h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

the internet is not as old as the bible. just because a lot of people say something doesnt make it true.

Come now, the number of people who share a belief is no measure of any truth content. It's simply not one of the things that can be determined by poll, although goodness knows it has been tried, over and over again.
But what we seem to have in the case of Wicca is the unique opportunity to watch the birth of a new religion. And draw our conclusions about what happened at the birth of the older religions. It does seem to explain all the succeeding often extremely bitter theological disputes within the Christian churches, when the base of a belief consists of what cannot be disproven, rather than what can be proven. No wonder there has been so much emphasis on "faith", blessed are those who need not see to believe. Oh, and the meek of course.
And yet, the need of proof seems impossible to erradicate in the human mind. I think it's unnecessary to point out where it leads, when conclusion comes first and "proof" later. I only say the Shroud of Turin.
The scientific method is simply diametrically opposite to the principle of religion. Or nobly tries to. And therefore it seems to me that understanding between the proponents of both methods of thinking is impossible.

Um lets see web sites aren't proof for starters. Want me to buy the story show me a historical text that even suggests it. I'm not interested in the wild speculation of web site authors I'm interested in hard facts. I don't doubt wiccans make the silly claim but they also make a lot of other historically ubsurd claims like that the witch trials had any thing to do with them.

As to religion and proof theres a line between scientificly proving the existence of God(complex at best) and historicaly doccumenting a claim. I may not be able to prove Jesus was the Messiah prophesized in the old testament but I can show ample historical evidence that a rabbi existed in Jerusalem who was called in latin Jesus of Nazareth. If the Magdaline was indeed pagan some sort of documentation should exist. None exists instead we have evidence to suggest she was a woman possessed by demons and religiously speaking was probably Jewish.

By your own logic, Uncle Heavy, how are we supposed to believe the bible is true?

Kevin, Darling, if you want rock-solid proof, YOU AREN'T GOING TO GET IT. To think I can whip it out and hand it to you is just ridiculous. You seem to take the only surviving document from the time as truth, which (if you are TRULY interested in scientifically documenting the truth) is not ample evidence to prove anything either. It's all speculation at this point.

And please don't discount the beliefs of others as silly just because you don't understand or share them.

If you didn't bother to read my sources, this discussion is over, because clearly you're more interested in harassing me than you are in what we're discussing.

Have a nice day.

One historical text is all I'm asking for. Web sites full of random speculation are not proof any fool can learn html and post every manner of nonsense on the net. As to discounting the ridiculous claims wiccans make about history thats easy. They are ubsurd unprovable and defy every legitimate historical source on the matter. I don't treat historical revisionists with respect whether they want to tell us the Holocaust never happen or that the sweet wonderful pagans were hunted down in the middle ages by the witch trials(paganism was largely dead by the middle ages and frankly the pagan cultures are NOT saints they have there own crimes to answer for IE the slaughter of Christians by those nice followers of Diana we call the Romans).

You have not offered me a source. Web sites don't count as sources to any one who wants a serious discusion. If you can offer a text written prior to say the 3rd Century that refers to Mary Magdaline as any thing but a woman possessed by demons I'll listen. I can offer four texts thats all dates back to no later then 60 AD that never once mention the idea they're called the gospels.

Sigh the bottom line is like many wiccans you aren't interested in proof. You believe the silly historical fairy tales men like Buckland sit around inventing and are happy with them. I'm not asking for perfect evidence just ONE ancient text that supports your claim. I can think of 4 that don't. As to evidence ample evidence of the age and accuracy of the Gospels exist. To name a few points(far to many exist to go over them all) we have the writings of men like Josephus(a famous Jewish historian during the time of Christ) that refer to the followers of the man they call Christ. We have the fact four different accounts exist that agree almost perfectly(minor discrepencies occur but thats to be expected if you don't think so ask four different people to describe the same factual event I'll bet money you get four different accounts none of which quite agrees with the others ie one gospel says "this is my son with whom I am well please" another says "thou art my son with whom I am well pleased" its fundamentaly the same statement worded two slightly different ways). Also the oldest known copy of the Gospels appears about 300 AD better then most other historical texts and to top that all but maybe 11 verses can be reconstructed from documents written by early church fathers in the first and second centuries. I can keep going easily but let me suggest checking out the work of Alan Greenleaf(a Harverd Law Proffessor considered the foremost authority on the laws of evidence in US History he examined the gospels in an attempt to refute them as testimony and instead wound up concluding they were as legitimate as any other historical text) or the book "Faith on Trial."

"like many wiccans you aren't interested in proof"

Like THAT'S not a sweeping generalization... Perhaps we're not interested in proof simply because there is none. However, in my opinion, few religious people are obsessed with proof because beliefs cannot be proven. There's no proof the greek/egyptian/norse gods existed, but we worship them anyway. There's no proof this God person existed as anything other than Jesus's schizophrenic delusion either.

"as legitimate as any other historical text"

I think that therein lies the problem. Not legitimate, but "as legitimate as any other..." Well, Herodotus was a historical text but many academics agree that Herodotus took quite a bit of artistic license with the story. There's no proof the bible's author didn't as well.

And I might point out that any idiot can learn to write a story about fictional followers he had and miracles he performed. Write a few more versions of it, bury it for 2000 years, and WHAM! We've got a religion.

You can prove nothing, just as I can. We're at an impass.

Its a generalization based on experience. Most of the wiccans I"ve met and all of the books on it I've seen try to rewrite history to fit there beliefs. They have no historical documentation to support there silly ideas and there silly ideas contradict every existing document but they have to be right. Christianity at least has a single stable document thats remained consistent for close to two thousand years to support its historical claims. Wicca's got wild speculation that ignores fact. For example lets consider the myth of the "burning times." Now revisionists with in Wicca(Buckland for example) want to say the witch hunts were about killing some European witch cult(Margeret Murray any one) that was in fact modern Wicca or at least its historical ancestor. Does any records exist to support this? Well lets see do modern witches: fly on broom sticks, transform into animals, have sexual relations with demons, make cow milk dry up, hold wild orgies, sacrafice babies, or use candles made from a severed human man to afflict an entire household with paralysis? All of these things are repeatedly stated of the Witches of the middle ages. Now on the one hand we could argue that some cult actually did exist that did some of these things, on the other we could argue that its an incredible misrepresentation of pagan practices, or we coul dgive the most logical explanation which is that a few of the charges were accurate(ie scattered people practiced black magick and some believed they could fly on broom sticks thanks to a hallucinegenic flying potion), other charges represent basic fears of mankind(cannabalism and human sacrafice are constantly dredged up against various "villains" in history the Jews, Templars and early Christians all faced similar charges), some are taken from ancient records of real pagan practices(the orgies are probably some half remembered acount of the Greco Roman Bachnaals), some are scattered remnants of ancient pagan practice adopted into christianity, and most were imagined up to scare people. Wicca is a new religion trying to sanatize the ancient ones(the Greeks saw witches as beings to be feared not priestesses(see for example Circe), while the Romans outlawed sorcery). Its not one ancient religion its a conglomoration of dozens. If I'm wrong show me the documentation instead of vague pladitudes regarding the "unprovable" nature of religion. The existence of God is hard to prove. Historical claims made by a religion should either be documented or admitted to be purely faith and not history(IE that Jesus was a living man is verifiable as I just demonstrated that the Garden of Eden exists is a question of faith not evidence).

"Its a generalization based on experience."

So all Germans are Nazis, based on experience? I think not.

"Historical claims made by a religion should either be documented or admitted to be purely faith and not history."

What's the difference? For religion, part of one's faith is its history. They're intertwined.

And for the record:
"Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC."
This is part of the disclaimer on the bottom of EVERY H2G2 PAGE INCLUDING MY ARTICLE. It clearly states that this work is the opinion of the writer (me) and not to be taken as gospel. So anyone who is expecting G*d's Absolute Truth ought to try an encyclopedia, not h2g2.

So for god's sake, quit expecting me to find documenting research for you. Find it yourself. I have a life.

So you wrote an article about fairy tales you can't prove. I can't look because A I also have a life, B I'm not the one who should have so support your delusions, and C there is NO such evidence. Looking for documents to support the propaganda of the new age movement is searching a dark room for a black cat that isn't there.

Oppinions a word for it. Wild imaginary speculation is a better word. If your going to bother to write an article why not have enough self respect to research your subject? I'm not expecting perfect truth but a well researched reasonably accurate article isn't to much to ask. You keep demanding I do the research why should I? You wrote the article supporting it is your responsibility not mine. INstead like so many other new agers you rely on wild speculation. Your theory is just as probable as the ideas laid down in the Malleus Malifcarum. No I take that back at least Kramer and Speigal bothered to research other tesxts of there age and the stories of the day your just parroting new ager propaganda.

The last resort of someone who has nothing intelligent to say is to fall back on insults.

My self respect is fine, thanks. You're speaking to me several years after I wrote this article, and no, I'm sorry, I no longer have the original research I did when I wrote this article. Maybe you should've voiced your opinion two years ago when the subject was still fresh in my mind if you wanted access to my research.

We're going in circles here. If you're not going to say anything new (and not repeat yourself ad nauseum) then I believe this conversation is finished.

Like I said before, have a nice day, and I hope that at some juncture of your life you grow the ability to have an intelligent conversation without having to punctuate your argument with insults.

The last resort of some one given NOTHING to work with. You demand I do your research for you and I won't. You have no proof, and no real point this arguement can't go any where because you have yet to meaningfully support your ideas. Tabloid writing any one?

I demand nothing. You demand to see my proof, I suggest you take a moment to look for it. Simple as that.

I'm far too intelligent for tabloid writing. You might look into it, your spellings right about on par.

do you mean ' your spelling's '?

Offer some proof and I'll be happy to. So far you've told me that the fact I can't prove its wrong shows your right(a logical fallacy) and told me to do your research. You a lazy debater at best. Want me to treat you like an inteligent person give me a reason to.

Also I finnally did a search online(since its obvious you'll never bother to support yourself). Found a site thats even funnier then your fantasy article here. It supports the new ager myth that she was a priestess on three points.
1) That she's called a prostitute and this means a temple prostitute: WE've already established that this is a LIE. The Gospels just don't say it.
2) That her name is a refference to Magdala: ok I'm not familiar enough with the language to comment although it seems unlikely. Given the conventions of the day I'd think the name is most likely a refference to the town she grew up in but I could be wrong.
3) that the 7 demons bit is a refference to some mystic pagan ritual: How do you cast out a religious ritual or its results? Further why is it that no one considers that a man was possessed by a legion(2-6 thousand) of demons as evidence he was a pagan. Or that any of the other refferences to casting out demons and to giving the power to cast them out has any thing to do with the victim being pagan? Given that the concept of possession by a malevolent spirit is one of the oldest religious precepts in the world(older then Judaism, Christianity or even Hinduism) that seems a considerably more logical interpritation.

Still the site author fails to give a single historical text to support the fantasy. Its yet again wild speculation.

mary magdalene actually means 'mary of magdala'.

Magdala being a small town in Thuringia http://www.magdala.de/, which is conclusive proof that Wicca originated in Germany! And the later religions (Judaism and Christianity also). q.e.d.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09523a.htm