The difference in the role each would play in our spiritual lives would seem to be a simple one, at first.

Jesus, in the Christian scriptures, speaks of the love one person feels for another, and especially the love one feels for a stranger, merely because he is alive, and there to be loved. This is not a passionate love, but more of a brotherly one - a concern with his well being, and a feeling of genuine happiness at his joys. Christ, to many, seems most responsive to those prayers we offer, not for ourselves, but for others. His approach seems to be, to have each of us think of others, and thus have each of us watched be over by the others.

One might say, that one is to recognise that Mankind isn't simply a collection of families, but a family of families, and each man is, in some sense, one's brother. As one who calls on us to look outward, he offers us the command "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you". In other words, look into your own heart, and think about what an experience would feel like to you, and let that give you an idea of what it might feel like for another - and have enough empathy for the other to act as if you, and not he, were on the receiving end of your attentions. Naturally, this is an oversimplification - it is not the act itself we think of him being on the receiving end of, for what is pleasant to one, may be unpleasant to another. It is the adoption of the spirit in which the act is committed, and the other's nature is reacted to, that we speak - the act behind the act.

This approach is not without pitfalls. One concern that one must recognise, is that those who are shown kindness, may not be inclined to return it - and then what becomes of the person who gives to others in need, and yet never is shown the same level of concern, when in need himself? As for the Golden Rule, there is a loophole - what if one doesn't care about oneself, or expect others to care about one? One can then be entirely callous or maybe even brutal, and still be in keeping with the letter of the rule. To be guided to love, under it, one must be able to love oneself - and in practice, this is often exactly what "Christian" society often teaches us is "sinful".

The Neo-Pagan approach is different, and yet has pitfalls of its own. Let us begin by considering our goddess, and what it is, that the direction her actions take, would seem to indicate that she would wish from us, in our dealings with each other.

Possible Question : "Isn't it true that some of the stories told about your goddess, don't cast her in such a positive light?" Naturally, we have a response to that.

When praying for help in making our own lives, and our own relationships fuller and richer, some of us find that Aphrodite is far more inclined to listen, than Jesus. Jesus is showing his love for mankind, in the collective. Aphrodite focuses her attention more on the individual, and the experience of Her presence can be as intense, as it is personal.

Aphrodite is the caring lover who counsels her beloved to refrain from doing something that might get him hurt. In this way, by asking another to think of himself, she shows her concern for him. By reminding us to care about ourselves, she leaves our hearts open to those who would show us how to make life a better experience than it has been. If we close ourselves off to our own true feelings, it becomes all too easy for us to lose ourselves in an ill considered bravado, and refuse to listen when someone speaks of how we may learn to live together in peace. If you don't care about the harm done to you, what becomes of your sense of empathy when someone speaks of harm that might be done to another? When another speaks to you of peace, how will you even know that it is a good thing?

It would not be accurate, however, to say that she calls on us only to think of ourselves. On the contrary, she calls on us to think of ourselves in the context of the relationships with our family, our loved ones, our friends and our community. She calls on us to show that concern for others, that she shows for us. From love of those close to one, and of oneself as well, grows the possibility of love of each for the other. Love begins from within, and reaches outward.

This may seem the reverse of the Christian approach, but as we shall see, it is a necessary complement to it. A moral law often recognised, is one of non-Hellenic origin : the Wiccan Rede. "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt". (1) That is, making very sure to not be hurting others, or oneself, through what one does, or fails to do, follow the inclination one finds within oneself, not at first glance, but after examining what it is that one truly feels, under the surface. (2)

Pitfalls? Yes, and that is why Christianity is with us. The Old Paganism left a void that Christianity was able to fill - but at the expense of creating a new void of its own. The danger was, that as we reached out, we wouldn't reach far enough. While society could be tightly bound on the local scale, on a grander scale it lacked cohesion. Thus, the horrors of the time of Caligula - the one wielding a sword, lacking an individual personal connection to the one cut down, also lacked a basis on which he could see that a more basic connection was there, in lieu of a family one. A connection the awareness of which, would awaken him to the fact that this was not a thing that he should wish to do.

As with the Classical faith, so, to an extent, with the Classical pantheon. Yes, there were things there which we need, and were cast away. And, to a degree, yes, there was a diety who seemed to have some of the spirit Christ brought to us - Prometheus. But Prometheus was a very minor diety who played little role in the old religion, without the body of teachings brought to us by Christ, and the vast body of thought that grew out of it. Thus, the success of Christian missionary activity in the Ancient Mediterranean World, and much of the failure of the Roman State religion.

Neo-Paganism has acted to establish that linkage that makes society as a whole cohesive, and not just a flimsy network of cohesive scraps. (3) The Rede of which the Wiccans speak might do this, for those who hold to it. But, like the Golden Rule, it has a loophole - what if someone claims that even though it would be very bad for him to be on the receiving end of his attitude, it would be very good for another. Say, because of Karma. Then, as with the Golden Rule before, he would have found permission to run amok.

But look at what happens, when we combine the two rules. These loopholes disappear. If one says "I wouldn't expect my victims to be any kinder to me", as does the 'piously' Christian mafiosa, the Rede forbids the lack of self-love that this excuse rests on. If he should say "yes, but my victims will benefit from being hurt", the Golden Rule tells him to stop being foolish, as it points him toward the reality of his and his victims' common humanity.

Thus, Demipaganism. Much as the love taught us by Aphrodite, is a complement to that of Christianity, some in our group feel that the worship of Christ, is a natural complement to that of Aphrodite, and each without the other is incomplete. Others will worship dieties who embody these missing values, but still hold on to the added insights and much of the spirituality of post-paleopagan times.

Would you like to discuss whether or not this mixture is a hopelessly conflicted one ? Or would you rather simply continue ? Note : this material, written by Antistoicus, is copyrighted material from the unpublished manuscript "Constructing God: The Search for the Divine through Folklore".

(1) The love of Aphrodite goes far beyond this, to a desire to actively do good for the other, not merely to a desire to refrain from doing harm to the other. The first myth which I chose to put on this site, that of the story of Aphrodite and Adonis was chosen to illustrate this exact point. Who would casually stroll into the Underworld and face Persephone herself, in her own realm ?

(This note, and notes 2 and 3 added on January 10, 2003).

(2) Here, you get to see me commit what some would call "the sin of the Greek philosophers" - reading more into my subject matter than is actually there. What I just described might be a sensible way for a Wiccan to go about applying his Rede, but in practice, self-examination is one thing that is seldom seen in Wiccadom, and "do as thou wilt" becomes simple impulsiveness. "An ye harm none" becomes nothing more than a decision to avoid doing damage that one could clearly be blamed for, with no consideration of even slightly deeper issues, such as the long-term impact of the precedents one may be setting. "The unexamined life is not worth living" is a traditional Western viewpoint which I took for granted during my initial examination of the Wiccan subculture, but, as I was to learn, it is one almost altogether absent there.

A good question is, how did I manage to make this mistake. The Wiccan elders I've rin into certainly have not been a very intelligent or well-read group. Why would I think that they would be examining these things on more than a surface level? The answer is that I had never had personal familiarity with a subculture in which clergy would be expected to do any less. People come to clergy looking for answers to life's questions, and if those answers are poorly thought out, the parishioners are going to be left disillusioned. Or, so one would expect, and usually, one would be right. But not here.

(3) Within a year of writing these lines, I had already come to see how wrong I was, on this point, leading me to write "...and sometimes we stumble", a discussion of what was going wrong in a community that had initially shown such promise, or at least had seemed to, on first inspection.