orgins of witchcraft

[kittychorus]

Response to Tantum ergo Part 1

on sex between married couples etc.

—Quote—
Propaganda? Right here is an example of you, kitty, apparently swallowing some ‘propaganda’ from somebody else. (And don’t start on ‘the burning times’–now there is real propaganda for you). Sodomy, bestiality, adultery etc. were condemned historically, not just by ‘Rome’ from a certain time period. Yes, even among early societies and pagans. And nice touch to attempt to reduce anything a Catholic says not just to 'blindly following Rome" but also to completely denigrate anything Rome said by claiming it not only coopted Christ’s name but also did unspeakable evil thereafter. Sheesh.
—End Quote—

The propaganda I am referring to is real. To get you some references will take more time than my lunch break will allow, so I will re-post later tonight or tomorrow with some further information on these. Maybe I will make an entirely new thread of it because that is a big subject in and of itself. Either way- I think you are missing me here. I am not saying that sodomy and bestiality were not condemned historically- I am saying that their connection to wiccans is erroneous. Wiccans condemn this too! You seem to think I have no respect for Catholics as a group which is not true. These impressions that are out there make me upset, but please don’t mistake that for Catholic-hating. Or any Christian-hating or anything-hating. As far as I can tell, these connections did come from the Inquisition and before- when people were being forced to convert by the sword. Quick example that comes to mind: Why do pictures of the devil look like a Pan-type faun or a horned beast when the Bible describes Lucifer as an angel of light?

I do bring it up as a tactic to make a point, but I think you are really misunderstanding me. I am not trying to discredit Rome in its entirety, only saying that in every religion (and I chose catholic because of the forum) there are people in it who do things in the name of the religion which the religion itself would not support. The Catholic population is no more immune to this type of stupidity than Muslims, Buddhists, or pagans. However, my point is that sometimes the damage sticks far beyond what the propagators ever thought of. The ‘Burning Times’ were another example of this. I do not think that the church supports those actions today, but they happened and many of the impressions left behind stuck. People everywhere have done unspeakable evil in the name of things that would never support them.

on contraception/abortion

—Quote—
Correction. All Christian Churches were unanimously against contraception until 1930. That is less than 100 years ago, kitty. It is not ‘the Roman Catholic interpretation’ which condemns contraception but a ‘universal interpretation’. And some nonCatholic Christians follow this as well. Even pagans and witches did not originally practice contraception; life was seen as a great joy and children were welcomed in the earliest societies and are still welcome today. I really think you should read more ‘unbiased’ and ‘unrevised’ history.
—End Quote—

I am not certain who does and does not ascribe to that interpretation- which is why the one sentence was as a question. I am not certain when the doctrines were written. I do know that there is no “thou shalt not practice family planning” in the Bible. This does not mean that life is not a joy and that children aren’t welcome? I don’t really understand how you read that in what I wrote. I would suppose that no one originally practiced contraception until they figured out good methods for it. My statement was not about whether they generally did or didn’t anyway. Only that I don’t think too many groups have gotten together to say- no you absolutely shouldn’t. To say this is universally accepted doesn’t seem true because what other group(s) have gotten together to say they think it’s wrong for everyone everywhere? That life is a good thing and participating in the continuing of life is a good thing are more universal concepts. But that all forms of contraception are bad just doesn’t seem to be. And I still don’t believe in judging others based on this.

 

[kittychorus]

Response to Tantum ergo Part 2

—Quote—
The ‘witches’ of today are not ‘connected’ with the so-called ‘witches’ of the Middle ages, or the ‘wise’ Druids, or even the earliest ‘wise women’ of prehistory. Those people and groups evolved or were self-limiting. “Witches” of today are part of a new-age group which thinks, based on ‘books’, that they are part of those ‘old times’. Like a person in the “Society for Creative Anachronism”, you carefully select a character for yourself, surround yourself with contemporarily made ‘old time’ costumes and trappings, and 'play a part.
—End Quote—

This is true. The direct history of “Wicca” is very recent. However, many of the concepts involved were used by those of old as well. Those that call themselves Druids today are not the same group as those hundreds of years ago- but they do base themselves on many of the same concepts. There is a connection- although not a direct and clear historical path. I agree that there are a lot of ‘neo-pagans’ for whom their religion is more of a dress up game or form of rebellion than anything else. This is sad, because they are promoting the same concepts that I object to by subscribing to them. I am not one of those. The ‘old-time trappings’ hold absolutely no appeal to me as part of a religious setting. They are fun for a Renaissance Faire, but that’s about it. Nothing more than playing pretend. Each religious item that I own I use as a focus tool- much the same as a rosary. The item itself does nothing, but the physical feel of something in my hand helps me focus my mind on my meditations. (No- not transcendental- that’s kinda scary stuff right there!)

Carefully selecting a character for myself. Hmm. Yeah, I guess I sort of do. I try to keep the type of person I want to be in my mind and do my darndest to be that person, even when it goes against my instincts. Although I believe that could also be called integrity or strength of character. Not saying I don’t screw up and let myself or others down- only that I am truly trying to be the person God has intended me to- whether or not someone else is watching.

The “dress-up pagans” have the same status in my mind as the Goth kids all in black or the vampire-wanna-be’s or the kids from farms trying to act like they are from the ghetto. They are trying to be something they are not- and just on the outside for a perceived level of acceptance. They need to grow up. They exist, but I would hardly call them genuine wiccans- any more than you would call your “Easter & Christmas Christians” devoted. Only God knows the heart for sure, but people that act that way don’t inspire a lot of hope that there is more going on inside them.

 

[kittychorus]

Response to Tantum ergo Part 3

—Quote—
I was ‘there’ in the 70s when all these new ‘pagan’ and ‘witchcraft’ books started appearing. I read them then; I read them now. They are carefully crafted (hah) to achieve just exactly the results I see in those who call themselves pagans and witches today–a blindness which thinks it sees everything ‘new’, a skepticism about everything but the pseudo beliefs they themselves embrace. . .and the people responsible for this are not, sadly, ‘long dead.’
—End Quote—

And here is a bit of a tricky thing to convey. Unlike Christianity or Islam there is no completely set belief system for Wicca. There are Wiccans who do and say things that I personally disagree with, but they still are Wiccan. There are 2 things that make understanding my beliefs hard for those that are coming from the background of a structured religion. 1) That there are many groups that the general society seems to lump together – from Satanism to Wicca to Native American religions and 2) that in unstructured religions, disagreement with each other really is not much of an issue, except on very basic things (murder is wrong, .

I chose the group I am with because we hold most of the same philosophies and all of the same values. There are still things I disagree with them on, and that is OK. I believe that there is one God and all the different things people have come up with are us trying to describe him. There are also other lesser spiritual creatures that either serve the force for life or the force for destruction. There are Wiccans who truly think that there are many separate gods. I do not agree with the practice of drawing down the moon or astral projection, and neither does anyone in my group. But there are Wiccans that do these things. If I were to go to a group and find that they were planning on doing either of these things, I would respectfully leave. I do not think it is my place to judge them. Just because I don’t agree with that practice without meaning that I value them as people less, or have any less respect for the journey they are on. Likewise if a fellow Wiccan or anyone else told me that they did not agree with something I did or with my reasoning on something, I would not take offense at all. I would listen and see if there is anything in what they are saying for me to consider. I enjoy a good debate (such as this one!) so long as it does not come down to some sort of personal attack. I have learned many new things this way and yes- found out I was wrong on many others. I do not have a letter of the law to go back to with which to prove myself more Wiccan than the next – and neither do they. There are certain beliefs that are commonly held, which is how we can identify ourselves as wiccan, and certain basic practices that we have in common. But the ways in which we come to those beliefs and how we carry out those practices are as individual as snowflakes and that is how I believe it should be. God teaches us as we come and how He knows we need to learn. The trap we can so easily fall into is listening to the wrong instructions- including our own wishful thinking- but just like the wheat and the chaff the source will prove itself by its results.

—Quote—
You have my pity and sympathy because I see so clearly how people with a real thirst to do good and a ‘disenchantment’ (hah) with ‘society’ really think that movements like this are real ways to ‘do good’. But it’s the same old schitck. . .first, make people ‘reject’ one way for being hateful, then reinculcate in them the idea that their own rejection and hate for those others are ‘good things’.
—End Quote—

I am glad that you can see that I am sincere in my desire for learning and growth. For a while I did but into that ‘schtick’ you are talking about because of things that some people had done or said. It was during a meditation that I believe God directed my thoughts to show me that I was wrong.

This is a hospital for souls and we are all in different states of broken. Whose to say that their broken spots are any better or worse than mine? Not me. I have only been given control of my own choices- not theirs. I can decide that someone hurts me and that I need to distance myself from them, but that should never mean that God isn’t working on them too.

—Quote—
I don’t have anything against any individual pagan, witch, atheist, etc. as people. I do reject anything that a given person might SAY which is wrong or hateful–and in that, I think you would yourselves agree with me.
—End Quote—

I absolutely agree with you here. To me, the purposes of these discussions is to learn and to bounce ideas that are new to us off each other to see if they hold water. I am enjoying this medium so far. I actually signed up here because my Catholic friend who posts here said she wanted to see my responses to some of these things.

I apologize if my phrasing made it seem to you that I was disrespectful of Catholics or that I was trying to promote hatred of them- because that is the last thing in the world I mean to do.

 

[reborn_pagan]

nice to know were all getting along

 

[kittychorus]

KittyChorus, I admit my post was probably over the top. Please accept my appologies.

I thought the wiccan rede meant “do whatever you like as long as it harms no one else”. Sorry, I didn’t realize this includes oneself.

The question is what do you consider harmful to yourself? Isn’t this a bit subjective? If you don’t believe something is harmful to oneself, then it’s OK, isn’t it? Let me revise my list so.

Do you think these acts are harmful to oneself? :-

• consensual fornication
• consensual gay sex
• viewing pornography (with or without a partner in your life)
• masturbation
• fantasizing about another person’s spouse.

Regards,
Noel.

Apology accepted. This new list makes a lot more sense! These are very debatable things because the harm in them is not clear to everyone. So… with my answer please know that there are people I respect dearly and are also Wiccan who will disagree with me - and that’s OK. If we find out later that something we have done is harmful, and learn from that I think that shows growth, not reason for condemnation. The whole idea is to learn and do better next time.

You are right, it is very subjective- and that’s the trap. Every religion has a trap that you can fall into. With Wicca it is lack of discernment- allowing yourself to convince yourself that the things you want to be true actually are. So what’s the harm in each of these?

• consensual fornication
  Your psyche is deeply connected to your body. Sex inspires a connection between people that does NOT feel good when broken. Even if someone thinks they might be OK with it, how do they know how anyone is really going to react. Not many people really know themselves or others that well. This to me is a set up for pain for all parties involved. There maybe a few individuals who will not feel this pain. And I might have a natural immunity to Typhoid, but I am still not going to hang out with Typhoid Mary… just in case I don’t. I have made many mistakes in relationships that I will pay for in my heart forever. There are scars there that cannot be healed because I was unwise. But they serve as reminders to not make the same mistakes again.
• consensual gay sex
  Well, this is where one of my beliefs varies greatly from the Bible. And this subject alone is big enough for it’s own thread. To sum up, I believe that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature. It happens in nature where there are population problems. Which would you rather have- people loving each other or another tsunami? Promiscuity is a public health hazzard, but a committed couple is not spreading any diseases to anyone else. It might be a bit of a cold way of looking at it, but that is my summation…
• viewing pornography (with or without a partner in your life)
  This carries with it the same psychological problems that promiscuity can. It can possibly give you expectations that are unfair for future or current partner. It can possibly make you judgemental over yours or another persons body. Also, it devalues sex and makes it less intimate for when it’s actually experienced.

My real issue with pornography is less the viewing of it and more the creation of it. Sex is something designed to be shared in a very personal way. I could be very wrong here, but it seems to me that the people willing to film themselves for money have something truly hurting inside that breaks the natural instinct to hold sex sacred, as a gift. By giving them money for it are we participating in extending that pain? Supporting their efforts that harm themselves?

Add to that- why do you go to a stranger for something that is supposed to be a connection to a real person? It is to me a desperate act to long for that connection so strongly that you would go to a stranger to fulfill it.

• masturbation
  I’m not sure. Part of me thinks that some of the same thoughts I apply to pornography would also apply here, but I am just not sure.
• fantasizing about another person’s spouse.
  This would be a symptom of a much deeper problem. The questions comes to me- why do they need to? If they are currently without their own mate, than why would they look to a friend’s or anyone else’s as opposed to the logical thing- which would be to continue trying to find an unattached person. This search can be frustrating in itself, but to harbor a desire to fracture another’s relationship can eat you alive.

I have a question for you now- Are all of your problems with wicca of a sexual nature? Why such a strong connection to sexual issues?

 

[KarenNC]

**This is true. The direct history of “Wicca” is very recent. However, many of the concepts involved were used by those of old as well. Those that call themselves Druids today are not the same group as those hundreds of years ago- but they do base themselves on many of the same concepts. There is a connection- although not a direct and clear historical path. **

Very true but it is a very important distinction that many people don’t make clear. I am a Classical Hellenic Neopagan. I don’t believe that the way in which I worship the Gods is identical to the way in which an ancient Athenian would----I’m not an ancient Athenian, I do not have that mindset, worldview or live in that culture. Likewise, I do not think that anyone could reasonably claim that the average Christian or even the average Catholic worships in exactly the same way as a first century Palestinian or even as a medieval Frenchman, for that matter. There are similarities in form and intent, but it is not identical.

I agree that there are a lot of ‘neo-pagans’ for whom their religion is more of a dress up game or form of rebellion than anything else. This is sad, because they are promoting the same concepts that I object to by subscribing to them. I am not one of those. The ‘old-time trappings’ hold absolutely no appeal to me as part of a religious setting. They are fun for a Renaissance Faire, but that’s about it. Nothing more than playing pretend.

Honestly I think they do the movement more harm than good in terms of public perception. Now it is not uncommon for a religion to use archaic forms of dress for ritual—the chasuble isn’t exactly haute couture for street wear, and came from the secular dress of the Romans

“Called in Latin casula planeta or pænula, and in early Gallic sources amphibalus, the principal and most conspicuous Mass vestment, covering all the rest. Nearly all ecclesiologists are now agreed that liturgical costume was simply an adaptation of the secular attire commonly worn throughout the Roman Empire in the early Christian centuries.” Catholic Encyclopedia

This sort of use of archaic garments as a way of setting an activity out of the ordinary is not limited to religion—court dress for many countries was not the current fashion, weddings, formal occasions, etc.

**Each religious item that I own I use as a focus tool- much the same as a rosary. The item itself does nothing, but the physical feel of something in my hand helps me focus my mind on my meditations. **

Agreed and again common to many religions.

The “dress-up pagans” have the same status in my mind as the Goth kids all in black or the vampire-wanna-be’s or the kids from farms trying to act like they are from the ghetto. They are trying to be something they are not- and just on the outside for a perceived level of acceptance. They need to grow up. They exist, but I would hardly call them genuine wiccans- any more than you would call your “Easter & Christmas Christians” devoted. Only God knows the heart for sure, but people that act that way don’t inspire a lot of hope that there is more going on inside them.

Agreed. It’s is form over substance. Nice post.

 

[gallo]

• consensual gay sex
  To sum up, I believe that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature. It happens in nature where there are population problems.

Can you point out some scientific documentation for this? (Websites are ideal in that one doesn’t have to make a trip to the library or pay good money for a potentially bad book. Not that I’m opposed to the library.) And I’m not talking about observations of human behavior, but observations of the the Wild.

So are you saying homosexuality is the equivalent to a disease?
So far, you’re the first pagan I’ve heard say such.

 

[kittychorus]

Can you point out some scientific documentation for this? (Websites are ideal in that one doesn’t have to make a trip to the library or pay good money for a potentially bad book. Not that I’m opposed to the library.) And I’m not talking about observations of human behavior, but observations of the the Wild.

So are you saying homosexuality is the equivalent to a disease?
So far, you’re the first pagan I’ve heard say such.

Sure. Here are 2 articles I came up with on a quick search from the Times Online and National Geographic. Each reference different researchers and studies within them if you care to look further. Since homosexuality itself and the laws for marriage are currently a hot topic in media it should be pretty easy to find more if you go looking.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7-2527347.html

The disease comparison is kind of what I am saying. More like an option out of such tragedies. It may serve the same global purpose- but it’s a lot less tragic in its course. I know that this is a pretty cold analysis of it, but i do think it might be true. I know that there will be many Wiccans, pagans and others that disagree… but I welcome and hope to learn from any new information they present me.

 

[nkelly]

Hello again Kittychorus

These are very debatable things because the harm in them is not clear to everyone.

• consensual fornication
  Even if someone thinks they might be OK with it, how do they know how anyone is really going to react.

a committed couple is not spreading any diseases to anyone else.

• masturbation
  I’m not sure. Part of me thinks that some of the same thoughts I apply to pornography would also apply here, but I am just not sure.

The point I am making really is that “harm” refered to in the wiccan rede is subjective. If two single people agree to have sex and walk away afterwards with no feelings of regret, then is it OK? Does the harmfulness of an act depend on the opinion of the person on whom the act is being done?

Christians take the view that something is right or wrong depending on whether it is in accordance with the will of God.
We have two ways to determine the morality of an act. First, does it break any of the 10 commandments and the derivatives thereof. If yes, then don’t do it! Second, would you like this act to be commited on yourself? If no, then don’t do it! The will of God was revealed to Moses in the 10 commandments and was further refined in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I believe the Christian position is far more objective because the laws we live by are God-given as opposed to wiccan man-made rules. I think this is a major difference between wicca/neo-paganism and Christianity.

You are right, it is very subjective- and that’s the trap.

This was of course in reference to the wiccan rede.

I have a question for you now- Are all of your problems with wicca of a sexual nature? Why such a strong connection to sexual issues?

No. What I’m saying is that rightness or wrongness of an act, whether it be thought, word or deed, is not a matter of personal opinion but depends on whether it is in accordance with the will of God which is absolute! I could also give the examples of pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth.

• consensual gay sex
  I believe that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature.

Yes this does occur in nature but we are not animals. We have a spiritual soul that animals don’t have. Animals souls die when they die. Our dignity is greater that that of the animals because God created us in His image. He wants us to be pure and sinless as much as is humanly possible with the help of His grace.

God bless,
Noel.

 

[Maxply]

KarenNC: If you’re into ancient history, what do you think of Aristotle’s connection to Aquinas, and the Church’s doctrinal debt to Aquinas?

(Sorry, maybe I should do this in contemporary spelling and grammar: OK, krnNC, WHT abot arstile and auinas? and the church with them both their thinkng?)

By they way, I agree with you that age doesn’t automatically grant authority to a religion, other than, perhaps that actual practice has shown something.

My concern with the so-called pagan stuff is that it seems almost stiff-necked and hard-hearted. . . kind of like the so-called pagans will search ANYWHERE but what’s right in front of them, so it has the feel of a religion of spite. Searching the world but knowing not your own backyard.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Do no harm? Under what system of beliefs do we judge what harm is? Let’s say that I wanted to reinstall the cult of Huitzlipotchli - I am of Mexican origin and honestly want to reinstall the cult of my Aztec ancestors. The cult of Huitzlipotchli requires that the sacrificial victim be flayed alive and that the skin of the flayed one be worn by the priest.

If I had Mexcian/Aztecan ancestors (which I don’t) would I be permitted to do this since this was an authentic practice of an ancient cult. If you invoke, do no harm, aren’t you imposing an authentic western bias of right and wrong?

Likewise, I can cite the same example for our Norse practicioners. Odin required a “blood eagle” sacrifice…There was no harm in ninth century Norse practice. It was the norm. So, if you invoke, do no harm, aren’t you once again imposing an authentic western bias of right and wrong?

This Catholic anthropologist wants to know how one equates authentic practices into a decidely western concept of “do no harm”. It’s not how history worked. Who determines what does no harm and does harm?

From an anthropologist’s viewpoint, what is harm in one culture may be benign in another. Do no harm from a Wiccan stand point would not withstand scrutiny from any of another cultures throughout the world. How do you answer this?

 

[KarenNC]

(Sorry, maybe I should do this in contemporary spelling and grammar: OK, krnNC, WHT abot arstile and auinas? and the church with them both their thinkng?)

I’m sorry, but do I understand from this that you find my spelling and grammar usage on this forum unacceptable? To the best of my knowledge, I follow standard American grammar and spelling conventions. Is there some other that you prefer? I have, at times, been accused of sprinkling my writing with British spelling and I admit to sometimes slipping into the British rather than American practice of putting ending punctuation marks outside of the quotation marks. It’s a side effect of reading numerous British authors and being a fairly visual learner (“well, it looks right…”). If you would like to point out my errors in specific posts, I will be glad to attempt to rectify them in the future.

To answer your question, I think that Christianity owes a tremendous debt to the Hellenistic world from which it grew. There are many parts of Christianity that are much more Hellenistic than Semitic. Without Philo of Alexandria’s influence in the synthesis of Hellenistic philosophy and Judaism, it is interesting to consider whether Christianity would have developed in the way in which it did
cc.usu.edu/~fath6/hellenic-Judaism.htm

Dr. James Tabor, a leading scholar on the era, is also interesting to read
religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html

In all honesty, I see Christianity originating as a mystery religion similar to others that were extant at the time, but which became popular and spread to the masses rather than the initiated few. This is hardly a novel opinion, I realize, but seems reasonable to me.

By they way, I agree with you that age doesn’t automatically grant authority to a religion, other than, perhaps that actual practice has shown something.

Certainly, it shows that the practitioners have had a chance to practice and refine some of their early positions, as well as build a corpus of ritual, music, art and other common experiences–a shared history. Christianity is a prime example of that.

Compare the state of Christianity at about the age of 50 with what you see in various Neopagan religions today, if you want a more apples to apples comparison. Christianity also looked chaotic to those in the established religions. I would refer you to Robert Wilken’s book, “Christians as the Romans Saw Them,” as a starting point. It certainly did not spring forth fully formed like Athena from the brow of Zeus into the form in which it exists today.

My concern with the so-called pagan stuff is that it seems almost stiff-necked and hard-hearted. . . kind of like the so-called pagans will search ANYWHERE but what’s right in front of them, so it has the feel of a religion of spite. Searching the world but knowing not your own backyard.

Please do me the favor of dropping “so-called” as a modifier and note that “Pagans,” when used to refer to the followers of a Neopagan religion, is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalized according to English grammatical conventions. It would be offensive of me to refer to “so-called christianity” or to you as a “so-called christian,” would it not?

Personally, I spent 30+ years “in my own backyard” as a Christian, very immersed in Christian teachings and culture, trying in every way possible to find a means of staying within that religion without being a hypocrite. I will assure you that I did not turn to my religion out of spite.

If you would care to elaborate on this point with more specifics, perhaps I will be able to better respond.

 

[KarenNC]

**Do no harm? Under what system of beliefs do we judge what harm is? **
Personally, I live in American society and consider myself bound by the laws of that society.

**This Catholic anthropologist wants to know how one equates authentic practices into a decidely western concept of “do no harm”. It’s not how history worked. Who determines what does no harm and does harm? **

First, we need to clarify a few points. The Wiccan Rede may be considered the standard of behavior by Wiccans, but it is not considered applicable to all religions that are referred to under the umbrella term of Neopaganism. Some of these religions are as different from each other as Christianity and Hinduism.

Your arguments about authentic practices may be relevant to those practicing a reconstructionist Pagan religion, ie those who are trying to recreate the practices of a pre-Christian religion in its entirety without consideration for the fact that we are not members of the societies in which thos practices existed, nor do we share their worldview or mores. It does not apply to those who acknowledge that we are Neopagan (particularly notice the “Neo-” part).

The Wiccan religion did not exist prior to the early to mid-20th century. It has no “authentic” pre-Christian worship practices to resurrect.

From an anthropologist’s viewpoint, what is harm in one culture may be benign in another. Do no harm from a Wiccan stand point would not withstand scrutiny from any of another cultures throughout the world. How do you answer this?

Do you also accuse Jews or Christians of “imposing an authentic western bias of right and wrong” when they do not practice animal sacrifice, polygamy or require that a virgin marry her rapist (but only if she was raped in the country–if it was in a town she gets stoned for not screaming loud enough for someone to prevent it)? Require that a man impregnate his brother’s widow to provide children for his dead brother?

There are many practices outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures (considered sacred God’s word also by the Christians) that do not bear up well to scrutiny by modern cultures. Paul himself decried those who called for a requirement for circumcision among gentile converts

Phillipians 3:2 “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh”

Yet circumcision is and has been considered a benign, normal practice by the majority in our society for many, many years for reasons of cleanliness and health rather than religion.

The vast majority of those who consider themselves Neopagan have the wit to understand that we live in a 21st century world, subject to the laws of our 21st century societies. If you would like to see the stance of the particular organization to which I belong (which is not Wiccan, btw), it is as follows:

"Human sacrifice is absolutely forbidden under all circumstances. Period. The specific polytheological term for this is “homicide”. If anyone (Macha forbid!) were to commit such a crime, he/she would be turned immediately over to the police, before being expelled (if a member).

The commission of other felony crimes-with-victims (murder, rape, arson, spouse abuse, torturing animals, etc.) is also forbidden and would reap appropriately similar consequences.

Animal sacrifice is forbidden in all official ADF ceremonies. If the members of a grove want to have a pig-roast, for example, they should thank the spirit of the animal before eating, but they may not make its slaughter (which must be quick, done by a professional, and as humane as possible) a part of an official ADF ceremony. "

adf.org/articles/organization/isaaclaw.html

 

[gallo]

Sure. Here are 2 articles I came up with on a quick search from the Times Online and National Geographic. Each reference different researchers and studies within them if you care to look further. Since homosexuality itself and the laws for marriage are currently a hot topic in media it should be pretty easy to find more if you go looking.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,7-2527347.html

I am a little cautious of just going to any link and believing the info there. That’s why I asked you for your information sources. (even though they may not have been any more believable.)

I don’t know if I would put any stock in the second link. Biases have a tendency to cause blindness.
National Geographic has sometimes been given a not-so-good review at times also, but for the most part is legit.
As stated in the National Geographic article, however, using animal homosexuality to justify human behavior wouldn’t work because animals eat their young and all that other disordered stuff. And to put it simply: We’re not mere animals.

Thanks for the info, though.

 

[kittychorus]

The disease comparison is kind of what I am saying. More like an option out of such tragedies. It may serve the same global purpose- but it’s a lot less tragic in its course. I know that this is a pretty cold analysis of it, but i do think it might be true. I know that there will be many Wiccans, pagans and others that disagree… but I welcome and hope to learn from any new information they present me.

My friend told me she still didn’t understand me here… so I will try again!

The global purpose I mean is that disease and other disasters keep populations in balance with their enviroment. I do not think homosexuality IS a disease, but that it may serve that same purpose… in a softer way.

JCR- does that make more sense? (PM me either way…)

 

[kittychorus]

I am a little cautious of just going to any link and believing the info there. That’s why I asked you for your information sources. (even though they may not have been any more believable.)

This is something I have read in different types of media all over. The 2 examples above were just the quickest ones I came to that had any sort of reputation. Also- they both referenced particular studies that more could be found on with further searching… No I wouldn’t suggest going by just those 2… They were just examples!

 

[kittychorus]

[bPersonally, I spent 30+ years “in my own backyard” as a Christian, very immersed in Christian teachings and culture, trying in every way possible to find a means of staying within that religion without being a hypocrite. I will assure you that I did not turn to my religion out of spite.

I also spent quite a lot of time as a protestant. I very much wanted to believe it. I was homeschooled by my mother and all of my friends were christian and it took a lot for me to admit to everyone that I just was not convinced. I wish I could tell you all the pices of my life that would be easier if I could just say that I was Christian- but I just can’t bring myself to lie about it. And i can’t say that I am unless I truly believe it with my heart, mind and soul.
[/quote]

 

[reborn_pagan]

I also spent quite a lot of time as a protestant. I very much wanted to believe it. I was homeschooled by my mother and all of my friends were christian and it took a lot for me to admit to everyone that I just was not convinced. I wish I could tell you all the pices of my life that would be easier if I could just say that I was Christian- but I just can’t bring myself to lie about it. And i can’t say that I am unless I truly believe it with my heart, mind and soul.

raises hand same here, im homeschooled right now and sence karen told me that shes homeschooling her kids i was very sure i was the ONLY pagan homeschooler around

 

[kittychorus]

Do no harm? Under what system of beliefs do we judge what harm is? Let’s say that I wanted to reinstall the cult of Huitzlipotchli - I am of Mexican origin and honestly want to reinstall the cult of my Aztec ancestors. The cult of Huitzlipotchli requires that the sacrificial victim be flayed alive and that the skin of the flayed one be worn by the priest.

If I had Mexcian/Aztecan ancestors (which I don’t) would I be permitted to do this since this was an authentic practice of an ancient cult. If you invoke, do no harm, aren’t you imposing an authentic western bias of right and wrong?

Likewise, I can cite the same example for our Norse practicioners. Odin required a “blood eagle” sacrifice…There was no harm in ninth century Norse practice. It was the norm. So, if you invoke, do no harm, aren’t you once again imposing an authentic western bias of right and wrong?

This Catholic anthropologist wants to know how one equates authentic practices into a decidely western concept of “do no harm”. It’s not how history worked. Who determines what does no harm and does harm?

From an anthropologist’s viewpoint, what is harm in one culture may be benign in another. Do no harm from a Wiccan stand point would not withstand scrutiny from any of another cultures throughout the world. How do you answer this?

That I am OK with not having an ultimate authority. That if you are not ok with uncertainty than a pagan path would not be the best one for you to choose. Having an authority on these matters would be easier and more efficient, but just that the differences you mentioned above exist gives me doubt that anyone claim authority. As a closer perspective- Christianity has some brutal points as well. Yaweh asked Abraham to slit his sons throat- without telling him that he wouldn’t really let him go through with it. The old testament paints a definite picture of brutality- which ended with the final sacrifice of Christ. Once for all. Isn’t there another story like that in South America somewhere? Quetsiquatal or someone?

God is the only authority on that, and I do not have the faith you have in the scriptures to say that they are truly a direct source from Him.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Kitty and Karen:

I am asking the same questions I have asked of my pagan friends sitting around many a campfire as a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism who recreate the Middle Ages as it ought to have been. Does this concept sound familiar? Neopaganism - paganism as it ought to have been.

It’s all well and good to state do no harm but we all have met individuals who are ensnared by power and they will cross the line and they will do evil. These are the folks who are caught here in our local parks or out on the batture of the Mississippi River who sacrifice cats and so on. Or the one whom I knew who left the Catholic faith to do some things that raised the hair on the back of my neck and who ultimately paid the price for his practices and died an unseemly death in a prison.

The point I am trying to make is that no matter what your belief system is, the reality of evil in the world is self-evident. Do whatever you want as long as it causes no harm is in the final analysis subjective. The same Druids that you invoke in their guise as brehons invoked the law. If all was “do no harm”, what need for brehons? In the ultimate analysis is there any difference between Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden except they can’t eat the fruit of a certain tree and do what you want as long as it causes no harm?

It’s an Aztec story about Quetzalcoatl - he is Kukulcan to the Maya. In anthropological terms, having myths and stories which are remarkably similar is called the psychic unity of man - meaning that all of humanity thinks pretty much upon the same lines.

The Brothers who taught me in high school taught me one thing which I have carried with me through my life - a faith which cannot be questioned is not faith. All one needs to do is to read the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh and realize that Gilgamesh was written long before the Old Testament. Credo - I believe.