On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:55:28 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Yowie"  wrote in message 
>news:5uq9gbF1j9khhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:fm8kus$6er$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5ug50eF1i9tisU1@mid.individual.net...
<snip>
>
> There's a spectrum within
>> that group, too, from those who have simply added in a Goddess to their 
>> otherwise liberal Christian thoughts, to those who are far more eclectic 
>> Wiccan who recognise the Jesus as a deity in the Christian pantheon.
>
>Well, again, if Jesus is seen as "a" deity rather than "the" deity, that's 
>incompatible with Christian monotheism, surely? I must admit, I boggled a 
>bit at someone who said she had Jesus and Mary as her *Wiccan* deities: when 
>I pointed out that this had some interesting implications regarding the 
>Great Rite, she promptly disappeared from the group ;)
>

Does it though? I don't know the basis of the Great Rite well enough
(i.e. who are the people standing in for?) but it strikes me that
Christianity is one of the few religions that would have a problem
with its deities getting it on in a heaven-movign sort of way. <g>

<snip>
>>>> People wouldn't be converting in droves to another religion if they 
>>>> simply didn't believe anymore - the problem is tha thtey *want* to 
>>>> believe, but can't stomach the baggage that goes with traditional 
>>>> belief. They'd probably be scared off by some of the stuff in Tradtional 
>>>> Wicca too if they knew. But they don't, and continue on the merry road 
>>>> of the fluffies.
>>>
>>> So they're still Christians who don't like their current, or local, 
>>> religious infrastructure. That's fine, but how are they *pagan*?
>>
>> They're not really Christians in the sense they feel they are sinners and 
>> in need of salvation via the death of Jesus on the Cross (in general). By 
>> the broadest definition, that makes them pagan.
>
>I don't see how they can have it both ways. If they subscribe to basic 
>Christian beliefs, then they're Christian, whatever they like or dislike 
>about the way Christianity is expressed by the denomination they're most 
>familiar with. If they don't subscribe to those beliefs, they're only 
>"pagan" in that Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc could be described as "pagan" - 
>ie, "pagan" = "not Christian".

Which is still the way the word is used by, I'd guess, a good number
of people. The problem is that we're trying to make one word do double
work, we need a new word. Or to wrench that one from the grasp of
those who mean it in a demeaning or lacking way. ;-)

<snip>
>> <more mass snippage>
>>
>>>> American neo-Wiccans tend to borrow more heavily fromt he native 
>>>> American stoies -and do the same thing, cut, paste, mash and otherwise 
>>>> homogonise totally different nation's stories into something they find 
>>>> palatable.
>>>>
>>>> I'm suprised us Aussies haven't done the same thing to natiev Australian 
>>>> dreamtime stories.
>>>
>>> I always get the impression that Aussies are somewhat bemused by the 
>>> sheer depth of Aboriginal culture.
>>
>> And very different cultures at that. Like the Native Americans, there 
>> isn't (wasn't) one homogenous "Aboriginal Culture'. Being a vast continent 
>> (like the USA) there are many different 'nations' of native Australians, 
>> many many languages, and many many different mythologies.
>
>Yes, sorry if I implied it was homogenous. I meant, "Aboriginal culture" as 
>opposed to "immigrant culture" (which also isn't homogenous, obviously).

I saw some dreadful BBC1 morning prog about folk who want to emigrate
to Oz or New Zealand, in one the woman wanted to teach (since she was
a teacher in England...) so was talking about her (Welsh) culture to a
class. We were informed that all children in Australia now have to
learn about Aboriginal cultures. I (cynically) assumed that this had
the same sort of depth as comparative religion in RE did here when I
was at school. But anyway, I get the idea that at least something is
done nowadays in schools to remind non-Aboriginal Australians that
there are other ways of looking at life?

>
>From what little I know,
>> they do tend to have commonalities, but that would be expected I guess. 
>> But they haven't been documented particularly well and for some reason the 
>> general populace of Australia doesn't seem particularly interested in it. 
>> I don't know why. It may have something to do with the culture itself - 
>> that the mythology, the 'dreaming' is a sacred thing, not to be discussed 
>> with outsiders and certainly not outsiders that haven't been initiated. 
>> And some of hte initiation ceremonies are *brutal*. There's also women's 
>> dreaming and men's dreaming in most nations, totally seperate things.
>
>*nods* The main focus of interest seems to have been on "saving them from 
>themselves": 

I'm reminded of Dr. Wooreddy's Prescription for Enduring the Ending of
the World, in which a missionary misunderstands an argument between
two people - because he is not from that part of the world he thinks
it's a really serious big deal, whereas the two people involved
understand that it's more about the public display of annoyance, in a
ritual sort of way.

>I was reading some posts on an Australian group the other week 
>defending the actions of Christian missionaries on the grounds that even if 
>families and communities were split up and marginalised, the 'poor natives' 
>were at least shown how to behave in 'proper' modern society.

Ah yes, the great ideal. Sigh.

<snip>


-- 
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, 
in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence 
is what we do.
- John Ruskin