Christians and Pagans

[Elspode]

There is very little in Christianity that wasn't around in one form or another before they commandeered it and tailored the mythology to suit their particular needs.

And, yeah, All Saint's Day was placed where it is to counter the night "when the veil between the worlds is thinnest, and the spirits of our anscestors are near". Thus, Samhain became "All Hallow's Eve" (since it was the night before All Saint's Day), which we now colloquially call "Halloween".

There is much interesting history behind the relationship between the beliefs and practices of the ancient peoples of Europe and the influx of Christianity. Killing off witches and Pagans was once thought to be a good idea, you know. And, if Ashcroft has his way, perhaps it will be thought to be a good idea again some day...

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Whit
      Hey, I was just railing im the X-mas thread and when Ep posted I wondered what you Wiccan's do for x-mass? I suspect, much like some jewish friends I've had, you celebrate it as a cultural event and leave out the religion.

My extended family is not wiccan. They are generally Christian, but not churchgoing. Christmas Eve in my family means hot chocolate, and a lively reading of "The Night Before Christmas", followed by the presents (because various children have to be farmed out to the estranged parent at noon). Christmas Day is everyone sitting around watching TV, playing with toys and cooking dinner, usually eaten at 3pm ish.

I used to celebrate Yule with my Coven, but since I'm solo now I'll have a little ceremony on my own. (My husband classifies himself as "pretty religious", but doesn't do church. He does read his bible, listen to Christian Rock and have strong opinions. I guess you can say he's a solo practitioner of Christianity.

[TrenchMouth]

i have a hard time with any sort of organized religion, but its hard not to see some sort of meaning or practical design to existance, but i cant tell if thats a function of our species or our culture or both. and does that even matter? i think i have time left to contemplate on it.

as for god, i think i am elligible for forgiveness if i dont figure it out before i die, but i can try. and if you dont believe in god...dont worry, he doesnt believe in you either. lol j/k. to lable the divine as a being is a limitation of that being.

i do believe that all sides should be represented and i like what this man is trying to do:
brights

all beliefe systems should be looked at in a possitive light.

[Whit]

all beliefe systems should be looked at in a possitive light.

      Why? It makes more sense to me to look at all belief systems in a plain, ordinary light. If I choose to view a particular belief system then I don't want just the positive. That would lead to misunderstandings and problems. Such as the problem many self-described christians have with the christian church.
      Give them a fair view, certainly, but don't give them the advantage from the start. This can only hinder clarity.

[Elspode]

I think that's a good and sensible notion, Whit. Give everything a neutral position to begin with, view and evaluate it all, then assigne the labels of good, bad, indifferent.

I've given everything an even shake at the beginning, but I gotta say that there are some whacked out ideas out there calling themselves religion.

I'm sure someone says that about my path as well, but I don't handle snakes or speak in tongues...

[juju]

Giving everything a neutral position before you evaluate it.... that's obviously best. But sometimes it's pretty hard to do.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The thing I don't like about "Brights" is it lumps nonreligious, secular, atheist, and agnostics together when they might not want to be lumped. On the other hand it would give these people a catchy word to throw out when they don't want to explain their beliefs.

[sandypossum]

The very reason I like the Brights (I joined up this week, as soon as I discovered them) is because it

lumps nonreligious, secular, atheist, and agnostics together

. As far as I understand it (which is of course limited), you're not a Brights unless you join up. You can be an atheist and not be a Brights. (Not sure about the use of grammar with the plural yet either...) And it has some basic ground rules that I like too.

Until now, as an agnostic/non-religious person I haven't had a lobby group to push my interests when it comes to, e.g. goverment policy decisions on issues such as teaching creationism in biology classes, gay rights, etc etc. At the same time, it seems to me that many religious groups are becoming much better organised in mobilising their troups and marketing their causes.

Of course I can always push my own point as an individual, and I do, but I would be happier if a group such as Brights eventually had the numbers to be a lobby group worth reckoning with. Knowing there is a substantial percentage of the population that is non-religious and considers human rights to be more important than religious texts (again, in issues such as gay rights) would be a good thing, rather than it depending on opinion polls (which can be so skewed, depending on who runs it).

We just had a Census in Australia, and - as with last time - I put my religion as FSM. I did it last time out of a fear that Australia may start teaching creationism in science classes. "Atheist" can carry... I don't know... prejudices, due to the variety, just as Islam can. But Brights have basic ground rules that are clearly stated and which I can agree with.