Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[Zentron]

You're right that use of the word 'Wicca' to refer to the religion itself, rather than to a male practioner, is new - it was coined by Gerald Gardener in the 1930s. If anything, the word 'wicce' originally referred to a specific type of female witch. The word Christians used in the middle ages would not have been 'witchcraft', as that is a modern rendering. Back then it was 'wiccecraeft', so it was probably Christians who coined the Anglo-Saxon word 'wicce', which has evolved into the modern English 'witch'.

The term 'Witch' is the Christianised term for the original 'Wicce', Wiccen's can be either male or female, there is no recognition of any other term.

I'm interested to know what are the differences between Wicca and Wicce, and what sources you have to support your claim that your religion is 25,000 years old.

Look up 'The Truth about Witchcraft' published by Mandrake Press.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The term 'Witch' is the Christianised term for the original 'Wicce', Wiccen's can be either male or female, there is no recognition of any other term.

When you say 'original', what source can you give for the etymology of the word? As stated before, the sources I have found state that it was Anglo-saxon for 'female sorceress'.

Look up 'The Truth about Witchcraft' published by Mandrake Press.

Do you have any independent sources (i.e. written by archaeologists, anthropologists or sociobiologists, rather than Wiccans)? Also, it seems that Scott Cunningham (the author of that book) practised Wicca and viewed it as a modern religion, created in the 20th century, although drawing on ancient practices. I looked inside the book, and here too the religion is referred to as 'Wicca'. What is the exact quote from the book that says the religion is 25,000 years old?

 

[Zentron]

When you say 'original', what source can you give for the etymology of the word? As stated before, the sources I have found state that it was Anglo-saxon for 'female sorceress'.Do you have any independent sources (i.e. not written by Wiccans)? Also, it seems that Scott Cunningham (the author of that book) practised Wicca and viewed it as a modern religion, created in the 20th century, although drawing on ancient practices. I looked inside the book, and here too the religion is referred to as 'Wicca'. What is the exact quote from the book that says the religion is 25,000 years old?

Erm, wrong book mate, guess there's more than one.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

D'oh! My mistake. It's the Keith Morgan one right? On Mandrake's website it says the book is about Wicca. If that is the right author, apparently he worships the gods and goddesses from the Mabinogian. But the earliest of those stories have only been dated to 500BC, as far as I can find out.

Can you help on the other questions in my previous post?

 

[bossel]

The term 'Witch' is the Christianised term for the original 'Wicce', Wiccen's can be either male or female, there is no recognition of any other term.

Do you have any source other than the book below? Recognition by whom?
Wicce to witch is simply due to language development, AFAIK.

Look up 'The Truth about Witchcraft' published by Mandrake Press.

If you don't mean this one by Cunningham, which one is it? It would by nice if you were a bit more specific. On Mandrake's website it's the only one with "truth."

 

[No-name]

Kumo, forgive me but I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't really think I was trying to "establish a rule," nor do I feel that I was either inaccurate or dishonest. I also do not think a single statement constitutes an argument- and although the people I mentioned are exceptional, I have no clue what you mean by "considered exceptions."

The fault is probably mine- I used too many words to express a simple thought: Observation: many people posting seem to think of religion as a weakness. Response- this need not be so, it can be recognized as an enrichment that meets a basic human need. (Examples listed.)

 

[Zentron]

Do you have any source other than the book below? Recognition by whom?
Wicce to witch is simply due to language development, AFAIK.

If you don't mean this one by Cunningham, which one is it? It would by nice if you were a bit more specific.

Ah yeh, my bad. I found it after I clicked your link, it's this one by Keith Morgan, he gives a better explination than I can.

D'oh! My mistake. It's the Keith Morgan one right? On Mandrake's website it says the book is about Wicca. If that is the right author, apparently he worships the gods and goddesses from the Mabinogian. But the earliest of those stories have only been dated to 500BC, as far as I can find out.

Can you help on the other questions in my previous post?

Unfortunately the nature of Wicce means that there is very very little written down, it's kind of a word-of-mouth thing, there is no dogma, no written rules, even the infamous Book of Shadows is not absolute, so to find out everything is near impossible, but it can be traced through all known evidence back around 25,000 years, many believe it might even be older. I only know as much as I do, I'm still looking and learning.

 

[kumo]

Kumo, forgive me but I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't really think I was trying to "establish a rule," nor do I feel that I was either inaccurate or dishonest. I also do not think a single statement constitutes an argument- and although the people I mentioned are exceptional, I have no clue what you mean by "considered exceptions."

The fault is probably mine- I used too many words to express a simple thought: Observation: many people posting seem to think of religion as a weakness. Response- this need not be so, it can be recognized as an enrichment that meets a basic human need. (Examples listed.)

I was just saying that I see nothing wrong in considering religion to be some sort of weakness, because it is so in most cases. Exceptions to this are so rare they don't deserve any place in this discussion (yes, you were trying to make an argument).
As for your examples, I don't consider them any better than your average Christian (again, especially mother Teresa).

 

[No-name]

What's your deal with Mother Theresa? Did she kill your dog or something? I could have said CS Lewis, Dr. Martin Luther King, George Washington and Michaelangelo for that matter. The list was not meant to be either definitive or exhaustive- just some people off the cuff who I connected to be both religious and secure, mature or strong.

As for your argument of religion being a weakness "in most cases" with only rare exception- I am uncertain where such a negative broad generality originates... it must be based on some bitter personal experience. In my experience many "weak" people find strength in faith, many broken people find the will to go on, many sick the power to heal, many lost a direction to follow. I'm certain if you did do an exhaustive study you will find that people draw strength from all sorts of corners- including religion and the perception of weakness is just part of the human condition.

 

[belle74311]

Hi Tsuyoiko! Thanks for helping me figure this thing out! Woohoo!


Wow a lot of questions Mycernius..i hope i don't take up the whole page!

I think I might have to clarify. Religious people bring up their children in a religious environment, and visa versa in atheist families. For the first 10 to 11 years of life your perceptions of the world are formed by your immediate family. As you get older your own personality starts to form its own opinions. It is at this point that you will question your parents ideas and morals. You might become opposite to your parents beliefs. If blind faith keeps us always believing in God then we wouldn't be having this convesation and man would still be in caves for following blindly what our ancestors have said. Our ability to question and try new things have pushed the human race forwards.

Very interesting Mycernius. I don't think that blind faith does anything for anyone. Some people are not convinced of their faith but follow it anyways just because it's in the family...I agree with you. But my religion encourages and makes it a duty upon every man and woman to aquire knowlege and not be ignorant.

God gave us limited free will...that's why we have the ability to think and choose.

Your comment on the above about Adam probably means you are a Muslim, please correct me if I am wrong. If you work by strict biblical method by dates and lifetimes then Adam existed about 6000BC, as worked out by Rev. Usher (thanks Tsuyoiko san). That means by geological and biological remains that Adam was not the first man by a long shot. Jericho was founded Circa 8350 -7350BC and is noted as the first walled town in the world. So who built it if not man?

Very good! You have done your homework I am Muslim. I don't go by biblical text because it's majorly corrupted...especially the dates. For example, the bible claims that at the time of Noah when there was a flood, that flood covered the entire earth plus 15 cubits. But the date in which the bible says this happened, there were civilizations that existed. According to Islam, the flood at the time of Noah did occur, however it does not say it covered the entire earth, it flooded major parts of it, AND a date is not given. So if the bible wants to say Adam came about 6000BC that's the bible. As for Islam,Adam is the first man created. There is no date given.


If the prophets sent down was to spread the message of one God to everyone, then why were there so many religions that follow more than one God?. The Incasa and Aztecs had a huge pantheon of Gods. As do Hindus and Shinto. Buddhism doesn't really follow God, being an almost atheistic religion. Many tribal faiths in Africa are more spirit based than an ominpotent God type. Plus, didn't Muhammad say he was the last prophet to be sent by God? That means that we haven't had any "Instruction" for the past 1500 years. Also why the Ba'hai faith are persecuted in Iran and other muslim countries. Another question is why does the message differ within the Abrahamic religions. Surely an instruction from God is infallible and should mean the same to Jews, Christians and Muslims. So why the violence and intolerance between the three?

The prophets were sent down to spread the message of one God, but that doesn't mean everyone followed. OR the people originally believed in one God, but over time, their ideas became corrupted. For example, there were these 4 very pious men of God. After they died, people started to hang their pictures in their homes to remember them, and they would look at the pictures before they left home hoping to bring a blessing, and over time, those people turned to idol worshiping those 4 men.

As for Hindus...their belief is actually that there is only ONE GOD believe it or not. But they believe that God is in everthing and everywhere so they could worship basically anything.

Yes Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the last and final seal of all the prophets that came before. There will be no more prophets because with Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) has been brought a universal message for all of mankind. All the other prophets brought messages specifically geared to their group of people, not the entire humanity. Also, the coming of Prophet Muhammed is one of the signs of the coming Final Day of Judgement.

Also, people being persecuted for their religion is the corrupted thinking of the rulers...not Islam. Under Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) was the only time that Christians and Jews were able to live in peace together. He did not persecute them for believing in somethign different. He gave them the message and if they did not accept, that was up to them. There is no compulsion in Islam.

Can you give me examples of how the message differs from Abrahamic religions so I can answer you more clearer?

Throughout time, the most specific message sent to the Prophets were that worship only one God. This is tru for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Muslims believe in the Torah and the Gospels IN THEIR ORIGINAL UNCORRUPTED STATE. But it has been changed so much by the Chuch that there is no way of knowing what's what. There are the gospels of mathew, mark, luke and john, but we're interested in the gospel of JESUS (pbuh).


Ok I'll answer the rest later, but i don't wanna annoy people by writing so much. Sorry guys!

 

[No-name]

What's pbuh?

 

[kumo]

What's your deal with Mother Theresa? Did she kill your dog or something?

Well, maybe she did!:biggrin:
Jokes aside, did you even read the article I gave you?

Anyway, I stand by what I said. Anyone who needs religion to feel secure is weak and has yet to grow up, otherwise they wouldn't need it in the first place. I don't think religion can make anyone truly "strong" either, it's only a fake support - take it and everything falls. If those people you mentioned are strong enough as to continue being strong without their religion... then we can safely assume religion plays no important part in their lives whatsoever.

 

[bossel]

What's pbuh?

Peace be upon him.

As for Hindus...their belief is actually that there is only ONE GOD believe it or not. But they believe that God is in everthing and everywhere so they could worship basically anything.

Yes & no. There is one big over-lord (Ishvara or Ishwar), but there are also a lot (33 or 330million) of other gods called devas.

Yes Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the last and final seal of all the prophets that came before. There will be no more prophets because with Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) has been brought a universal message for all of mankind. All the other prophets brought messages specifically geared to their group of people, not the entire humanity.

Then, what about all those millions & millions of people at the time of Mohammed or in the following centuries who did not hear a word about this new religion? Doomed without knowing to be doomed?
I think, you said earlier that everybody had a chance to know about your god.

 

[No-name]

Thanks bossel.
kumo- I didn't notice any article...I'll have to go back a couple of pages and find it.

Again I would argue that people have basic needs- like security, connection, significance and certainty- see Maslow- that among them are spiritual needs that are met through various ways that usually include religion of some sort. It doesn't make you weak, only human. Choosing another ideology to fill that void doesn't necessarily make you any stronger, just not religious.

 

[Revenant]

kumo- I didn't notice any article...I'll have to go back a couple of pages and find it.

(again, especially mother Teresa).

The underlined is a link to the article.

 

[No-name]

Didn't notice the link. But I read the article and was unimpressed. So mother Theresa didn't change the economics of the world. So she's a bit of a right winger. She did what she did and that is more than most people including me have done.

 

[belle74311]

What's pbuh?

Peace be upon him

 

[No-name]

got it again. Domo

 

[belle74311]

That smacks of intolerance. After all they could be right. Greek, Roman, Egyptian panetheons predate Christianity and Islam. In fact Egyptian predates Judaism.

The meaning of Islam is submission to God's will. The one who submits his will to God is called a Muslim. Adam (pbuh) submitted his will to God and was the first creation of man so Islam has been there from the start but has been called different names.

And could you answer the original question? You cannot make the statement about an uncorrupted religion and then not say what it is. Or do you really know?

This one I answered in the one before but it is Islam

Then what do we call it. To Christians and Jews God is primarly a male diety. In Islam God is genderless. I find the best term to use is it as seem to fit better with most peoples idea about an ominpotent diety in todays society. Can you think of a better term?

In Arabic God is Allah. Even the arabic bible will say Allah. And in the Arabic languag Allah is not capable of having genders like the word "God" does. ex: God, goddess. So it is a genderless word. If I'm speaking with people who are familiar w/the arabic language i use the word Allah, but in english, i use the word God because there is not genderless word for "God" in english.

Greek and Roman believes where very open to outside influences and changed over several hundred years to allow the believes of others to be incorporated into them. Plus when the Emporer decrees that the state religion should be Christianity, as Constantine did, the others will fade into the background.

At the time of Constantine, Christianity because corrupt already. For about 300 years after Jesus (pbuh) his followers did NOT believe him to be the son of God. They believed him to be a prophet, which he is. But the belief that Jesus is the son of God is really a Pauline religion. Anyways, the reason that Constantine was able to take Christianity as the religion is because the people of that time believed in gods and them having children, which would make them part divine. So here comes a religion that says that God had a son and he's divine. The Christian's day of worship also used to be Saturdays like the Sabbath, but since some people worshiped the sun, Constantine took Christianity as the religion and made the day of worship to be "sun"day. Otherwise the Greeks and Roman wouldn't be that tolerant of a completely new religion being taken.

Yes & no. There is one big over-lord (Ishvara or Ishwar), but there are also a lot (33 or 330million) of other gods called devas.

If you look in Hindu texts in several locations you will find that it specifically says that God is only ONE.

Then, what about all those millions & millions of people at the time of Mohammed or in the following centuries who did not hear a word about this new religion? Doomed without knowing to be doomed?
I think, you said earlier that everybody had a chance to know about your god.

Yes, God's message was sent to every group of people. And it started with the first human that was ever created and the same message continued from then on. The basic message is the oneness of God. Even now in the deepest part of Africa or the jungles in south america, people have heard of God. If a person has not heard of ANY religion, surely he/she will have heard of God. In Islam, God says he is able to forgive ANYTHING except that you associate something with Him. So God knows best what's in the hearts of the people. And if there are people that have actually NEVER heard of God, then God knows that, and He will judge accordingly. In the Quran, there are many many times "God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful" is repeated. It is to make a point. But God knows best and it is not upto me or anyone to decide in any matter who is doomed and who isn't because that knowledge is only with God alone.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

there is not genderless word for "God" in english.

How about 'deity'?

Even now in the deepest part of Africa or the jungles in south america, people have heard of God. If a person has not heard of ANY religion, surely he/she will have heard of God

I think that's probably because the concept of god was invented before humans even left Africa. See this article.