Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269155)

define Pagan...........

Because in the current 20th century use of the word, virtually none of the so called pagan religions have any connection to the original Celtic and Nordic origins other than stealing the symbology
The only religions than might be linked back and could possibly be called pagan are one in Iceland and one in Latvia, neither are in use outside of their respective countries..

You can make it look old, but that doesn’t make it old

From my understanding all the so called pagan religions we see around today almost all have their roots in 18th to 19th century Romanticism

Originally Posted by kimilseung (Post 10269332)

I have got a lot more time for Wicca than for most interpretations of Christianity. Being old does not make it better or worse, it has nothing to do with the price of cheese.

The title of the thread also shows what a success the Christians did of demonizing women and 'others'. Linking Satanism and Wicca just demonstrates the ignorance of some.

Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269364)

I have no time for religion, I’ll accept some tell bigger lies than others, but they all lie.
My only interest is to look at it from an historical anthropological approach. see it as documenting societies gullibility over time, and how a few have used it to manipulate a lot of people for their own ends, and I struggle to understand in an internet connected first world why it still has such following

Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269364)

I have no time for religion, I’ll accept some tell bigger lies than others, but they all lie.
My only interest is to look at it from an historical anthropological approach. see it as documenting societies gullibility over time, and how a few have used it to manipulate a lot of people for their own ends, and I struggle to understand in an internet connected first world why it still has such following

Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269322)

I was calling BS on its claim on going back to pre-Christian times..

As to validity of any religion, IMHO if you’re ready to believe in something without any evidence, or evidence that with little research is fabricated then that’s a choice, a poor choice but still your choice

Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269364)

I have no time for religion, I’ll accept some tell bigger lies than others, but they all lie.
My only interest is to look at it from an historical anthropological approach. see it as documenting societies gullibility over time, and how a few have used it to manipulate a lot of people for their own ends, and I struggle to understand in an internet connected first world why it still has such following

Originally Posted by kimilseung (Post 10269372)

From my observation of Wicca, I'd say it is more of a set of tools that people use to navigate life than a religion. I find it hard to imagine people being lied to, as for most it is a pick and mix bag. Maybe there are those that follow a leader with a fixed view and order; my exposure to it has not been extensive.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10269385)

How do you define right and wrong?

Originally Posted by MikeUK (Post 10269395)

easily, what's that got to do with religions

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10269405)

I don't believe I stated it did.

I am always interested to learn, when people dismiss religion, how those people define right from wrong. If you don't want to let us know, that is fine.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 10269408)

You just know, dont you?


That how I make arbitrary decisions as a mod anyway...

WWSD

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10269415)

Did Hitler? Did Saddam Hussein? Did Tony Blair or George W. Bush? Does Harper? Did Trudeau? Does the pope?

As MikeUK appears to suggest that faith is for numpties, I am curious as to where the source of his belief of right and wrong comes from.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10269405)

I don't believe I stated it did.

I am always interested to learn, when people dismiss religion, how those people define right from wrong. If you don't want to let us know, that is fine.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 10269424)

I see no reason why any given society could not develop a moral code which sets out acceptable rights and wrongs; it doesn't need to have constructs of omniscient beings or an afterlife.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10269415)

As MikeUK appears to suggest that faith is for numpties, I am curious as to where the source of his belief of right and wrong comes from.