Wicca vs. witchcraft vs. paganism

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Some time ago someone asked me to start a thread about Wicca and witchcraft, but I forgot to do so. Anyway, here is my thread on that topic. Forgive me if the topic has already been raised. I've been away from TWeb for a few weeks (I tend to cycle between my numerous discussion boards, so when I'm active at TOL, for instance, I'm less active here, and vice versa).

Anyway, I'll start simply by saying that although Wicca, witchcraft and paganism are all related ideas, they are three different things. I'll now open the floor for questions.

[The Laughing Man]

If so, then why do witches often ID themselves as Wiccans? And Wiccans as witches? And both as pagans?

It's like if I said, "I'm a Baptist, not a Christian," or SplCadet saying, "I'm a Catholic, not a Christian."

Six of one. Half-dozen of the other.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138311#post138311)
Jinx72:

If so, then why do witches often ID themselves as Wiccans? And Wiccans as witches? And both as pagans?

It's like if I said, "I'm a Baptist, not a Christian," or SplCadet saying, "I'm a Catholic, not a Christian."

Six of one. Half-dozen of the other.
Very simple. A witch is a pagan, but a pagan isn't necessarily a witch. A Wiccan is a witch, but a witch isn't necessarily a Wiccan. They represent three different breadths of catagories, pagan being the most broad, and Wiccan being the most specific.

It's like this: A Roman Catholic is a Catholic, but a Catholic isn't necessarily a Roman Catholic. And a Catholic is a Christian, but a Christian isn't necessarily a Catholic.

Paganism is a broad catagory that includes several different kinds of religions. Likewise with witchcraft, which covers a lot of different types of practices and beliefs, of which Wicca is merely one. Wiccans, Druids, Native Americans, Vouduns, Shamans, and all manner of tribalists are pagans, but they aren't all the same as each other. Just like Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even Satanists are all subsets of Christianity (the latter few ranging from widely divergent to antithetical, but nevertheless subsets, as they are founded on the same mythos and the same principles), but they aren't the same as each other.

[Bib Lit Major]

Have to disagree about Native Americans, since they are an ethnic group and not a religion. I understand what you probably meant, Native American tribal religions, which itself is a pretty broad category. However, there are native American Christians, and probably at least a few native Americans belonging to every religion.

Also gotta disagree about putting Jehovah's Witnesses and Satanists in there, but of course this would take us off-topic to discuss fully.

[dizzle]

Eir!!!! - we have missed you. Were your ears tingling or something? Some of us were just talking about how we have not seen you in while, no lie.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138391#post138391)
Dee Dee Warren:

Eir!!!! - we have missed you. Were your ears tingling or something? Some of us were just talking about how we have not seen you in while, no lie.

I had actually been thinking about coming back around a few days. Then I got an email from Solly yesterday, so that lit a fire under me. I just tend to cycle through discussion boards. When I get really active on one, I often let some of the others drop for awhile so as not to get too confused over having too many topics going on at once. Now that I'm back here, I'll probably back off at TOL for a bit. If I do go a space of a few weeks without posting, though, don't worry, I'll always come back ... unless I'm dead or something.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138389#post138389)
Bib Lit Major:

Have to disagree about Native Americans, since they are an ethnic group and not a religion. I understand what you probably meant, Native American tribal religions, which itself is a pretty broad category. However, there are native American Christians, and probably at least a few native Americans belonging to every religion.

That's true. Yes, it was the diverse tribal religions that I was talking about. There are actually several, but many of them tend to lump themselves together as Native American. I say that because I've asked some NA's what name they have for their religion. A Santee Sioux told me they have a name for it, but likely I wouldn't recognize it so they suffice just to be called Native American, since most of their religions share many common elements, and an onlooker would still recognize a rite as Native American, regardless if it was Sioux, Cherokee, Shawnee, Blackfoot, Dakota, Shoshone, or whatever, just as a visitor to a church would recognize the service as Christian, whether it was Baptist, Methodist or Presby. But yes, there are Native Americans (referring to the ethnicity) in most every religion you can name.

Native American has become like Jewish nowadays, referring simultaneously to both an ethnicity and a religion (or grouping of religions).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138389#post138389)
Bib Lit Major:

Also gotta disagree about putting Jehovah's Witnesses and Satanists in there, but of course this would take us off-topic to discuss fully.

I realize that many Christians, particularly of the more mainstream and traditional variety, would not consider JW's or Satanists to be subsets of Christianity. The reason I say they are is because they do share a belief, generally, in the presumed divinity of Christ (even a lot of Satanists that I've met believe this, they just don't attribute it the same significance), and their religions are still based on some interpretation of the Bible and upon Christian mythos (by that I mean they share the same legendary characters and stories), even though that interpretation may differ greatly from that of traditional, mainstream Christianity.

The exception to the above might be the Satanist followers of Anton Lavey. They use Christian liturgy as a tool, but don't really believe in it, nor do they believe in a literal devil. They are more or less a dark form of hedonistic Humanism who believe Satan is merely an allegory for man's own hedonistic nature. As such, since they merely use the tools of Christianity for convenience rather than actual belief, they might not fit quite so firmly in the Christian subset as true devil worshippers.

[Megane]

Yesterday @ 11:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138293#post138293)
Eireann:

I'll now open the floor for questions.


Hi Eireann, I'll think take you up on that. What is it that Wiccans believe exactly? About the universe, God (Goddess?), human beings, etc...the basic stuff.


Thanks

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138407#post138407)
Megane:




Hi Eireann, I'll think take you up on that. What is it that Wiccans believe exactly? About the universe, God (Goddess?), human beings, etc...the basic stuff.


Thanks
Whoah, you sure start with the easy questions, huh? To adequately answer those questions objectively would not only require a lot more space than I'm allotted here but also knowledge that I don't have. But I'll try to give you a bit of an answer.

The universe -- look to the pentagram for an answer to this one. Wiccans are Elementalists. They believe in personifying the elements and giving them character, sometimes in anthropomorphic form. Wiccans also believe themselves to be at one with the universe and the elements. This is one of the many representations of the pentagram. The five points represent the five elements -- earth, air, fire, water, and spirit. The circle represents the universe as a whole (macrocosm), and the star represents man (microcosm).

God/dess -- I can only answer this one from my standpoint, but I know it is shared by a great many Wiccans, but not all. For ease of writing, I'll write this as absolute statements, but know that I am merely expressing a belief. God is the Creator of the universe and is one with Creation (pantheism). God created everything, is in everything, and everything is its own part of God. God has no gender, or at least none that we are aware of. Man chooses to personify God as male or female or both. Wiccans tend to personify God as both, because just such a balance is inherent in nearly all aspects of Creation (even asexually-reproducing creatures and plants have parts that are identifiable as male or female parts). The bible says God created man in his ("their", actually) image, and it is equally true, I think, that we create God in our own image by attributing to God human traits and characteristics. Christians do this, too. Wiccans just personify God in a way that is more in line with the natural order and balance.

They also often use mythical archetypes to represent different aspects or facets of God. God is vast and unfathomable to the human mind, but we can make an effort to understand God in his/her/its various aspects. The mythologies of many cultures provide convenient archetypes to represent some of those aspects. However, though some Wiccans actually believe in multiple deities, I'd say from experience that most do not. Most are what I call polytheistic monotheists (one God, with many forms and many names).

Human beings -- I'm not sure in what respect you mean this question, but I'll go a bit into how Wiccans believe humans should treat each other. The Wiccan Rede. The Golden Rule. "An it harm none, do what ye will." That is not nearly as easily analyzed as one might think, though. For an indepth analysis, check out this page (http://www.geocities.com/eldritch_fey/redeanalysis.html) on my website (which hasn't been updated in far too long).

The basic stuff -- can you be a little more specific?

I know this doesn't come close to adequately answering your questions (and although I was a Wiccan for 20 years or more, and I'm now more or less just an agnostic pagan, I certainly don't have all the answers). But it should give you a starting point to ask some more narrowed questions.

[Belteshazzar]

A chara,

Eireann, I can relate to the 'goals' of pananism, or wicca. The goals seem to be an effort to get back in touch with ancient Celtic, Druidic or native American thoughts on philosophy, and religious beliefs before Christianity. Which, admittedly, I find admireable. As a Christian, I believe God made himself known to all peoples, so there is some element of truth in ancient religious thought.

However, with that said, you really don't know what the Druids thought about gods or goddesses or stonehenge or Mother Earth. We know a LOT more about the ancient Egyptian form of paganism because the Egyptians themselves wrote extensively and these accounts are preserved. Yet, we do not fully understand ancient Egyptian beliefs in Ra because we entirely lack the social, ancestoral, philosophical and traditional context of the role Ra played in the lives of ancient Egyptians.

The problem is far more acute when trying to determine what Druids believed, because they didn't write it down themselves. All of our existing accounts come from non-Druids, and some of the accounts are not so flattering. The only contemporaneous written accounts we have of Druids find that they practiced human sacrifice. Even if you reject contemporaneous accounts as propaganda, there is still archaelogical evidence that strongly suggests human sacrifices were an integral part of Druidism.

So, any attempt to piece together a modern version of paganism is not going to capture the essence of the ancient pagan's traditional religion because some of it is rejected a priori because it is offensive to modern morality, and other parts are entirely unknowable. That is where the ties come in with native American beliefs. Yet, to assume that Druidic thought was in anyway related to native American thought seems completely unfounded. I believe we'll find a closer analogy to ancient Druidic thought by looking at the Greek pantheon of gods, or Etruscan beliefs, or Norse or Germanic beliefs. Yet, I don't find many neopagans or wiccans embracing Zeus or Thor as they would Mother Earth.

Many times the shared element of native American beliefs and Druidism, neopaganism or wicca, is that some adherents of them assume a rejection of Christianity. In these cases, neopaganism shares this inherent principle with Satanism. It is more about a rejection of Christianity than it is a return to pagan beliefs. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it is definitely present in neopaganism.

However, there is no reason to assume that some Druids didn't accept the message of Christ into their religious thought and traditions. In fact, we find ancient thought closely integrated into Christianity in the earliest spread of Christianity throughout the Greek pagan world. You'll also find native American traditions preserved in any number of native American Christian Churches. And, while many evangelical Christians will look disdainfully at what they see as a 'corruption' of Christianity, the Catholic Church may welcome some of these traditions as an integral part of the universal devotion to Christ. A devotion which is only enhanced by preserving the best of our ancient traditions.

So, my point is that you're likely to find that some Catholic Churches in Ireland have preserved the best of ancient Druidic tradition far more accurately than in any neopagan or wiccan coven. And you're likely to find more truth about the Druids in reading St Patrick than you are any neopagan book on magic.

Do you agree?
Jerry

[Megane]

Thank you. Your answers were very helpful. And I'm sorry, by "basic stuff" I was thinking along the lines of answers to some of the fundamental world view questions. Which you provided for me. I'll try to be more specific now..


Regarding the universe - Ah. Very interesting. I was quite ignorant as to what the pentagram meant. Here's a follow up. What does it mean to a Wiccan to be at one with the universe and the elements? I have heard statements like this before, and I confess, I've never quite understood what was meant. What I automatically wonder when I hear this is, " So would someone who said this mean to say that there is no difference between him or her and, say, a rock?" But that probably isn't what's meant.

Regarding human beings - Very interesting. I read the piece on your web page. Jw, what's the origin of the Rede? Who was/were the author/s? Is the Rede authoritative for Wiccans? Like, could one say, "If you want to be a Wiccan you have to acknowledge the Rede. No exceptions." Sort of like Scripture for Christians or the Quran for Muslims?

Ok, back to humans. I wouldn't think so going from what I know so far, but does Wicca acknowledge any sort of "fallen-ness" in humans or the universe? What explanation does Wicca offer for the evil in the world? Does Wicca even believe that there is such a thing as real objective evil and real objective good? If so, how do they define it? Going back to the Rede, how does one decide what "harm" is?

Afterlife - Is there any conception of an "after life" in Wicca? What do they believe happens at death? Is it the same for all people? Does the same thing happen to Hitler as to Mother Theresa?

Thank you again for your time and thoughtful answers.

[Ryokan]

to ask a stupid question, are their any serious cults of wodin or odin running around now, Eir?

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 10:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138404#post138404)
Eireann:



I realize that many Christians, particularly of the more mainstream and traditional variety, would not consider JW's or Satanists to be subsets of Christianity. The reason I say they are is because they do share a belief, generally, in the presumed divinity of Christ (even a lot of Satanists that I've met believe this, they just don't attribute it the same significance), and their religions are still based on some interpretation of the Bible and upon Christian mythos (by that I mean they share the same legendary characters and stories), even though that interpretation may differ greatly from that of traditional, mainstream Christianity.

The exception to the above might be the Satanist followers of Anton Lavey. They use Christian liturgy as a tool, but don't really believe in it, nor do they believe in a literal devil. They are more or less a dark form of hedonistic Humanism who believe Satan is merely an allegory for man's own hedonistic nature. As such, since they merely use the tools of Christianity for convenience rather than actual belief, they might not fit quite so firmly in the Christian subset as true devil worshippers.

I can see how this would be a logical categorisation of Satanists.
One of the things that struck me about it is that they take what they think are Christian elements and distort them. obviously Satanists, if they existed millenia ago, weren't performing Black Masses and inverting Crosses. To play Angel's Advocate as well, I can se how this bunch have given the wicca group a bad name through guilt by association.

They also often use mythical archetypes to represent different aspects or facets of God. God is vast and unfathomable to the human mind, but we can make an effort to understand God in his/her/its various aspects. The mythologies of many cultures provide convenient archetypes to represent some of those aspects. However, though some Wiccans actually believe in multiple deities, I'd say from experience that most do not. Most are what I call polytheistic monotheists (one God, with many forms and many names).

Is God separable from hir creation?

Do you think that eventually wicca/witchcraft might reduce to a kind of pantheistic materialism for the 22nd century if these are all archetypes etc?

Do you think the media's fascination with witches etc, ie Sabrina, Buffy, HP, is a good or bad thing - ie, are children being sold a bill of goods that is harmful to them because it does not reflect the reality of wicca, and can lead them into harmful paths?
Related question: are there harmful paths? Ouija, etc?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 10:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138621#post138621)
Belteshazzar:

A chara,

Eireann, I can relate to the 'goals' of pananism, or wicca. The goals seem to be an effort to get back in touch with ancient Celtic, Druidic or native American thoughts on philosophy, and religious beliefs before Christianity. Which, admittedly, I find admireable. As a Christian, I believe God made himself known to all peoples, so there is some element of truth in ancient religious thought.
Agreed. I don't believe any religion has the corner on truth or revelation. I also don't believe that divine revelation was reserved for a select handful of mad individuals, but is and has been an ongoing process since creation began, and that divine revelation is accessible through creation to everyone, but that only some choose to experience it.

However, with that said, you really don't know what the Druids thought about gods or goddesses or stonehenge or Mother Earth. We know a LOT more about the ancient Egyptian form of paganism because the Egyptians themselves wrote extensively and these accounts are preserved. Yet, we do not fully understand ancient Egyptian beliefs in Ra because we entirely lack the social, ancestoral, philosophical and traditional context of the role Ra played in the lives of ancient Egyptians.
Probably the most reliable source for Druidic and ancient Celtic beliefs is the Book of Kells, which was written by a Catholic scribe with orders to preserve the rites and beliefs (as the observers understood them) as accurately as possible. It has since been altered, I understand, and it is therefore difficult to find an unexpurgated copy.

The problem is far more acute when trying to determine what Druids believed, because they didn't write it down themselves. All of our existing accounts come from non-Druids, and some of the accounts are not so flattering. The only contemporaneous written accounts we have of Druids find that they practiced human sacrifice. Even if you reject contemporaneous accounts as propaganda, there is still archaelogical evidence that strongly suggests human sacrifices were an integral part of Druidism.
Human sacrifice was once a part of just about every religion on the planet, including Judaism, according to archaeology. One could even argue that the murders carried out during the Inquisition were human sacrifice. That is a moral slight that plagues most every religion, but we can't judge what they've grown into because of what primitive forms they grew out of.

So, any attempt to piece together a modern version of paganism is not going to capture the essence of the ancient pagan's traditional religion because some of it is rejected a priori because it is offensive to modern morality, and other parts are entirely unknowable.
I agree with the latter, but regarding the former, if the "sins of the father" provide for rejection a priori, then we would have to reject every religion that is on the planet today, including your own Christian religion.

That is where the ties come in with native American beliefs. Yet, to assume that Druidic thought was in anyway related to native American thought seems completely unfounded.
I don't think anyone suggests that they were, except inasmuch as they are both nature-based.

I believe we'll find a closer analogy to ancient Druidic thought by looking at the Greek pantheon of gods, or Etruscan beliefs, or Norse or Germanic beliefs. Yet, I don't find many neopagans or wiccans embracing Zeus or Thor as they would Mother Earth.
While Grecco-Roman beliefs are largely the stuff of classical literature nowadays, Norse and Germanic beliefs comprise a very significant element of modern Wicca, Asatru, and other neopagan belief systems. My first coven in the US was entirely based on Norse beliefs.

Many times the shared element of native American beliefs and Druidism, neopaganism or wicca, is that some adherents of them assume a rejection of Christianity. In these cases, neopaganism shares this inherent principle with Satanism.
This would be about the only thing they share with Satanism. Satanism still bears more in common with Christianity than with any other religion, being as it is its bastard offspring.

It is more about a rejection of Christianity than it is a return to pagan beliefs. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it is definitely present in neopaganism.
This is the case with some neopagans, but not with all, and it is becoming less common. With those who do reject Christianity, it is generally a reaction to the overbearance of Christianity, to its policy of intolerance, and to its insistence that every aspect of scriptural mythos must be taken as absolute, immutable and inerrant. Most neopagans believe that there is value in every system of belief, and Christianity's insistence that it is the only valued system of belief is anathema to such open-mindedness. So it isn't really the core mythos of Christianity that is rejected as much as its politics and dogmatism.

However, there is no reason to assume that some Druids didn't accept the message of Christ into their religious thought and traditions. In fact, we find ancient thought closely integrated into Christianity in the earliest spread of Christianity throughout the Greek pagan world. You'll also find native American traditions preserved in any number of native American Christian Churches. And, while many evangelical Christians will look disdainfully at what they see as a 'corruption' of Christianity, the Catholic Church may welcome some of these traditions as an integral part of the universal devotion to Christ. A devotion which is only enhanced by preserving the best of our ancient traditions.
The same can be said of many pagan traditions, many of which do accept varying degrees of Christian beliefs. There are whole neopagan movements based on Christian belief. We call them Christian Witches, Christopagans, Jewitches, and so on. These aren't derogatory names, either.

So, my point is that you're likely to find that some Catholic Churches in Ireland have preserved the best of ancient Druidic tradition far more accurately than in any neopagan or wiccan coven. And you're likely to find more truth about the Druids in reading St Patrick than you are any neopagan book on magic.
Except for those neopagans who consider themselves modern Druids, most neopagans don't attempt to recreate or recall the ancient Druidic beliefs. Those that do tend to rely heavily on the recordings made by the Catholics. I wouldn't say that the Catholic records are more accurate than the neopagan records, because the neopagan records ARE the Catholic records. Modern Druids rely most heavily on two ancient sources -- the Book of Kells (Catholic) and the Poetic Eddas (which recounts Nordic Druidism).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139161#post139161)
Ryokan:

to ask a stupid question, are their any serious cults of wodin or odin running around now, Eir?

Probably. I know there are active Norse religions that are based on Norse mythology. Asatru is one of those.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139200#post139200)
Solly:

Is God separable from hir creation?
To pantheist witches, no, at least not in the sense that Creation can exist devoid of God. God is a distinct persona, but Creation embodies God at the same time.

Do you think that eventually wicca/witchcraft might reduce to a kind of pantheistic materialism for the 22nd century if these are all archetypes etc?
Very possible. Or perhaps a pantheistic naturalism.

Do you think the media's fascination with witches etc, ie Sabrina, Buffy, HP, is a good or bad thing - ie, are children being sold a bill of goods that is harmful to them because it does not reflect the reality of wicca, and can lead them into harmful paths?
While I believe there are harmful paths, these shows are not likely to lead to them, with the possible exception of Buffy (in early seasons, Willow, calling herself a Wiccan, dabbled in both black and white magicks, but at the end of season 6, we saw the disastrous consequences of her dabbling. In season 7, she realized she had never really been a true Wiccan as she was only introduced to the actual Wiccan religion and its policy of responsibility in that final season, at which point she abandoned black magick altogether and practiced only what we might call "white" magick). Still, for those who were unschooled in Wicca that distinction might be lost and they might be led to believe that Wiccans practiced black magick or that it is acceptable.

But the other shows -- Sabrina, Charmed, Harry Potter, Bewitched, and so on -- highly unlikely to lead to dark paths. Of those, only Charmed even makes the slightest use of any actual wiccan philosophies (law of three, magick is not to be used for personal gain, etc.). The rest present a purely fictional view of the world of witchcraft.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 11:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138686#post138686)
Megane:

Regarding the universe - Ah. Very interesting. I was quite ignorant as to what the pentagram meant. Here's a follow up. What does it mean to a Wiccan to be at one with the universe and the elements? I have heard statements like this before, and I confess, I've never quite understood what was meant. What I automatically wonder when I hear this is, " So would someone who said this mean to say that there is no difference between him or her and, say, a rock?" But that probably isn't what's meant.
Well, it is and it isn't at the same time. We're basically naturalists. We see ourselves as an inherent part of nature, not as something that exists apart from nature. We are comprised of physical matter and energy, of atomic and subatomic particles, just as every other animal, plant, and mineral. We reproduce by natural processes, as do other living things. So while we see ourselves as more intelligent and perhaps serving a higher purpose than most other living and unliving things, we do not see ourselves as "better than" or "more important than."

Regarding human beings - Very interesting. I read the piece on your web page. Jw, what's the origin of the Rede? Who was/were the author/s?
It's really unknown. The earliest version of it that I've heard of was supposedly found in an abandoned cabin in the mid 19-th century. That version (which I've never actually seen) bore little resemblance to the modern version, which was initially written in the mid-20th century by Adriana Porter, incorporating a portion of a credo written by Aleister Crowley. It was finally published and made public by Gwen Thompson in the 1970s. No one is entirely certain who originated the thing, though.

Is the Rede authoritative for Wiccans? Like, could one say, "If you want to be a Wiccan you have to acknowledge the Rede. No exceptions." Sort of like Scripture for Christians or the Quran for Muslims?
Generally, yes, but not nearly as universally so as the Bible or the Q'uran. Wicca is a non-doctrinal religion that is not based on scripture or liturgy. After all, the Rede wasn't even publically known until 1975.

Ok, back to humans. I wouldn't think so going from what I know so far, but does Wicca acknowledge any sort of "fallen-ness" in humans or the universe?
No, at least not in the sense a Christian would. We do recognize that all things are given to imperfection, but not as the result of any Original Sin or First Fall.

What explanation does Wicca offer for the evil in the world?
Will. Good and evil are both acts of will, and as such only beings with will are capable of either.

Does Wicca even believe that there is such a thing as real objective evil and real objective good?
No. We are generally relativists. Funny story: my university organization hosts biweekly discussion groups during the Fall and Spring semesters, and one was a debate over moral relativism vs. moral absolutism. Some of the participants were three Catholics, one Baptist, one Humanist, one Atheist, and four Wiccans. By the end of the discussion, the Catholics, the Baptist, the Humanist, the Atheist and I were all arguing for moral relativism against the other Wiccans who were arguing for moral absolutism. I'm still not sure how the Wiccans and Catholics/Baptist switched places on that one!

Going back to the Rede, how does one decide what "harm" is?
Harm is anything that debilitates someone or something physically, spiritually, socially, emotionally, etc.

Afterlife - Is there any conception of an "after life" in Wicca? What do they believe happens at death? Is it the same for all people? Does the same thing happen to Hitler as to Mother Theresa?
There is no universal agreement on what sort of afterlife there may be. Generally, a given neopagans view of the afterlife follows the cultural form of whatever pantheon they believe from. Some believe in a Greek version, others in Irish Tir na nOg, others in "the summerland," and so on.

Thank you again for your time and thoughtful answers.
Anytime.

[Belteshazzar]

Eireann

I don't believe any religion has the corner on truth or revelation. I also don't believe that divine revelation was reserved for a select handful of mad individuals, but is and has been an ongoing process since creation began, and that divine revelation is accessible through creation to everyone, but that only some choose to experience it.

I agree with this, but didn't the Druids and other pagans believe precisely what you appear to be criticizing? Especially in Druidism, but in all other pagan beliefs, there was a priestly caste upon whom rested sole religious and sometimes civic authority. Here's an excerpt from Caesar's Commentaries: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001&query=book%3D%236

Gallic War 6:13

Throughout all Gaul there are two orders of those men who are of any rank and dignity: for the commonality is held almost in the condition of slaves, and dares to undertake nothing of itself, and is admitted to no deliberation. The greater part, when they are pressed either by debt, or the large amount of their tributes, or the oppression of the more powerful, give themselves up in vassalage to the nobles, who possess over them the same rights without exception as masters over their slaves. But of these two orders, one is that of the Druids, the other that of the knights.

Caesar goes on to say that the Druids withheld their sacred writings from the masses because religious matters were decided solely by the Druids and were not be be shared with the masses. Caesar also mentions that the Druids decided which peasants were burned alive in the sacrifices before battle, but lets ignore that as propaganda. However, even if we exclude the most unflattering of the contemporaneous accounts about the pagans, we are still left with a strictly ordered society, where priests or Druids held immense power and the rest of the people lived in conditions of near slavery.

When we accurately try to determine the ESSENCE of paganism, we find that it is a religious system where priests and nobles are given immense power through divine revelation, and the rest of the people are vassals. This is somewhat akin to Egyptian religious belief where the Pharaoh was a god, but it extends to almost all pagan belief systems.

This is not to say that Judaism and thus Christianity are immuned to criticism using the same arguments against ancient beliefs. But the big difference is that Christianity maintained parts of the ancient Jewish beliefs, but ceased practices such as animal or even human sacrifice because of a new covenant through Jesus of Nazareth.

So Christianity, and especially the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, maintained the best of ancient traditions and beliefs, as an integral part of the ESSENCE of our religious beliefs. Whereas in neopaganism, the ESSENCE of their beliefs has been lost or discarded.

I understand if someone wants to try and claim a new religion called neopaganism, or Wicca, its just that it has very little in common with our ancient traditions and beliefs. Thus, it is a set of religious beliefs where only modern man can be included, and all of our dead ancestors are thus imparted a more distant relationship with God or the supernatural than we, as superior enlightened modern humans enjoy. Isn't this elitism at its worst?


Anyway, thanks for the info on Christopagans, I'm doing some reading over on http://druid.org/christopagan/.

Jerry

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140131#post140131)
Belteshazzar:

When we accurately try to determine the ESSENCE of paganism, we find that it is a religious system where priests and nobles are given immense power through divine revelation, and the rest of the people are vassals. This is somewhat akin to Egyptian religious belief where the Pharaoh was a god, but it extends to almost all pagan belief systems.

This is not to say that Judaism and thus Christianity are immuned to criticism using the same arguments against ancient beliefs. But the big difference is that Christianity maintained parts of the ancient Jewish beliefs, but ceased practices such as animal or even human sacrifice because of a new covenant through Jesus of Nazareth.

So Christianity, and especially the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, maintained the best of ancient traditions and beliefs, as an integral part of the ESSENCE of our religious beliefs. Whereas in neopaganism, the ESSENCE of their beliefs has been lost or discarded.
I think you're confusing the essence of a religion (its spiritual philosophy) with its political form. Organized heirarchical systems, such as we see in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, ancient Druidism, and an occasional few other pagan religions, is a political form of human heirarchy having little or nothing to do with the actual essence of the religion. What you're speaking of with the ancient Druids would roughly equate to a similar structure in Christianity, where mystery is imparted to a body of clergy and disseminated from there to the common congregation. That is just a political power structure. It is not the essence of Christianity. The essence of Christianity is salvation through Jesus Christ.

Likewise with the ancient Druids, mystery was imparted to a priesthood who disseminated it to the peasants, and that was a political power structure, not the essence of paganism. The essence of paganism is a reverence of nature as divinity and exists apart from any structured heirarchy. A religion need not have a select heirarchy of priests jealously guarding great mysteries in order to be pagan, just as one need not attend Sunday services and tithe to the church in order to be Christian.

The essence of any religion (or catagorical body of religions) is in the relationship between its adherents and their perceived form of the divine. This is a spiritual thing, a philosophy. The organized political structure of a religion is man-made and has little or nothing to do with its spiritual, philosophical essence. So, in short, it is not the essence of paganism that has been lost (it can very easily be gleaned from available sources), but just its political structure (which is relatively unimportant).

Especially in Druidism, but in all other pagan beliefs, there was a priestly caste upon whom rested sole religious and sometimes civic authority.
Actually, this is not a trait of all pagan beliefs. With the exception of the Druids, such a heirarchy was not terribly common in European paganism, at least not in the sense that only these select people were imparted divine revelation. In general, leaders were chosen because of a human need for organization and a voice capable of settling disputes, not because they were thought to be the recipients of select divine knowledge. Those who were viewed as such recipients usually were NOT chosen as leaders, but were often viewed with emotions ranging from wariness to disdain to disbelief. "Mad" and "divinely touched" were interchangable and often inextricable.

[Belteshazzar]

Eireann:

What you're speaking of with the ancient Druids would roughly equate to a similar structure in Christianity, where mystery is imparted to a body of clergy and disseminated from there to the common congregation. That is just a political power structure. It is not the essence of Christianity. The essence of Christianity is salvation through Jesus Christ.

Actually I find that I agree with most everything you write :smile: except on this point, and I'm always willing to agree to disagree.

You've made my point better than I did. The essence of Christianity is salvation through Jesus Christ. The essence of paganism was a combination of the political, secular, and religous structure that defined our relationship to the divine.

As an example, you can not remove the Pharaoh from ancient Egyptian paganism, and still maintain the essence of their beliefs. The Pharaoh was the all powerful representative of the gods on earth.

What remains are the traditional aspects of paganism, and where they didn't conflict with Christianity, they were integrated into it, thus preserving the relationship with our ancestors.

Jerry

[Durthorin]

07-06-2003 @ 12:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140682#post140682)
Belteshazzar:
The essence of paganism was a combination of the political, secular, and religous structure that defined our relationship to the divine.

As an example, you can not remove the Pharaoh from ancient Egyptian paganism, and still maintain the essence of their beliefs. The Pharaoh was the all powerful representative of the gods on earth.

Jerry


Actually, I tend to agree and disagree.. Please take this as not binding on all pagans, we are a varied lot. But Pagans seem to have a unified vision of faith. All is One. Everything. We don't go to Church, we walk in one, we don't visit the Divine it is always with us. As for Egyptian faith, actually its still going as a pagan reconstructionist faith without Pharaoh.. in many ways they needed the Pharaoh no more than Christians needed a King "Annointed by God" with the Divine right of kings.

[BohemianXQueen]

I don't know how you differentiate between Wicca and Witch craft. But Paganism is anything that is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic.

[BohemianXQueen]

Followers of mythology are not cults.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308664#post308664)
BohemianXQueen:

I don't know how you differentiate between Wicca and Witch craft.

Witchcraft is a very broad and relatively generic term, not always having a religious connotation. Nor is it proper to automatically assume that because Wiccans call themselves witches that "witchcraft" must be narrowly defined to pertain only to the practices and beliefs of Wiccans. After all, the word "witchcraft" was in common use centuries before Frost, et al. ever coined the term "Wiccan" in reference to the specific religion of Wicca.

But Paganism is anything that is not Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic.
I'm not sure that it quite accurate. We debated this very question at one of the discussion groups that my former organization held (a pagan org at the University of Missouri Saint Louis). Drawing upon some materials published by WARD (Witches Against Religious Discrimination), it was shown that one thing that pagans generally have in common is that they are some form of theist, although who and what God is will differ greatly between different pagan faiths. Therefore it is generally agreed that those mystical religions that don't profess a belief in the supernormal (often wrongly said as "supernatural") -- Buddhism, for instance -- nor any religion that does not embrace a reverential relationship with elemental nature, cannot be properly termed "Pagan." Pagan is more than simply being a mystical and/or polytheistic religion not of the Judeo-Islamic-Christian framework. Of course, there isn't really a universally agreed-upon authority behind those definitions, but they do apparently apply in the legal sense, as it concerns determining whether or not a specific religion's practices should be recognized as legitimate under the umbrella of Paganism by law enforcement and so on.

[The Creep]

the thing that I have noticed about neo-pagans is something like a blessing and a curse. I have noticed that neo-pagans are capable of grand degrees of enchantment. That is both a blessing and a curse. My central criticism of neo-pagans is that they place beauty over truth. I realize that my criticism may be a bit harsh but all-to-often I have heard meo-pagans wiggle away from the question of truth by spouting rubbish about how neo-paganism is a religion of deeeds and not beliefs. Not any of that has lessened my profound respect for neo-paganism. Neo-paganism got ripped off in a nasty way when Christians came to power in the late Roman Empire. All of the statues that were ripped down and all of the temples that were occupied cry out to the divine for vengeance. I sometimes joke to myself that if I were not a Roman Catholic I would either be a jew or a wiccan. Certainly Christianity, in all of its forms, owes a great and terrible debt to paganism. Christian language itself could not exist without our pagan for-bearers.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

My central criticism of neo-pagans is that they place beauty over truth. I realize that my criticism may be a bit harsh but all-to-often I have heard meo-pagans wiggle away from the question of truth by spouting rubbish about how neo-paganism is a religion of deeeds and not beliefs.
I personally wouldn't resort to that kind of copout in regard to the question of truth. I'm an agnostic pagan, though. I do tend to avoid trying to get too deep into questions of truth, though, simply because I don't believe that anyone has a handle on it. There's a lot of guessing at Truth out there, but I don't believe that anyone has cornered it. Religion, no matter how traditional and structured it is, is a guessing game at Truth.

Not any of that has lessened my profound respect for neo-paganism. Neo-paganism got ripped off in a nasty way when Christians came to power in the late Roman Empire. All of the statues that were ripped down and all of the temples that were occupied cry out to the divine for vengeance. I sometimes joke to myself that if I were not a Roman Catholic I would either be a jew or a wiccan. Certainly Christianity, in all of its forms, owes a great and terrible debt to paganism. Christian language itself could not exist without our pagan for-bearers.
I'd say there are quite a few religions out there that owe a great and terrible debt to each other. I'm not sure that there is a pure and unadulterated religion still out there.

[The Creep]

I agree with you that there is no "pure" religion out there. But, and I know this will sound like a rant, I honestly could never become a neo-pagan because I honestly do not feel that neo-pagans are truth seekers. But please know that I revere the neo-pagan concern for the Earth, the neo-pagan investment with beauty and pageantry and color, and the just salutation of the human body paid by the members of your religion.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I agree with you that there is no "pure" religion out there. But, and I know this will sound like a rant, I honestly could never become a neo-pagan because I honestly do not feel that neo-pagans are truth seekers. But please know that I revere the neo-pagan concern for the Earth, the neo-pagan investment with beauty and pageantry and color, and the just salutation of the human body paid by the members of your religion.
Just out of curiosity, are you Catholic or Muslim? Your icon is Muslim, but you mentioned being Catholic in your previous post. I'm just curious.

As for neo-pagans not being truth-seekers, you're probably right. I think they are more experientialists (is that a word?) than anything else.

[The Creep]

I am a Catholic. But I have got more than a touch of neo-pagan rebellion in me so I change my religious "clothes" on a daily basis. I utterly oppose religious forms of fascism (the worst sort of fascism possible) and so on principle I let my nerves "twitch".

[chasech5]

Do you think that eventually wicca/witchcraft might reduce to a kind of pantheistic materialism for the 22nd century if these are all archetypes etc?

For my 2 cents, no. It is not that "God/dess" are either 'true beings' or 'just archetypes.' Rather, there is a sense of play between those concepts as needed, and a recognition that any one conception will have limits at some point. This is probably the single biggest misinterpretation of the "Goddess" that I have seen in Christian analysis of Goddess traditions (such as in Philip Davis's atrocious book "The Goddess Unmasked")

The trend in contemporary Pagan theology is toward two areas: Panentheism/Process Thealogy, and Cthonic Experientialism. The authors who are working most in this area are Carol Christ, and Michael York. Anne Primavesi serves as a branch between these areas. Other non-Pagans are advancing Pagan Theology as well, such as the philosopher David A . Crosby, whose book "A Religion of Nature" I recommend.

Do you think the media's fascination with witches etc, ie Sabrina, Buffy, HP, is a good or bad thing - ie, are children being sold a bill of goods that is harmful to them because it does not reflect the reality of wicca, and can lead them into harmful paths?
Related question: are there harmful paths? Ouija, etc?

To be truthful I hardly think Sabrina or Harry Potter will lead anyone into doing harmful things they would not have otherwise done. HP is pure wish-fulfillment, and magic there is just another form of technology. Sabrina and Buffy present as many problems that arise from misuse of magic as anything else, and they too completely remove any serious religious dimension.

As for the question of harmful paths themselves..you mention Ouija. Those things are not Wiccan per se, rather they are "occult." Occultism in historical terms simply means a form of esoteric technology, such as Ouija, Tarot, Runes, and meditation techniques, and carries no moral baggage other than that which ignorant people attribute to them. From my perspective, any person who misuses a tool before they are able to handle it through extended magical practice is just asking for trouble. No 10-year old kid needs to handle either a power drill, a Tarot deck, or the "Ark of the Covenant." These are all powerful and productive tools, and they are meant for those who have the necessary training. Its not that power drills are evil, but their misuse can be deadly. Any serious tool works that way.

:tongue:

[lokean]

Hello there! I'm new at Tweb...
Quick introduction: Dutchman, raised evangelical Christian, converted to Greek-Orthodox Church, proceeded to do a Bachelor's in Theology in Greece. Divorced, then a renewed spritual quest led me through Celtic spirituality (Brighid) eventually to my ancestral religion, Heathenry.

to ask a stupid question, are their any serious cults of wodin or odin running around now, Eir? Taking "cult" in a non-offensive, broad meaning as "religious movement", then: yes. As already mentioned, there are modern-day worshipers of the Nordic/Germanic gods (note: I use the word "gods" as inclusive of both genders). These people often identify themselves as Heathen or Asatru (which is a modern Icelandic construct meaning "true to the gods"). Apart from those, there are Wiccans and other eclectic neo-pagans that incorporate these gods into their own religion.

Important to most Heathens are the Edda's, medieval writings that incorporate a significant amount of the otherwise largely lost lore and practice of our ancestors.

http://www.hrafnar.org/norse/tract.html may be a good starting point for more information.

[draoi]

Hi everyone. Hi Eireann, I’ve seen you in another chat somewhere haven’t I?

Well, I’d like to comment on a few things (this may become a little long, bear with me).





There is no universal agreement on what sort of afterlife there may be. Generally, a given neopagans view of the afterlife follows the cultural form of whatever pantheon they believe from. Some believe in a Greek version, others in Irish Tir na nOg, others in "the summerland," and so on.



As a side note: the majority of Wiccans will generally say that they believe in reincarnation of some sort, weather in a Buddhist sense or a Celtic sense or some other interpretation.





It's really unknown. The earliest version of it that I've heard of was supposedly found in an abandoned cabin in the mid 19-th century. That version (which I've never actually seen) bore little resemblance to the modern version, which was initially written in the mid-20th century by Adriana Porter, incorporating a portion of a credo written by Aleister Crowley. It was finally published and made public by Gwen Thompson in the 1970s. No one is entirely certain who originated the thing, though.



It’s accepted (mostly) history that Crowley’s version was just “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” And that Porter or Thompson added the “An it harm non…” bit.





When we accurately try to determine the ESSENCE of paganism, we find that it is a religious system where priests and nobles are given immense power through divine revelation, and the rest of the people are vassals. This is somewhat akin to Egyptian religious belief where the Pharaoh was a god, but it extends to almost all pagan belief systems.



However, two notes:

1: Take a look at classical Catholocism and you will see the same idea. The Pope is second to God and only priests are allowed to absolve sin and hear confession. So this is not a strictly Pagan trait.

2: You will argue that the modern Christian church doesn’t do that anymore, neither does the modern Pagan church. In-fact almost all Pre- “Age of Enlightenment” religions were that way, until modern man realized he didn’t need a priest to talk to God. The same holds true for Post- “Age of Enlightenment” Paganism as well.





This is not to say that Judaism and thus Christianity are immuned to criticism using the same arguments against ancient beliefs. But the big difference is that Christianity maintained parts of the ancient Jewish beliefs, but ceased practices such as animal or even human sacrifice because of a new covenant through Jesus of Nazareth.



Two notes:

1: Modern Paganism doesn’t use animal sacrifice or human sacrifice either, the idea is similar in that the sacrifice made is by John Barleycorn (the wheat that was harvested to make the sacrificial cakes we eat in an almost Eucharistic ceremony).

2: I disagree with the “Christianity… ceased practices such as animal or even human sacrifice” comment, Christianity is subject to human sacrifice, one done 2000 years ago at Golgotha. Human sacrifice was used in ancient times that the blood (sometimes poured on the participants as in ancient Celtic Society) would wash away transgressions and would form a bond between man and God. Is that not what happened to Christ. Sacrificed so that his blood could wash away sin (1 Pete 1:18-19), and so that man could come to God (John 14:6)? Same thing wouldn’t you say?





I understand if someone wants to try and claim a new religion called neopaganism, or Wicca, its just that it has very little in common with our ancient traditions and beliefs. Thus, it is a set of religious beliefs where only modern man can be included, and all of our dead ancestors are thus imparted a more distant relationship with God or the supernatural than we, as superior enlightened modern humans enjoy. Isn't this elitism at its worst?



Not true, a belief in reincarnation allows that dead ancestors can learn from the teachings of modern man.

Unlike Christianity that allows for all who died before Christ to not be privy to the knowledge that Jesus saves us from sin.





I realize that my criticism may be a bit harsh but all-to-often I have heard meo-pagans wiggle away from the question of truth by spouting rubbish about how neo-paganism is a religion of deeeds and not beliefs.



I honestly do not feel that neo-pagans are truth seekers. But please know that I revere the neo-pagan concern for the Earth, the neo-pagan investment with beauty and pageantry and color, and the just salutation of the human body paid by the members of your religion



First off what’s a meo-pagan (just kidding with you). Second: I unfortunately have to concur here. A fair amount are not interested in truth, and it makes me sad for my own people. There is a book in the pagan community that addresses that very issue. It is called Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton and it outlines how much of neo-paganism is based on fact and how much is horse-crap (my words, not Hutton’s). It is a dividing book among modern Wiccans and Pagans. Those who are, as you say “truth seekers” (of which I like to count myself a part) find it a brilliant book that sheds light on so much of modern paganism. Those who “spout rubbish” and “wiggle away from the question” hate it and throw it out calling it “a biased approach” and claiming what the don’t like in it are errors. Good observation though Creep, as sad as it makes me.





No 10-year old kid needs to handle either a power drill, a Tarot deck, or the "Ark of the Covenant." These are all powerful and productive tools, and they are meant for those who have the necessary training. Its not that power drills are evil, but their misuse can be deadly. Any serious tool works that way.



“Amen”





If so, then why do witches often ID themselves as Wiccans? And Wiccans as witches? And both as pagans?



It's like if I said, "I'm a Baptist, not a Christian," or SplCadet saying, "I'm a Catholic, not a Christian."

Six of one. Half-dozen of the other.



Not so Jinx, let me break it down for you



A Pagan is a follower of a Diety that is asociated with nature or the forces therof.

A Wiccan is a follower of the New Age religion known as Wiccan (an Earth based Duotheism).

A Witch is a practitioner of occult or magical arts (regardless of religious preference).



So a Wiccan (who follows a moon goddess and a sun god) would be classified as a Pagan. A Pagan is not necessarily a Wiccan (example a follower of Druidry is Pagan but doesn’t follow moon goddess and sun god so is not Wiccan). A Witch can be a Wiccan and or a Pagan (and visa versa) because ‘Witch’ defines practice where as Wiccan/Pagan defines faith, but a Witch could be an Athiest (or even Jewish in the case of Cabbalists) therefore would be neither Pagan nor Wiccan. Most Wiccans also define themselves as Witches because Wicca strongly embraces occult practices.



It’s similar to:

A Catholic is Christian (believes in/accepts Christ), but a Christian (say Non Denominational or Protestant or whatever) is not necessarily Catholic (accepts rule from the Roman Catholic Church). And a Protestant is not a Southern Baptist, however a Southern Baptism may be considered a Protestant (since the Roman Catholic Church defines Protestant as “any Christian who does not accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.)



So to rearrange your analogy above, it is like saying “I’m a Christian but not a Baptist (I accept Christ but I don’t accept the Baptist Church dogma), or like saying I’m a Catholic and a Christian (see above argument).



Is that clearer?



P.S. Eireann: Nice job on your definitions of Wicca and Witchcraft. Those are very informative and I might use them on my web site when I get it up and going. Feel free to PM me if you would rather I didn’t. And Happy Lughnasadh.

[tmancour]

I'd like to point out that while Wiccans and other neopagans don't "search for truth" the way that the Abrahamics do, our cosmology is such that we really don't need to -- it's not a priority.

Yes, neopaganism is usualy a religion of orthopraxy, like Hinduism, rather than an orthodoxy. But to limit the scope of our religion to a few rituals is as unfair to us as judging Christianity on its ritual cannibalism.

If you remove the concepts of original sin, damnation, and all the other Abrahamic-inspired issues, you're left with a surprisingly clean cosmology that has little need for "truth seeking". The nature of good and evil, I guess, but with moral relativism you really don't need a personification of evil. The mystery of Death, too, but with reincarnation you don't need an elaborate "get out of hell free card" mentality. That leaves "Why are we here", a mystery that most pagans recognize, but also have the wisdom to recognize that there is no one, right and correct "truthful" answer.

In fact, an awful lot of neopagan truthseeking can be covered by the Laws of Ecology: 1) What goes around, comes around and 2) $h!t Happens.

Once you get beyond all that angst-ridden soulsickness, you can get on with the business of living a happy life.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Didymus]

I'd like to point out that while Wiccans and other neopagans don't "search for truth" the way that the Abrahamics do, our cosmology is such that we really don't need to -- it's not a priority.


This seems to be the understatement of the century. If there are such things as gods and goddesses why have they not revealed themselves physically like Jesus Christ has?

Oh well, the truth does appear important to some seekers.

2 Cor. 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Paul reveled this light unto the ignorant pagans in their darkness:

Acts 14

In Lystra and Derbe

8In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. 9He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed 10and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk.

11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." 18Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

[shunyadragon]

This seems to be the understatement of the century. If there are such things as gods and goddesses why have they not revealed themselves physically like Jesus Christ has?

Gods and Goddesses have made many appearances in ancient history, but now one has showed up recently throwing lightning bolts and resurrecting the dead.

Claims of the Bible are no more reliable than the Illiad and Odessy, Gilgamesh, or other tales of Gods and miracles from thousands of years ago.