Earth Based

Exactely, and frankly the glut of Pagan/ Wiccan 101 books out there do little to change the image.

That isn't going to change. I was thinking about this overnight. Creaky discussed the affects of it on the other board, about how there is evolving two Wiccas (and I expect two types of Paganism). One is from oral tradition based Wicca, whether linaged or not - she mentioned the Gardnerian type but I think that some of the other non-Gardnerian groups fall into this group as well. This group teaches that the deeper meanings of the different celebrations are what is important and that the religion is god-based. (Or people-based, that too is legitimate.)

The second evolving group got their information mainly from books and they see the religion as earth based because they take the celebrations and the Turning of the Wheel at face value. I added that it was like the Christian problem of some being taught that the myths in the bible are important for the deeper ideas they convey while there is also a modern movement of Evangelical Christians who take everything in the bible literally. Same thing in Wicca, I think.

Creaky made the point that one group does not negate the other. They are both evolving. They co-exist. The shock comes when a person in one camp encounters for the first time someone from the other camp. I used to think that we needed to educate the people in the other camp but now I think it is just important that both know about the other, understand the differences and make an educated choice about which group they want to join.

Thought you guys might find this interesting:

Environmental Evangelicals on Speaking of Faith.

In any religion there will be divides of this sort. Individual development limits a person to what they can process and some folks just can't process beyond literal stories. Metaphor and synecdoche and the like are simply incomprehensible to them. A good portion--if not an almost universal majority--of the group that claims a literal interpretation simply isn't capable of working with the material in any other fashion.

One of the strengths of an orthopraxic approach is that the level of understanding each holds is immaterail. You can hold to a literal interpretation or a metaphoric understanding and it really doesn't matter, as the observation of the praxis is the binding element. The schisms between literalists and others are matters of doxis instead of praxis, so there theoretically be little to differentiate them in practice; the schisms arise when one tries to claim orthodoxy over the other.

I have to agree, SeventhCrow. I have to admit I tend towards being an elitist, albiet a tolerant one--- i think that if someone lacks the ability to devlop, improve, or comprehend something they shouldn't be involved in it at all. I know, not the nicest sentiment in the world, and something I"m working on. I'm a bit jaded in this respect.

1: I think an "earth-based" religion is one that focuses primarily on "earth", ie. the here and now, rather than some other plane of existance. Some examples would be Christianity and Budhism. Christianity is a fairly obvious example. The main focus of Christianity is to get to heaven. Likewise the focus of Budhism (so far as I understand it, so please correct me if I'm wrong) is to transcend this earthly existance.

2: I do not think Paganism is a religion. I see it as a group of religions that have come together under a common name because they feel they have something in common. What exactly those "things in common" are will depend on the individual or group that decideds to call themselves Pagan.

3: Based on the definition I gave for "earth-based" above, I do think my religion is earth-based. Though I am interested in other planes of existance, I live in the here and now, so that is where my religion is focused.