the societies that are doing things to people. You run the world, you take the blame. Sorry.

[Darth Executor]

Atheists run the world. Christianity is dying and its death means the death of western civilization.

[tmancour]

And magick is not spelled with a "k" outside of Uncle Al's monkeying with the Queen's English.


I find the distinction useful for discussions of this sort.


If you're trying to conflate pre-Christian Celtic religious practices--or even pre-Roman--with anything you do today, then your history comes out of books that would better serve for personal hygiene on your nether anatomy.


Nope. I'm 100% American Druid, meaning that very little of how I practice is congruent with paleo-druidry. I acknowlege and fully understand that there is virtually no surviving accurate record of the practices of the ancient druids, and precious little about their beliefs. I've read plenty of books on the subject, and overall I agree with your assessment of "popular" books on druidism.

HOWEVER, I choose to call myself a druid because I pattern my worship and practice after the ideal that the druids were the professional class of Celtic society, and I seek to be a politically active, broadly educated generalist who takes personal responsibility for my immediate community. There is also a fair amount of heritage involved, as I have plenty of Irish, Scots, and Welsh in my pedigree. While the popular image of paleo-druids may be innacurate, there is still enough meaning and symbolisim within it that has resonance to me to be of use.


Long live the History Myth, straight from the pages of Leland, Murray, and Gardner! Hip, hip, HOORAY!

Try some real history (http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html) for a change.


Actually, I was a Religious Studies major (Psychology of Religion focus, New Age and emergent religion concentration) and a History minor (classical and medieval history). I know as well as anyone about the neo-pagan pseudohistory out there -- but there are elements of truth even within that body of knowlege. For example, the method of conversion used by the Church in the early days did focus on the nobility, the royalty, and the intellectual elite, to great effect. The "trickle down" to the rural population did take generations to complete, and even then there were no doubt pockets of pre-Christian practice in remote locations (Iceland and the Hebrides being the most glaring examples). That doesn't mean that there was a Murrayesque comprehensive witch-cult that survived, but overtly pagan symbols and beliefs, including magico-religious practices such as Morris dances and other traditional rites, did survive until the 20th century.


Oh, and I thought your problem was with how Christianity was practiced today rather than with how it was practiced in the Age of Conquest. :ahem:


Do I have to choose? I find both of them to place an unhealthy emphasis on contra-survival beliefs and dominating power structures. In both of them you find a scriptural basis for the justification of conquest and violence. In both you find an intolerant and absolutist philosophy that marginalizes everyone who refuses to submit to their paradigm.


So were the Christians of the First Century--not the lazy part, but the unegotistical.

But it does not matter to me, Terry--I will gladly agree with you that religiously-motivated genocide is wrong. But I also feel that religiously-motivated rudeness, such as you are displaying, is also wrong. Right now I don't choose to engage in a debate of whether or not the one wrong was real--the so-called "Burning Times" was not real enough to justify your rudeness and dishonesty.


If I came across as "rude", I apologize. I thought we were having a discussion on comparative theology that would, by necessity, involve some element of the potent emotion that underlies all such discussions. In my case, I do have some axes to grind with Christianity from both a personal and theological viewpoint. AT NO TIME did I ever devolve into ad hominem attacks or name calling. And while you are correct about your historical assertions concerning "the so-called 'Burning Times'" there can be no doubt that the period of Christian dominance in Europe and America involved a political, social, and military strategy that allowed for no deviation from the dominant paradigm -- or that this order was maintained with fire, sword, and imprisonment. The idea of the "Burning Times" as a period of religious persecution, not just of Pagans (real or perceived) but of Jews, Moslems and Christian heretics as well has quite enough historical fact behind it to make it a valid (if needlessly romanticised) term of convenience to describe such persecution. To point that out, and to point out the other seemingly hypocritical elements of the Christian ascendancy was not, to me, a matter of rudeness, but a matter of impassioned debate.

Arion

[tmancour]

Atheists run the world. Christianity is dying and its death means the death of western civilization.


I guess it depends on whom you consider to be "running the world". from my perspective there is no one group that has enough control of anything to lay claim to running the world, merely competing power structures that often have disparate belief systems.

I agree, Christianity is dying, and only a major sea-change will save it. You may not believe this, but I hope it does survive. There are a lot of good elements in Christianity, things that need to be preserved. But I also feel like Christianity has painted itself into a corner, philosophically and theologically speaking.

When a religion has no internal method of adapting to changing circumstances, it has very little choice: the adhereants are forced to re-interpret the canon in a way that fits more smoothly with the new circumstances. This was readily apparent in the Protestant reformation, where the new economic and technical advances, as well as the discovery of the New World, made it impossible for the RCC to maintain its stranglehold on political and economic power. Christianity in general was just adjusting to the new Age of Industrialization when the post-industrial world came along and walked all over it. Only by dramatically re-interpreting the canon will it be possible for some version of Christianity to survive and florish after the next century.

Judaism has a slightly easier time of it, as it is essentially a tribal religion that acknowleges the need to properly interpret the scriptures to adapt to circumstances. Islam is actually in a far worse position. The religious practice is so calcified and unwilling to deviate from the established canon that the Islamic answer to any crisis seems to be "Let's just go back to the 14th century when things were good." Islam is headed for a nasty spill.

In Buddhism, they have an easy out. Buddhism has an open canon, with a core of commonly accepted scriptures and then a nimbus of commentary that allows a wide degree of interpretation and adaptation. Everytime Buddhism is confronted with a major spiritual crisis, it's easy enough for some monk to discover a new set of scrolls hidden in a Buddha statue that will help explain and adapt the religion.

As far as Western civilization goes, I would like to point out that it was in existance before Christianity, and it will continue to endure after Christianity's decline. The impetus for the civilization is not the religion; it is a pool of mostly secular concepts and ideas, of which Judaism and Christianity both play a prominent role. But I can't see the light going out for centuries, yet.

Arion

[Darth Executor]

I guess it depends on whom you consider to be "running the world". from my perspective there is no one group that has enough control of anything to lay claim to running the world, merely competing power structures that often have disparate belief systems.

They you're going to be in for one mother of a surprise.

I agree, Christianity is dying, and only a major sea-change will save it. You may not believe this, but I hope it does survive. There are a lot of good elements in Christianity, things that need to be preserved. But I also feel like Christianity has painted itself into a corner, philosophically and theologically speaking.

Our beliefs regarding what can save it are very different. I do agree that it needs a change, but I highly doubt we can agree on what that particular change is.

When a religion has no internal method of adapting to changing
circumstances,

Wrong. Your solution is what caused the problem. Chrsitianity has been "adapted" so much that it pretty much lost its intended meaning. People read scripture from a 20th century point of view expecting it was written for them personally then derive their interpretations from that. RCCi's secularization of the church throughout the middle ages and protestant "sola my version of scriptura" are at the root of the problem Christianity is diseased right now. What it needs is a cure.

it has very little choice: the adhereants are forced to re-interpret the canon in a way that fits more smoothly with the new circumstances. This was readily apparent in the Protestant reformation, where the new economic and technical advances, as well as the discovery of the New World, made it impossible for the RCC to maintain its stranglehold on political and economic power. Christianity in general was just adjusting to the new Age of Industrialization when the post-industrial world came along and walked all over it. Only by dramatically re-interpreting the canon will it be possible for some version of Christianity to survive and florish after the next century.

Reinterpreting the canon is the equivalent of writing "I'm an idiot" on one's forehead. I wish people would stop temprering with the canon since that is the reason why we have a problem to begin with.

Judaism has a slightly easier time of it, as it is essentially a tribal religion that acknowleges the need to properly interpret the scriptures to adapt to circumstances.

When I see judaism I see hypocrisy. Most of them don't follow their laws anyway. But judaism is pretty much a "family religion". I doubt its numbers are going to fall short of another holocaust. In addition, God has kept them alive through incredible odds. I'm not too worried about them getting wiped out.

Islam is actually in a far worse position. The religious practice is so calcified and unwilling to deviate from the established canon that the Islamic answer to any crisis seems to be "Let's just go back to the 14th century when things were good." Islam is headed for a nasty spill.

Islam is going to overrun the western world. It's not just Christianity that is dying. The apathetic secularism it's falling into is going to run it into its grave. Wicca is doing well now but pray you never become a majority and the target of militant atheism because they will send you back to your grave faster than you can say "solstice".

In Buddhism, they have an easy out. Buddhism has an open canon, with a core of commonly accepted scriptures and then a nimbus of commentary that allows a wide degree of interpretation and adaptation. Everytime Buddhism is confronted with a major spiritual crisis, it's easy enough for some monk to discover a new set of scrolls hidden in a Buddha statue that will help explain and adapt the religion.

I'm not very familiar with buddhism but as far as I can tell it's not quite a religion, more of a philosophy for life.

As far as Western civilization goes, I would like to point out that it was in existance before Christianity, and it will continue to endure after Christianity's decline. The impetus for the civilization is not the religion; it is a pool of mostly secular concepts and ideas, of which Judaism and Christianity both play a prominent role. But I can't see the light going out for centuries, yet.

You're right about its relation to Christianity but that is not what I mean when I said it is dying. Do a google search for europe's population problems. They are literally dying out. My home continent is infested with a plague of apathy that has, as far as I can tell, sealed its fate. America is the last battleground. It's too early to figure out who is going to win but I don't have much hope.

[technomage]

Terry,

Cutting to the chase--the issue is not whether or not Christians persecuted Pagans, because the primary cause of the persecution was not the religion of those involved ... it was the "human nature" of those involved. That semi-predatory human nature that has screwed up civility and peacibleness far too many times to count. Don't get me wrong ... there are times when war is necessary, and there's some darn good reasons why the the Son is also a Warrior.

The reason I do not blame Christians for such behavior is that I see nothing within Paganism that would have prevented us from doing the same thing. The only reasons that Neo-Pagan hands are not just as stained with blood as Christian hands is Neo-Pagans haven't been around as long.

I cannot condemn Christians as murderous thugs ... when I see, within myself, that self-same potential for evil. Nor can I commend Christians as holy saints when I see, within myself, that self-same potential for good.

From my heart to yours,

Justin

[Malista_Dove]

You say that Pagans accuse and show hatred the the Christian religion...but yet many Pagans are wondering why Christians are hating the pagans.

Its quite contradictory if you ask me. I don't think anyone will ever know why different religions are said to have hatred towards each other.

Here's an even better question....Why do many Christians, when told someone is a witch, react with hatred and disgust?

Why are they told that they are going to hell?

:twitch: