Paganism

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by curious2c
My two cents worth...

Paganism is equal to Christianity...

I don't know that this is an entirely accurate thing. We have to qualify that, if we're to propose it:

There are a number in inequities we'd have to dismiss. One is official along more standards than another. One is more organized than the other. One is a recent and developing revival, the other is a two-thousand (plus-ish) year unfolding tradition. One is, last time I checked, more populous. Etc.

If we're to say they're equal because they're both religions, that's a little thin. Any number of things can be a religion, loosely put--and I'm not sure we'd hold all of those possibilities in equal regard. Beyond that, if we can determine a purpose for religion (even a paranoid athiestic one like "mass mind control" or whatnot), then the odds of any two being equal in the accomplishment of that purpose are really, really bad.

Also, accuracy would change the value. If one is more metaphysically or spiritually accurate than another, then one would be better. So, we'd have to go on what little evidence we have and what little Philosophy of Religion has found necessary, possible, and impossible for the case.

But, then, if we're to say that they're equal, because they're both religions, and focusing only on the notion that neither are correct (both are bullshit) and accomplishment means nothing...

...then, I guess they would be equal.

 

[Amy Sweet]

I don't know that this is an entirely accurate thing. We have to qualify that, if we're to propose it:



If we're to say they're equal because they're both religions, that's a little thin. Any number of things can be a religion, loosely put--and I'm not sure we'd hold all of those possibilities in equal regard. Beyond that, if we can determine a purpose for religion (even a paranoid athiestic one like "mass mind control" or whatnot), then the odds of any two being equal in the accomplishment of that purpose are really, really bad.

Honey, I'm going to try to be nice.

You are missing the point. Read the whole post. They didn't mean that they are equal religions or whatever. What the post was saying that they equal in the sense that they are general categories of a type of religion and include many smaller and more specific groupings.

Did you really not see this?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Honey, I'm going to try to be nice.

You are missing the point. Read the whole post. They didn't mean that they are equal religions or whatever. What the post was saying that they equal in the sense that they are general categories of a type of religion and include many smaller and more specific groupings.

Did you really not see this?

And I'm saying that the term "equal" means a lot of potential things, and then exploring what those things could be.

Did you not see that?

 

[Amy Sweet]

And I'm saying that the term "equal" means a lot of potential things, and then exploring what those things could be.

Did you not see that?

I did see that the poster used what I would consider to be a poor word choice that could potentially be misunderstood, but that by reading the entire post, the actual meaning of the poster *could* be understood, by someone who was looking for what the person meant rather than looking for a detail to jump onto and disprove.

We can't explore every possible meaning of every possible word in every post. This is what I meant about not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are too focused on specific words and not on what the poster is trying to say.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
I did see that the poster used what I would consider to be a poor word choice that could potentially be misunderstood, but that by reading the entire post, the actual meaning of the poster *could* be understood, by someone who was looking for what the person meant rather than looking for a detail to jump onto and disprove.

Nothing was disproved. What are you reading?

We can't explore every possible meaning of every possible word in every post. This is what I meant about not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are too focused on specific words and not on what the poster is trying to say.

My post didn't have much to do with the poster... except to take a phrase they wrote that could use a little thinking about and explore it openly. That's not really a big deal.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Gosh Cant, I had to read it three times before it started sinking in, thanks although I still feel like I am getting non-pagan definitions of paganism, just toned down.

\

I belonged to a non-Wiccan pagan temple for a while years ago. I even played in the Temple Orchestra.

They claimed to trace their origins back to the Sabaeans, an obscure sect actually metioned in the Old testament as being great astrologers. I seriously doubt their historical roots, but they worshipped the seven (or nine) planetary spirits, who more or less translated into the Greek and Roman (and Mesopotamian) gods: Mercury, Venus, Diana, Apollo, etc. etc. We wore togas and had great rowdy religious feasts that went on all night long. It was a great religion.

Anyhow, they were stone pagan, but had absolutely nothing to do with Wicca.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

I belonged to a non-Wiccan pagan temple for a while years ago.

My nipples ache.

Return to your topic.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't know that this is an entirely accurate thing. We have to qualify that, if we're to propose it:

There are a number in inequities we'd have to dismiss. One is official along more standards than another. One is more organized than the other. One is a recent and developing revival, the other is a two-thousand (plus-ish) year unfolding tradition. One is, last time I checked, more populous. Etc.

If we're to say they're equal because they're both religions, that's a little thin. Any number of things can be a religion, loosely put--and I'm not sure we'd hold all of those possibilities in equal regard. Beyond that, if we can determine a purpose for religion (even a paranoid athiestic one like "mass mind control" or whatnot), then the odds of any two being equal in the accomplishment of that purpose are really, really bad.

Also, accuracy would change the value. If one is more metaphysically or spiritually accurate than another, then one would be better. So, we'd have to go on what little evidence we have and what little Philosophy of Religion has found necessary, possible, and impossible for the case.

But, then, if we're to say that they're equal, because they're both religions, and focusing only on the notion that neither are correct (both are bullshit) and accomplishment means nothing...

...then, I guess they would be equal.

Are you sure you want to use time? Paganism has far older roots than Christianity and if you include the original polytheistic religions that have been reborn in many forms of modern Paganism, then paganism trumps Christianity. If I include Judaism to be fair, we get a good semi-equal blend.

Also, you really don't want to propose a query onto which one is righter because no one will know until Death who was right and no one has come back to tell us all about it.


If you were really getting into it, there could be more benchmarks you could propose. Peacefullness for instance could stack up the various religions and put them on the bar chart of comparison or maybe organization to help the Christians gain the upper hand.

However, I think that this form of benchmarking religions is disingenius. It's not only arbitrary, but deliberately competitive over something that really really (I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH) really shouldn't be competitive. Worldviews are personal objects, attempts by one to understand the world he/she/it lives in. Trying to rank such worldviews on a chart and say "yeah that one is the best, everyone who doesn't follow it is an idiot" is well... arbitrary, petty, and mean-spirited.

I realize you have a bias on the issue of paganism. You admitted so much much earlier than this thread (don't make me go digging in old threads like amicus did. I really hated doing that). And that's cool in it's own way. Nothing wrong in believing paganism is a bunch of claptrap, but this:

But, then, if we're to say that they're equal, because they're both religions, and focusing only on the notion that neither are correct (both are bullshit) and accomplishment means nothing...

...then, I guess they would be equal.

Is just being mean, arrogant, and overall exhibiting the type of disregard for others that cause threads like Joe to pop up. If you want to keep it up, fine. I will merely point it out when others are getting frustrated and can't express why clearly. Cause lord knows, I don't talk pretty either and people have pointed out before and again when I've stepped over the line and basically played the ass. I'm grateful for that. Whether you will be or whether you care are entirely different subjects. And subjects that may just well go unanswered.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa,

I have to say that many people who call themselves wicca or wiccan are really pagan- because they don't follow many of the things that make wicca what it is- these being the 'ecclectic wiccans' in large part. Some use 'wicca' to mean a modern word for witch and witchcraft- believing that wicca is a softer less offensive sounding word- or believing that the word is prefferable for some other reason. In this instance, many use the word wicca as a noun that is synonymous with witch- while others use it as a specific religion (as I said Wicca) with specific rules, structure, and rituals.

Now- as to the question of a pagan who is not a wiccan, it has two parts since there are basicly two definitions of Wicca.

In the case of the lowercase w wicca- a pagan who is not wiccan is basicly anyone who is pagan but doesn't choose to call themselves wiccan. (confusing no?) but also can be a pagan who doesn't consider themselves a witch- either because there paganism is a spiritual practice and not a magical one, or because it is magical but they have a different name for there practices or for whatever other weason, they don't feel that they are wiccan. In some cases- the pagan may call themselves a Witch, a Pagan, a Druid, a Voodun, or some other lable. Unless you belong to a coven or some other group or organization, it's pretty much up to you to decide what lable you wish to identify yourself with. It's best- unless you go with pagan, to do lot's of research so that if you following Norse gods and so forth, you don't look silly calling yourself a Druid. (You would want to call yourself something that resonates with that tradition.) If you belong to a coven or group- you will all be called the same thing, whatever that may be.

This is probably terribly confusing, if your already confused. I tried my best, so I hope it helps. If you really have an interest, a really good thing to read is Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today

It's somewhat dated, but its very comprehensive and scholarly (I believe she wrote it as her thesis or something) I totally enjoyed reading it-- and was suprised to find it available at my library I would however, love to have a copy for my very own. It doesn't read like a novel or anything, but I think you can handle it- you seem pretty smart to me.

there's a little bit of a definition in the description, so I'll reprint it here with a link (amazon) in case you want to read the reviews or whatever

Popular demand for this clear-sighted compendium of information about the rebirth of Pagan religions hasn't waned since its initial publication in 1979. Distinguished by the journalism of National Public Radio columnist Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon explains this diverse and burgeoning religion's philosophies and activities while dispelling stereotypes that have long been associated with it. Most people don't realize that pagan simply refers to pre-Christian polytheistic nature religions, such as the various Native American creeds, Japanese Shinto, Celtic Druid, and Western European Wicca. Originally, the word pagan meant "country dweller" and was a derogatory term in Rome in the third century A.D., not unlike calling someone a hick today. If you find yourself feeling queasy when you hear the words witch or pagan, a healthy dose of reeducation via Drawing Down the Moon could be the cure. --P. Randall Cohan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-0300445-9676178?v=glance&s=books

Here's what one reviewer said:

This book is like a history book, that covers each and every nuance and political faction of the Wiccan movement since it's inception and because of that is an important reference work, but, as such, it's a bit like reading an encyclopaedia.
I was much more educated than inspired.
(they still gave it 3 stars)

Thanks Amy/Sweet, I am researching and that link will be second now on my list. I got interested in this, please if Abs friend contacts you about the animal guide stuff PM me also.

I will bow out of this thread now, since I usually lose interest before I lose my temper, just wanted everyone to know I lost interest in the thread, not the subject.

Thanks everybody who was helping me here and in the PM's, your help was really nice and I appreciate it. See ya, Lisa.

 

[Pure]

Amy said,

//Exactly. paganism is an umbrella term, it's a large category of religious beliefs. It's like saying mamall or reptile. It's a very general description.//

I don't think that's quite right, Amy. "Mammal" is an agreed term by those in biology.

If you pick up a book on "World Religions" or "Comparative Religion", unless it's by a Christian from the Bible Belt, you wont see, in the Table of Contents: Christianity-- various forms; Monotheism, various forms; Paganism--various forms.

As I posted earlier, I think it's a tiny minority of Westerners who like the term 'paganism,' and enjoy its shock value. **{{Though the Adler book on 'pagan religion' is not bad, the author represents this 'neo' movement, and follows its proud adoption of the Christian term-- but inverted in value}} The rest of the world religions go about their business. You may find them saying "we have many gods, and Jews, Moslems and Christians have one," but that's not really a claim to be 'a pagan.'

As to Joe's verbiage, I think Luc cut through it pretty well, esp.
//Also, accuracy would change the value. If one [religions] is more metaphysically or spiritually accurate than another, then one would be better. // This is really pretty outrageous, and has a papal ring to it (correct beliefs and incorrect ones).

One other remark is pretty bizarre:
Joe:
//and accomplishment means nothing// {in assessing a religion, relative to another}

What are the 'accomplishments' of a religion? Is modern western medicine an 'accomplishment' of Christianity. Is Saddam an 'accomplishment' of Islam. Would the burning of thousands of witches and heretics be a Christian 'accomplishment.'

Likely Joe is thinking of intellectual and philosophical accomplichments, like St. Thomas's and Calvin's. Yet is producing a Calvin the standard by which we judge a religion. The whole exercise is bogus, and Luc has given many of the general reasons.

 

[curious2c]

I don't know that this is an entirely accurate thing. We have to qualify that, if we're to propose it:

There are a number in inequities we'd have to dismiss. One is official along more standards than another. One is more organized than the other. One is a recent and developing revival, the other is a two-thousand (plus-ish) year unfolding tradition. One is, last time I checked, more populous. Etc.

If we're to say they're equal because they're both religions, that's a little thin. Any number of things can be a religion, loosely put--and I'm not sure we'd hold all of those possibilities in equal regard. Beyond that, if we can determine a purpose for religion (even a paranoid athiestic one like "mass mind control" or whatnot), then the odds of any two being equal in the accomplishment of that purpose are really, really bad.

Also, accuracy would change the value. If one is more metaphysically or spiritually accurate than another, then one would be better. So, we'd have to go on what little evidence we have and what little Philosophy of Religion has found necessary, possible, and impossible for the case.

But, then, if we're to say that they're equal, because they're both religions, and focusing only on the notion that neither are correct (both are bullshit) and accomplishment means nothing...

...then, I guess they would be equal.

In the literal sense (as you seem to be taking it anyway Joe) What I meant and how you took it are two way different things. The original post I made, in its entirety showed my intent. Taking one sentence out of context to prove some kind of point that was not meant by my words...

What I meant...to clarify my words...
Paganism isn't a religion nor is Christianity...they are the same in that way...they stand for all of the different belief sets that each individual type of belief follows.

Chirstianity is more than Catholic, Morman, Baptist, Lutheran, and all the others that make it up. Each part makes the whole.

Paganism is the same...or as I put it and meant it in my original post...equal in that there are many different belief sets in Paganism just as there are in Christianity.

For that matter, to be even more broad and fully equal, one could say that all reliegions have a basis that is equal in many ways.

All religions have a belief in something that is far more powerful, benevolent, loving, creative, and 'right' (for lack of a better word at the moment) Each one calls their choice either a God, a Goddess, Both or they hang some other kind of name on that higher power. Even the scientific community is studying this and I just read about how some in that world believe in a 'God Gene' built into all humans DNA. Not sure if the scientist who believe that are Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Pagan or whatever...in the end...when one passes on...who does it matter to the most anyway? The living or the one who has gone to the next level of eperience?

I have to believe that there is something in all humans that cause a belief in something greater...even in an Atheist or Agnostic. After some thought I think that there is something greater anyway. What makes you...any of you different than me? Or everyone else? There is a core in each person that tells a story and that story is one that guides an individual to make choices in their lives. Each individual makes different choices, yet we all live together, somehow and someway.

I believe that difference...our 'soul' or that part of us that seems to have energy of its own special and individual kind is where that 'God Gene' is and when one dies it has to go somewhere. After all, even scientist know that energy is neither created or destroyed...just changed from one form to another. That energy that makes me...me and you...you...that can't be destroyed, it can only change to a different form. When one dies a significant change takes place...one that the living cannot understand...until they themselves make that change for themselves...at their time. A circle completed leads to another circle.

In some ways...the most basic of simplicity. The circle.

 

[woodnymph_O]

i thought some of you might enjoy this

it is an interesting read
http://www.candlegrove.com/solstice.html

 

[cantdog]

Circle is a fine symbol for completeness and perfection, even regeneration, but it also seems to imply exclusivity. It appears, very naturally, in many languages, in that way.

"He was allowed into the inner circle." "She was the newest member of that circle."

Because it seems to delineate an inside and outside, while implying the completeness of those within, even though there be others without. They don't need you, and you're outside.

Centuries of deadly hunts for members of these circles may have even reinforced this. I find some of the writings in the pagan genre to be deliberately esoteric, returning to inside references not explained, like the Level and the Square for freemasons. With knowing glances at each other.

Esoteric writing is characteristic of the hunted. I read a terrible but I suppose very scholarly translation of al-'Arabi when I was reading mystics. He'll never come out in paperback, dude. He was writing in the 1100s or something. The caliph and the 'ulama were concerned with the purity of the faith, and mysticism is not what they liked to hear about.

Even Muhammad didn't hear God himself, but was visited and admonished only by a messenger angel, Gabriel. Mystics seem to be after a personal closeness to God. They were often killed in a welter of pain when discovered, for their presumption. So al-'Arabi and a lot of those guys wrote in a highly disguised form. They wanted to communicate to one another, and pass on the knowledge to the next generation. But they had to watch their ass.

Rumi is encrypted mysticism, too, but the poems are beautiful of themselves, so he comes out in paperback.

The point is, the annotations were much more voluminous than the text, because the book, when used, was also being interpreted by someone in the know, not just read by a neophyte.

Sufi orders today function like secret societies, at least in secular Turkey. And sifism is very unwelcome in puritan Sa'udi Arabia.

Paganism is like that, to read, at least. Sometimes. Any comment from 2c or Q_C or someone?

 

[woodnymph_O]

here is another one i thought would be nice

I'm including a few quotes from this article here. It offers quite a bit of information on the holiday. http://www.crystalinks.com/christmas.html
An enormous number of customs, with either secular, religious, or national aspects, surround Christmas, and vary from country to country. Most of the familiar traditional practices and symbols of Christmas, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas ham, the Yule Log, holly, mistletoe, and the giving of presents, were adapted or appropriated by Christian missionaries from the earlier Asatru pagan midwinter holiday of Yule, the celebration of the Winter solstice. Yule was widespread and popular in northern Europe long before the arrival of Christianity. The Christmas tree per se is believed to have first been used in Germany.

Rather than attempting to suppress such popular pagan feast days, Pope Gregory I allowed Christian missionaries to give them a Christian reinterpretation, while permitting most of the associated customs to continue with little or no modification. A few Christian churches, notably the Jehovah's Witnesses, some Puritan groups, and some ultra-conservative fundamentalist denominations, thus view Christmas as a pagan holiday not sanctioned by the Bible, and do not celebrate it.

http://www.crystalinks.com/xmastrees.html

alot of facts about christmas trees a quote from this article too
Long before there was a Christmas, Egyptians brought green palm branches into their homes on the shortest day of the year in December as a symbol of life's triumph over death.

Romans adorned their homes with evergreens during Saturnalia, a winter festival in honor of Saturnus, their god of agriculture.

Druid priests decorated oak trees with golden apples for their winter solstice festivities. In the middle ages, the Paradise tree, an evergreen hung with red apples, was the symbol of the feast of Adam and Eve held on December 24th.

The first recorded reference to the Christmas tree dates back to the 16th century. In Strasbourg, Germany (now part of France), families both rich and poor decorated fir trees with colored paper, fruits, and sweets.

The retail Christmas tree lot also dates back that far - in those times, older women would sell trees harvested from nearby forests.

And On mistletoe
Also known as the golden bough, mistletoe was held sacred by both the Celtic Druids and the Norseman.

Celts believed this parasitic plant held the soul of the host tree, the holy oak. In a special ceremony, the Druid priests would harvest it with a golden sickle making sure it never touched the ground where it's magical powers would be absorbed back into the earth.

The branches were then divided and distributed to the people who used it as a protection from all sorts of evils.

Once called 'Allheal', it has been used as a folk medicine to heal toothache, measles, and many other ills.

The practice of 'kissing under the mistletoe' has many legends associated with it.

Some say the Druids dedicated the plant to the Goddess of Love, and this is where the custom comes from.

Others claim it came from England, where mistletoe was hung in doorways for good luck.

hope you all enjoy
light and love
nymphy

 

[Pure]

so is it true pagans have more fun?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Circle is a fine symbol for completeness and perfection, even regeneration, but it also seems to imply exclusivity. It appears, very naturally, in many languages, in that way.

"He was allowed into the inner circle." "She was the newest member of that circle."

Because it seems to delineate an inside and outside, while implying the completeness of those within, even though there be others without. They don't need you, and you're outside.

Centuries of deadly hunts for members of these circles may have even reinforced this. I find some of the writings in the pagan genre to be deliberately esoteric, returning to inside references not explained, like the Level and the Square for freemasons. With knowing glances at each other.

Esoteric writing is characteristic of the hunted. I read a terrible but I suppose very scholarly translation of al-'Arabi when I was reading mystics. He'll never come out in paperback, dude. He was writing in the 1100s or something. The caliph and the 'ulama were concerned with the purity of the faith, and mysticism is not what they liked to hear about.

Even Muhammad didn't hear God himself, but was visited and admonished only by a messenger angel, Gabriel. Mystics seem to be after a personal closeness to God. They were often killed in a welter of pain when discovered, for their presumption. So al-'Arabi and a lot of those guys wrote in a highly disguised form. They wanted to communicate to one another, and pass on the knowledge to the next generation. But they had to watch their ass.

Rumi is encrypted mysticism, too, but the poems are beautiful of themselves, so he comes out in paperback.

The point is, the annotations were much more voluminous than the text, because the book, when used, was also being interpreted by someone in the know, not just read by a neophyte.

Sufi orders today function like secret societies, at least in secular Turkey. And sifism is very unwelcome in puritan Sa'udi Arabia.

Paganism is like that, to read, at least. Sometimes. Any comment from 2c or Q_C or someone?

yes, I would agree that paganism is lilke that- at least many *parts* of paganism, especially those dealling with magic.

Isn't it nice that you can find out how to build a pipebomb (or whatever) on the internet?

Well, people who believe that magic is real and powerful, for the most part also have enough respect for it not to put information in the hands of just anybody who may or may not be ready to handle it responsibly.

Most of those who do put certian things out -- like 'simple' spells to control others and stuff like that- don't really know all they claim to know. The mixture of truth and lies conspires to keep the 'occult' in the occult.

Paganism is largley occult, although not entirely. And occult means hidden. (as doesn essoteric) Weather followers keep there secrets hidden out of responsibilty or out of some thrill of being on the 'inner circle' I really can't answer to anyone's satisfaction, but it is a fact of paganims that the more 'occult' aspect of it you are into, the less likely that your going to share your secrets with anybody who'd mildly interested.

Weather this is right or wrong, I think it is to be expected.

Not all of paganism however is overly concerned with the occult, oddly enough. Many are just happy to spread love and light and embrace nature and protect the earth. But most *all* religions involve some search for hidden or secret knowlege or insights or enlightemnent or some sort of transformation (for example, being 'saved') I would say all religoins, pagan occult or otherwise involve the believe that they have something (answerers, experiences, knowlege, salvation, truth) that you can't get from the outside. That is why you join right?

Hmm, I'm not sure if I stayed on topic or even said what you were looking for. I hope this helped cant.

 

[curious2c]

Cantdog...interesting thoughts you bring up. Circles...yes they can be quite exclusive, but they are also all encompassing too. Pagans believe in circlular life. The whole earth, matter of fact our universe...in some Pagan's thinking, is a circle. That would preclude some of that 'inner circle' but of course, one has to be a part of that particular circle to know that too. Kind of a catch 22 it seems.

Secret societies have existed for time immorial(sp) and will always be present some how and some way.

Humans, as beings with reason and thought processes that seperate us from animals (for the most parts anyway) always tend to group together with like thinking individuals, thus creating a 'circle'.

That is what makes me believe that circles are a natural process. You see them in nature too. Strength, protection, and safety comes with circles, in nature, in human course of life, and in the universe as a whole.

Even God of the Christians spoke of circles...can't remember any specific passages anymore...but I am sure in the bible circles are mentioned more than a few times.

In the end, any religion can only be as good as it's believers make it. Some do not do too well in hearing or acting on those belief's, especially when they convolute the words and phrases out of context and give them a whole different meaning than what was intended.

How am I doing? Getting anywhere at all or am I just missing the point?

 

[cantdog]

No you got me. Sweet too.

But it's two different answers, in a way.

Thanks.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

so is it true pagans have more fun?

Oh yeah. If your idea of fun is staying up all night dancing and drinking while girls run across the table tops with platters of food and their togas falling off, then yes. Definitely yes.

Paganism: not much of a religion but a hell of a lifetsyle.

---dr.M.

 

[curious2c]

so is it true pagans have more fun?

heh heh...Blonde Pagans have more fun. Brunettes...well...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Circle is a fine symbol for completeness and perfection, even regeneration, but it also seems to imply exclusivity. It appears, very naturally, in many languages, in that way.

"He was allowed into the inner circle." "She was the newest member of that circle."

Because it seems to delineate an inside and outside, while implying the completeness of those within, even though there be others without. They don't need you, and you're outside.

Centuries of deadly hunts for members of these circles may have even reinforced this. I find some of the writings in the pagan genre to be deliberately esoteric, returning to inside references not explained, like the Level and the Square for freemasons. With knowing glances at each other.

Esoteric writing is characteristic of the hunted. I read a terrible but I suppose very scholarly translation of al-'Arabi when I was reading mystics. He'll never come out in paperback, dude. He was writing in the 1100s or something. The caliph and the 'ulama were concerned with the purity of the faith, and mysticism is not what they liked to hear about.

Even Muhammad didn't hear God himself, but was visited and admonished only by a messenger angel, Gabriel. Mystics seem to be after a personal closeness to God. They were often killed in a welter of pain when discovered, for their presumption. So al-'Arabi and a lot of those guys wrote in a highly disguised form. They wanted to communicate to one another, and pass on the knowledge to the next generation. But they had to watch their ass.

Rumi is encrypted mysticism, too, but the poems are beautiful of themselves, so he comes out in paperback.

The point is, the annotations were much more voluminous than the text, because the book, when used, was also being interpreted by someone in the know, not just read by a neophyte.

Sufi orders today function like secret societies, at least in secular Turkey. And sifism is very unwelcome in puritan Sa'udi Arabia.

Paganism is like that, to read, at least. Sometimes. Any comment from 2c or Q_C or someone?

Circle based Wiccans, yes. Individual based Wiccans, no.

Straight up pagans, not more than any other religion. That is if they think you want to know just to mock them they may exclude, but if you seem willing to learn they will include.

Wiccans and Pagans also seem very willing to aid out someone who needs more information on a particular piece of paganism, wicca, or simply New Age. I think it's the rarity of such an opportunity that make them more willing to be helpful, or perhaps it's the joy all religious people have in aiding a possible brother or sister. Who knows? Psychology ain't my strong suit.

To enter into a coven, there will be a secret society veneer because the people of a circle are expected to work in harmony and because it's supposed to be harmonized belief that exists as the main spiritual component. If one has a weak faith, isn't taking it seriously, or is grating against the other members, they will find themselves "excluded from the circle". This is because of the dynamic of coven-based or group Wicca.

Individual Wiccans on the otherhand seem to be far more willing to lend out Magic books to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that asks, because there is no group dynamic or harmony to worry about in individual spells. They may give the potential Wiccan a warning to stay away from the Black Magic sections of their bookstore, but will likely do no more to hinder them.


It's probably quite apparent that I know far more individual-based Wiccans than group-based Wiccans.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, I have a friend-- at one time, a friend-- now at some distance from his former life. He does magic, I believe as a lone practitioner. He is in touch, certainly, with many others, but he speaks always as though he works alone or with his family. If 'works' is the word I want.

He wears a Thor's hammer and is steeped in the lore of the North. Not just the Eddas, but stories from the Russian, the Polish, and so forth. He studied Anglo-Saxon with me when we were freshmen in high school, and we learned a little Icelandic to read the Eddas, but that was many years ago now. Long story.

He seemed fairly open about it in conversation, although it would surely have taken weeks of conversations to communicate a reasonable amount of what he'd studied, and we have had two brief talks only since meeting again. I don't remember him using the word wicca as though it meant himself.

I didn't know much of anything about it at the time we last talked. Myths, yes, but never the active practice of the Old Religion, how it was done. Now I believe, thanks to you folks, I can place him along the cline of pagans I'm beginning to make out the shape of.

cantdog

 

[Amy Sweet]

No you got me. Sweet too.

But it's two different answers, in a way.

Thanks.

I liked curious's answer too.

 

[cantdog]

A circle is a potent symbol, but the cross, as the Christians mean it, is just weird. Imagine all those parochial school kids, as Lenny Bruce said, with little golden electric chairs around their necks...

 

[Amy Sweet]

Yeah, I have a friend-- at one time, a friend-- now at some distance from his former life. He does magic, I believe as a lone practitioner. He is in touch, certainly, with many others, but he speaks always as though he works alone or with his family. If 'works' is the word I want.

Works is a perfectly fine word to use here, cant. In fact, it is just the right one.

He wears a Thor's hammer and is steeped in the lore of the North. Not just the Eddas, but stories from the Russian, the Polish, and so forth. He studied Anglo-Saxon with me when we were freshmen in high school, and we learned a little Icelandic to read the Eddas, but that was many years ago now. Long story.

He seemed fairly open about it in conversation, although it would surely have taken weeks of conversations to communicate a reasonable amount of what he'd studied, and we have had two brief talks only since meeting again. I don't remember him using the word wicca as though it meant himself.

Most likely he's not Wiccan (or wiccan) and doens't consider himself to be. There are exeptions, but a vast majority of wiccans seem to prefer Celtic dieties.

I didn't know much of anything about it at the time we last talked. Myths, yes, but never the active practice of the Old Religion, how it was done. Now I believe, thanks to you folks, I can place him along the cline of pagans I'm beginning to make out the shape of.

cantdog

Yeah, I'd say he's a pagan. Of course with anything, you'd probably have to ask him if he felt that was the correct term for him. I think there are some norse practicioners who prefer to be called "heathen"-- go figure right?!

To toss the Christians back in Jahova's Witnesses claim to be Christians (I think) but no part of Christiondom. I actually read a lot of there literature. (I'm too polite to turn them away, and besides, I'm interested- not in joining, in learning.)