Neopaganism Is The Worst

[The Minsky Moment]

More importantly, how is it the worst of them all? I mean, that particular article is fairly benign. No psuedo-anthropology/archeology. No truly "out there" language about the stars, gods, alternate worlds, etc. I mean seriously, if you feel that way, fine, but find something a bit more obtrusive to be hateful about if you're trying to convince others to feel the same. 

There is something to that.  But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides.  The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".

[Sheilbh]

There is something to that.  But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides.  The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".

Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga.  Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.

[Malthus]

Judaism today is not the same religion as King Solomon practiced(if he was real)

Judaism is reasonable close to the religion practiced by Hillel (around the time of the birth of Jesus), not that antiquity in itself is proof of legitimacy.

For Judaism, the time of the birth of Jesus isn't antique. 

In any event, rabbinical Judaism was somewhat similar, but the priestly cult still existed in Jesus' day. Now, it exists only in the form of the Vulcan "live long and prosper" gesture. 

[crazy canuck]

In any event, rabbinical Judaism was somewhat similar, but the priestly cult still existed in Jesus' day. Now, it exists only in the form of the Vulcan "live long and prosper" gesture. 

Which is itself a significant contribution compared to neopaganism.

[Malthus]

Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga.  Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.

You know those two examples have gotta be worth negative points ... 

[Malthus]

Which is itself a significant contribution compared to neopaganism.

But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.

[Valmy]

Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga.  Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.

Um Scientology is not "mostly harmless" but just the opposite.

I also fail to see what "Twilight" has to do with LDS.

[crazy canuck]

But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.

I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too -  eg talking in tongues   

[The Brain]

Unlike Spellus I don't have a problem with religion. If people want to believe some retard BS so what?

[Sheilbh]

Um Scientology is not "mostly harmless" but just the opposite.

I also fail to see what "Twilight" has to do with LDS.

Agreed on Scientology, it's actively dangerous.  I think it should be persecuted as it is in parts of Continental Europe

Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism.  I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.

[Malthus]

But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.

I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too -  eg talking in tongues

Absolutely. The difference is that if you hear so-and-so is a Christian, chances are they are not likely to start speaking in tounges or snake-handling. If you hear so-and-so is a neopagan, chances are rather better that they believe in a bunch of other new-agey type silliness.

This is purely a function of the newness of the religion, I think.

[crazy canuck]

But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.

I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too -  eg talking in tongues

Absolutely. The difference is that if you hear so-and-so is a Christian, chances are they are not likely to start speaking in tounges or snake-handling. If you hear so-and-so is a neopagan, chances are rather better that they believe in a bunch of other new-agey type silliness.

This is purely a function of the newness of the religion, I think.

I see your point.

[Valmy]

Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism.  I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.

Heh.  It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.

[garbon]

Stop projecting.

I bet that's what they said at the last circle jerk!

[Razgovory]

I think there's some evidence that the pantheon of pre/early Indo-European Europe was focused a bit more on the worship of female deities, and that the society was a bit more matriarchal. The Basques seem to have very different attitudes towards the rights of women than most traditional European societies. 

Still agree though.  There is no evidence for a unified cult of a Goddess in 8,000 BC, let alone in Celtic Europe.

Since there is no written records from the time all anyone can do is speculate.  Imagine if we knew nothing of Greek or ancient Greece and someone unearth the Athenian acropolis.  The highest point in the city has a temple dominated by female forms.  The pillars are sculpted to look like women and at place of honor in the largest building in the complex is huge statue of a woman, with a helmet and holding a shield and in the other hand a smaller woman with wings.  Obviously a sign of the Matriarchy!  Except we know it's not.  Athens was not only a matriarchy, women had less right in Athens then in most Greek Cities.  The lives of respectable women in Athens was fairly close to Saudi Arabia.  They wore veils and had to be escorted by male family members in public.  So coming up with theories of a proto-socialist, pacifistic matriarchy based on some old votive figures is really very silly.