Christianity QA

Question:

Forgive me if this is a dual post, my server is having problems Greetings EranInMpls And Blessed Be ! Thank you for your comments. Below follows xizar’s commentary to your posting and my further rebuttal. Yours in service to our Lord and Lady, ReBeL To xizar, ReBeL, I read your post to xizar re: history and Witchcraft.  I commend you on your historical knowledge and logical thought.  Also on your ability to converse civily and to avoid being dragged into a flame war.   Would that more people could follow such examples. I’m not aware that either flame or war was anything but perceived.  I also contend that your view of ReBeL’s logic is also perceived.

Noted.  But no mention was made about this being a flame or war.  The EranInMpls simply was extending his commendations on it *not* becoming one.  I simply wanted to make this apparant.  Let’s not start one by misreading what was said. As to your EranInMpls’s reference to Gardner, it might be more appropriately said that added his own theories and opinions and knowledge to what he was taught.  He didn’t necessarily create another denomination or sect.  We know that that which we study, we change. It cannot be helped.  And it has been proven, time and time again. But that is another truth isn’t it?  It applies to *all* things and thus, passes the test. Even so, Gardner did not change the *essence* of Witchcraft. He might have added to it, but no one can undo it.  This is further proof to the historicity of Witchcraft. Gardner is often accused of having "invented" Witchcraft.  What he did was to create a new denomination of a very old religion – just as, for example, Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, but did not himself create Christianity. Then, by your words, all Protestant denominations are as old as Christianity itself.  This is untrue, and a logical fallacy. xizar

Where do you come up with this logic?  And furthermore, have you studied the early christian church?  Do you know that there were different sects, faiths, beliefs existing at the time?  Ever heard of the gnostics?  Ever hear of the early councils that were trying to decide on what to believe in or which books to include in the bible? For your information, even christianity has it’s roots in diversity. Do you do *any* research?  Have you endeavored to learn anything? Or have you just chosen to leap out there and show all of us how little you know about anything. What began as a debate is ending as an example of someone arguing that which they have no business arguing.  If you aren’t going to do your research, how can you expect to get your points across?  If you are going to make up material (like you did of the Japanese, Judaism, Christianity, Mormons, etc), how can you expect to get anywhere? EranInMpls said that Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, for goodness sakes – and was entirely correct!  Luther didn’t create christianity, he put his own swing on it.  How could you come up with all protestant denominations are as old as christianity from this?!?! Oh, I forgot to whom I was addressing… Blessed Be !

Response:

Greetings xixar and Blessed Be ! Ready for the next round? <g  I really want to thank you for agreeing to debate with me.  Too often, people are content to sit upon their laurels.  It is refreshing to see someone willing to join the fray. As before, I reiterate that this is a debate and that there is nothing personal here.  While comments may be directed to the individual, they are by no means intended to construe anything other than opinion.  For example, while I have a high opinion of you in regards to your spirit of debate, I don’t think your arguments are well researched or thought out.  But as an individual, a person if you will, you are invaluable and priceless. If we were to meet in person, I may or may not like you, but that is entirely a moot point.  In debate, all are equals and there are no personal vendettas or agendas other than that which concerns the debate.  We all have something to add.  We may be right, we may be wrong, but we debate and learn.  We have chosen to agree to disagree and in the end my still choose to remain so. We might even change sides to discern finer details. Please note, xizar, this is more for the people reading this than for you.  You are doing just fine. Debate Topics: There is a difference between Wicca and Witchcraft. Witchcraft/Wicca is relatively young, created by Gardner. We begin this round where we left off last time… religion:  [<OFr. <L. religio <? <re-, back + ligare, to bind] 1. a) belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe     b) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual What is the power worshipped as creator/ruler in witchcraft?  From my travels, experiences, and the stories I’ve been told, witches use a power from somewhere. Those that worship it ascribe to a specific religion (i.e., Curanderas (sp?), the wiccans, druids, etc., all have a religion, and practice witchcraft in addition to that.

Indeed, what *is* the power worshipped as creator/ruler in Witchraft? What about Wicca?  Do you worship god(s) and/or goddess(es)?  If I am to follow that Wicca is a religion, why can I not say that Witchcraft is a religion as well?  Again, we are entitled to our own opinions, but the consensus is that there is no difference whatsoever. Just because you desire to see a difference does mean that there is. If you want to argue the point about consensus, go right ahead. I see you writing in the English Language.  Therefore, you have chosen to follow the consensus in order to communicate.  If you don’t want to be part of the consensus, create or pick another language. You have also agreed to follow the consensus as to what the words mean.  I, for one, don’t think it is time to throw out Webster just yet. 2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics But I haven’t allowed for witchcraft to be a system of worship.  To state that is to state that religion is witchcraft.  If one, then the other.

*You* may have not allowed for it as a system of worship, but that is *not* the only definition.  Just because *you* do not allow for something does not make it so. 3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order, etc. Are we counting solitaries in this?  Not all solitaries are witches, and vice versa.

Did you pay attention to this sentance?  It includes an etc. 4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued Food is a religion?  or how about money?  Yes, to some it is, to many they are not. .

You would be surprised how many people worship money or other things. Sorry, I don’t think I can accept Webster as a backer on this one.

I didn’t quote Webster as a "backer", only a *reference*.  If Witchcraft is a way of life (and all that *I* have met and talked to agree that it *is*), then it is, by definition, a religion.  Now you can disagree all you want, but it doesn’t change anything. You are disagreeing with the consensus, as is your right.  You can also follow the example I stated earlier and just throw out Webster all together.  Still, a rose by any other name is still a rose. And as for the other poster saying that Webster is not a good reference to use, I disagree.  It may have definitions that I do not like, but I have a choice.  I can accept the label or choose another.  Take for example the definition of Witch.  It is not a pretty definition.  However, practicioners of Witchcraft have *chosen* to accept the title. I wasn’t aware that I was creating a divide, if there wasn’t one there.  But, consider a Samurai’s Code of Bushido.  All Samurai practice Bushido, but not all that practice Bushido are Samurai.  Please note that I’m not exactly contradicting what I said in response to item #2 from Webster.  There’s a subtle difference in the semantics considered.

Here you are wrong again.  Bushido is the Samurai’s code of ethics. Their *religion* was Shinto.  Get your facts straight or pick another culture – one that you know something about before you go off talking about things you know nothing about. As for creating a schism, you are in fact trying to when you state that there is a difference between Wicca and Witchcraft.  The consensus is against you, and I, this time, have to agree with them. For example, why does Gardner (your supposed "modern creator of Witchcraft, who in fact has been proven to have gleaned his knowledge from an older source) not make the distinction?  If it was so important, why did he make no mention of it?  Why wasn’t he emphatically denying that there was a difference?  I mean, he was brave enough and bold enough to help bring Wicca out of hiding in a time where it was still dangerous to do so. Why didn’t he say, "It’s all new folks!"  "I had heard of it and how old it was, but they were only fooling.  It is all new."  Why did he not reveal this to us?  Certainly he would have been dismayed to find that that which he had searched for for so long was just a lie. Go one step further, let’s just throw out all of history and evidence we have to the contrary and say that Wicca/Witchcraft was just something that was made up on the spot. The fact is Wicca/Witchcraft *is* ancient.  We cannot deny the evidence or try to create a schism where one does not exist. If we take the first five books of the old testament of the christian bible, we find many stories that are copied from older cultures.  For example, the Sumerian culture contained a creation myth (reflected in Genesis – Note: there are *two* creation myths in Genisis, wonder why?), a flood myth, the story of the righteous man (remember Job?) and more.  It isn’t surprising really when you remember Abraham came from Ur. Remember that the Pentateuch is really the Torah, and that it’s Jewish, not Christian.  I don’t think that I’ll adequately defend the origins of Jewish lore as being unique (because I can’t , but the sword does cut both ways.  Just because Moses didn’t write the books first, doesn’t mean that his God isn’t the one responsible.  Or can you provide evidence to the contrary?  THAT I’d like to see

Yes I know this.  But it exists as the Torah *and* is retained in the christian bible as well.  So, your point is? As to Moses and his god being responsible, I *can* provide evidence. Again, you fail to ignore the Sumerian Culture.  If you would like, I will include a reading list for your perusal.  The fact is, you again speak of something you know nothing about. The evidence shows that the very myths reflected in the pentateuch were borrowed from the Sumerians – who believed in many gods and goddesses.  As their culture is *older*, they have provenence.  They are the oldest culture that we know about.  Yes there could be older civilizations, but the Sumerians are the first according to what we know now. They left extensive writings that prove that *their* gods and goddesses were here first.  The gods of old become demons of the new. While I cannot prove the existence of deity or creative force, I *can* see evidence in that which is within and without me.  What I can prove is that the YHVW in the OT was not the *first* deity to claim creation. Even so, the very Witch of Endor was mentioned in the old testament which predates christianity by your own admission and the admission of the evidence.  Like I said before, that is but *one* example. There are countless others that exist.  Wicca has existed for millenia, perhaps not in it’s current form, but Wicca is based on something much much older. Apples and Oranges.  I thought I said as much before.

The Witch of Endor was a Witch, and this is apples and oranges? Do you know how to debate, or are you just plain ignorant of the facts?  The fact is that *many* cultures had people that were labeled Witches.  That being the case, how can you argue apples and oranges? How much have your read and studied?  I for one have put years into this.  You?  Evidently not much, because you arguments are hollow. You say you said as much before.  If we read my rebuttal in its entirity, you are agreeing with the statements I made that: 1) Wicca has existed for millenia, and 2) Wicca is based on something much older Here again, you are agreeing with me.  By your own admission, you arguments are moot.  You have just sided with consensus of facts and evidence.   Yet, you still insist that Wicca is modern and there is a difference between Wicca and Witchcraft.  Make up your mind! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I base this on the worship of the Goddess which we can examime in many cultures throughout the world, and inarguably they existed before christianity *AND* judaism.  In fact, the old testament name of god, the tetragrammaton, references masculine and feminine aspects. It goes to prove my point even further.  You can suppress it, but you cannot kill it.  Knowledge *will* perservere.  It may change and turn,

… read more »

Response:

Greetings EranInMpls And Blessed Be ! Thank you for your comments. Below follows xizar’s commentary to your posting and my further rebuttal. Yours in service to our Lord and Lady, ReBeL To xizar, ReBeL, I read your post to xizar re: history and Witchcraft.  I commend you on your historical knowledge and logical thought.  Also on your ability to converse civily and to avoid being dragged into a flame war.   Would that more people could follow such examples. I’m not aware that either flame or war was anything but perceived.  I also contend that your view of ReBeL’s logic is also perceived.

Noted.  But no mention was made about this being a flame or war.  The EranInMpls simply was extending his commendations on it *not* becoming one.  I simply wanted to make this apparant.  Let’s not start one by misreading what was said. As to your EranInMpls’s reference to Gardner, it might be more appropriately said that added his own theories and opinions and knowledge to what he was taught.  He didn’t necessarily create another denomination or sect.  We know that that which we study, we change. It cannot be helped.  And it has been proven, time and time again. But that is another truth isn’t it?  It applies to *all* things and thus, passes the test. Even so, Gardner did not change the *essence* of Witchcraft. He might have added to it, but no one can undo it.  This is further proof to the historicity of Witchcraft. Gardner is often accused of having "invented" Witchcraft.  What he did was to create a new denomination of a very old religion – just as, for example, Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, but did not himself create Christianity. Then, by your words, all Protestant denominations are as old as Christianity itself.  This is untrue, and a logical fallacy. xizar

Where do you come up with this logic?  And furthermore, have you studied the early christian church?  Do you know that there were different sects, faiths, beliefs existing at the time?  Ever heard of the gnostics?  Ever hear of the early councils that were trying to decide on what to believe in or which books to include in the bible? For your information, even christianity has it’s roots in diversity. Do you do *any* research?  Have you endeavored to learn anything? Or have you just chosen to leap out there and show all of us how little you know about anything. What began as a debate is ending as an example of someone arguing that which they have no business arguing.  If you aren’t going to do your research, how can you expect to get your points across?  If you are going to make up material (like you did of the Japanese, Judaism, Christianity, Mormons, etc), how can you expect to get anywhere? EranInMpls said that Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, for goodness sakes – and was entirely correct!  Luther didn’t create christianity, he put his own swing on it.  How could you come up with all protestant denominations are as old as christianity from this?!?! Oh, I forgot to whom I was addressing… Blessed Be !

Response:

What follows below is a discussion I was having with xizar about how old Wicca was.  It appeared under a different Subject, so I decided to repost under another and see if anyone else would like to add their thoughts and comments.

I’ll go ahead and respond here as I can’t find your response in the other thread (probably hasn’t made it to my server, yet) Greetings xizar and Blessed Be !

You remembered the lowercase!  Yippee! =) It is good to see good debate!  It heartens me a great deal.  For a while, I was almost giving up on finding people interested in actually discussing a topic without resorting to emotion and nonsense.

Sorry, I’ll try to be a bit more emotional in this one. . .  I always think that by firing the spirit, I can make more people ignore the huge holes in my arguments. Isn’t that how it works in politics? Yes.  Note that I wasn’t talking about witchcraft.  I explicitly lambasted the fellow for his comments that this newsgroup (which somehow became A.W) is about a very ancient religion.  As for considering witchcraft a religion . . .  I would find it difficult to create a strong argument to do so.  It is easily and safely described as a lifestyle, practice, job, what-have-you. Using the dictionary we find that "religion" has the following definition: religion:  [<OFr. <L. religio <? <re-, back + ligare, to bind] 1. a) belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe     b) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual

What is the power worshipped as creator/ruler in witchcraft?  From my travels, experiences, and the stories I’ve been told, witches use a power from somewhere. Those that worship it ascribe to a specific religion (i.e., Curanderas (sp?), the wiccans, druids, etc., all have a religion, and practice witchcraft in addition to that. 2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics

But I haven’t allowed for witchcraft to be a system of worship.  To state that is to state that religion is witchcraft.  If one, then the other. 3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order, etc.

Are we counting solitaries in this?  Not all solitaries are witches, and vice versa. 4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued

Food is a religion?  or how about money?  Yes, to some it is, to many they are not. . . Ergo, Wicca and or Witchcraft, by virtue of being a "way of life" *is* a religion.  That or we just scrap good old Webster and come

Sorry, I don’t think I can accept Webster as a backer on this one. Easy and safe terms indeed.  However,  it could be argued (if one simply had to) that the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is akin to Akido as practiced by a Martial Artist, and the Way of Akido.  However, why split hairs over something that doesn’t need splitting?  Why create schisms when there is no justification in doing so?

I wasn’t aware that I was creating a divide, if there wasn’t one there.  But, consider a Samurai’s Code of Bushido.  All Samurai practice Bushido, but not all that practice Bushido are Samurai.  Please note that I’m not exactly contradicting what I said in response to item #2 from Webster.  There’s a subtle difference in the semantics considered. I am fully aware of the Witch of Endor passage (complete with short fuzzy Ewoks , as I’ve used it in a couple of arguem. . .  uh . . . discussions here on the NG.  And I will accept that it’s been around for a long time.  But, consider also, Christianity was derived from Judaism.  Judaism was derived from . . . ? There are many ancient religions of the area whose tenents came together to form the basis of the Jewish religion.  _A Brief History of God_ by Karen Armstrong is an excellent book on the topic. If we take the first five books of the old testament of the christian bible, we find many stories that are copied from older cultures.  For example, the Sumerian culture contained a creation myth (reflected in Genesis – Note: there are *two* creation myths in Genisis, wonder why?), a flood myth, the story of the righteous man (remember Job?) and more.  It isn’t surprising really when you remember Abraham came from Ur.

Remember that the Pentateuch is really the Torah, and that it’s Jewish, not Christian.  I don’t think that I’ll adequately defend the origins of Jewish lore as being unique (because I can’t , but the sword does cut both ways.  Just because Moses didn’t write the books first, doesn’t mean that his God isn’t the one responsible.  Or can you provide evidence to the contrary?  THAT I’d like to see Even so, the very Witch of Endor was mentioned in the old testament which predates christianity by your own admission and the admission of the evidence.  Like I said before, that is but *one* example. There are countless others that exist.  Wicca has existed for millenia, perhaps not in it’s current form, but Wicca is based on something much much older.

Apples and Oranges.  I thought I said as much before. I base this on the worship of the Goddess which we can examime in many cultures throughout the world, and inarguably they existed before christianity *AND* judaism.  In fact, the old testament name of god, the tetragrammaton, references masculine and feminine aspects. It goes to prove my point even further.  You can suppress it, but you cannot kill it.  Knowledge *will* perservere.  It may change and turn, but it *will* survive!

I take it you’re referring to the passage that says humanity was created in his own image, male and female. (Gen. 1:27)?  Christian and Jewish Theologians still disagree on that line.  However, where does it (in Judeo-Christian scriptures) say that YHVH is only male?  But, anyway, said theologians will generally say that the text says that humanity was created in his image and that he create humanity male and female, meaning that humanity received God’s blessing, not that God is both male and female. The insistence that YHVH must be male only is a curious beast.  I am hard pressed to provide sufficient argument for that, and refer to YHVH as male out of convention, FYI. However, if we’re going to butt heads on Wicca vs. Christianity, sorry, Christ’s teachings were made in to Christianity almost, 1700 years ago.  Gardner (he’s the one, right?  I misremember) created Wicca from Paganism in the early part of this century. Your point exactly?  Look at the evidence!  Even the rituals that are embodied in Wicca today are based on ancient rituals.  Take for example one of the symbols used in Wicca, the pentagram.  It is inarguably much much older than christianity.

So?  I’m not talking about the rituals!  If I start drawing on the cave walls in France, does that mean that my paintings are thousands of years old?  Or that my style of painting is?  No, it just means that the places I paint are similar to those found in other caves in France that are thousands of years old.  One does not follow the other. As for Gerald Gardner, he professed to be taught by the New Forest Coven and was initiated by "Old Dorothy Clutterbuck".  Doreen Valiente has done research confirming her existence.  We know that the Wicca we know of today has much of Gardner’s touches added, but what is the problem?  Certainly with a religion that has been passed along orally will change with time.  Does that reduce it’s validity?  No!  If a religion does not grow and change with the times, it becomes old and useless and is abandoned.  Look at christianity today.  It is a perfect example.  It isn’t answering or fulfilling a need with it’s followers and we are seeing it dying more and more each day.

Consider Joseph Smith.  He created Mormonism back in the 1800’s.  Does that mean that the Mormon religion (which is loosely based on Christianity) is as old as Christianity itself?  NO!  And I won’t even tough the validity of Mormonism.  (Please note, the comment on it’s validity is merely editorial, and I’m not currently questioning the validity of Wicca as a religion) Going back to Doreen Valiente’s (and others) research about Gardner and Ms. Clutterbuck.  We can conclude that if Gardner was, in fact, taught by others, we must ask, "Where did *they* get their training?" Now I surmise to you that due to the persecution being suffered at the time, the Craft had to go in hiding.  We know this through the historical record.  So we can surmise the Craft does have history.

By your logic, the Pope is a Jew, then.  Since he got his training from earlier Catholics, who got training from earlier catholics, (insert sufficient generations) who received training from the Apostles, who received training from Christ (well, except for Paul , who received training from the Rabbi (and trained them a bit, according to the Christian Gospels, as well). . .  Doesn’t quite work, does it. Because if we follow this to it’s logical end (granted, the premise isn’t very logical to begin with , we all started from one religion, so then Wicca and Christianity are exactly the same age.  (presuming, of course, humanity started in one place, which it didn’t) Christianity vs. Witchcraft?  (accepting for the moment that witchcraft is a religion)  Sure, there have been witches longer than there have been Fisherman ("Come with me and I will make you fisher’s of men.") Witchcraft, Wicca, whatever you want to call it, it *is* a religion by definition.  And yes, there have been witches longer than fisherman. So, how can you argue that Witchcraft or Wicca is *younger* than christianity?  Your argument falls apart in your own words.

Uh…  nope. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But, if we’re going to consider what religion who was derived from . . .  That’d take a bit more bookwork to figure out . . .  Why don’t we just let

… read more »

Response:

Greetings Knight Hawk and Blessed Be ! As you are writing this in the English Language, I think I will hold onto my dictionary for a bit.  We all know what webster has to say about Witch’s and we have chosen that name for ourselves regardless. People have a tendancy to suspect that which they do not understand or cannot comprehend and as such, tend to label it as "evil" or "bad".  Even so, we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater just because we don’t like one particular aspect. Just because we don’t like something, we cannot deny it or discard it.  We are Witch’s.  We seek to *change* it.  The dictionary is a *reference*, not law.  We agree to the meanings in order to communicate. Yours in service to our Lord and Lady, ReBeL – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -It is unwise to use the dictionary as a tool for debate. Dictionaries tend to give definitions of the words as they are used in context by the majority of people. The diction (American Heritage) that the US Gov uses defines witchcraft as sorcery, satanism, and crafting of black magic. Well, there are some people out there that believe that. Khawk Using the dictionary we find that "religion" has the following definition: religion:  [<OFr. <L. religio <? <re-, back + ligare, to bind] 1. a) belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe    b) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual 2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics 3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order, etc. 4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued

Response:

ReBeL, I read your post to xizar re: history and Witchcraft.  I commend you on your historical knowledge and logical thought.  Also on your ability to converse civily and to avoid being dragged into a flame war.   Would that more people could follow such examples. Gardner is often accused of having "invented" Witchcraft.  What he did was to create a new denomination of a very old religion – just as, for example, Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, but did not himself create Christianity.  

Response:

It is unwise to use the dictionary as a tool for debate. Dictionaries tend to give definitions of the words as they are used in context by the majority of people. The diction (American Heritage) that the US Gov uses defines witchcraft as sorcery, satanism, and crafting of black magic. Well, there are some people out there that believe that. Khawk – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Using the dictionary we find that "religion" has the following definition: religion:  [<OFr. <L. religio <? <re-, back + ligare, to bind] 1. a) belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe    b) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual 2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics 3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order, etc. 4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued

Response:

Gardner is often accused of having "invented" Witchcraft.  What he did was to create a new denomination of a very old religion – just as, for example, Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, but did not himself create Christianity. Then, by your words, all Protestant denominations are as old as Christianity itself.  This is untrue, and a logical fallacy.

Nope.  The various Protestant denominations are much younger than is Christianity as a whole.  In the same ways, the denomination assembled by Gardner is much younger than is Witchcraft as a whole.  But claiming Gardner created the religion of Witchcraft is like claiming Martin Luther created the religion of Christianity.  Both are untrue statements.  Both confuse one part for the whole. Eran Eran

Response:

ReBeL, I read your post to xizar re: history and Witchcraft.  I commend you on your historical knowledge and logical thought.  Also on your ability to converse civily and to avoid being dragged into a flame war.   Would that more people could follow such examples.

I’m not aware that either flame or war was anything but perceived.  I also contend that your view of ReBeL’s logic is also perceived. Gardner is often accused of having "invented" Witchcraft.  What he did was to create a new denomination of a very old religion – just as, for example, Martin Luther created a new denomination of Christianity, but did not himself create Christianity.

 Then, by your words, all Protestant denominations are as old as Christianity itself.  This is untrue, and a logical fallacy. xizar

Response:

What follows below is a discussion I was having with xizar about how old Wicca was.  It appeared under a different Subject, so I decided to repost under another and see if anyone else would like to add their thoughts and comments. Greetings xizar and Blessed Be ! It is good to see good debate!  It heartens me a great deal.  For a while, I was almost giving up on finding people interested in actually discussing a topic without resorting to emotion and nonsense. I will try to rebut your topics one by one, but please forgive me if I ramble on a bit.  This is a difficult medium for me. Yes.  Note that I wasn’t talking about witchcraft.  I explicitly lambasted the fellow for his comments that this newsgroup (which somehow became A.W) is about a very ancient religion.  As for considering witchcraft a religion . . .  I would find it difficult to create a strong argument to do so.  It is easily and safely described as a lifestyle, practice, job, what-have-you.

Using the dictionary we find that "religion" has the following definition: religion:  [<OFr. <L. religio <? <re-, back + ligare, to bind] 1. a) belief in a superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe     b) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual 2. any specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics 3. the state or way of life of a person in a monastic order, etc. 4. any object that is seriously or zealously pursued Ergo, Wicca and or Witchcraft, by virtue of being a "way of life" *is* a religion.  That or we just scrap good old Webster and come up with our own definitions.  We could just as easily call dogs oppomoxieries I suppose and agree that they are in fact *not* dogs or canines at all, but by virtue of their fur call them marsupials instead. Easy and safe terms indeed.  However,  it could be argued (if one simply had to) that the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is akin to Akido as practiced by a Martial Artist, and the Way of Akido.  However, why split hairs over something that doesn’t need splitting?  Why create schisms when there is no justification in doing so? I am fully aware of the Witch of Endor passage (complete with short fuzzy Ewoks , as I’ve used it in a couple of arguem. . .  uh . . . discussions here on the NG.  And I will accept that it’s been around for a long time.  But, consider also, Christianity was derived from Judaism.  Judaism was derived from . . . ? There are many ancient religions of the area whose tenents came together to form the basis of the Jewish religion.  _A Brief History of God_ by Karen Armstrong is an excellent book on the topic.

If we take the first five books of the old testament of the christian bible, we find many stories that are copied from older cultures.  For example, the Sumerian culture contained a creation myth (reflected in Genesis – Note: there are *two* creation myths in Genisis, wonder why?), a flood myth, the story of the righteous man (remember Job?) and more.  It isn’t surprising really when you remember Abraham came from Ur. Even so, the very Witch of Endor was mentioned in the old testament which predates christianity by your own admission and the admission of the evidence.  Like I said before, that is but *one* example. There are countless others that exist.  Wicca has existed for millenia, perhaps not in it’s current form, but Wicca is based on something much much older. I base this on the worship of the Goddess which we can examime in many cultures throughout the world, and inarguably they existed before christianity *AND* judaism.  In fact, the old testament name of god, the tetragrammaton, references masculine and feminine aspects. It goes to prove my point even further.  You can suppress it, but you cannot kill it.  Knowledge *will* perservere.  It may change and turn, but it *will* survive! However, if we’re going to butt heads on Wicca vs. Christianity, sorry, Christ’s teachings were made in to Christianity almost, 1700 years ago.  Gardner (he’s the one, right?  I misremember) created Wicca from Paganism in the early part of this century.

Your point exactly?  Look at the evidence!  Even the rituals that are embodied in Wicca today are based on ancient rituals.  Take for example one of the symbols used in Wicca, the pentagram.  It is inarguably much much older than christianity. As for Gerald Gardner, he professed to be taught by the New Forest Coven and was initiated by "Old Dorothy Clutterbuck".  Doreen Valiente has done research confirming her existence.  We know that the Wicca we know of today has much of Gardner’s touches added, but what is the problem?  Certainly with a religion that has been passed along orally will change with time.  Does that reduce it’s validity?  No!  If a religion does not grow and change with the times, it becomes old and useless and is abandoned.  Look at christianity today.  It is a perfect example.  It isn’t answering or fulfilling a need with it’s followers and we are seeing it dying more and more each day. Going back to Doreen Valiente’s (and others) research about Gardner and Ms. Clutterbuck.  We can conclude that if Gardner was, in fact, taught by others, we must ask, "Where did *they* get their training?" Now I surmise to you that due to the persecution being suffered at the time, the Craft had to go in hiding.  We know this through the historical record.  So we can surmise the Craft does have history. Christianity vs. Witchcraft?  (accepting for the moment that witchcraft is a religion)  Sure, there have been witches longer than there have been Fisherman ("Come with me and I will make you fisher’s of men.")

Witchcraft, Wicca, whatever you want to call it, it *is* a religion by definition.  And yes, there have been witches longer than fisherman. So, how can you argue that Witchcraft or Wicca is *younger* than christianity?  Your argument falls apart in your own words. But, if we’re going to consider what religion who was derived from . . .  That’d take a bit more bookwork to figure out . . .  Why don’t we just let the Japanese win.  They’ve had the same religion since forever

Mmmm, you really make a mistake with your logic here.  The Japanese have *not* been around since forever.  They were originally (*gasp*) Chinese!  They moved to the island where they currently reside, took it over (yes, there were natives on the island – do your research, it is fascinating and worthy of its own topic.), and proclaimed that they were put there by the gods and goddesses. I mean no insult to the Japanese, as I greatly admire and respect their culture, but we cannot deny historical fact. Again, your argument falls apart.  You cannot reason that because one culture is old, it has been there forever and you cannot conclude that just because it has the *appearance* of newness, it has no history. Remember, King Solomon argued that there is nothing new under the sun.  Wiccans believe the same thing when we say, no knowledge is ever lost.  The answers are out there, we just have to find the right questions to ask. And I will fully afree that there are many Christians that do not behave as they should.  To them, Christianity is a label or a nametag that they slap on themselves to appease their conscience.  Ask them why they behave the way that they do (i.e., like an asshole) right after they say "Hot damn, kiddo!  I’m a Christian", and they get mad and offensive.  This is indeed a sad thing. Especially when compared to some of the other psuedo-christian cults that have sprung up, like Mormonism, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Learn the theology, and there’s no way they’re Christian, watch the behavior, and one would think, "Gee, those are nice people." Go figure.

Excellant point. Oh, and a couple of gripes.  It’s "xizar", lowercase "x".  And don’t offer me your service, I’ll deliberatly abuse it and/or you.

But xizar, you were doing so good!  Why resort to threats when you have nothing to back them with?  By doing this you fall into the realms of the rest of the idiocy I have read here.  We are debating for goodness sakes.  And besides, perhaps you didn’t read correctly when I said "Yours in service **to* our Lord and Lady*".  I serve our Lord and Lady, *not* you or any other.  However, in being cordial (something many impetuous pups have forgotten in their own egocentricity), I ended politely – and will do so again, regardless of your threats.  How can you abuse me other than with words?  Why bother?  I have had many words thrown at me and look I am still here.  So if you feel you have to stoop to a lower level, go ahead. If it makes you feel more secure in your own ego… xizar

Yours in service to our Lord and Lady, ReBeL

Response:

Related Posts