Debunking "the devil"...

WiccanWade · 08-12-2003, 05:41 AM

[I'm sorry, as I was unsure where to place this, specifically. However, I shall post a more propper Intro. in a moment]:

I'm in the process of researching the evidence for The Goddess in The Bible, and other Christian Godess worshipers whom hail far before Gardner's time (such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton), for a book I am researching and writing! Anyhoo...what I would also like to address is any evidence (by some very well researched, and unbiased, folks) which seems to (for want of a better word) "debunk" the existance of the devil. Because....what I'd always heard was that there's no evidence for the existance of any being such as "the devil" or "satan" pre-dating the Middle Ages. And, others, I've heard, assert that "satan" is never meant to be any propper name, or describing any actual entity, based on the origional Hebrew, or what have you. And, "the devil" as a purely fictitious (or invented) entity, based on history and the works of scholarls is something I would like to explore and research. Yet...thinking that a few Christo-Pagans (whos Trad. I respect, albeit doesn't make much sense to me, personally) I know of On-Line, might be relatively unbiased, and able to point me to such sources. But, that was not the case. They seemed to find fault in all that I had heard, and still (unfortunately) believe in this entity. Because, my reason for researching this is...I don't think it's enough (in my own personal opinion, with regards to any students one may have) to simply say that we don't believe in the devil, or don't acknowledge his existence. I'm the sort which like to have some sort of validation, or proof, to support what I believe. To allow them, perhaps, to feel better about it. Aside from being able to speak relatively knowledgibly about this issue. So, I was wondering if anyone knows of any excellent sources for such a study or research? Please, recommend 'em! Whew...sorry for that rammble, there.

Talk to you later...

I, Brian · 08-12-2003, 12:17 PM

I'll have to go get my Strong's out to get the specific Biblical references. However, for the moment, here's a link to something I wrote about Hell that may or may not be of any help in your research:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...jesus_hell.php

WiccanWade · 08-12-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'll have to go get my Strong's out to get the specific Biblical references. However, for the moment, here's a link to something I wrote about Hell that may or may not be of any help in your research:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...jesus_hell.php

Thanks! I'm open to any references you might recommend, which are very well researched, and meet the burdon of proof, as it were. A friend ona list I belong to recommended the following book, which he says is definately NOT anti-Christian: "Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Dont't Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith", by Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Peter Heinegg (Translator) However, having never read it, or even looked at it, before, I cannot judge is scholarship or how well researched and rational it is! And, am looking for such literature, which is very well grounded.

WiccanWade · 08-12-2003, 06:40 PM

However, it's not just "hell" that I wish to discuss, but also debunking, as it were, "the devil". In an effort to speak to readers who may be coming from a Judeo-Christian path, to really get them to think for themself, et al. Heck, I also have many conservative Christian relatives, and would like to give them a copy, and ease their fears in "the devil", "hell", and the evidence for The Goddess in the Bible and the Christian God, etc...

WHKeith · 08-12-2003, 08:05 PM

Hi, WiccanWade! Blessed be, and great to meet you! I am also Wiccan, and also an author. I also used to be, in my misspent youth, a born-again fundamentalist Christian, so I know something of that world as well. We may have some things to share with one another.

I’m afraid both the names Satan and the Devil do appear in the Bible, do appear to represent a specific being, and do therefore greatly predate the Middle Ages. The earliest mention of Satan, in terms of the chronology of the Old Testament’s writing, is probably the Book of Job, where Satan is described as a kind of prosecuting attorney. Indeed, the name Satan comes from the Hebrew word for “Adversary.” Identification with the serpent in the Garden of Eden came MUCH later. The word Devil doesn’t appear until Matthew, first book of the New Testament, in Chapter 4. That name comes from the Greek Diabolus, meaning “Slanderer.” While it can certainly be argued that both Satan and the Devil are intended as metaphor, they are certainly presented in the Bible as a specific being, as real as God, Jesus, or any other character therein.

What has interested me about this critter, though, is the fact that he’s changed quite a bit over the centuries. In the Old Testament, when he appears at all, it is as one of the “Sons of God,” as Job puts it—presumably just another angel (though the concept of the sons of God probably derives ultimately from Sumerian myth, whence came much of Genesis.) Throughout the O.T., it is GOD who is viewed as the source of evil, believe it or not. Amos 3:6: “Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” 1 Samuel 18:10: “ . . . the evil spirit from God [that] came upon Saul. . . .” Lamentations 3:38: “Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?”

An early competitor of Christianity was Mithraism and, in fact, Christianity absorbed a lot of Mithraic mythology in the course of vanquishing it—such as, for instance, Jesus’ birthday on December 25th. This Persian religion viewed the universe as a colossal battleground between the forces of Good and Light (Mithra) versus an equal but opposing god of Evil and Darkness, Ahriman. This same concept was picked up by Zoroastrianism and the Manichean Heresy, and aspects of it spread to Christianity, with the idea that, somehow, God needs our help to win out over evil, and we with our damned free will get to choose which side to join. Only in the Middle Ages did things swing back the other way; if Satan was as powerful as God, if he was, in fact, a SECOND god opposed to the first, then God could not truly be God; therefore, the Devil had to be a lesser power and subject to God’s will. It is true that only in the Middle Ages do we begin to see the Devil in his modern form, as a fallen prince of demons and lord of Hell interested in corrupting mankind and carrying souls off to the underworld. In the New Testament, I believe, the Devil is explicitly seen as being cast out of heaven to the Earth. The Book of Revelations brings up the idea of him being later—at the end times, cast into the lake of fire. The Fundamentalist view of Satan nowadays, I fear, owes at least as much to Milton as it does to the Bible.

I’m fascinated by your thesis about the Goddess in the Bible. Are you aware that the visible manifestation of God’s presence in the O.T.—the “Shekinah,” is female? Within the Kabalic tradition, God is seen as male AND female; the first sephira, Kether, splits into the male Chokmah and the female Bineh as the first act of creation. Food for thought.

Allow me to recommend a book: Pagans & Christians, The Personal Spiritual Experience, by Gus diZerega. He does an excellent job of looking at the roots of both Pagan and Christian belief, in the hope of getting the two to talk to one another, and he touches on these ideas along the way.

Looking forward to discussing things further with you on these boards!

WiccanWade · 08-12-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Hi, WiccanWade! Blessed be, and great to meet you! I am also Wiccan, and also an author. I also used to be, in my misspent youth, a born-again fundamentalist Christian, so I know something of that world as well. We may have some things to share with one another.

Nice to meet you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I’m afraid both the names Satan and the Devil do appear in the Bible, do appear to represent a specific being, and do therefore greatly predate the Middle Ages. The earliest mention of Satan, in terms of the chronology of the Old Testament’s writing, is probably the Book of Job, where Satan is described as a kind of prosecuting attorney. Indeed, the name Satan comes from the Hebrew word for “Adversary.” Identification with the serpent in the Garden of Eden came MUCH later. The word Devil doesn’t appear until Matthew, first book of the New Testament, in Chapter 4. That name comes from the Greek Diabolus, meaning “Slanderer.” While it can certainly be argued that both Satan and the Devil are intended as metaphor, they are certainly presented in the Bible as a specific being, as real as God, Jesus, or any other character therein.

Well, "diabolos" doesn't so much mean "slanderER", as "slanderous", according to my dictionary. And, based on the evidence, which I would like to research, these meantions may have been blatant mistranslations, and re-writings. And, for whatever reasons, am convinced that there is evidence, somewhere, which is written by an unbiased scholar (whos work I am hoping to find) which may lay this to rest.

The first chapter I'm working on is called "The Nature of God". Whiuch will discuss, in part, the evidence for The Goddess in The Bible.

By the way, what have you written? I may try and find it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

What has interested me about this critter, though, is the fact that he’s changed quite a bit over the centuries.

True. And, I'd still like to read "Putting Away Childish Things" to get a taste fr its research, and whether or not it may meet the burdon of proof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

[Throughout the O.T., it is GOD who is viewed as the source of evil, believe it or not. Amos 3:6: “Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” 1 Samuel 18:10: “ . . . the evil spirit from God [that] came upon Saul. . . .” Lamentations 3:38: “Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?”

REALLY, now? Now, that's interesting! Although, I always try to find validation in the origional Hebrew. Does this support it, as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

An early competitor of Christianity was Mithraism and, in fact, Christianity absorbed a lot of Mithraic mythology in the course of vanquishing it—such as, for instance, Jesus’ birthday on December 25th.

Jesus' Mass on Dec. 25th. was as a result of the date of the Roman Saturnalia, I have always read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

[This Persian religion viewed the universe as a colossal battleground between the forces of Good and Light (Mithra) versus an equal but opposing god of Evil and Darkness, Ahriman. This same concept was picked up by Zoroastrianism and the Manichean Heresy, and aspects of it spread to Christianity, with the idea that, somehow, God needs our help to win out over evil, and we with our damned free will get to choose which side to join.

How did it (it begs the question), after all, spread into Christianity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

The Book of Revelations brings up the idea of him being later—at the end times, cast into the lake of fire. The Fundamentalist view of Satan nowadays, I fear, owes at least as much to Milton as it does to the Bible.

The exact notion which I would like to debunk. Because, I doin't think it's enough to say that the devil doesn't exist, and we don't believe in him. Especially if one is coming to it from a Jedeo-monotheistic faith!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I’m fascinated by your thesis about the Goddess in the Bible. Are you aware that the visible manifestation of God’s presence in the O.T.—the “Shekinah,” is female?

No, I'm not. But, I'm still researching it. Care to point mne to some fairly well respected sources o research that fact, and validate it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Within the Kabalic tradition, God is seen as male AND female; the first sephira, Kether, splits into the male Chokmah and the female Bineh as the first act of creation. Food for thought.

Yes, I know that. And, may delve into it, if I can throughout the scope of the book,, if I could find a place to discuss it. Becauise, I want to write a spirituwhere it's too jam-packed! EEK!

I also seek to answer many questions, which nearly all books on The Craft fail to do, which is addressing why, as an example, Friday, Venus, the colour green, and copper are all listed as "correspondences". There is a meathod to the madness, if ya' didn't know. ;-) And, there are many very well educated Witches whom do not (surprisingly)!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Allow me to recommend a book: Pagans & Christians, The Personal Spiritual Experience, by Gus diZerega. He does an excellent job of looking at the roots of both Pagan and Christian belief, in the hope of getting the two to talk to one another, and he touches on these ideas along the way.

I've all but given up hope on anything Llewellyn publishes. Besides, I really do not want to list anything by them in my bibliography, because it is so highly unrespected, that for this reason alone (believe me, as I've seen it with my own eyes) many pagans have attacked several authors for listeing any Llewellyn books actually in their bibliography, for goodness sake! Although, they publish the occassionally good book, such as Ed Fitch's outer court material, the wrest is usually junk.

Although, LET'S not discuss $ilver RavenWolf here, lease. ;o)

Blessed Be,
Wade

WiccanWade · 08-12-2003, 08:58 PM

It may also interest anyone to know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who dies in 1902 (if I've got my dates correct) also prayed to The Goddess, and was a Christian. She even published "The Woman's Bible", all before Gadner had been Initiated as a Witch (if I'm remembering correctly).

WHKeith · 08-13-2003, 04:05 PM

Man, this’s gonna be fun. I wonder, though, WiccanWade, if we shouldn’t move this over to the Alternative Spirituality board. Having a couple of Wiccans debate and discuss their religion on the Christian board isn’t exactly kosher. Ah . . . my mistake. This is Religion Central. I guess that’s okay, then. We’ll let the moderator decide where this best goes.

To answer your question about what I’ve written—I’ve got sixty-some novels published so far, about half-and-half science fiction and military technothrillers. The technothrillers are most recently written under the penname “H. Jay Riker,” and include one series about the Navy SEALs, and another on modern submarine combat. The SF comes out under my own name—William H. Keith—and under the name Ian Douglas for a series about the U.S. Marines in the future.

Currently, I’m about halfway done with my first NON-fiction book. It will be published by Citadel Press, and is tentatively titled “The Science of the Craft.” It looks at magic and witchcraft in relation to quantum physics . . . how the quantum metaverse could explain certain magical operations through manifestations of such delightful notions as nonlocality, parallel universes, and what I call “the Believer Effect.”

In general, I agree with your assessment of Llewellyn Books. They’ll print ANYTHING, and I gather they’re not especially kind to their authors, though I have no direct experience of that. I’ve been especially dismayed by the D.J. Conway Effect: some of her early books were excellent, but it seemed after a time that she was just turning out one title after another by taking the same material and dressing it in different clothing—Celtic magic, dragon magic, faery magic—simply for commercial viability.

I’d not heard about the pagan community’s persecution of those using Llewellyn source material. I’ll need to take a closer look at that.

I urge you not to throw the baby out with the acid bath, however. DiZerega’s book is scholarly in an accessible way, and fulfills a genuine need within the spiritual community. His basic thesis is that both Christian and pagan spirituality are valid expressions of the personal spiritual path, that each has much to learn from the other, and that tolerance and open-mindedness are more useful than their opposites. He takes care not to attack Christianity in general; however, he does make an excellent case against the more rabid forms of Biblical fundamentalism, showing how they tend to shoot themselves in the foot over such doctrines as . . . well, now that you mention it, as belief in the Devil.

On the etymology of the word “devil,” my dictionary shows it coming through the Old English “deofol” from the Latin “diabolos,” meaning “slanderer,” which certainly matches the old Hebrew notion of “the Accuser” or “the Adversary.” Can’t see that it makes more than a hair’s split of difference. We’re obviously on the same page there.

I respectfully disagree that ideas about the devil were the result of Medieval mistranslations or editorial rewriting. There WERE many such, yes. Two well-known examples are the mistaken translation of the Hebrew word for “shining” as the word “horned” in one early version of Exodus, with the result that many Medieval representations of Moses—including the famous one by Michelangelo—show the poor fellow with horns on his head; and the apparently deliberate substitution of the word “witch” for the related word “poisoner” in Exodus 22:18, a bit of propaganda perpetrated by King James’ translators in 1611. However, exhaustive scholarship by both Jewish and Christian researchers—backed by confirmations of the validity of our understanding of the ancient languages uncovered by archeology and paleolinguistics—appear to wholly vindicate both the literal translation and our current numinal understanding of the Biblical text as we know them today. Such scholarship helps us know today that, for example, the rather ill-fitting ending to the Book of Mark was a later editorial addition to the original document, possibly in order to bring it into line with other documents concerning the teachings of Jesus. Polycarp? Are you reading this? Help me out, here.

I, for one, am deeply suspicious of wholesale rewritings of history or of historical documents in order to support claims that what we have today is the result of some sort of vast and hidden conspiracy. A good example is the current revival of the old Gnostic idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and moved off to the south of France to have kids—the Merovingian Bloodline conspiracy popularized by several less-than-scholarly books.

On the topic of the Devil’s existence—this touches on a point I’ve been debating with fellow Wiccans for years. Because Wiccans have for so long been accused of “Satan-worship,” they have evolved a cute saying along the lines of “We don’t believe in Satan; he’s a CHRISTIAN god. . . .” which, of course, leaves bigoted accusers sputtering in their bile.

While useful as a disarming tactic in a religious debate, it doesn’t address a key question of (some) Wiccan belief: to what degree are the gods and goddesses literally creations of the human psyche, thought-forms given life and power through the belief, veneration, and focus of their worshippers?

Ask seven different Wiccans what they believe about Deity and you’ll likely get thirteen different answers, at least. The majority tend to believe—in my experience—in both immanent and transcendent deity, meaning the Divine is both a part of us and simultaneously independent of human belief. A large but cogently vocal minority, however, see the deities as at LEAST as dependent upon our belief in them as we are upon them, and possibly more so. In the extreme form of this belief, the gods become metaphors, psychological “handles” by which we can grasp and manipulate aspects of our own subconscious. This is the basis for much of chaos magic, among other systems.

It’s not my intent to argue one belief system over another here. They’re all valid, and, in true quantum-physical fashion, may well all be objectively true (whatever the hell THAT means!) pending the wave-form collapse of the observer! However, as Wiccans we’ve both had experience, I’m sure, with manifested thought forms, artificial elementals, wraiths (or “raiths,” as Starhawk calls them), and what the ceremonial magicians call ergovores. The essence of magic is to build a desired outcome OR ENTITY on the astral, then give it sufficient energy to allow it to manifest on this plane.

Any sensitive person is aware of the feeling of reverence, awe, and holiness one feels upon walking into an old and long-used church, no matter what their personal belief system—a feeling that seems quite independent of such externals as awe-inspiring architecture. The Wiccan explanation, of course, is that that building has become the focus of a GREAT deal of mental energy—the thoughts, hopes, pains, prayers, belief, and passion of generations of worshippers. Over time, worship within a church of ANY denomination can build up one hell of a powerful wraith!

All of which leaves me wondering. How many people, throughout the course of the past 2000 years, have believed—sometimes passionately—in the Christian devil? Has that belief given life and energy to such a creature, either as a reflected facet of the human psyche, or as an externalized and manifested thought form? Since the universe can be seen as a kind of shared and consensual illusion, this thought form wouldn’t be the all-consuming bogie man Christian mythology says it is save for those folks who believed in it, but it COULD be seen as having an objective reality. I daresay—given the nature of religious demographics and the global population explosion—far more people have believed in the devil, and put more energy into his existence, in just the past 500 years than ever have believed in Pan.

Just stuff to ponder . . .

Yes, I’ve heard Christmas linked to the Saturnalia as well, though that festival took place over the course of a week or more, I believe. Mithra’s birthday was given as the 25th of December in connection with the winter solstice—which came a bit later a few thousand years ago than it does now. Of course, the Saturnalia ALSO was connected with the solstice, originally. My comment about spill-over from other religions was a generalized comment about the nature of the Christianization of Europe during the first few centuries C.E. The authorities had a lot of trouble making the local country-dwellers [i.e. “paganos”] give up their beloved festivals and mythologies which they’d been enjoying for thousands of years. The clever thing to do was to assimilate local beliefs and customs, giving them a Christian veneer. My favorites: St. Bridget, a transparently obvious reworking of the goddess Brigid; and the folklore surrounding the central-European fertility goddess Eostre, whence comes the word “Easter” and the various blatantly pagan emblems like rabbits, colored eggs, and new suits of clothing. There appears to be a lot of cross-pollination between the Mithraic cult and early Christianity—hardly surprising since Constantine was a Mithraist before he switched to worshipping the Christ. Historically, there seems to be a re-creation of an older, dying Mithraic religion along Platonic lines occurring as late as 100 C.E., and so it’s problematical to say which faith spawned which article of doctrine. Likeliest is that the parallels—including a virgin birth, a temptation by evil, baptism, a substitute sacrifice, redemption by blood, an ascension into heaven, the initiate’s symbolic death and resurrection, freeing the soul from earthly bonds, and Mithra’s role as mediator between Man and God all were in fact drawn from yet earlier belief systems, including Greek-Egyptian mystery religions. Baptism, certainly, was widespread throughout the ancient world long before the Essenes, and both Christianity and Roman Mithraism rely heavily on Plato for such notions as the soul and the nastier aspects of matter.

Leastwise, that’s the way I heard it.

Oops. As usual, I’ve rambled on way too long. Time to see about getting some work done.

Thanks for the discussion!

WiccanWade · 08-13-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Man, this’s gonna be fun.

Yeah, hopefully it'll stay rather light, due to something which happened on another board I belong to (a Wiccan board). A member joined, and started using soime bad language rather casually. And, with some such young members, that wasn't cool! So...I asked them to watch their l;anguage. And, they started to attack me, and everything I said, even calling me horrible names! Names which I don't wish to repeat. And, the Modorators refused to do anything about it, laughing at us both. Now, I wasn't egging him on. But, I wasn't sitting idly by allowing them to lambaste me in the manner that he was. He was ruthless, nitpicking everything I said, making it sound foolish, even calling me, in an off-handed way, "stupid". And, this started the very day that they joined. *sigh* And, I am just one who does not enjoy confrontation. However, this individual seems to thrive off of it, for some reason. *Groan!*

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I wonder, though, WiccanWade, if we shouldn’t move this over to the Alternative Spirituality board. Having a couple of Wiccans debate and discuss their religion on the Christian board isn’t exactly kosher. Ah . . . my mistake. This is Religion Central. I guess that’s okay, then. We’ll let the moderator decide where this best goes.

Well, we can move anything else to that board, then... ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

To answer your question about what I’ve written—I’ve got sixty-some novels published so far, about half-and-half science fiction and military technothrillers. The technothrillers are most recently written under the penname “H. Jay Riker,” and include one series about the Navy SEALs, and another on modern submarine combat. The SF comes out under my own name—William H. Keith—and under the name Ian Douglas for a series about the U.S. Marines in the future.

Why so many pen names???

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Currently, I’m about halfway done with my first NON-fiction book. It will be published by Citadel Press, and is tentatively titled “The Science of the Craft.” It looks at magic and witchcraft in relation to quantum physics . . . how the quantum metaverse could explain certain magical operations through manifestations of such delightful notions as nonlocality, parallel universes, and what I call “the Believer Effect.”

Well, I know Citadel Pr. and was never too impressed with their books. They just seem rather light, or watered down. *shrugs* Just my own observances.

Although, I'm readying to teach a course on The Science of Witchcraft, soon. Which I also intend to add to the book I'm writing. Although, watch out for those critics, whom, like Laurie, will referr to your book as "pseudo-science". *grummble* Although, an excellent example of "synchronicity", to me, is that since Laurie book "Power Of The Witch", no book has been published about The Science of Witchcraft , save for the last 2 or 3 years. Such books include: "The Inner Temple of WItchcraft," "The Veil's Edge," and "Witchcrafting." Those are the only which I can think of, off the top of my head!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

In general, I agree with your assessment of Llewellyn Books. They’ll print ANYTHING, and I gather they’re not especially kind to their authors, though I have no direct experience of that.

Oh...I've heard some horor stories! Such as they trap their authors in contracts, and have a habit of ruining their rep. by demanding they fill their books with spells and recipes, or they'll refuse to publish it. *sigh*

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I’ve been especially dismayed by the D.J. Conway Effect: some of her early books were excellent, but it seemed after a time that she was just turning out one title after another by taking the same material and dressing it in different clothing—Celtic magic, dragon magic, faery magic—simply for commercial viability.

Oh, I found her book on dragons to be laughible! And, didn't buy into most of it. Although, whomever first recommended to me, $ilver RavenWolf's books ought to be drug out into the street and shot! (Just kidding!) But, I seriously have a prob;em (having been there, done that) with anyone who recommends $ilver's books as any "good starting point"! I was told, by a British Witch, that a good book is "Dragons of the West", by Nigel Pennick (Capall Bann).

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I’d not heard about the pagan community’s persecution of those using Llewellyn source material. I’ll need to take a closer look at that.

Oh, on-line, I've seen scathing remarks, for simply using Llewellyn sorce material. Although, with regards to some authors, I can't say I disagree entirely! For example, I cringe whenever I see anyone list $ilver RavenWolf in their bibliography! EEK!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I urge you not to throw the baby out with the acid bath, however. DiZerega’s book is scholarly in an accessible way, and fulfills a genuine need within the spiritual community. His basic thesis is that both Christian and pagan spirituality are valid expressions of the personal spiritual path, that each has much to learn from the other, and that tolerance and open-mindedness are more useful than their opposites. He takes care not to attack Christianity in general; however, he does make an excellent case against the more rabid forms of Biblical fundamentalism, showing how they tend to shoot themselves in the foot over such doctrines as . . . well, now that you mention it, as belief in the Devil.

Well, because of the hundreds of dollars I've wasted on A LOT of Llewellyn material (may TheGoddess bless the Half Priced Bookstore!), I cannot bring myself to funnel any more money heir way, as much as I would like to flipp through this book. I just can't bring myself to, because I've been so severely burned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I respectfully disagree that ideas about the devil were the result of Medieval mistranslations or editorial rewriting. There WERE many such, yes. Two well-known examples are the mistaken translation of the Hebrew word for “shining” as the word “horned” in one early version of Exodus, with the result that many Medieval representations of Moses—including the famous one by Michelangelo—show the poor fellow with horns on his head; and the apparently deliberate substitution of the word “witch” for the related word “poisoner” in Exodus 22:18, a bit of propaganda perpetrated by King James’ translators in 1611. However, exhaustive scholarship by both Jewish and Christian researchers—backed by confirmations of the validity of our understanding of the ancient languages uncovered by archeology and paleolinguistics—appear to wholly vindicate both the literal translation and our current numinal understanding of the Biblical text as we know them today. Such scholarship helps us know today that, for example, the rather ill-fitting ending to the Book of Mark was a later editorial addition to the original document, possibly in order to bring it into line with other documents concerning the teachings of Jesus.

Ah...but, I was always taught that there is no validation for the existance of "satan" of "the devil" in The Bible as an actual entity, rather than more of a metaphor, or internal feeling; which are both far removed from any actual physical person.

[quote=WHKeith]I, for one, am deeply suspicious of wholesale rewritings of history or of historical documents in order to support claims that what we have today is the result of some sort of vast and hidden conspiracy. A good example is the current revival of the old Gnostic idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and moved off to the south of France to have kids—the Merovingian Bloodline conspiracy popularized by several less-than-scholarly books.[/quote'

Actually, that's more accurate than you know! According to some excellent research, he did not survive the Crucifixion, but his body was smuggled to France to be burried, where a Church now stands! And, according to some other very well research material, the "holy grail" was his blood line, or what not. But, getting back to France. A number of years ago the Priest of this church was cleaning the altar, and then founf a loose time. So, upon removing it he found a piece of parchment, with such a shattering message upon it, that it shattered his faith, as evidence by this very chappels later architecture, added by him! Because, he took it directly to the Vatican, where they sealed it in their vaults. But, he altared the church to show his disbelief, now. With figures of the devil, and whatnot, in it! A few good books about this include:

* Bloodline of the Holy Grail, by Laurence Gardner
* The Tomb of God, by Richard Andrews & Paul Schellenberger
* The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe
* Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by M. Baigent, et al.
* Idioms in the Bible Explained, by G. Lamsa
* The Other Bible, edited by W. Barnstone
- These are recommended by an exhaustively well researched Gnostic Christian, a very hard-core "prove it to me" type, by the name of Sylvia Browne. She often boasts that she's from Missourri, the "show me" state.

WiccanWade · 08-13-2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

While useful as a disarming tactic in a religious debate, it doesn’t address a key question of (some) Wiccan belief: to what degree are the gods and goddesses literally creations of the human psyche, thought-forms given life and power through the belief, veneration, and focus of their worshippers?

Personally, I do not (and cannot/could not) buy into this philosophy of theology, myself. It seems like such an empty, and lonely, existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Ask seven different Wiccans what they believe about Deity and you’ll likely get thirteen different answers, at least. The majority tend to believe—in my experience—in both immanent and transcendent deity, meaning the Divine is both a part of us and simultaneously independent of human belief.

Yeah...I know what that means. And, will admit that this is my philosophy, believing that we are "sparks from the Divine sparkler". ;o)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

A large but cogently vocal minority, however, see the deities as at LEAST as dependent upon our belief in them as we are upon them, and possibly more so. In the extreme form of this belief, the gods become metaphors, psychological “handles” by which we can grasp and manipulate aspects of our own subconscious. This is the basis for much of chaos magic, among other systems.

Preachin' to the choir, here, brotha'.

) However, this is not my philosophy, because it lends itself to such a lonely existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

It’s not my intent to argue one belief system over another here. They’re all valid, and, in true quantum-physical fashion, may well all be objectively true (whatever the hell THAT means!) pending the wave-form collapse of the observer!

Now, I respectfully disagree with this, as it has been my experience that the New Physics supports, more than ever, the existance of a Higher Power, or what many refer to as the Universal Mind. Although, speaking of physics, I'm always interested in picking uo a few recommended titles, would you care to recommend any I might like to add to my library? I'm ALWAYS looking for some more excellent books!!!

)

By the way, I'll be sure and buy your book when it comes uot. Which pen name shall it be under? Heh heh heh... ;o)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

as Wiccans we’ve both had experience, I’m sure, with manifested thought forms, artificial elementals, wraiths (or “raiths,” as Starhawk calls them), and what the ceremonial magicians call ergovores. The essence of magic is to build a desired outcome OR ENTITY on the astral, then give it sufficient energy to allow it to manifest on this plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

I don't personally feel that referring to is as an "entity" is really an adequite term, or an apt description, I must say. Sorry. I eman no offense. I just don't view it in such a manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]All of which leaves me wondering. How many people, throughout the course of the past 2000 years, have believed—sometimes passionately—in the Christian devil? Has that belief given life and energy to such a creature, either as a reflected facet of the human psyche, or as an externalized and manifested thought form?

Well, "thoughts are things", as I've often heard Ms. Browne say. In fact, shes pblished that there is something of a formless realm which these thoughts go. And, that sometimes these are the root of our nightmares. *shrugs* Could be...given some nightmares. ??????

Oh, forgive me for asking, before I forget, but...how old are you??? Over 60 novels??? Jeeze...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Yes, I’ve heard Christmas linked to the Saturnalia as well, though that festival took place over the course of a week or more, I believe. Mithra’s birthday was given as the 25th of December in connection with the winter solstice—which came a bit later a few thousand years ago than it does now. Of course, the Saturnalia ALSO was connected with the solstice, originally. My comment about spill-over from other religions was a generalized comment about the nature of the Christianization of Europe during the first few centuries C.E.

Then, where did you come by this theory? Which books expound about such a thing? I've never heard of this before...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

The authorities had a lot of trouble making the local country-dwellers [i.e. “paganos”] give up their beloved festivals and mythologies which they’d been enjoying for thousands of years. The clever thing to do was to assimilate local beliefs and customs, giving them a Christian veneer. My favorites: St. Bridget, a transparently obvious reworking of the goddess Brigid; and the folklore surrounding the central-European fertility goddess Eostre, whence comes the word “Easter” and the various blatantly pagan emblems like rabbits, colored eggs, and new suits of clothing.

Again...preachin' to the choir, here. ;o)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Oops. As usual, I’ve rambled on way too long. Time to see about getting some work done.

Tell me about it! *G* And, I thought that I had the gift of gab! Heh heh heh...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WHKeith

Thanks for the discussion!

You're welcome? ;o)

Oh, and...I just thought I'd let you know about something I recently was told from a British Witch.

She had been visiting the Witchcraft Museum, with another Witch-friend, and the director kindly showed them the museum archives, which contain a lot of papers etc. donated at the death of Witches. Most of it has never been catalogued or published, and they were told that there was a great deal of disputed history that could be proved by the material.

Also, Ronald Hutton is going to be updating his history of the Craft soon; he went down to the Witchcraft museum in Boscastle last year and opened papers which the owner, Graham King, had inherited from Cecil Williamson, and had to radically re-think a few things. He has already published such an ammendment about The Craft's history (I am told), however, he is re-publishing "The Triumph of the Moon", based on this new research (which will be out in about 18 months).

Yet, one must realize, that...as much as I admire Ron., his research can be a bit "blind", for lack of a better word (although, he's a very warm man, and an utter joy to correspond with, very kind, et al.). There are still people around who worked with Gardner, but Hutton rejects much of their testimony, because there is no written documentation. According to his criteria, for example, I was never actually at a recent pagan festival & taught a class earlier this summer, even though I had my picture taken there, and several people saw me and attended the course. Because there was no written documentation, which is the key.

A couple other example about his rather "blind" way of viewing things can be found in his book "The Stations of the Sun" when he says that hge can find no evidennce for Lughnasadh as a pan-Celtic festival, or evidence for its widespread celebration in Britain. I uncovered a great deal of evidence in my researches for Lammas, though Llewellyn decided not to publish this chapter, citing it as 'too difficult for the reader'. So, when she can, she'll turn this into another book, when time allows. And the following link is a review of his book "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles", where he mistranslated Cerridwen to mean "Crooked Woma", where Celtic Scholar, James Mackillop, who put his book before specialists in their respective Celtic language, has translated it (most correctly, due to his amount oif scholarly research) as coming from "gwen", which means "white, fair, or holy". In fact, I've found the following in my research, that it comes from: cerdd "song" + gwen "shining, holy"; or cariad "beloved" + gwen "shining, holy". Anyhoo...the site I was just previously speaking of is: http://www.suppressedhistories.net/a...on_review.html

I, Brian · 08-13-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Yeah, hopefully it'll stay rather light, due to something which happened on another board I belong to (a Wiccan board). A member joined, and started using soime bad language rather casually.

I assure you, it wouldn't happen here.

And WHKeith is quite right about the festival dates - just about every European culture has it major Winter Solstice ceremony. Mithraism was a peculiar form of Orientalism - very common among the legionaries, apparently, who were baptsised in an initiation ceremony involving standing in a pit while a bull was slaughtered above them.

Anyway, I'll try and get the specific Biblical references for you tomorrow.

WiccanWade · 08-14-2003, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I assure you, it wouldn't happen here.

Oh, thank goodness! Because, he was so mean, cruel, and vendicitve, and laughing about his behavior towards me! Why, I could tell you some other stories which would make your hair stand on end! For example (I'm relatively openly gay...I hope this doesn't bother anyone), and when I first got the Internet, I joined an E-List for gay pagans. Anyway, they were so cruel, so merciless, to me that I very nearly (for want of a better word) "converted" away from Wicca. Not only would they speak to me with VERY filthy language, but would mock,, and ridicule my beliefs, etc... In the cruelst way you can imagine. Anyway, I had told a friend about it, and it eventually got back to them, and I had found that they had said, in responce to me saying, "I'd almost converted away from The Craft" because of theuir cruel treatment, "We'll just have to try harder, next time!" They were insidious, and mean-spirited. *sigh* Anyhoo...they were on-line, on this E-Group or several years! When, suddenly, recently, the owner deleted the group, with only a week's warning! Well...as petty as this may sound, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't thrilled at this news! Sort of, because, they had treated me so horribly! However, I heard of no reason for this action. But, speculation has it that the owner may have become a Fundy. Xian. But, again, this is just speculation, with no way of varyifying it. I guess you could compare my elation to that felt by a victum after she sees his assailent get what they deserve. And, folks say that some form of Karma don't exiist. HAW! ;-) But...I digress...

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

And WHKeith is quite right about the festival dates - just about every European culture has it major Winter Solstice ceremony.

Yup! I know that most cultures have a feastival of lights, or celebration of the Solstice, however, have heard no definative evidence (by any scholrs that I am aware of, in my circle, anyhow) linking the Christ's birth with Mithra (however it's spelled). ;o)

I, Brian · 08-14-2003, 08:53 PM

Here's some results from Strong's online:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0226-9595.html

I count 18 uses in the Old Testament, 14 of which are in the Book of Job, 1 in 1 Chronicles, 1 in Psalms and 2 in Zechariah.

(+ "Satan's" - Rev 2:13)

All the OT references translate through the Hebrew lexicon as:
1) adversary, one who withstands
a) adversary (in general - personal or national) 2) superhuman adversary a) Satan (as noun pr)

The New Testament references translate through the Greek as Satanas, which are apparently derived through the Aramaic Satan, which itself is supposed rooted in the Old Testament reference above.

However, as you can see, there has been more than a little intensive theological development from the Judaic beliefs.

Feel free to try out the original link to try out similar words, such as "Devil" and "Devils" and "Devil's".

Hope that helps.

As for specific questions - I think they became a little drowned out.

WHKeith · 08-15-2003, 05:13 PM

I am dismayed, WiccanWade, to hear of your treatment on that other board.

As Siege (another frequent poster to this forum and the friend who introduced me to this group) would tell you, the horrific treatment of gays on a CHRISTIAN board she recently posted on was part of what led her

08-12-2003, 05:41 AM	#1 (permalink)
WiccanWade Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 71	Debunking "the devil"... [I'm sorry, as I was unsure where to place this, specifically. However, I shall post a more propper Intro. in a moment]: I'm in the process of researching the evidence for The Goddess in The Bible, and other Christian Godess worshipers whom hail far before Gardner's time (such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton), for a book I am researching and writing! Anyhoo...what I would also like to address is any evidence (by some very well researched, and unbiased, folks) which seems to (for want of a better word) "debunk" the existance of the devil. Because....what I'd always heard was that there's no evidence for the existance of any being such as "the devil" or "satan" pre-dating the Middle Ages. And, others, I've heard, assert that "satan" is never meant to be any propper name, or describing any actual entity, based on the origional Hebrew, or what have you. And, "the devil" as a purely fictitious (or invented) entity, based on history and the works of scholarls is something I would like to explore and research. Yet...thinking that a few Christo-Pagans (whos Trad. I respect, albeit doesn't make much sense to me, personally) I know of On-Line, might be relatively unbiased, and able to point me to such sources. But, that was not the case. They seemed to find fault in all that I had heard, and still (unfortunately) believe in this entity. Because, my reason for researching this is...I don't think it's enough (in my own personal opinion, with regards to any students one may have) to simply say that we don't believe in the devil, or don't acknowledge his existence. I'm the sort which like to have some sort of validation, or proof, to support what I believe. To allow them, perhaps, to feel better about it. Aside from being able to speak relatively knowledgibly about this issue. So, I was wondering if anyone knows of any excellent sources for such a study or research? Please, recommend 'em! Whew...sorry for that rammble, there. Talk to you later...

08-12-2003, 12:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
I, Brian Soul Rebel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Highlands of Scotland Posts: 4,604	I'll have to go get my Strong's out to get the specific Biblical references. However, for the moment, here's a link to something I wrote about Hell that may or may not be of any help in your research: http://www.comparative-religion.com/...jesus_hell.php

08-12-2003, 06:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
WiccanWade Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 71	However, it's not just "hell" that I wish to discuss, but also debunking, as it were, "the devil". In an effort to speak to readers who may be coming from a Judeo-Christian path, to really get them to think for themself, et al. Heck, I also have many conservative Christian relatives, and would like to give them a copy, and ease their fears in "the devil", "hell", and the evidence for The Goddess in the Bible and the Christian God, etc...

08-12-2003, 08:05 PM	#5 (permalink)
WHKeith Established member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 201	Hi, WiccanWade! Blessed be, and great to meet you! I am also Wiccan, and also an author. I also used to be, in my misspent youth, a born-again fundamentalist Christian, so I know something of that world as well. We may have some things to share with one another. I’m afraid both the names Satan and the Devil do appear in the Bible, do appear to represent a specific being, and do therefore greatly predate the Middle Ages. The earliest mention of Satan, in terms of the chronology of the Old Testament’s writing, is probably the Book of Job, where Satan is described as a kind of prosecuting attorney. Indeed, the name Satan comes from the Hebrew word for “Adversary.” Identification with the serpent in the Garden of Eden came MUCH later. The word Devil doesn’t appear until Matthew, first book of the New Testament, in Chapter 4. That name comes from the Greek Diabolus, meaning “Slanderer.” While it can certainly be argued that both Satan and the Devil are intended as metaphor, they are certainly presented in the Bible as a specific being, as real as God, Jesus, or any other character therein. What has interested me about this critter, though, is the fact that he’s changed quite a bit over the centuries. In the Old Testament, when he appears at all, it is as one of the “Sons of God,” as Job puts it—presumably just another angel (though the concept of the sons of God probably derives ultimately from Sumerian myth, whence came much of Genesis.) Throughout the O.T., it is GOD who is viewed as the source of evil, believe it or not. Amos 3:6: “Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” 1 Samuel 18:10: “ . . . the evil spirit from God [that] came upon Saul. . . .” Lamentations 3:38: “Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?” An early competitor of Christianity was Mithraism and, in fact, Christianity absorbed a lot of Mithraic mythology in the course of vanquishing it—such as, for instance, Jesus’ birthday on December 25th. This Persian religion viewed the universe as a colossal battleground between the forces of Good and Light (Mithra) versus an equal but opposing god of Evil and Darkness, Ahriman. This same concept was picked up by Zoroastrianism and the Manichean Heresy, and aspects of it spread to Christianity, with the idea that, somehow, God needs our help to win out over evil, and we with our damned free will get to choose which side to join. Only in the Middle Ages did things swing back the other way; if Satan was as powerful as God, if he was, in fact, a SECOND god opposed to the first, then God could not truly be God; therefore, the Devil had to be a lesser power and subject to God’s will. It is true that only in the Middle Ages do we begin to see the Devil in his modern form, as a fallen prince of demons and lord of Hell interested in corrupting mankind and carrying souls off to the underworld. In the New Testament, I believe, the Devil is explicitly seen as being cast out of heaven to the Earth. The Book of Revelations brings up the idea of him being later—at the end times, cast into the lake of fire. The Fundamentalist view of Satan nowadays, I fear, owes at least as much to Milton as it does to the Bible. I’m fascinated by your thesis about the Goddess in the Bible. Are you aware that the visible manifestation of God’s presence in the O.T.—the “Shekinah,” is female? Within the Kabalic tradition, God is seen as male AND female; the first sephira, Kether, splits into the male Chokmah and the female Bineh as the first act of creation. Food for thought. Allow me to recommend a book: Pagans & Christians, The Personal Spiritual Experience, by Gus diZerega. He does an excellent job of looking at the roots of both Pagan and Christian belief, in the hope of getting the two to talk to one another, and he touches on these ideas along the way. Looking forward to discussing things further with you on these boards!

08-12-2003, 08:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
WiccanWade Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 71	It may also interest anyone to know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who dies in 1902 (if I've got my dates correct) also prayed to The Goddess, and was a Christian. She even published "The Woman's Bible", all before Gadner had been Initiated as a Witch (if I'm remembering correctly).

08-13-2003, 04:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
WHKeith Established member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 201	Man, this’s gonna be fun. I wonder, though, WiccanWade, if we shouldn’t move this over to the Alternative Spirituality board. Having a couple of Wiccans debate and discuss their religion on the Christian board isn’t exactly kosher. Ah . . . my mistake. This is Religion Central. I guess that’s okay, then. We’ll let the moderator decide where this best goes. To answer your question about what I’ve written—I’ve got sixty-some novels published so far, about half-and-half science fiction and military technothrillers. The technothrillers are most recently written under the penname “H. Jay Riker,” and include one series about the Navy SEALs, and another on modern submarine combat. The SF comes out under my own name—William H. Keith—and under the name Ian Douglas for a series about the U.S. Marines in the future. Currently, I’m about halfway done with my first NON-fiction book. It will be published by Citadel Press, and is tentatively titled “The Science of the Craft.” It looks at magic and witchcraft in relation to quantum physics . . . how the quantum metaverse could explain certain magical operations through manifestations of such delightful notions as nonlocality, parallel universes, and what I call “the Believer Effect.” In general, I agree with your assessment of Llewellyn Books. They’ll print ANYTHING, and I gather they’re not especially kind to their authors, though I have no direct experience of that. I’ve been especially dismayed by the D.J. Conway Effect: some of her early books were excellent, but it seemed after a time that she was just turning out one title after another by taking the same material and dressing it in different clothing—Celtic magic, dragon magic, faery magic—simply for commercial viability. I’d not heard about the pagan community’s persecution of those using Llewellyn source material. I’ll need to take a closer look at that. I urge you not to throw the baby out with the acid bath, however. DiZerega’s book is scholarly in an accessible way, and fulfills a genuine need within the spiritual community. His basic thesis is that both Christian and pagan spirituality are valid expressions of the personal spiritual path, that each has much to learn from the other, and that tolerance and open-mindedness are more useful than their opposites. He takes care not to attack Christianity in general; however, he does make an excellent case against the more rabid forms of Biblical fundamentalism, showing how they tend to shoot themselves in the foot over such doctrines as . . . well, now that you mention it, as belief in the Devil. On the etymology of the word “devil,” my dictionary shows it coming through the Old English “deofol” from the Latin “diabolos,” meaning “slanderer,” which certainly matches the old Hebrew notion of “the Accuser” or “the Adversary.” Can’t see that it makes more than a hair’s split of difference. We’re obviously on the same page there. I respectfully disagree that ideas about the devil were the result of Medieval mistranslations or editorial rewriting. There WERE many such, yes. Two well-known examples are the mistaken translation of the Hebrew word for “shining” as the word “horned” in one early version of Exodus, with the result that many Medieval representations of Moses—including the famous one by Michelangelo—show the poor fellow with horns on his head; and the apparently deliberate substitution of the word “witch” for the related word “poisoner” in Exodus 22:18, a bit of propaganda perpetrated by King James’ translators in 1611. However, exhaustive scholarship by both Jewish and Christian researchers—backed by confirmations of the validity of our understanding of the ancient languages uncovered by archeology and paleolinguistics—appear to wholly vindicate both the literal translation and our current numinal understanding of the Biblical text as we know them today. Such scholarship helps us know today that, for example, the rather ill-fitting ending to the Book of Mark was a later editorial addition to the original document, possibly in order to bring it into line with other documents concerning the teachings of Jesus. Polycarp? Are you reading this? Help me out, here. I, for one, am deeply suspicious of wholesale rewritings of history or of historical documents in order to support claims that what we have today is the result of some sort of vast and hidden conspiracy. A good example is the current revival of the old Gnostic idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and moved off to the south of France to have kids—the Merovingian Bloodline conspiracy popularized by several less-than-scholarly books. On the topic of the Devil’s existence—this touches on a point I’ve been debating with fellow Wiccans for years. Because Wiccans have for so long been accused of “Satan-worship,” they have evolved a cute saying along the lines of “We don’t believe in Satan; he’s a CHRISTIAN god. . . .” which, of course, leaves bigoted accusers sputtering in their bile. While useful as a disarming tactic in a religious debate, it doesn’t address a key question of (some) Wiccan belief: to what degree are the gods and goddesses literally creations of the human psyche, thought-forms given life and power through the belief, veneration, and focus of their worshippers? Ask seven different Wiccans what they believe about Deity and you’ll likely get thirteen different answers, at least. The majority tend to believe—in my experience—in both immanent and transcendent deity, meaning the Divine is both a part of us and simultaneously independent of human belief. A large but cogently vocal minority, however, see the deities as at LEAST as dependent upon our belief in them as we are upon them, and possibly more so. In the extreme form of this belief, the gods become metaphors, psychological “handles” by which we can grasp and manipulate aspects of our own subconscious. This is the basis for much of chaos magic, among other systems. It’s not my intent to argue one belief system over another here. They’re all valid, and, in true quantum-physical fashion, may well all be objectively true (whatever the hell THAT means!) pending the wave-form collapse of the observer! However, as Wiccans we’ve both had experience, I’m sure, with manifested thought forms, artificial elementals, wraiths (or “raiths,” as Starhawk calls them), and what the ceremonial magicians call ergovores. The essence of magic is to build a desired outcome OR ENTITY on the astral, then give it sufficient energy to allow it to manifest on this plane. Any sensitive person is aware of the feeling of reverence, awe, and holiness one feels upon walking into an old and long-used church, no matter what their personal belief system—a feeling that seems quite independent of such externals as awe-inspiring architecture. The Wiccan explanation, of course, is that that building has become the focus of a GREAT deal of mental energy—the thoughts, hopes, pains, prayers, belief, and passion of generations of worshippers. Over time, worship within a church of ANY denomination can build up one hell of a powerful wraith! All of which leaves me wondering. How many people, throughout the course of the past 2000 years, have believed—sometimes passionately—in the Christian devil? Has that belief given life and energy to such a creature, either as a reflected facet of the human psyche, or as an externalized and manifested thought form? Since the universe can be seen as a kind of shared and consensual illusion, this thought form wouldn’t be the all-consuming bogie man Christian mythology says it is save for those folks who believed in it, but it COULD be seen as having an objective reality. I daresay—given the nature of religious demographics and the global population explosion—far more people have believed in the devil, and put more energy into his existence, in just the past 500 years than ever have believed in Pan. Just stuff to ponder . . . Yes, I’ve heard Christmas linked to the Saturnalia as well, though that festival took place over the course of a week or more, I believe. Mithra’s birthday was given as the 25th of December in connection with the winter solstice—which came a bit later a few thousand years ago than it does now. Of course, the Saturnalia ALSO was connected with the solstice, originally. My comment about spill-over from other religions was a generalized comment about the nature of the Christianization of Europe during the first few centuries C.E. The authorities had a lot of trouble making the local country-dwellers [i.e. “paganos”] give up their beloved festivals and mythologies which they’d been enjoying for thousands of years. The clever thing to do was to assimilate local beliefs and customs, giving them a Christian veneer. My favorites: St. Bridget, a transparently obvious reworking of the goddess Brigid; and the folklore surrounding the central-European fertility goddess Eostre, whence comes the word “Easter” and the various blatantly pagan emblems like rabbits, colored eggs, and new suits of clothing. There appears to be a lot of cross-pollination between the Mithraic cult and early Christianity—hardly surprising since Constantine was a Mithraist before he switched to worshipping the Christ. Historically, there seems to be a re-creation of an older, dying Mithraic religion along Platonic lines occurring as late as 100 C.E., and so it’s problematical to say which faith spawned which article of doctrine. Likeliest is that the parallels—including a virgin birth, a temptation by evil, baptism, a substitute sacrifice, redemption by blood, an ascension into heaven, the initiate’s symbolic death and resurrection, freeing the soul from earthly bonds, and Mithra’s role as mediator between Man and God all were in fact drawn from yet earlier belief systems, including Greek-Egyptian mystery religions. Baptism, certainly, was widespread throughout the ancient world long before the Essenes, and both Christianity and Roman Mithraism rely heavily on Plato for such notions as the soul and the nastier aspects of matter. Leastwise, that’s the way I heard it. Oops. As usual, I’ve rambled on way too long. Time to see about getting some work done. Thanks for the discussion!

08-14-2003, 08:53 PM	#13 (permalink)
I, Brian Soul Rebel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Highlands of Scotland Posts: 4,604	Here's some results from Strong's online: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0226-9595.html I count 18 uses in the Old Testament, 14 of which are in the Book of Job, 1 in 1 Chronicles, 1 in Psalms and 2 in Zechariah. (+ "Satan's" - Rev 2:13) All the OT references translate through the Hebrew lexicon as: 1) adversary, one who withstands a) adversary (in general - personal or national) 2) superhuman adversary a) Satan (as noun pr) The New Testament references translate through the Greek as Satanas, which are apparently derived through the Aramaic Satan, which itself is supposed rooted in the Old Testament reference above. However, as you can see, there has been more than a little intensive theological development from the Judaic beliefs. Feel free to try out the original link to try out similar words, such as "Devil" and "Devils" and "Devil's". Hope that helps. As for specific questions - I think they became a little drowned out.

08-15-2003, 05:13 PM	#14 (permalink)
WHKeith Established member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 201	I am dismayed, WiccanWade, to hear of your treatment on that other board. As Siege (another frequent poster to this forum and the friend who introduced me to this group) would tell you, the horrific treatment of gays on a CHRISTIAN board she recently posted on was part of what led her