That is still argued to this day. Some scholars believe that the pagans essentially went underground to avoid Christian persecution. The Witch-cult is the term for a hypothetical pre-Christian, pagan religion of Europe that survived into at least the early modern period. The theory was postulated by some 19th and 20th century scholars based upon the conspiracy theory that the European witchcraft which had been persecuted in the witch-hunt had been a part of a Satanic plot to overthrow Christianity, and indeed most of the evidence for the theory was compiled by studying the accounts of the persecutors in the witch trials in Early Modern Europe. The theory notably gave rise to several neopagan religions, such as Wicca and Stregheria in the 20th century.

The theory was pioneered by Romanticist and free-thinking authors such as Karl Ernst Jarcke and Jules Michelet in the 19th century, but received its most prominent attention with Margaret Murray's 1921 book, The Witch-Cult in Western Europe. Several scholars since, such as Ronald Hutton, have criticised the theory and claimed that the Witch Cult never existed and is entirely pseudohistorical; others, such as Carlo Ginzburg and Gábor Klaniczay, give support to some aspects of the theory by showing that non-Christian religious practices survived into the early modern period and contributed to witchcraft stereotypes.

After WWII, many isolated villages in Eastern Europe were found to have maintained the old ways, having never been reached by Xians (who by the way often used the sword for conversion much like their other monotheistic friends from Islam). The Roman Church still considers Italy a nation which needs outreach ministry because of the continuation of old ways.

I think Isaac bonewits was researching this, but last I heard he was real sick, anyone know if he is still alive?

Right. Same thing happened with the Celtic tribes because they were so isolated. Queen Boudica was a queen of the Iceni tribe of what is now known as East Anglia in England, who led an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Even today, all you have in modern day Ireland is a sort of "blanket of Catholicism" thrown over old Celtic mysticism.


Queen Boudica of the Iceni

Plus there is so Pagan belief grafted onto to the Roman church anyway, for example the local goddess Walburgia suddenly having a fake bio written for her and made a saint by the church, so the locals could still worship her.

Yep, that was also done with the virgin marry and also Saint Brigid of Kildare. She was another Irish Goddess. When the church could not convert successfully, they simply had to saint these goddesses to get the Pagans on board. It was semi-successful endeavor at best.

Well the argument I ever heard for the existence of god was Voltaire's- if god does exist, humans would have to create him. QED

Is it me or am I leaving out words in my posts? The mind is quicker than the hand.

I sometimes think that the reason so many of the other Christian denominations are anti-Catholic is because they consider the Catholics to be the "least removed" from the old ways. They don’t approve of the worship of a female deity at all.

The Pope has only spoken Ex Catherda three times all three were about Mary- immaculate conception, etc, etc.

Cathoic priests don't have sex based more on St augustine being upset that he pisses out of his penis and then has sex with it, more so than Jesus encouraging men to castrate themselves for the kingdom of heavens sake. I think that is in Matthew, forgot the chptr/verse. (Although that is what it clearly says, I am told I misintrepret it).

But Jesus said that there is no male/female in heaven (boring place)

I had a Jewish person freak out on me when I discussed the tradition of his g-d having a consort.

I think it is because you women hurt us men so much. :(

Or it might be that little issue about us ladies actually creating life from our own bodies?

Anyway, yes the "great penis debate" in the bible is pretty amusing.



That Jewish person was being foolish. Look at this.

Recently, however, archaeologists and biblical critics have revealed a far more complicated picture of how biblical Israelites lived their religious lives. As exhaustively summarized in William Dever’s “Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel,” most scholars now believe that the ancient Israelite world was far less monolithic, and monotheistic, than the Bible suggests. Household shrines, statuettes of male and female figures, and inscriptions and carvings describing “YHVH and His Asherah” all point to a decentralized biblical religion that was practiced largely within family structures, and well beyond the strictures of Jerusalem’s orthodox elite. Some scholars believe that this evidence points to an indigenous “goddess worship” that regarded the biblical God as one half of a divine couple. Others say it suggests the influence of non-Israelite religions. And still others, such as Raphael Patai, whose enormously influential 1978 book, “The Hebrew Goddess,” arguably inaugurated the popular appropriation of this scholarship, believe that the tradition of the Divine Feminine — a female half of God, or bride of God, or earth-centered, body-centered counterpart to the sky god Yah — endured long after the biblical period ended.


I guess you have studied some of this then?

Crusade Fever

During the Middle Ages Europe was a feudal society controlled by the monarchy, clergy and 'knights'. The church in Europe at this time had the upmost authority, the Pope being the head of the church had the most power and therefore he had political interest in society. The Crusades where part of the church's wish to expand its empire. At the time of his call to destroy Islam in the Middle East, the Pope realised that the church's political interests could be furthered as the Byzantine Empire (controlled by the Greek Orthodox Church) was requesting help against the Muslims, from Rome. If the Crusades where fought and won, it would mean geographical expansion of political power and authority for the Church.

The whole of Europe was gripped by "Crusade Fever ". The military venture was seen as a confrontation between the truth of Christianity against the supposedly demonic and ignorant face of Islam which had been painted by the church. This propaganda Included attacking the authenticity of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), who were both tagged imposters, sorcerery, satanic, evil, and pagan. Furthermore, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was considered sexually promiscuous and lewd, an alcoholic, gambler and pimp. From this wretched fabrication, the church concluded that all Muslims were despotic and evil, to the extent where not only did they resemble beasts in their behavior, but also in their looks. So ridiculous were all these allegations, yet they were unquestioned and lapped up by the people, and added to the justification of attacking the Muslim world. These essentially became the roots of the long and continuing attack on Islam by the west, especially from its development into Orientalism. Years later, when the Crusades were subject of huge romanticisation, Chateaulri would write about how the Crusades were the

'glorious Christian attempt to liberate the Muslims from the only thing they knew which is force.

This is ironically more accurate a picture of the Crusades rather than the Muslims.

The church had little worry of acquiring the military force that would be needed for the war; the religious hysteria which the church had evoked by using the above and similar depictions of Islam and the Muslims was enough to fund and haul support for the cause of the Crusades. Additionally this was one of the first times in history when European countries successfully mobilised against a common enemy further strengthening the Christian position. Driven by the Church's promise of eternal paradise and martyrdom, and seething, blind hatred for the 'barbaric' Muslims, a mass exodus of knights and peasants left Europe particularly from France, Germany and England, to conquer and ruthlessly kill the Muslims and take Jerusalem.

Great stuff!

That argument of "we would all be Muslims now" reminds me of the one used to justify the "police action" in Vietnam.

The best argument I have personally for the existence of "God" as defined as "I AM" is:

I AM.

It is my own existence.

Since when do Christians care what their scriptures say? They spit in the face of Jesus everyday.

It was Christians who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum.

This book was second only to the Bible in it's publication. It was definitely a Christian supported document.

To try to claim that the Witch Burnings was a hoax is truly living in denial.

All of this was done in the name of Jesus Christ and, of course, with the Old Testament which the Christians use Jesus Christ to prop up.

If Jesus truly was God, and he just sat back for 300 years while innocent women were being tortured and burned to death in his name, then he wouldn't be worthy of worshiping anyway.

This thread was supposed to be on the topic of "proof of the existence of God via moral arguments"

Yet, everything that has been discussed thus far suggest that the Bible, and Christianity is the most immoral religion ever created by mankind.

Sure, you can find little pockets of more dispicable beliefs. But if you have to stoop to arguing that you can scrape up examples of beliefs from the bottom of the barrel of humanity that are more dispicable than Christianity that's pretty sad.

For the topic of this thread the bottom line is pretty simple:

If we're going to argue for the existence of a God based on moral values, the Bible would be among the very first mythologies to be cast aside.

In fact witchcraft would be one of the most moral religions around. It has a single creed:

"Do as you will, but harm none"

There you go. Who's going to disagree with that?

Only a Christian!

And the only reason they want to disagree with it is because they need excuses to harm others in the name of God.

Your source is a website promoting Islam!

Oh man, your bias is so incredible and I'm sure you will completely deny it.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144695/Crusades

One day you will have to ask yourself why you are so filled with hate. I hope to be able to see that day, so that I can welcome you as a brother to the human race. Your perverse joy in tormenting Christians makes me wonder if you will ever be able to treat Christians as you would have them treat you.

Whats the problem with Muslims?

Why the fear?

Could one of the moderators explain how this post doesn't violate this rule of the forums?



Isn't Christianity a religion?

Oh wait!!! I know, you will say "He is saying that in general, that rule only applies to if you say it to someone"

That's a BS answer. If I made a post saying these sorts of things about oh...I don't know...blacks or Asians, then I think I would get slammed with the rule #5 hammer.

How about a thread making these statements about women? Oh I'm sure I would get banned for that. But someone claiming that Christianity is the most immoral religion on the planet and insisting that Christians want to hurt people? Yeah, that's okay.