What can Christians learn from Magick?

[Red Mark]

What do Christians have to learn from witchcraft and the occult?

More specifically, what can Christians learn about their own faith from Wicca, magick, witchcraft, occultism, and various world folk religions?

Red

[TuckEverlasting]

Well, what I learned from it was the reality of a spiritual dimension, and that there are things in the spiritual world that are unknown to us, uncontrollable by us and may even be hostile to us, and that it might be dangerous to play with forces we don't understand.

There's a start. :smile:

[tmancour]

What do Christians have to learn from witchcraft and the occult?

More specifically, what can Christians learn about their own faith from Wicca, magick, witchcraft, occultism, and various world folk religions?

Red


That's a toughie. I suppose everyone approaches it from different angles. I'd say the main things you have to learn from Wicca is the importance of the subjective universe and the unconditional love of the Goddess. You can learn that Wisdom and Imagination are more important than Faith, and that Good is Good regardless of what "God" says. You can learn that a religion of laws makes spiritual lawyers of us all, when the focus should be on living an enviable life. You can learn that Sex is a sacrement and not a sin. You can learn not to fear Death, for nothing, not even Death, is forever.

Just a few thoughts.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[tmancour]

Well, what I learned from it was the reality of a spiritual dimension, and that there are things in the spiritual world that are unknown to us, uncontrollable by us and may even be hostile to us, and that it might be dangerous to play with forces we don't understand.

Hmm. Sounds like Jehovah.

[tmancour]

Oh, yeah. Responsibility for one's actions.

Arion the Blue

[Little Shepherd]

From tmancour's post, I think it's safe to say there's nothing of value for Christians to learn from paganism. From his first statement, he undercut the very core of Christian beliefs. As Christians, we know the universe is not subjective, and that good is rooted in the very character of God Himself. The claim of an objective "good" separate from God in a subjective universe is absurd. It simply doesn't stand up to rational thought.

Wisdom and imagination are very good things(and no Christian would claim otherwise), but sorry -- faith is more important. Biblical faith is not mere belief, but is rather a following through on a belief based in reason. If you're not following God, then you will not grow in wisdom and the pursuits of your imagination will be for naught.

Christianity is in agreement with paganism in that sex is most definitely a sacriment and not a sin. However, from the Christian view, there are proper and improper ways to express sexuality, and the improper ways cheapen and demean the sex act. When pagans say that sex isn't a sin, they tend to mean that certain sexual acts prohibited in some religions(usually Christianity) aren't actually sins. But then you have to ask where to draw the line? Which sexual acts are permissible, and which aren't permissible to pagans? And how can they possibly know in a subjective universe in which absolute good is unknowable?

As Christians we are to walk the line between legalism and lawlessness. Many religions amount to little more than a list of rules, true, but thankfully not Christianity. Rather than a list of rules, we have guidelines that allow us to operate and do our Lord's work regardless of the legal system we find ourselves under. tmancour's accusation that having laws must lead to spiritual lawyering therefore carries no weight for the Christian.

And on the enviable life, Christians make out better than anyone. Jesus made it clear in His ministry that the things the world values and envies are ultimately worthless and that they should not be our pursuit. Think of the freedom! Without the need to live a life which others envy, we are free to pursue the things of Jesus -- things with true, objective worth.

Even on the fear of death, the Christian comes out ahead. You have tmancour's statement that all things, even death, must end, but what is it based on? To me, it seems based on the faith that the subjective universe works a certain way. But being subjective, it may not work that way at all, or may only work that way for certain people, or any number of possibilities. Christians can point to a single objective event in which we place our hope -- the Resurrection of Jesus Himself. If you look at the textual evidence and study the culture of the time, you will find it to be quite rational to believe, and to act on that belief.

Ultimately, the only thing for Christians to learn from paganism is that it's antithetical to and incompatible with the Christian belief system. Our foundations are different. Our premises are different. And our conclusions are, unsurprisingly, different.

[tmancour]

From tmancour's post, I think it's safe to say there's nothing of value for Christians to learn from paganism.

That says more about Christianity than it does Paganism. Pagans are open and willing to learn from any tradition in which they find spiritual value. To summarily dismiss the possibility of learning even from traditions which are antithetical to our own is an intellectual conceit and a repudiation of Wisdom.


From his first statement, he undercut the very core of Christian beliefs. As Christians, we know the universe is not subjective, and that good is rooted in the very character of God Himself.


But the Universe is irrefutably subjective. You cannot escape your own perspective, no matter how hard you try. One difference between Pagan and Radical Monotheistic religious philosophies is the latter's attempt to drown the importance of the individual experience in the comparison to the monotheistic divinity. Book of Job is an excellent example. The common Christian expression of this usually runs, "Of course you're important. But God is so unbelievably vast and infinite that your importance, and your individual experience, really are meaningless in comparison." Meanwhile, the Pagan religious philosophy does focus on the importance of the individual experience, along the lines of "the Universe is vast, infinite, and ultimately inconceivable; however, you have an important role to play in the part of it that you live in, and you should concern yourself with that first."


The claim of an objective "good" separate from God in a subjective universe is absurd. It simply doesn't stand up to rational thought.

Invoking rational thought in the same post where you argue in favor of faith is amusing. So are you saying Good is Good because God says it is? If God said that something was Good that you found morally repugnant (say, selling your daughters into slavery) would that still be Good? My contention is that we, as human beings, have the cultural and spiritual ability to see Good for ourselves. And I don't see how you can claim, rationally, that Good doesn't exist independent of any divinity, Pagan or Radical Monotheistic. To claim that Goodness is born of Jehovah's character makes my earlier point. According to the OT, Jehovah mandated some edicts that were, to my personal moral compass, reprehensible. Slaughtering Canaanites and such. If that is the character which begets Good, then I'll stick to my personal moral compass.


Wisdom and imagination are very good things(and no Christian would claim otherwise), but sorry -- faith is more important. Biblical faith is not mere belief, but is rather a following through on a belief based in reason. If you're not following God, then you will not grow in wisdom and the pursuits of your imagination will be for naught.

Actually, Faith, both Biblical and otherwise, is "absolute belief without proof". And since Biblical Faith is, by definition, absolute belief in the Bible as history and hagiography (any of fourteen different and competing versions), this Biblical Faith is based upon a static, contradictory piece of heavily translated literature of dubious authorship that has little practical direction about some of the most important issues facing us as a species. Will the Bible solve the questions of genocide, global warming, and weapons of mass destruction? Does it hold real, concrete and direct answers about stem cell research and human cloning? These are the issues which can make or break our species, and it will be Wisdom and Imagination that provides the answers to these questions, not religious Faith. We are currently involved as a nation in a war that is the direct result of one man's Biblical Faith, a war which is costing thousands of lives and untold suffering. Wisdom would have informed us of a better way, and a little Imagination would have perhaps opened up beneficial alternatives, but our leadership instead relied on Faith, and a bloodbath resulted.

Here are some of the people you claim had empty, meaningless lives with no fruition of their imagination or wisdom, because they did not "follow God": Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Ssu-Ma Chen, Confucious, Mencious, Lao-Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Shakyamuni, and Zoroaster. If only their lives had meant something . . .



Christianity is in agreement with paganism in that sex is most definitely a sacrament and not a sin. However, from the Christian view, there are proper and improper ways to express sexuality, and the improper ways cheapen and demean the sex act. When pagans say that sex isn't a sin, they tend to mean that certain sexual acts prohibited in some religions(usually Christianity) aren't actually sins. But then you have to ask where to draw the line? Which sexual acts are permissible, and which aren't permissible to pagans? And how can they possibly know in a subjective universe in which absolute good is unknowable?

The "proper and improper" ways of expressing sexuality in Christianity all come from the conservative tribal traditions of one small group of semi-nomadic shepherds who had a long history of anti-sex philosophies. Did they have good reasons way back when for establishing these rules? Perhaps. But the historical record shows that the Radical Monotheisms have always been anti-sex, from the insistence on virginity until marriage to the prohibitions against homosexuality to regulating the harmless act of masturbation into a sin worthy of a lifetime of hopeless guilt and shame. The focus on celibacy and the resulting denigration of women into the demeaning Madonna/Whore paradigm is just one of the many ways Christianity has demonized something that should rightly be a sacrament for all. When attacking the Goddess, the Radical Monotheists were also attacking Her noble gift to all life. Taken to its logical extreme these rules result in the oppressive structures in Islamic countries that confine women under a chador and punish a rape victim as much as or more than a rapist. All those rules came from the same OT that you look to.

As far as which sex acts are a sin, I'd have to say anything non-consensual would classify. And, of course, the idea of child sex is morally repugnant to just about everyone in our society. Other than that . . . why would any of it be sinful? Indeed, according to the Rede, "An it harm ye none", that is, don't hurt anybody. Period. As long as it's between two consenting adults, the Pagan approach to sexuality recognizes all acts of love and pleasure as the sacraments of the Goddess. Christianity, and the other Radical Monotheisms, have reduced sexuality to simple ritualistic breeding, not the multifaceted art that it is supposed to be.


As Christians we are to walk the line between legalism and lawlessness. Many religions amount to little more than a list of rules, true, but thankfully not Christianity. Rather than a list of rules, we have guidelines that allow us to operate and do our Lord's work regardless of the legal system we find ourselves under. tmancour's accusation that having laws must lead to spiritual lawyering therefore carries no weight for the Christian.


Oh, please. Christians have often trod on their own laws over the centuries, as well as ignoring or breaking laws of other peoples. And the “spiritual lawyering” started the moment Moses brought down the 10 Commandments. From the Hebrews sending their servants ahead of them to set up camp and make a meal so that they could travel on the Sabbath to the Medieval Church selling indulgences to the Biblical justification of slavery and oppression, to the tacit approval Christians gave to the Holocaust and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Radical Monotheists have, over and over again, tried to lawyer themselves out of their responsibilities in regards to Jehovah’s Big Book O’ Law. That’s what the whole Covenant is about, a legally binding contract between the House of Abraham, its successors, heirs and assigns, and Jehovah, alleged demiurge. Paul was a lawyer. Calvin was a lawyer. A Sephardic Jewish Rabbi even sued Jehovah in Spain, once. When you have laws, especially spiritual laws, you get lawyers, and your entire religious system devolves into spiritual legalism. Look at how much powder is burnt in the modern Church over questions of salvation by Faith alone, Grace, Good Works, Baptism, etc. Legalism begets doctrine, and doctrine begets “us and them” thinking, which inevitably leads to conflicts about arcane points of spiritual law between factions. The 30 Years War is an excellent example.


And on the enviable life, Christians make out better than anyone. Jesus made it clear in His ministry that the things the world values and envies are ultimately worthless and that they should not be our pursuit. Think of the freedom! Without the need to live a life which others envy, we are free to pursue the things of Jesus -- things with true, objective worth.


Then how come I know so many miserable Christians, and so many happy Pagans? I don’t dispute that Jesus taught that “things of this world” are valueless, I just disagree. A Pagan perspective does not denigrate the material world in favor of the spiritual (despite all the claims that we have “congress with spirits”). We recognize their importance to our everyday lives. To claim that the things the “world” values – and I’m assuming, here, that you mean material possessions, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, means of employment, etc. – are “ultimately” worthless is intellectually dishonest. These things have a great deal of relative worth, that is, worth to me and my family. Sure, Jesus advocated that these things should not be pursued, but if that’s the case how come my friendly neighborhood Baptist Deacon isn’t giving up his car dealership? And why did the nice old church lady down the street just lay down five figures for a Caddy? If Christians truly lived up to their own ideals, then Christiandom would be a world of peaceful monks and nuns, and there would never be a Christian soldier. You claim this ideal leads to “freedom”, and I won’t argue the point. But it is a hollow freedom, and one that is rarely practiced in Christianity.

The fact is, we need things to live. Pagans have a perspective on this, and it isn’t to give everything away to the poor. I call it “Hobbit Materialism”, that is, pursuing what you need to live, and live well, but not to obsess on the acquisition of wealth for status or to flatter your own sense of self-importance. Pagans pursue Prosperity, not wealth, and as a group we eschew the whole idea of competitive social status based on material wealth as largely a Christian phenomenon. We find little virtue in poverty (though many of us are “poor”) but then we see little virtue in great financial success, either. The Pagan ideal is to live up to the ideals of your own personal divine Will. Are you doing what you’re supposed to in your life? Are you pursuing the path that was laid out for you? Or are you spending your life in relatively meaningless pursuits that make you miserable? If you are doing what you’re supposed to, then the opportunities for prosperity will naturally flow to you – in this life, if not in the next. Pagans see Christians as focusing their spirituality overmuch on the afterlife at the expense of this life (while simultaneously pursuing the very material wealth Jesus advocated abandoning) when due consideration should be paid to this life – it’s the one we’re living, after all. Pagans prefer a more balanced approach: develop the spiritual life as it pertains to your day-to-day existence, while simultaneously working to ensure a comfortable existence for your self and your family. The point is not to inspire envy; the point is to live a life so devoid of pointless obstacles and unhappiness that your friends and neighbors want to know what the secret to your happy life might be.


Even on the fear of death, the Christian comes out ahead. You have tmancour's statement that all things, even death, must end, but what is it based on?

The Charge of the Goddess, by Doreen Valiente. It is, perhaps, the closest thing possible to a widely accepted liturgy in Paganism today. The concept is based upon the idea of a cyclical existence, which seems to follow the nature of the Universe, as opposed to a one-shot life upon which the rest of your personal eternity will be based. I’m not going to say it was handed down to us from On High – that’s y’all’s trip, not ours – but I do contend it was divinely inspired. And it works for me.


To me, it seems based on the faith that the subjective universe works a certain way. But being subjective, it may not work that way at all, or may only work that way for certain people, or any number of possibilities. Christians can point to a single objective event in which we place our hope -- the Resurrection of Jesus Himself. If you look at the textual evidence and study the culture of the time, you will find it to be quite rational to believe, and to act on that belief.

But the subjective universe does, in fact, behave in a certain way. And that way is slightly different to every perspective. That doesn’t mean that these perspectives are devoid of commonalities, and cannot share their points of view. One of these is the entire Universe works in spirals and circles, from the largest galaxies to the smallest atoms, establishing a reasonable pattern to existence. When we consider the idea of an afterlife, why should that be any different? The objective evidence certainly points to that fact.

As far as the Resurrection goes, it is a highly debatable event that was not verified by any non-Biblical source. Once again we must take it on “faith” that the account in the Bible is true and factual, without a shred of proof. The textual “evidence” is hopelessly corrupt and compromised by twenty centuries of translation and selective re-writing, with any evidence or even discussion of alternate points of view brutally suppressed. It should not shock you to know that I have studied the “evidence” – all of the evidence, not just the official version – and I have studied the culture of the time – all the culture, not just the narrow perspective of the Palestinians of the time. The concept of a dying and resurrecting divinity is not novel to Christianity, it’s found throughout the ancient Near East, and beyond. The mere fact that someone turned the myth into hagiographical pseudo-history, then slaughtered or marginalized anyone who dared make a competing claim does not lend itself to considering the matter “rational to believe”. Nor does it change the nature of all life on the planet. Everything works in cycles, even life and death.


Ultimately, the only thing for Christians to learn from paganism is that it's antithetical to and incompatible with the Christian belief system. Our foundations are different. Our premises are different. And our conclusions are, unsurprisingly, different.

While I agree with your conclusion, I find it disappointing that you would dismiss the value of the Pagan perspective out of hand as unworthy of study. Our belief systems are usually incompatible, despite well-meaning attempts by optimistic individuals to bridge the gap between the two systems. Pagans do not hesitate to learn from Christianity and Christians – we seek Wisdom from all sources. But Radical Monotheists, in general, suffer from the contention that they already have all the answers, so the teachings of others are valueless.

One area which I would like to touch on is that of Responsibility. This is, again, a major difference between Pagans and RadMons, especially Christians. The popular Pagan view is that the all-forgiving nature of Jehovah allows Christians to avoid their personal responsibilities, which is something we find shameful. Instead we look to our own consciences and examine our own actions constantly – and when we screw something up and cause problems for others, we try to own up to the responsibility.

Christians, conversely – at least many that I know – have no problem violating the tenants and spirit of their own faith, then confess, seek absolution, and feel perfectly fine about it. I think that’s one reason why Christianity, after spending billions annually on evangelism, is still losing members fast, and why Paganism, without any kind of organization and direct prohibitions against proselytizing, has grown by orders of magnitude in the last few decades; that despite being continuously labeled a fad and a cult, it has persisted and thrived while Christianity dies a slow and painful death under the weight of its own contradictions.

Paganism is a spiritual discipline that strongly advocates the development of an individual sense of responsibility, while Christianity lures people in with promises of eternal life and instant salvation and redemption from their own miserable mistakes. Christianity eschews the ideas of consequence (save the Sin Balance Sheet that determines just how deep in Hell you go after you die) and responsibility in favor of forgiveness from a coercive deity. And it’s all too easy for someone to turn around and point to Christianity’s historical track record of horrendous abuses and say “Well, they weren’t really Christians, we’re the real Christians” and abdicate responsibility that way, too.

From where I’m standing, as the glaciers melt and nations prepare to unleash nuclear hellfire on our sacred Mother in the name of their competing Radical Monotheistic deities, this tired old globe needs more responsible people and less forgiven people. From where I’m standing, the future looks a lot more Pagan than Christian.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[Ryokan]

From tmancour's post, I think it's safe to say there's nothing of value for Christians to learn from paganism. From his first statement, he undercut the very core of Christian beliefs. As Christians, we know the universe is not subjective, and that good is rooted in the very character of God Himself. The claim of an objective "good" separate from God in a subjective universe is absurd. It simply doesn't stand up to rational thought.

Wisdom and imagination are very good things(and no Christian would claim otherwise), but sorry -- faith is more important. Biblical faith is not mere belief, but is rather a following through on a belief based in reason. If you're not following God, then you will not grow in wisdom and the pursuits of your imagination will be for naught.

Christianity is in agreement with paganism in that sex is most definitely a sacriment and not a sin. However, from the Christian view, there are proper and improper ways to express sexuality, and the improper ways cheapen and demean the sex act. When pagans say that sex isn't a sin, they tend to mean that certain sexual acts prohibited in some religions(usually Christianity) aren't actually sins. But then you have to ask where to draw the line? Which sexual acts are permissible, and which aren't permissible to pagans? And how can they possibly know in a subjective universe in which absolute good is unknowable?

As Christians we are to walk the line between legalism and lawlessness. Many religions amount to little more than a list of rules, true, but thankfully not Christianity. Rather than a list of rules, we have guidelines that allow us to operate and do our Lord's work regardless of the legal system we find ourselves under. tmancour's accusation that having laws must lead to spiritual lawyering therefore carries no weight for the Christian.
And the truth is, our theology owes to pagans as well as jews. Jesus came to save the world, and God is of the whole world, not just ANE Palestine. He would not just reveal himself there and no where else.
And on the enviable life, Christians make out better than anyone. Jesus made it clear in His ministry that the things the world values and envies are ultimately worthless and that they should not be our pursuit. Think of the freedom! Without the need to live a life which others envy, we are free to pursue the things of Jesus -- things with true, objective worth.

Even on the fear of death, the Christian comes out ahead. You have tmancour's statement that all things, even death, must end, but what is it based on? To me, it seems based on the faith that the subjective universe works a certain way. But being subjective, it may not work that way at all, or may only work that way for certain people, or any number of possibilities. Christians can point to a single objective event in which we place our hope -- the Resurrection of Jesus Himself. If you look at the textual evidence and study the culture of the time, you will find it to be quite rational to believe, and to act on that belief.

Ultimately, the only thing for Christians to learn from paganism is that it's antithetical to and incompatible with the Christian belief system. Our foundations are different. Our premises are different. And our conclusions are, unsurprisingly, different.Our foundations are different, but many of our values are the same. We can learn alot about practice from some pagans I thing, even if our theologies differ. To say otherwise is arrogant.

[NeilUnreal]

We can be reminded of the connectedness of things. It's an idea that has never been completely absent from Christianity, but it has been ignored to too great an extent.

-Neil

[Little Shepherd]

To summarily dismiss the possibility of learning even from traditions which are antithetical to our own is an intellectual conceit and a repudiation of Wisdom.
It depends on what exactly you're learning. If you're simply studying something to know more about it, and to help with your witnessing technique, fine. But if you adopt antithetical beliefs into your personal system, you simply expose your lack of faith.
But the Universe is irrefutably subjective. You cannot escape your own perspective, no matter how hard you try.
Sorry, but I don't believe that individual differences in perception are that insurmountable. Besides, my ability(or lack thereof) to perceive something accurately doesn't change the matter of what the object I'm perceiving actually is. A green vase doesn't stop being green because I'm colorblind. Any Christian who knows his stuff will fully admit that we cannot perceive God perfectly because of our limitations. That is part of our prayers, that He will open our eyes and bring our perspectives in line with His truth. So I still must reject your idea of a subjective universe. Perspectives may differ, but the universe doesn't shift to accomodate.
Invoking rational thought in the same post where you argue in favor of faith is amusing. So are you saying Good is Good because God says it is? If God said that something was Good that you found morally repugnant (say, selling your daughters into slavery) would that still be Good? . . . . According to the OT, Jehovah mandated some edicts that were, to my personal moral compass, reprehensible. Slaughtering Canaanites and such. If that is the character which begets Good, then I'll stick to my personal moral compass.
Yes, if God commanded someone to do something that they think is morally repugnant, it would still be good. I don't understand your objection to Him ordering the killing of Canaanites. Their life is His to give and take away, and His timing and methods are His prerogative. Remember that the Christian worldview is objective, and your agreement or disagreement with God's actions and orders doesn't change that they are in fact holy and just.
Actually, Faith, both Biblical and otherwise, is "absolute belief without proof".
Sorry, but no. This has been shot down so many times it's ridiculous. The Biblical word "pistis" which is translated as "faith" in English version does not mean blind faith without evidence. It means a rational belief based on evidence. While many people calling themselves Christians do join the faith blindly, that doesn't change what the Bible actually says.
*snip various allegations and accusations not rooted in fact*
You really should do some research using reliable sources. Preferrably from actual scholars. I know you believe your little unreliable-Bible conspiracy theory, but it has no basis in fact. And your accusations amount to little more than "I know that Christianity is responsible for atrocities even though they go against everything Chrsitianity stands for. It can't possibly be manipulative people taking advantage of an ignorant populace. No, it's Christianity itself that's to blame!" Except the war in Iraq, possibly. You really need to show me where war is disallowed in the Bible. Either that or show me that war is objectively bad.
Here are some of the people you claim had empty, meaningless lives with no fruition of their imagination or wisdom, because they did not "follow God": Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Ssu-Ma Chen, Confucious, Mencious, Lao-Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Shakyamuni, and Zoroaster. If only their lives had meant something . . .
They all have some interesting ideas, but their ultimate rejection of the God of the Jews is sad. Of course, at least in a few cases, they made great contributions to philosophy(a separate field from religion). In that way, they had meaning in the same way a great mathemetician might have meaning. And I see you have the three great Greek philosophers in your list. I find it interesting that in their musings on the nature of "god" they came up with something amazingly close to what the Jews and their predecessors had been claiming for thousands of years.
The "proper and improper" ways of expressing sexuality in Christianity all come from the conservative tribal traditions of one small group of semi-nomadic shepherds who had a long history of anti-sex philosophies. *snip other unfounded accusations*
Yawn. "The God of the Jews and the Chrsitians and His people don't allow sex in every circumstance and manner that I like, therefore they are anti-sex." You really haven't read the Bible critically. The Jews are responsible for the Book of Solomon, an entire book devoted to how wonderful matrimonial sex is. Even in the New Testament we have Paul telling husbands and wives to give it up as much as necessary to fulfill their desires and keep them from lusting. But like all gifts, there is a time and place to exercise it. And the Bible recognizes many ways to pervert and demean the sex act, and forbids them.
As far as which sex acts are a sin, I'd have to say anything non-consensual would classify. And, of course, the idea of child sex is morally repugnant to just about everyone in our society. Other than that . . . why would any of it be sinful? Indeed, according to the Rede, "An it harm ye none", that is, don't hurt anybody. Period.
On what would you base such a belief that something needs be consensual to be good? Or that nonconsensual sex is bad? Remember, your universe is subjective and what's to keep someone else from beleiving different and being perfectly right? Also, what constitutes harm in your worldview? The Christian worldview is that there are many types of harm that might not be readily apparent, and human experience backs this up. Broken hearts, STDs, unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps there's something to this "remain a virgin until marriage and only have sex with your spouse" thing -- not that I expect you to concede the point. Christians say sex is sacred and treat it as such. Pagans seem pretty hypocritical in this respect.
*more unfounded and hypocritical arguments about sex*
Yawn.
*snip unfounded speculation on legalism and the us-and-them mentality*
Yes, people have often been quite legalistic in their practicing of Judaism and Christianity. What's your point? It's a problem with people, not with the religions themselves. Look to Jesus, and see that He had harsh, mocking words for the legalists of His day. People can be legalistic, but that just shows they missed the point. My comment about Christians walking the line between legalism and lawlessness stands.
*snip something about food and basic life necessities that completely misses the point*
What part of living the "enviable" life did you not get? I wasn't talking about food, clothing, and basic life necessities. I was talking about things such as excessive riches and power. People who have their basic needs met are usually not envied(except by the extremely poor). It's people who have riches and power that are envied by what Jesus meant when He said "the world." And to answer one of your questions, I honestly don't know about the auto dealer. While the Bible says that it's difficult for rich men to come to Jesus, it also says all things are possible with God. Without proof that the auto dealer is misusing his funds and not truly following Jesus, it's really just speculation. Same with power. While it's not our pursuit, if we do come into power it's more important how we use it. If we can't use it wisely, we shouldn't have it.
*snip stuff that basically agrees with Christiainity while trying to make it out that Christianity says something else*
Okay. And?
Pagans see Christians as focusing their spirituality overmuch on the afterlife at the expense of this life (while simultaneously pursuing the very material wealth Jesus advocated abandoning) when due consideration should be paid to this life – it’s the one we’re living, after all. Pagans prefer a more balanced approach: develop the spiritual life as it pertains to your day-to-day existence, while simultaneously working to ensure a comfortable existence for your self and your family. The point is not to inspire envy; the point is to live a life so devoid of pointless obstacles and unhappiness that your friends and neighbors want to know what the secret to your happy life might be.
I've seen this accusation leveled against Christianity many times, and it's completely without merit. If you actually bothered to read the New Testament, you'll see that most of Jesus' commands are about what we should be doing now. It's true that He says we should store up treasures in Heaven and keep our eyes on the prize, but how do we do that? By following all of His "Here and Now" commands. Now you may point to individual Christians and say their actions aren't matching up with His Word, but that's a fault of the people, not the religion. It's individuals who pursue wealth and comfort too much in spite of the Bible, not because of it. And yes, this also means that comfort should not be a Christians primary pursuit either.
The Charge of the Goddess, by Doreen Valiente. It is, perhaps, the closest thing possible to a widely accepted liturgy in Paganism today. The concept is based upon the idea of a cyclical existence, which seems to follow the nature of the Universe, as opposed to a one-shot life upon which the rest of your personal eternity will be based. I’m not going to say it was handed down to us from On High – that’s y’all’s trip, not ours – but I do contend it was divinely inspired. And it works for me.
You've already agreed with me that the Christian view is opposed to the pagan view on the nature of the universe. We can see certain cycles(such as the food chain and weather patterns), but ultimately the universe and its inhabitants are going in a specific direction. And for humans, this is particularly important because we were made to live forever once we get there, and one decision decides which of two locales we'll be sent to once we get there.
*snip stuff about the subjective universe and objective evidence of the nature of the afterlife*
No, to me the objective evidence points to the risen Christ and the truth of His claims. I can view the spiral pattern of galaxies and the rotation of atoms all I want, but all they show me is that things were made to work a certain way in this universe. How many of these properties will be present in the new Heaven and Earth promised in the Bible(if any) is pure speculation.
*snip stuff about reliability of Scripture and pseudo-history of the Resurrection account*
If you have truly studied all that you say you have, then you would know how unique the Christian Resurrection account was among all of them. You also know that Christianity spread by pointing people to the easily-verifiable(of falsifiable) empty tomb. No credible scholar denies that a man named Jesus was crucified where and when the Bible says it happened, so His death is certainly historical. The empty tomb is also mentioned in extrabiblical Jewish records, though with the mention that it might have been his disciples. Considering the evidence to the contrary is so weak, you'll excuse me if I keep my rational faith in the risen Christ.
*snip stuff about learning and having all the answers*
You're right that my statement on learning from paganism was hasty. It is useful to know how other people thing and how they come to their conclusions. However, I remain unconvinced that Chrsitianity doesn't have all the answers. And as I believe in the Resurrection and the truth of Christ's claims, you must realize that anything that contradicts them I must consider false.
*stuff on personal responsibility*
The very fact that Jesus calls people to repentence, and that repentence is a vital part of the Christian faith, shows this comment on Christians avoiding personal responsibility to be false. Repentence is not a passive saying "I'm sorry" for your actions, but an active turning away from those actions. Which very much involves fessing up for your wrongdoings and making amends. This is part of the holistic faith-repentence-following-Jesus package. He's not there to coddle us, but is there to pull us the extra distance when we simply can't make it on our own.
*snip stuff concerning hypocrites and the dying church*
You are right that there are hypocrites in the church. Personally I wonder why they aren't kicked out like the Bible says they are to be, but then I remember that modern society has made offending people the 8th deadly sin and the people in the pews have sadly swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. But again, this is a problem with the people, not with Christianity itself.
*snip stuff about responsibility and historical hypocrisies*
History has also shown that people who ascribe to Christianity will only put up with so much before they make a stand and curb the destruction being wrought by the hypocrites. And taken in total, the atrocities committed by Christian hypocrites doesn't come close to the devastation caused by moral subjectivists such as Stalin and Pol Pot.
From where I’m standing, as the glaciers melt and nations prepare to unleash nuclear hellfire on our sacred Mother in the name of their competing Radical Monotheistic deities, this tired old globe needs more responsible people and less forgiven people. From where I’m standing, the future looks a lot more Pagan than Christian.
Personally, I think it needs more people who are both responsible and forgiven. And about the future looking more Pagan than Christian, I fear you're right(at least in the western world), but sincerely hope not.

[Darth Executor]

But the Universe is irrefutably subjective. You cannot escape your own perspective, no matter how hard you try.

I am not the universe and this does not make the universe subjective.

[tmancour]

I am not the universe and this does not make the universe subjective.


Prove it.

[dizzle]

You are doing a GREAT job LS to the anti-Christian nonsense.

[tmancour]

You are doing a GREAT job LS to the anti-Christian nonsense.


Um . . . this is a Neo-Pagan board. The question was put: "What can a Christian learn from a Pagan." I answered, honestly and openly. The very fact that you view everything that I've said as "anti-Christian nonsense" is revealing about your own perspectives. It's evidence of the essential close-minded nature of the religion. The truth is, most Christians don't want to learn about other religions because their faith is easily challenged. They so feared a challenge to their faith for centuries that they were willing to torture and kill their brothers and sisters over it. A fitting tribute to the Prince of Peace? Or a betrayal of everything Jesus stood for? Hmmmm.

[dizzle]

ummm this is a Christian-owned forum (that I am co-owner of BTW), we have a section for Neo-Pagan discussions but the forum makes no bones that we exist to interact with other belief sysems with the Lordship of Christ over vain idolatry in full view. Yes my own perspective is that what you have posted is Anti-Christian nonsense, and you are so arrogant to think you are being "tolerant" when in fact you have spouted close to ignorant bigotry. LS is handling nicely your assertions nicely - and very competently. I wanted him to know that I thought so.

PS Mr Patronizing Pagan, I used to be pagan. So much for your assumptions.

[TuckEverlasting]

LS is handling nicely your assertions nicely - and very competently. I wanted him to know that I thought so.

Yeah. Plus, see this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1069533&postcount=165). :hehe: tmancour simultaneously exists and doesn't exist! :stunned:

[dizzle]

I used to say equally incoherent things as a pagan. I especially loved "perception is reality."

Well then let's just end this by saying in some reality I am right. Case closed.

[tmancour]

ummm this is a Christian-owned forum (that I am co-owner of BTW), we have a section for Neo-Pagan discussions but the forum makes no bones that we exist to interact with other belief sysems with the Lordship of Christ over vain idolatry in full view. Yes my own perspective is that what you have posted is Anti-Christian nonsense, and you are so arrogant to think you are being "tolerant" when in fact you have spouted close to ignorant bigotry. LS is handling nicely your assertions nicely - and very competently. I wanted him to know that I thought so.

PS Mr Patronizing Pagan, I used to be pagan. So much for your assumptions.


Actually, I make no bones about my intellectual intolerance. I call the Truth as I see it . . . from my subjective perspective. In mundane life, some of my best friends are self-proclaimed Christians. I used to be too. I've studied the Bible and Christianity in-depth, and even written scholarly articles on various arcane points, and have a shiny degree. But I got better. So much for YOUR assumptions.

[Little Shepherd]

The question was put: "What can a Christian learn from a Pagan." I answered, honestly and openly. The very fact that you view everything that I've said as "anti-Christian nonsense" is revealing about your own perspectives.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it nonsense, but I would certainly say that you have certain misgivings about Christianity, its beliefs, and its historic reliability that are not rooted in fact. While I won't belittle you for holding your beliefs, I won't hesitate to confront you about them either. You have said many things about Christianity that are false, and have equated the actions of its hypocrites with Christianity itself.
It's evidence of the essential close-minded nature of the religion.
I've seen it said in many places that truth is exclusive. By its very nature it excludes falsehood. In that sense, yes, Christians are narrow-minded. We measure various truth claims against an objective standard. While I would never dissuade a Christian from learning about other religions, I would always caution them to learn more about their own faith first.
The truth is, most Christians don't want to learn about other religions because their faith is easily challenged. They so feared a challenge to their faith for centuries that they were willing to torture and kill their brothers and sisters over it. A fitting tribute to the Prince of Peace? Or a betrayal of everything Jesus stood for? Hmmmm.
You are correct that there are many people calling themselves Christians who are afraid of being challenged, but this is more a result of their not knowing enough about their own faith than anything else. People who have actually examined their faith tend to not be so scared because they have tested it and it has proven itself reliable. Sadly, these people are in the minority, at least in Western congregations. But again, you're equating the actions of hypocrites with the religion itself.

[dizzle]

Very well then. Thank you for showing you are a hypocritic since you agree for yourself that intolerance isn't a bad thing. You just don't show that same privilege for others. Thanks for clearing that up.

[tmancour]

Very well then. Thank you for showing you are a hypocritic since you agree for yourself that intolerance isn't a bad thing. You just don't show that same privilege for others. Thanks for clearing that up.


Never said it wasn't a bad thing. I've been subject to intolerance since I found the Goddess and came out of the broom closet, much of which fueled my own present intellectual intolerance. It doesn't extend to my personal life terribly much. But I'm willing to take responsibility for that. I'm also more than willing to extend the same "privilege" to others. I've got very good reasons for being what you call "anti-Christian", that is, willing to criticize the dominant religion in my culture. I did so forthrightly, without resort to ad hominem attacks or name calling.

The preceding debate shall stand on its own, and readers can draw their own conclusions from our tones, word choice, and attitudes. My aspirations for Christianity are for reform, a reform that, sadly, will not come until it is too late to do much good. If you really want to know what Christians can learn from Pagans, I encourage you to meet some and look at their lives. "By their fruits you shall know them". Just give us the courtesy of actually learning about the religion, and not take everything you see as automatic vindication of your own prejudices.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[dizzle]

Even more interesting. After your fit, you concede that your screed was anti-Christian. Interesting. You could have saved us the whole hurt puppy routine and just admited it. But at least you did now. Thanks.

[Darth Executor]

Prove it.

:lolo:

[Red Mark]

Like Tuck, the spiritual dimension is what came immediately to mind. Many Christians do not seem to actually take the spiritual realm seriously. But then I think there is a similiar disbelief within pagan schools of thought; not all wiccans and the like really seem to believe their beliefs. Nonetheless, I find my own faith encouraged by others who at least believe in something beyond the physical. And I see that all people, in all religions, will doubt their very beliefs.

Let me see if I hear some of the others as they might translate back. Naturally, I do not expect Wiccan's to agree with Christian implications.

1. the value of self-knowledge in one's own growth.
2. the value of imagination in spirituality.
3. the feminine aspects of God; women also made in God's image.
4. considering that God is good because we find His character good.
5. responsibility and consequences.
6. that there are gray areas of life.
7. the connectedness of things
8. an inner sense of morality; law of conscience
9. value of wisdom over faith; the primacy of reasonable belief
10. not worrying about being politically correct or always tolerant (smile).

Are there perhaps other things that in the giant fog of writing I somehow just missed right under my nose?

Subjectivity in the universe is not entirely foreign to Christianity. Consider Berkeley's idealism. Although everything turns out to be in the mind of God. Hmm.

I think that pagan religions (is that a polite term?) might take rituals and festivals rather serious in their spirituality. Perhaps there is something to be gained there.

Arion, thank you for taking the time to share some of what you think Christians could learn from. You are quite right in saying that is the intended nature of this thread. So, what kind of reform would you hope for within Christianity? Personally, I enjoyed much of what you said about responsibility and consequences.

Red Mark

[Ryokan]

So, tmancour, your biases are okay, but LS are not? And when you broadly misrepresent a faith of 2 billion people, its cool, but when LS maligns yours its not?
You want us to judge by fruit? That's dried prunes. Blech!

[dizzle]

Exactly Ryokan, and that was the point I was getting out. I can smell the Big H a mile away.

[Ryokan]

Really, its fine he thinks that. If he was in love with Christianity, he'd be a Christian. But we aren't pagans. It's a two way street.
That said, I still think we can learn from pagans, so I disagree with both LS and tman I guess.

[trappedinAmber]

Really, its fine he thinks that. If he was in love with Christianity, he'd be a Christian. But we aren't pagans. It's a two way street.
That said, I still think we can learn from pagans, so I disagree with both LS and tman I guess.
Congrats! This thread got me to de-lurk and register after lurking for the last few months.

I almost put up a cross when I registered. I was raised Lutheran. I’m not sure if I’m even a Christian anymore. I started watching ths board for a school project. I guess I started having doubts about my faith after I saw the Passion. I went to my pastor “Smilin’ Steve” to ask him some questions and he brushed me off with a lot of “read the Bible” stuff. He never tried to answer my questions so I turned to the internet. Long story short I’m trying to decide just what religion I am. Right now I’;m looking at wicca because I know four girls and a guy in my school who are Wiccans and they talk to me about it. They aren’t pushy like the God Squad and they are pretty serious about it. So I’ve been watching these boards and some others to try to help me figure out what I believe. I was thrilled to see this one. comments: tmancour: bitter much? Dude, you make some points about the same sorts of questions I have but you seem bitter about it. Attitude! Buit the Christians don’t seem to want to answer your critics of their religion just call you names. I like the fruits thing because the Wiccans I know are all very cool. Christians: tmancour makes some points but you don’t have much in the way of answers to his. Some of you were rude I think. But it brings up a point should you judge a religion by its Church, its people, or its scriptures? I’m really curious about that. I don’t want to belong to a religion thats bad or doesn’t make sense.

Anyway I apreceiate the debate and look forward to more. I’m curious about it all and I want to make the right choice for me. Love, Amber

[TuckEverlasting]

Congrats! This thread got me to de-lurk and register after lurking for the last few months.

Good to have you here. :smile:

Right now I’;m looking at wicca because I know four girls and a guy in my school who are Wiccans and they talk to me about it.

What attracts you to Wicca?

I like the fruits thing because the Wiccans I know are all very cool.

Do you really feel that 'cool' is a worthwhile 'fruit' to develop?

I don’t want to belong to a religion thats bad or doesn’t make sense.

Excellent - surely you won't, then, take the advice of someone who thinks that 'all things' are 'true' and 'false' at the same time, as tmancour does. :smile:

Anyway I apreceiate the debate and look forward to more. I’m curious about it all and I want to make the right choice for me. Love, Amber

I look forward to hearing from you again, too.

[trappedinAmber]

Good to have you here. :smile:



What attracts you to Wicca?



Do you really feel that 'cool' is a worthwhile 'fruit' to develop?



Excellent - surely you won't, then, take the advice of someone who thinks that 'all things' are 'true' and 'false' at the same time, as tmancour does. :smile:



I look forward to hearing from you again, too.


By “cool” I mean that they don’t seem to screw each other over like a lot of the God Squad people. They seem happy while the God Squad seems tragically tormented and obsessed with sex. Its like theyre desperate or something. The Wiccans dress a little funny but they don’t try to push you. I’m attracted to wicca for a lot of reasons. The idea of a goddess is intriguing because why shouldn’t God be female? The God Squad doesn’t seem to care about the earth or people or problems at all just sex and judging people and what happens when we die. The Wiccans just seem happier and they are always helpful to everyone and don’t try to make you feel bad all the time. You talk about truth and false but how do you know the Bible is true? Why not the Koran or the Torah or Buddhism? I saw the Passion and it made me throw up. And everyone is freaked out about the Davinci code because Jesus might have been married. So what if he was? Like I said I’m confused. I am having a hard time seeing how the church is relevant to me and why I should keep going and calling myself a Christian. Love, Amber

[Durthorin]

... Right now I’;m looking at wicca because I know four girls and a guy in my school who are Wiccans and they talk to me about it. They aren’t pushy like the God Squad and they are pretty serious about it. ...


Any path you follow, spritual or otherwise is going to have those that are serious, those that dabble and those that are InNameOnly. The path you choose has to be the one that calls to you. Answer the questions you need answered and help you live a life thats meaningful and full. Note I didn't say happy, rich etc.. sometimes you get those


comments: tmancour: bitter much? Dude, you make some points about the same sorts of questions I have but you seem bitter about it. Attitude!


Many Pagans, Wiccan and other come out of Christianity much as your considering. Often those departures are brutal and hurtful to them. They carry a great deal of anger concerning how their old faith treated them and others. In many cases its a justified anger with "individual" people. Is it justified to hold all of Christianity responsable for their bad apples? Good question, we hold orginizations libel for the actions of members all the time. The question is do the justify their actions as biblical. Most do.. what happens then is other Christians either A. Agree or B. Disagree and trot out different sections of the Bible to prove their point. You have only to look at any of the sections here to see such arguments.. some are tivial.. some have historically caused bloodshed in earlier times.


Buit the Christians don’t seem to want to answer your critics of their religion just call you names. I like the fruits thing because the Wiccans I know are all very cool. Christians: tmancour makes some points but you don’t have much in the way of answers to his. Some of you were rude I think. But it brings up a point should you judge a religion by its Church, its people, or its scriptures? I’m really curious about that. I don’t want to belong to a religion thats bad or doesn’t make sense.


Some will answer.. and bring up some very deep scholarly debate. As to "cool"... its not the people, not the buildings and not the scripture... judge. Does this work in my life? Does it make me better? Does it help me thru the rough times.. and is it a blessing in the good times?

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Durthorin]

By “cool” I mean that they don’t seem to screw each other over like a lot of the God Squad people. They seem happy while the God Squad seems tragically tormented and obsessed with sex. Its like theyre desperate or something. The Wiccans dress a little funny but they don’t try to push you. I’m attracted to wicca for a lot of reasons. The idea of a goddess is intriguing because why shouldn’t God be female? The God Squad doesn’t seem to care about the earth or people or problems at all just sex and judging people and what happens when we die. The Wiccans just seem happier and they are always helpful to everyone and don’t try to make you feel bad all the time. You talk about truth and false but how do you know the Bible is true? Why not the Koran or the Torah or Buddhism? I saw the Passion and it made me throw up. And everyone is freaked out about the Davinci code because Jesus might have been married. So what if he was? Like I said I’m confused. I am having a hard time seeing how the church is relevant to me and why I should keep going and calling myself a Christian. Love, Amber

Sounds like your "God Squad" has some problems and are acting in a manner that some Christians here would consider unchristian while the Wiccans are "walking the walk". While it would be nice to crow about that.. the truth is if your judging Christianity as a path you might need to mark the "God Squad" off as examples of how not to be a good Christian. Once again.. a spirtual path is about your spirit and your calling to that path.

Goddess Bless, Dur

[Aletheia]

Hi tmancour. :smile:

But the Universe is irrefutably subjective. You cannot escape your own perspective, no matter how hard you try.

Do you mean to say that our perspective of the universe is subjective? If so, I agree. We cannot escape our minds, so of course we always see everything from our own subjective pov.


Radical Monotheistic religious philosophies

Could you define what you mean by 'radical' monotheistic philosophies? I'm thinking you mean Judaism, Islam and Christianity, but I wanted to be sure.

And I don't see how you can claim, rationally, that Good doesn't exist independent of any divinity, Pagan or Radical Monotheistic.

If 'good' exists outside of God, wouldn't that make the good greater than God? Where does the regression stop?

Actually, Faith, both Biblical and otherwise, is "absolute belief without proof".

I wouldn't say it's 'absolute' belief (at least for me). IMO faith should have a smidgeon of 'emptiness' in order to remain a healthy faith. I'm not talking about faith in Christ or the bible or God only, either. Even when it comes to faith in another human being we can't absolutely know, and if we think we do, we are fooling ourselves.

The fact is, we need things to live. Pagans have a perspective on this, and it isn’t to give everything away to the poor. I call it “Hobbit Materialism”, that is, pursuing what you need to live, and live well, but not to obsess on the acquisition of wealth for status or to flatter your own sense of self-importance. Pagans pursue Prosperity, not wealth ...
In all fairness, not all pagans eschew wealth for wealth's sake. And some pagans (Crowley for instance) were very much about status and self-flattery.

Are you doing what you’re supposed to in your life? Are you pursuing the path that was laid out for you? Or are you spending your life in relatively meaningless pursuits that make you miserable?

Good questions!

Pagans see Christians as focusing their spirituality overmuch on the afterlife at the expense of this life ...

Many Christians feel, and are coming to feel, the same way, although it's not a popular position.

Our belief systems are usually incompatible, despite well-meaning attempts by optimistic individuals to bridge the gap between the two systems.

:teeth:

[Aletheia]

Subjectivity in the universe is not entirely foreign to Christianity. Consider Berkeley's idealism. Although everything turns out to be in the mind of God. Hmm.

I'm not sure, but I think that might be where some confusion has crept into the thread (at least for me). Does tmancour mean that time and space are subjective in that we can only view things from our own perspective? Or that realitiy is subjective ala transcendant idealism (aka Maya)?

[NeilUnreal]

Does tmancour mean that time and space are subjective in that we can only view things from our own perspective? Or that realitiy is subjective ala transcendant idealism (aka Maya)?

I'm don't think these two meanings are necessarily different.

-Neil

[trappedinAmber]

Sounds like your "God Squad" has some problems and are acting in a manner that some Christians here would consider unchristian while the Wiccans are "walking the walk". While it would be nice to crow about that.. the truth is if your judging Christianity as a path you might need to mark the "God Squad" off as examples of how not to be a good Christian. Once again.. a spirtual path is about your spirit and your calling to that path.

Goddess Bless, Dur
The freaking God Squad acts more like a gang or a cult than anything. Theyre into the silver ring and the meet at the pole stuff. Definitely a put-off. I’m trying to figure out what my path is. I know its got to be Happy, because I’m sick of all the miserable people in my life who are miserable because of stuff they’ve done to themselves. A religion that makes you miserable just seems like a waste of time. And it has to make sense to me. And it has to be relevant. I find it funny how all the God Squad keeps telling me how easy it is to be saved while all the Wiccans tell me how hard they have to study hard to be good Wiccans. I thought the “good stuff” was supposed to be hard. I took a bible class last summer that was supposed to answer all my questions about the bible but every time I had a good one they just buried me in scripture and didn’t want to answer. I don’t want my religion to be BS . The whole trinity thing seems to be BS to me. How do they know? Why is there a Father and a Son but no Mother? It doesn’t make much sense to me. The class kept going back to genesis and saying that man was made from God’s image but woman was not so naturally God looks like man and not woman. That doesn’t seem fair. And original sin was because of a woman. And a woman has to submit herself to her husband. Didn’t God know about Title 9? :smile:

Please do not use profanity, even veiled.

[Aletheia]

I'm don't think these two meanings are necessarily different.

-Neil

No, not necessarily different, but not necessarily the same either. :tongue:

Plus, it's my experience (especially on this board) that the term 'subjectivism' isn't understood and is interchanged with other ideas/definitions. :smile:

There are 'ranges' of idealism. That is what I'm trying to pin down. Is tmancour talking solipism here? Or what?

Idealism: A branch of philosophy which stresses the role of the mind in our acquisition of knowledge about the world. In extreme, solipsistic versions, idealism becomes a theory where reality is seen to be nothing more than the activity of one s own mind, nothing exists but oneself. More usually, however, idealists point out that the way we experience the external world is necessarily affected by the activity of the mind.

I'm thinking tmancour means the later, but I wanted to be sure.

[Little Shepherd]

The freaking God Squad acts more like a gang or a cult than anything. Theyre into the silver ring and the meet at the pole stuff. Definitely a put-off. I’m trying to figure out what my path is. I know its got to be Happy, because I’m sick of all the miserable people in my life who are miserable because of stuff they’ve done to themselves. A religion that makes you miserable just seems like a waste of time.
I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences with people. From your posts, it seems like you're in highschool, which means that most Christians you come along will be pretty immature in the faith themselves(even if they grew up in the church). I'm sorry that you see religion in terms of happiness. Jesus Himself promised us trials, sorrows, and mockings for being Christian. While there is much joy in the Christian life, it's not all bubble gum and roses, and Jesus was very clear about this. A lot of Christian views(actual Christian views) on things such as sex, work, and even food can be boiled down to "short-term denial for long-term joy." For example, we eschew sex before marriage for the greater joy of learning and growing sexually with our future spouse(and also for the great privilege of not bringing unnecessary emotional baggage and potential STDs into the relationship).
And it has to make sense to me. And it has to be relevant. I find it funny how all the God Squad keeps telling me how easy it is to be saved while all the Wiccans tell me how hard they have to study hard to be good Wiccans. I thought the “good stuff” was supposed to be hard.
You're right to be suspicious of your Christian "friends," as well-intentioned as they may be. Again, I point to their immaturity in the faith, being so young. Of course, even older Christians have this tendency to not want to offend people, and this often leads to them sugar-coating the gospel message. Jesus' message was not "Merely believe in me and be saved," but was rather "Lay down your pride, turn away from your sin, and actually follow me and be saved."

You also show an interest in knowing how we can tell the Bible is true. A personal favorite site of mine for topics such as Biblical accuracy, the truth of the Resurrection, and other sticky claims is Tektonics.org . Other good sites for defending the Christian faith are Stand to Reason, and Reasons to Believe. Reading through all of the material is time-consuming and I won't make it out to be an easy task, but the evidence for the truth of Christianity is out there if you truly want to know. And of course, you can always ask specific questions you might have on these forums. There are dozens of people who will be glad to answer you.
I took a bible class last summer that was supposed to answer all my questions about the bible but every time I had a good one they just buried me in scripture and didn’t want to answer. I don’t want my religion to be BS.
I'm sorry that your Bible class Bible-bombed you. While there are some questions(such as "Where in the Bible . . . ") that must be answered this way, there are many questions that can't just be referred to Scripture, especially to someone who doesn't believe it's true. I'm afraid that if you can't find someone helpful to answer your questions, you'll have to do the research yourself. And as I already said, you can ask any questions you have here. There are many great, knowledgeable people here.
The whole trinity thing seems to be BS to me. How do they know? Why is there a Father and a Son but no Mother? It doesn’t make much sense to me. The class kept going back to genesis and saying that man was made from God’s image but woman was not so naturally God looks like man and not woman. That doesn’t seem fair. And original sin was because of a woman. And a woman has to submit herself to her husband. Didn’t God know about Title 9? :smile:
Wow, what a barrage of questions at the end. I'm not going to go too indepth, but I'll give you the basic answers at least.
-The Trinity can be viewed in Scripture through proper exegesis. John chapter 1 is especially good for this because it clearly marks Jesus divinity. The Trinity is a very indepth topic.
-The Father in the Trinity is also the Mother. God is, strictly speaking, genderless. We refer to God with masculine pronouns because that is how He refers to Himself. Even Jesus uses masculine words when talking about the Father.
-The Old Testament isn't so clear on it(to us modern folk, anyway), since the word "man" is often used to refer to people in general, not just the male gender. However, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that both men and women are created in God's image. It's because of this that marriage is set up the way it is, and that men and women so naturally fit together physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
-While Eve may have been the first to eat of the fruit, the Bible attributes original sin to Adam. It's never ambiguous on this point, and people who place all the blame on Eve are deluded. Where was Adam in the Genesis account while Eve was being tempted? He was right beside her. Eve at least tried to counter the serpent's claims at first -- Adam just stood there and let everything happen without doing anything. And didn't put up any fight when handed the fruit himself.
-The woman submitting herself to her husband is always blown out of proportion by skeptics of the Bible. Yes, there is submission in this way, but there is also husbands submitting themselves to God, and Christians submitting themselves to each other, and Christians submitting themselves to the earthly authorities placed over them. And in all of these cases, there is the exception that one need not submit to anything that would cause them to sin against God. Not to mention most people stop reading at that point, and don't realize that Paul immediately writes over twice as much to husbands on how to properly treat their wives. Wives are told to follow their husbands, but husbands are told to be men worth following.

Anyway, I hope this has answered a few of your questions. If you still have any questions on the above topics, feel free to start a topic about them in the appropriate section of the forums. You're still young, and I'd hate to see you fall away from the Christian faith without ever knowing what it's truly about. There are many people here far better prepared than I am to answer any questions you might have, and I hope to see you post here more often.

Welcome to Tweb. :hug:

[tmancour]

Idealism: A branch of philosophy which stresses the role of the mind in our acquisition of knowledge about the world. In extreme, solipsistic versions, idealism becomes a theory where reality is seen to be nothing more than the activity of one s own mind, nothing exists but oneself. More usually, however, idealists point out that the way we experience the external world is necessarily affected by the activity of the mind.

I'm thinking tmancour means the later, but I wanted to be sure.



I do mean the latter, but I thank you for pointing out the difference. My point was not solipsistic, but I can see how that might have been unclear.

The point of even bringing it up is that most Pagans embrace individual experience as a profound means of experiencing divinity instead of relying on third person accounts which may well be suspect. Many of us find an essential failing of text-based religions to be placing greater weight on the words (which are open to mistranslation and misinterpretation) of long-dead sages over the experiences of their everyday lives. To experience the sacred, to the Pagan sensibility, is vastly preferable to being told of someone elses experiences and taking their validity on faith.

Arion

[tmancour]

1. the value of self-knowledge in one's own growth.
2. the value of imagination in spirituality.
3. the feminine aspects of God; women also made in God's image.
4. considering that God is good because we find His character good.
5. responsibility and consequences.
6. that there are gray areas of life.
7. the connectedness of things
8. an inner sense of morality; law of conscience
9. value of wisdom over faith; the primacy of reasonable belief
10. not worrying about being politically correct or always tolerant (smile).

Are there perhaps other things that in the giant fog of writing I somehow just missed right under my nose?


Those are the high points, in a nutshell. There may be a few minor ones you overlooked, but those are the essentials (though in some cases I wouldn't quite phrase them that way). Thank you for cutting through the fog.


Subjectivity in the universe is not entirely foreign to Christianity. Consider Berkeley's idealism. Although everything turns out to be in the mind of God. Hmm.

I think that pagan religions (is that a polite term?)

Yes, actually. Paganism encompasses wicca, heathenism, druidism, Asatru, and other polytheistic/pantheistic religions.


might take rituals and festivals rather serious in their spirituality. Perhaps there is something to be gained there.


Yes, that is almost a hallmark of Paganism. Ritual is very important to us as a tool for spiritual growth.


Arion, thank you for taking the time to share some of what you think Christians could learn from. You are quite right in saying that is the intended nature of this thread. So, what kind of reform would you hope for within Christianity? Personally, I enjoyed much of what you said about responsibility and consequences.

Red Mark

Thank you. What kind of reform would I like to see in Christianity? A focus on the spiritual teachings of Jesus and a retreat from the focus on the crucifiction -- not gonna happen. The acknowlegement of the Holy Spirit as feminine, and the embrace of the Goddess -- not going to happen. A more sane approach to sex and sexuality -- not going to happen. A more tolerent world view that doesn't include forcible conversions and the militant desire to convert entire nations to the Christian world view -- not going to happen. An embrace of the pursuit of peace, true peace. A repudiation of the Book of Revelations, and a second look at the value of the "Gnostic Gospels" as legitimate Christian texts -- not gonna happen. A change in perspective regarding the Earth and its survival -- not gonna happen.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, I have some major disagreements with Christianity, otherwise I would have remained a Christian.

Arion

[dizzle]

Well I wouldn't have aproblem with Jews keeping kosher if they would eat pork.

[Aletheia]

I do mean the latter, but I thank you for pointing out the difference. My point was not solipsistic, but I can see how that might have been unclear.

No problem. :smile:

The point of even bringing it up is that most Pagans embrace individual experience as a profound means of experiencing divinity instead of relying on third person accounts which may well be suspect. ... To experience the sacred, to the Pagan sensibility, is vastly preferable to being told of someone elses experiences and taking their validity on faith.

I agree. It's one of the aspects of paganism that appeals so much to me and it's something that I miss. Probably why I focus so much on the Christian mystics and more "traditional" forms of Christianity instead of the more "modern" forms.

[tmancour]

Well I wouldn't have aproblem with Jews keeping kosher if they would eat pork.


You have a problem with Jews keeping kosher?

[Little Shepherd]

What kind of reform would I like to see in Christianity? A focus on the spiritual teachings of Jesus and a retreat from the focus on the crucifiction -- not gonna happen.
As both His teachings and the truth of His Resurrection are true, then why can't we focus on both? The Resurrection is the event on which our faith hangs, but His teachings are the things on which our faith grows and matures. Abandoning either in favor of the other would be disasterous.
The acknowlegement of the Holy Spirit as feminine, and the embrace of the Goddess -- not going to happen.
I've already explained why this is unnecessary. God encompasses both male and female qualities, and Christianity has never denied God's more feminine characteristics, while paganism seems to want to deny His masculine aspects. A healthy appreciation of all of God's characteristics(to the best of our understanding) is necessary, not a focus on one part in detriment to the other. A case can even be made that while we use masculine pronouns to refer to God in the Christian church, we focus on His feminine qualities too much. "Why Men Hate Going to Chuch" is an awesome book on the roles of masculinity and femininity in the church.
A more sane approach to sex and sexuality -- not going to happen.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Christian view of sex and sexuality is somehow not sane. And by that I mean the actual Biblical approach to sex, not the strawman caricature of Christian sexuality that you were attacking in your earlier posts.
A more tolerent world view that doesn't include forcible conversions and the militant desire to convert entire nations to the Christian world view -- not going to happen.
We do have a desire to convert everyone to Christianity, but forcibly? It's not only unbiblical -- it's impossible. Yes, there have been people who tried to do so in the past, but what did I tell you about equating a religion with its hypocrites? At this point, you're just being intellectually dishonest.
An embrace of the pursuit of peace, true peace.
Christians do support peace, but not at the expense of truth. In fact, Jesus promised persecution, mockings, and trials to those who followed Him. I don't see that as very peaceful. And of course the Bible says nothing about war being objectively bad. I think most people desire peace, but if the only way to get peace is to abandon truth(and in the process abandon millions of people to eternal death), then the price is too high.
A repudiation of the Book of Revelations, and a second look at the value of the "Gnostic Gospels" as legitimate Christian texts -- not gonna happen.
I'm sure you believe the "Gnostic" texts were suppressed and unknown for hundreds of years like many skeptics want you to believe, but the truth is that they were rejected for valid reasons, as the texts that were accepted in the Biblical canon were accepted for valid reasons. These texts have been studied for hundreds of years, and even the most modern examinations have changed nothing. They're still dated too late, their authorship is shaky at best, and their claims outright contradict those of the official canon(which has early dating, reliable authorship, and consistent doctrine).
A change in perspective regarding the Earth and its survival -- not gonna happen.
I have no idea what you mean here. The Biblical view is that this earth is temporary, but we're still supposed to take care of it and manage its resources wisely. And one day after Jesus returns physically it will pass away and be replaced with a new, even better heaven and earth where Christians will dwell with God forever. It's not a bad view, and the running down of the universe is consistent with science.

I understand that you may not like certain claims of Christianity. Sometimes I don't either -- it's not a religion for those unwilling to face hard truths about themselves, the world, and God Himself. But what we feel doesn't change what is actually true. For example, I don't like war and capital punishment, but that doesn't make either of them wrong.

This is the last time I'm going to address your little strawman arguments. You haven't been attacking Christianity, but a caricature the likes of which I'd expect from someone who got all their information from the movie Dogma. I've already addressed your misconceptions about Christian sexuality three times in this thread, but you continue to spout the same nonsense(now I'm calling it nonsense). Either you haven't read anything I said, or you're simply choosing to ignore it. The only word that adequately describes your knowledge of Christian theology is "ignorant."

[A Cup of No]

A change in perspective regarding the Earth and its survival -- not gonna happen.


Arion

Have you read Romans 8? The christian perspective about the earth is that man has married it with his sin and it has since been subject to futility. When he redeems men in the resurrection, God will redeem the entire groaning creation and make it more beautiful and glorious than before. What change do you want in this?

[dizzle]

You have a problem with Jews keeping kosher?

Did your hair actually move as the point flew over your head?

[dizzle]

The only word that adequately describes your knowledge of Christian theology is "ignorant."

Exactly. But we do get an excellent imitation of a hurt puppy when it is called nonsense.

[dizzle]

I repudate the book of Revelations. Pretty easy since my Bible has no such book. Funny that a former Christian didn't know that.

[tmancour]

As both His teachings and the truth of His Resurrection are true, then why can't we focus on both? The Resurrection is the event on which our faith hangs, but His teachings are the things on which our faith grows and matures. Abandoning either in favor of the other would be disasterous.

In my opinion the greatest value of Jesus as a spiritual figure is his teachings. The death and ressurrection are powerful symbols, but they have been so emphasized over the centuries as to detract significantly from the importance of his teachings. I was asked how I would see the Church reform. I answered honestly, and immediately pointed out that it would never happen.


I've already explained why this is unnecessary. God encompasses both male and female qualities, and Christianity has never denied God's more feminine characteristics, while paganism seems to want to deny His masculine aspects. A healthy appreciation of all of God's characteristics(to the best of our understanding) is necessary, not a focus on one part in detriment to the other. A case can even be made that while we use masculine pronouns to refer to God in the Christian church, we focus on His feminine qualities too much. "Why Men Hate Going to Chuch" is an awesome book on the roles of masculinity and femininity in the church.


If Jehovah does encompass both male and female qualities, then why does the scripture use either neutral or purely masculine terms, but never the feminine? Part of my problem with Christianity is the fact that the very terms, the words used in scripture, fundamentally sculpt the way we think about the concepts so represented. Therefore, when the masculine is used instead of the feminine in such a case the result is the automatic assumption of gender-specific behaviors and characteristics, despite what the metaphysicians might say about divine gender-neutrality. This leads to a (in my opinion) truly unhealthy, implicit one-sided gender bias that affects every aspect of the individuals conceptualization. It also opens the door to the very real possibility of extreme gender domination -- the fundamentalist Muslim world a case in point. Try replacing "God" and "Lord" with "Goddess" and "Lady" in the Bible and see how differently it reads.

And I agree, Christianity has definately assumed many feminine aspects into its conceptualization of Jehovah/Jesus -- but without the overt expression of feminine characteristics, or the overt deification of femininity. In my opinion something great has been lost in the process. When you remove the Divine Feminine from the table and insist on painting an essentially masculine deity with feminine characteristics, you not only have done a disservice to women, but also to men. Commonly the OT Jehovah has been cast in strong masculine terms -- creation, revenge, bloodshed, punishment, physical domination, acquisition of territory, all traditionally masculine characteristics -- while the NT Jesus has been cast with the more traditionally feminine characteristics of compassion, peacemaking, unconditional love, understanding, mercy, charity, etc. In Paleo-Pagan times, the Romans used the term "caritas" to express the base-line love between mother and child, and when the Jesus cult was forming he assumed many of those characteristics. Indeed, the expression of caritas is blatantly seen in Roman Catholic and Orthodox iconography and art in the Madonna and Child images.

The problem is that Jesus, in assuming the feminine "caritas" characteristics of the Goddess, couldn't take one of the important iterations of caritas, that of love between a man and a woman, "eros". Indeed there is little place in the Bible at all for such positive expressions of eros. Without this vital componant of emotional solace in place the conversion of caritas into mere "charity", robbed of its profound meaning, stole as much away from the masculine side of the equation as it did the feminine. Without a purely gender-neutral image of the godhead, replete with all the vital aspects, the lack of a female face -- not just feminine -- undermines one of the essential aspects of all relgions, the ability for the divine to adequately provide a model for human behavior in all aspects of life. The closest Christianity came to this after its ascendency was the Cult of Mary, in which the semi-divine Mary could at least express the original aspect of caritas if not the erotic overtones. Of course, the Cult of Mary was thrown out of the Protestant churches during the Reformation (something about "God not being a woman") and her semi-divinity stripped away. This only made the original problem worse.

It is said, sometimes, that Paganism regards the Goddess in higher station than the God, but that's not really true. Wicca, in particular, exhalts the feminine in part because of our culture's recent history and its lack of adequate expressions of the feminine Divine. Call it a temporary over-compensation. For some individuals who have been particularly harmed by overtly masculine forces, the God is rarely, if ever, touched upon. These Wiccans are usually known as Dianics. However, the great majority of Wiccans worship both the God and the Goddess equally, with the Goddess usually placed first-among-equals as a token of respect for the lifeforce which She represents. The God, as a representitive of the deathforce, is seen as a loving consort, not a second-class citizen. Many Pagan men have expressed that they did not truly feel permission to be fully men until they found the Goddess and the caritas that they had been missing in their lives. Wicca may be considered a feminist religion, but above all it stresses balance, and the most fundamental balance is between male and female, masculine and feminine. To these men -- myself included -- to see the expression of a female divinity is certainly not "unnecessary". It is essential to our emotional and spiritual health.



The burden of proof is on you to prove that the Christian view of sex and sexuality is somehow not sane. And by that I mean the actual Biblical approach to sex, not the strawman caricature of Christian sexuality that you were attacking in your earlier posts.

It's just an opinion, based upon my own experience. Being told that masturbation and premarital sex -- and even sex-for-pleasure-but-not-for-progeny within marriage (not to mention homosexuality) were all horrible sins against Jehovah does not jive at all with my personal experience on the subject. The veneration of celibacy does not seem sane to me -- sure, if you want to do it I understand its a powerful spiritual discipline, more power to you. Perhaps your sect has different views on the subject, and I applaud you if you do. But the prevailing concensus of Christian opinion over the last two millenia has sex as being a bad thing, reserved exclusively for breeding. Sure, there are some beneficial side effects of that belief -- reducing the spread of STDs and (pre-DNA testing) ensuring the legitimacy of children, but the malignant side effects of the practice seem pretty ghastly. That just doesn't compute to me. Again, I was asked how I would reform Christianity -- and said that I didn't believe it would happen.


We do have a desire to convert everyone to Christianity, but forcibly? It's not only unbiblical -- it's impossible. Yes, there have been people who tried to do so in the past, but what did I tell you about equating a religion with its hypocrites? At this point, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

Now, come on. We're talking about Christianity here, a religion with twenty centuries of history even before you add in the OT. I can appreciate you saying that "true Christians" would never do that, and I don't necessarily disagree, but the fact remains that many, many who took up the cross and professed their faith and were baptised and called themselves Christians -- and thus made up part of the socio-cultural religious entitiy known as Christianity -- did such things. If they were hypocrites then why do you suffer them to share the name of your religion? Why do you not rail against them and their unbiblical actions, decry their misguided and ultimately doomed attempts at such spiritual crimes? Would you break bread with such men and call them brother? Some of these men are esteemed fathers of the Church, learned biblical scholars, and highly respected theologians in their time. If they were hypocrites and traitors to your faith, then pull down their statues, destroy the universities that are named for them, and denounce them for who they were.

I'm a Pagan. It's not my job to pick out the "true Christians" from the hypocrites. Part of the reason I am Pagan and not a Christian is that I couldn't pick out the "true Christians" from the hypocrites -- and I found I honored the spirit of Jesus' teachings more by leaving the religion altogether. Martin Luther King and Torquemada both wore a cross. Each considered themselves devout Christians. Who am I to say one is a "true Christian" while the other is not?


Christians do support peace, but not at the expense of truth. In fact, Jesus promised persecution, mockings, and trials to those who followed Him. I don't see that as very peaceful. And of course the Bible says nothing about war being objectively bad. I think most people desire peace, but if the only way to get peace is to abandon truth(and in the process abandon millions of people to eternal death), then the price is too high.


So . . . it is better to war with non-believers to convince them of the errors of their ways, even if it means killing a lot of them in the process, than it is to let them live out their lives having "abandon truth", not agreeing with you and not accepting JC and in the process get eternal damnation? If a peaceful neighbor denied the "truth" of Jesus and Christianity, then it is legitimate to compel them to that belief by force? Is that "true Christianity" in action?

From a Pagan perspective, to abandon peace is to invite suffering, death, and all the consequences of war. Paganism doesn't necessarily condemn war (there are competing pacifisitc and militaristic elements in the religion) but it does recognize the consequences of taking such action, and discourages it strongly. The Path of Wisdom dictates that it should never be done lightly, for unjust reasons, and that it should be conducted with the utmost respect. Pagans value life too highly to spend it cheaply for something as ephemeral as a contrary belief. The Codes of Chivalry enshrine that principle for the more militant of my coreligionists.


I'm sure you believe the "Gnostic" texts were suppressed


They were.


and unknown for hundreds of years like many skeptics want you to believe, but the truth is that they were rejected
. . . by one segment of the early Church . . .

for valid reasons, as the texts that were accepted in the Biblical canon were accepted for valid reasons. These texts have been studied for hundreds of years, and even the most modern examinations have changed nothing. They're still dated too late, their authorship is shaky at best, and their claims outright contradict those of the official canon(which has early dating, reliable authorship, and consistent doctrine).


I added this in to my theoretical reform not because I believe or disbelieve in any one Gospel, Gnostic or Canon, over the others. I added it in because I believe a religion with a closed canon is ultimately doomed to intellectual stagnation, as has been in evidence of Christianity since the Scientific Revolution. I think that a re-examination of the Gnostic Gospels would add perspective and broaden the discussion within the religion, providing much-needed intellectual fodder and expanding the understanding of Jesus and his teachings. The Buddhists have an open canon which has allowed them the flexibility to re-interpret their religion as the circumstances of the practitioners change without altering the essential elements of the religion. But once again, this was an opinion, and I stated it would not happen. There are too many people who have a vested interest in the status quo to undertake such a daring proposal. Look at the furor one little fictional movie has stirred up for even suggesting that the total life story of Jesus may not be completely told in the Canonical Gospels.


I have no idea what you mean here. The Biblical view is that this earth is temporary,

That's what I mean here.

but we're still supposed to take care of it and manage its resources wisely. And one day after Jesus returns physically it will pass away and be replaced with a new, even better heaven and earth where Christians will dwell with God forever. It's not a bad view, and the running down of the universe is consistent with science.

Sorry, in my opinion it is a bad view. By counting on the second coming and the renewal of Heaven and Earth unsullied by non-Christians and other vermin, Christianity has established the idea firmly in Western Civilization that the only planet we know of that can sustain human life is, essentially, disposable. To the Pagan perspective the Earth is not a resource to be managed, but a complex and delicate organism that can and does break down and change due to natural forces. Treating it like a commodity of which there is an endless supply, or as a mere rental while the real house is being built, has left our environment in sad shape. Pagans don't see the need for a "better" Earth. She is perfectly fine the way She is, and we are all perfectly capable of living sustainable, productive, and prosperous lives upon her indefinately, if we get over the notion that we don't really need to take care of her. I'm heartened by the recent environmental stand that some Churches have taken, but I'm equally dis-heartened by the anti-environmental stand, fueled by visions of apocalypse and higher quarterly earnings, that the current Administration has taken at a very critical time. If I recall correctly, the gentleman in question is a professed Christian. Whether he is a hypocrite or not, and whether he deserves to be called out for his hypocrisy, I leave to the judgement of his fellow Christians. He certainly doesn't care what I think.


I understand that you may not like certain claims of Christianity. Sometimes I don't either -- it's not a religion for those unwilling to face hard truths about themselves, the world, and God Himself. But what we feel doesn't change what is actually true. For example, I don't like war and capital punishment, but that doesn't make either of them wrong.


Funny thing, that. I left Christianity in favor of my religion precisely because I was constantly faced with people who were unable to face hard truths and instead buried themselves in scripture and prayer. I found Christianity filled with people who did not want to take responsibility for their actions -- it was either God or the Devil who controlled them. Instead I found a relgion that is so introspective that the first few years is largely doing nothing but facing unpleasant, hard truths about ourselves and our world. And what we feel can change what is actually true -- that's the foundation of magick. By examining our feelings, discovering their origins and implications, we take their power and passion and exert ourselves on the world, expressing our Divine Will. Will magick change the sky from blue to green? Probably not, and it would be unwise to try. But the profound feeling I have when I witness an injustice, or see my kids after school, can compel me to act in such a way as to have an effect on the truth of this world. I don't like war and capital punishment, either, and when I see an unjust war or an unjust punishment, I act according to the tenents of Wisdom. Paganism is a religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.


This is the last time I'm going to address your little strawman arguments.
You come across as a little insulting here. What you claim are "strawman" arguments are made by my observation of Christianity as a two-thousand year old religious/social/political and cultural entity, encompasing several continents, a score of centuries, and a widely diverse number of syncretic cultural elements. If you feel that your sect has the moral authority to speak on behalf of all "true" Christians everywhere, everywhen, then I'm not going to argue with that belief. But in doing so you put yourself at odds with the vast, vast majority of self-identified Christians. Christianity is a big tent, and while I have no doubt that the pole you cling to is an important -- perhaps even vital -- element in its construction, it is by no meanst the only pole holding up the roof. And I'm outside looking at the whole tent. Just sayin'.

You haven't been attacking Christianity, but a caricature the likes of which I'd expect from someone who got all their information from the movie Dogma.


Again, a belittling reference to my education, and an assumption that just because I don't agree with you I don't know what I'm talking about. The pain, the pain . . .


I've already addressed your misconceptions about Christian sexuality three times in this thread, but you continue to spout the same nonsense(now I'm calling it nonsense). Either you haven't read anything I said, or you're simply choosing to ignore it.


Or (stunning revelation) perhaps I just disagree with it. Again, by what authority to you speak on behalf of all Christiandom? You did make some points, but from my perspective (darn that pesky subjective reality thing!) I've seen utter horrors arise from the common cultural Christian view of sexuality. My personal experience with what happens when Biblical interpretation is used as a justification for violence, degradation, and misery trumps your assertation that the Christians in question weren't really Christians. They seemed quite devout, completely assured of the validity of their beliefs, and had the Bible verses to prove it. If your particular sect has eschewed the more barbaric and brutal elements of scripture in regards to sexuality, then I applaud you. I must also assure you that you are deeply in the minority of self-proclaimed Christians.


The only word that adequately describes your knowledge of Christian theology is "ignorant."

Well sir, there's an awful lot of Christian theology out there. Some of it is heretical, but it is Christian and it is theology. There are not-so-subtle differences in theology among Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and Coptic divisions within the church, and plenty o' variation within each of those divisions, especially amongst the Protestants, which seem to sprout a new interpretive denomination every time I change my socks. Are the Mormons Christian? Their theology is somewhat at odds with other denominations. I've studied them. Baptists have some unique ideas, too. Lutherans (ELCA or Missouri Synod? Does God care?) Prebyterians, Church of Christ, Scientist, Methodists, The Unification Church, the Unitarian/Universalists, the Assemblies of God (Jim and Tammy Faye!), AME Zion, Pentacostal Holiness, Amish, Mennonite, Shakers and Quakers. They all have a theology, yet none of them can agree much on which one is "truth". Are Quakers Christian? Are Baptists? Anglicans? Catholics? Copts? What about the Cathars? The Marionites? The Arians? Jews for Jesus?

My point is that I've studied Christian theology ad naseum, and despite many insistances that the theologies I studied were the "undeniable Truth" backed up by compelling Biblical scripture, I have yet to find any of their sub-theologies to have greater validity than any other, and the entire resulting mess of competing scriptural quotations to be depressingly mind-numbing. It's one of the reasons I left the Church and started trusting my own instincts and experiences over the utterings of two thousand years worth of old men who couldn't agree on much at all. Life is too short.

What's a poor Pagan to do in the face of such discord? Who are the "real" Christians, and how do I tell them apart? Better yet, how do I break it to those who don't fit your bill that they aren't, after all, Christians?

Arion

[tmancour]

Have you read Romans 8? The christian perspective about the earth is that man has married it with his sin and it has since been subject to futility. When he redeems men in the resurrection, God will redeem the entire groaning creation and make it more beautiful and glorious than before. What change do you want in this?


It is quite beautiful and glorious enough as it is, providing we don't mess it up further. I guess I feel to covet a better Earth is ignoble and insulting to the one that gave us birth. I'm so petty . . .

Arion

[tmancour]

I repudate the book of Revelations. Pretty easy since my Bible has no such book. Funny that a former Christian didn't know that.


I'm sorry, I was using theographical shorthand; the Book to which I refer is usually known as the Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. And your bible may not, indeed, have it. Which one are you using? Do you need a copy? Fascinating, in a blood-curdling, macabre sort of way. Smacks of nihilism, but has some potent visual imagery and a lot of cool special effects. Almost like an account of an acid trip. It has also driven a lot of people crazy.

And it's "repudiate". Probably just a typo.

Arion

[tmancour]

Did your hair actually move as the point flew over your head?


Did you search very long after the sarcasm escaped you?

[Little Shepherd]

In my opinion the greatest value of Jesus as a spiritual figure is his teachings.
You say this, but I don't think you'd like all of His teachings. What about His teachings on sex and marriage? I know you already disagree with them. Or His claim of deity? Or His claims of religious exclusivity? Even without looking at the Crucifixion, Jesus said and did a lot of things you wouldn't like.
If Jehovah does encompass both male and female qualities, then why does the scripture use either neutral or purely masculine terms, but never the feminine?
It partially has to do with the culture of the time. It partly has to do with Jesus incarnating as a man. And it partly has to do with the relationship God wants to foster with us. You'll also note that when talking about our relationship, humanity is often referred to with feminine or neutral terms even though humanity comprises both males and females.
Therefore, when the masculine is used instead of the feminine in such a case the result is the automatic assumption of gender-specific behaviors and characteristics, despite what the metaphysicians might say about divine gender-neutrality . . . . And I agree, Christianity has definately assumed many feminine aspects into its conceptualization of Jehovah/Jesus -- but without the overt expression of feminine characteristics, or the overt deification of femininity . . . . Commonly the OT Jehovah has been cast in strong masculine terms -- creation, revenge, bloodshed, punishment, physical domination, acquisition of territory, all traditionally masculine characteristics -- while the NT Jesus has been cast with the more traditionally feminine characteristics of compassion, peacemaking, unconditional love, understanding, mercy, charity, etc.
You're right that ignorant people have painted Jesus with a "feminine" brush, and that people who bother to read certain books of the OT often paint God back then with a more "masculine" brush, but that has no bearing on the reality of the matter. That God comprises both feminine and masculine characteristics in perfect harmony. Strangely, this "feminization of Jesus" took place despite Him being referred to with masculine pronouns and in spite of the Gospels painting a very different picture. And the overly male view of God in the OT is fostered simply because the OT records various wars. If one actually reads the OT, however, you'll see the feminine qualities of God at every turn.
It's just an opinion, based upon my own experience. Being told that masturbation and premarital sex -- and even sex-for-pleasure-but-not-for-progeny within marriage (not to mention homosexuality) were all horrible sins against Jehovah does not jive at all with my personal experience on the subject.
All personal experience can show you in regards to sex is whether it is pleasureable or not -- not whether it's right or wrong. I reiterate that what one wants to be true often conflicts with what actually is true. Also, sex for pleasure within marriage is not only allowed, but actually encouraged by the Bible! For someone who claims to have thoroughly studied the Bible, your comments sure are ignorant.
Now, come on. We're talking about Christianity here, a religion with twenty centuries of history even before you add in the OT. . . . *snip ridiculous request for Christians to discover time travel and use it to stop past hypocrites*
All you've shown is that various people throughout history got different things right and wrong. Some people were honestly ignorant. Some were intentionally malicious. But bad stuff happened. Nobody denies that -- but with modern scholarship being as thorough as it is there is no reason that one can't go to the Scriptures to figure out which activities were(or were not) Biblical. The birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus doesn't cease being true because people have proven themselves imperfect over the centuries.
So . . . it is better to war with non-believers to convince them of the errors of their ways, even if it means killing a lot of them in the process, than it is to let them live out their lives having "abandon truth", not agreeing with you and not accepting JC and in the process get eternal damnation? If a peaceful neighbor denied the "truth" of Jesus and Christianity, then it is legitimate to compel them to that belief by force? Is that "true Christianity" in action?
:whack: Here, have another "completely missed the point" point. Your second in this thread, I believe.
I added it in because I believe a religion with a closed canon is ultimately doomed to intellectual stagnation, as has been in evidence of Christianity since the Scientific Revolution.
This is your opinion, but reality doesn't support it. There may not be as many people who take the Bible serious enough to study it nowadays, but Biblical scholarship is by no means stagnant. There are many fine thinkers out there who study and speak on Biblical issues. I personally love Ravi Zacharias and Greg Koukl.
I think that a re-examination of the Gnostic Gospels would add perspective and broaden the discussion within the religion, providing much-needed intellectual fodder and expanding the understanding of Jesus and his teachings.
The Gnostic gospels are freely available to anyone who wants to read and discuss them. They don't need to be included in the Christian canon in order for people to do so. Biblical and historical scholars have been studying them for a long time, and many of them are now available at local bookstores. And while it is interesting to know what competing claims were being made about Jesus, that's all the Gnostic gospels can tell us. They don't tell us anything about Jesus Himself or His actual teachings. With all of the evidence against them, acceptance in the Christian canon wouldn't be intellectually enlightening -- it'd be intellectual suicide.
The Buddhists have an open canon which has allowed them the flexibility to re-interpret their religion as the circumstances of the practitioners change without altering the essential elements of the religion.
You make this claim, but look what you're hoping Christians will include in their new open canon? Documents that outright contradict the essential elements of the Bible, and that shake their fist at modern scholarship in the process. Something that's both intellectually and spiritually bankrupt.
Sorry, in my opinion it is a bad view. By counting on the second coming and the renewal of Heaven and Earth unsullied by non-Christians and other vermin, Christianity has established the idea firmly in Western Civilization that the only planet we know of that can sustain human life is, essentially, disposable.
Hardly. I'm sorry that western civilization has tried to use the Bible to encourage such thoughts, but that's not the Christian take on managing the earth and its resources and you know it. The Bible is clear that what we have we are to manage wisely, and that includes the planet. Christians and Pagans both agree that the planet should be taken care of, but for different reasons. And the fact that the universe is running down and will eventually be renewed/replaced in preparation for the next life doesn't change the fact that we and our descendents still have to go through this life. You're basing this on the faulty premise that Christianity isn't focues on the here and now, and I've already refuted that nonsense.
Funny thing, that. I left Christianity in favor of my religion precisely because I was constantly faced with people who were unable to face hard truths and instead buried themselves in scripture and prayer. I found Christianity filled with people who did not want to take responsibility for their actions -- it was either God or the Devil who controlled them.
So? You can't control the actions of people, but you can turn to Scripture to see when they're being hypocrites. The actions of other people don't negate your responsibility to stay the course and do your part to make them aware of their hypocrisy. Jesus' parables made it clear that there would be opposition even from in our midst, so why the presence of hypocrites surprised you(if you have indeed studied the Scriptures as you claimed) is beyond me. And why they're not being kicked out like they're supposed to be . . . well, it's not surprising, but it is tragic. You're still clinging to the "There are hypocrites, so it's a problem with Christianity, not the people themselves" argument.
Instead I found a relgion that is so introspective that the first few years is largely doing nothing but facing unpleasant, hard truths about ourselves and our world. And what we feel can change what is actually true -- that's the foundation of magick. By examining our feelings, discovering their origins and implications, we take their power and passion and exert ourselves on the world, expressing our Divine Will. Will magick change the sky from blue to green? Probably not, and it would be unwise to try.
You may be able to convince other people to believe something is true, but that has no bearing on whether it is actually true or not. Take your sky example. Deep down you know that the spectrological properties of light are objective, and that the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere are also objective, and that therefore light will diffuse to produce specific colors under specific circumstances and there's nothing you can do about it.
But the profound feeling I have when I witness an injustice, or see my kids after school, can compel me to act in such a way as to have an effect on the truth of this world. I don't like war and capital punishment, either, and when I see an unjust war or an unjust punishment, I act according to the tenents of Wisdom. Paganism is a religion of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
But how do you know what is unjust? Why do you care for your kids? I again assert that deep down you realize that there are objective truths concerning justice and loving others. However, your view only accounts for things that you feel and experience. The Christian view on such things is under no such limitation.

Take family, for instance? If your entire view of morality is subjective and under sway of your emotions, what do you do on a day that you simply don't feel like being nice to your wife and kids? Do you act in accordance with your emotions, or do you act according to an unshakable absolute morality and can your emotions(or work through them somehow) so you can deal with your family the way you know you should?
You come across as a little insulting here. What you claim are "strawman" arguments are made by my observation of Christianity as a two-thousand year old religious/social/political and cultural entity . . . *snip other arguments that have nothing to do with actually studying the Scriptures*
This is irrelevent. Christianity is not an entity. While people and cultures and methods of worship may change over the years, the Scriptures remain the same and it's still our responsibility to find out what they actually say. People get things wrong all the time. It sucks, but we're imperfect, and it happens. You can look at the actions, politics, etc. of people claiming to be Christians throughout history all you want, but that doesn't change what the Scriptures actually say.
Again, a belittling reference to my education, and an assumption that just because I don't agree with you I don't know what I'm talking about.
It has nothing to do with not agreeing with me. It has everything to do with certain of your assumptions about Christianity being blatantly false. Someone who's studied the Scriptures, especially as much as you claim to have, should know better.
Or (stunning revelation) perhaps I just disagree with it. Again, by what authority to you speak on behalf of all Christiandom?
The same authority any Christian speaks on behalf of Christ.
You did make some points, but from my perspective (darn that pesky subjective reality thing!) I've seen utter horrors arise from the common cultural Christian view of sexuality.
That's because the common culture is stupid and unchristian, and sadly it's seeped into our churches because people won't kick the hypocrites out. Your arguments still have nothing to do with actual Biblical views of sex.
My personal experience with what happens when Biblical interpretation is used as a justification for violence, degradation, and misery trumps your assertation that the Christians in question weren't really Christians.
No, not if what I say happens to be true. I'm sorry you had bad experiences with hypocrites, but personal experience has no bearing on what is actually true. Again, your lack of Biblical scholarship is showing. If you had studied it as much as you claim to have, you would have been able to discern which of their actions didn't match up with Scripture. And knowing Jesus actual claims(the teachings of Jesus you want Christians to focus on, remember), you wouldn't have been so easily disillusioned.
They seemed quite devout, completely assured of the validity of their beliefs, and had the Bible verses to prove it. If your particular sect has eschewed the more barbaric and brutal elements of scripture in regards to sexuality, then I applaud you. I must also assure you that you are deeply in the minority of self-proclaimed Christians.
Yeah, people often quote-mine the Bible and take things out of context. It's sad, but it happens. Still, as someone who studied the Scriptures, you should have had counterarguments when they did so. And barbaric/brutal sexuality? Why do I have the feeling this comment is rooted in the kind of misreading of an Old Testament passage I'd expect from Biblischism or PitchForkPat?
Well sir, there's an awful lot of Christian theology out there.
Yawn. Different people get different things right and wrong. Again, the imperfection of people has no bearing on the truth of Scripture. If you see a difference, then logically you must examine it and make your own decision. As long as you have the essentials of orthodoxy correct, some things(such as Preterism vs. Futurism) aren't that big a deal. Things that contradict the essentials, however(Mormonism and other Arian sects, Gnosticism, Hymenaeism), are not Christian. I know the task is daunting, but a basic knowledge of the New Testament goes a long way here.
My point is that I've studied Christian theology ad naseum, and despite many insistances that the theologies I studied were the "undeniable Truth" backed up by compelling Biblical scripture, I have yet to find any of their sub-theologies to have greater validity than any other, and the entire resulting mess of competing scriptural quotations to be depressingly mind-numbing.
Somehow, I doubt you did very much studying of Christian Scripture. And besides, the basics of orthodoxy are clear. While people may disagree on things that aren't fundamentals, it's only an indication that people are imperfect, not that there is a problem with the Scriptures themselves.
It's one of the reasons I left the Church and started trusting my own instincts and experiences over the utterings of two thousand years worth of old men who couldn't agree on much at all. Life is too short.
I hope for your sake that your instincts are better than your ability to perform critical study. You've said nothing at all(except make claims you can't back up) about studying the Scriptures, and almost every complaint you've levied against Christianity has been based on false assumptions.
What's a poor Pagan to do in the face of such discord? Who are the "real" Christians, and how do I tell them apart? Better yet, how do I break it to those who don't fit your bill that they aren't, after all, Christians?
1) You can do some actual study of the Bible and what it actually says on various issues so you don't look so ignorant.
2) You hold their actions up to Scripture and examine them that way.
3) There's a procedure for confronting hypocrites in the Bible. There's even a procedure for what to do with them if they don't repent. With your thorough study of the Scriptures, I'm sure you can find them.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Tmancour. I've been watching this thread for sometime and I will say I am quite pleased with how my friend, the Little Shepherd, is doing. I wanted to throw my hat into the ring as well however and make a few points.

First off, your arguments seem to boil down to the idea that the problem with Christianity is that it is not paganism. This astounds me as I would expect the crowd that preaches tolerance the most and acceptance of different viewpoints would absolutely adore a view that disagrees on so many points. I guess that tolerance idea only works as long as we really agree.....

Maybe I could go along those lines and speak about some problems with paganism and speak about the ways it disagrees with Christianity and say, "See? This is the way paganism should be." My guess is that the sword won't be allowed to cut both ways.

The truth is that we cannot change Christian teachings and we will not. We cannot change them because we are not making them up. If I was making up Christianity, I would get rid of a lot of things that really put a cramp in my lifestyle. I don't like a lot of teachings because they do go so against my nature. I don't like having to develop self-control and put others always before myself and realize that I am not special because of what I do but who I am. The sad thing is that you cannot make up truth. You either accept it or reject it.

Now you've spoken about the church being full of hypocrites. I suppose this deserves a gold star or something. You've only noticed what has been noticed for 2,000 years and treated it like finding a hidden cave of pirate gold. Even the NT speaks about such hypocrites within the church and goes so far as to speak about dangerous wolves that will distort the teachings. You speak about this happening and we're supposed to be surprised?

Fact: History is history and it cannot be changed. If Jesus Christ did claim to be God and really is and died and rose from the dead, then it doesn't matter if everyone is a hypocrite. Jesus is Lord whether someone likes it or not and the actions of people are not going to change that.

If you want to preach against the hypocrites, then please do so all you want. In fact, go to a good church on Sunday and they'll probably be doing the exact same thing. Go read the words of Jesus and you'll find he didn't like them either. Is this speaking of hypocrites supposed to change something?

Now you go on about violence. What have you proven? Something mankind has known from the beginning. People are stupid a lot of times. Not only that, they can be incredibly wicked. Accepting Christ does not mean that you automatically get turned into a perfect person incapable of making mistakes. I've made more than enough of them since my conversion.

If you want to condemn the murders of the Crusades or Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials, more power to you! I'll be right there also. I do not believe those kinds of events at all reflect the teachings of Christ. I'd like you to tell me something though. How do you get from "Love your neighbor as yourself" to "It's okay to use the sword to evangelize people and to kill them if they're heretics?"

I do believe there is a time and a place for violence sadly. This is in fact why I'm thankful that the police in my area carry guns. This is a fallen world and Christians cannot change that entirely. We are waiting for that change to be brought about by God and we are being salt and light now. Granted, we don't always do a good job, but that does not change that Jesus rose from the dead.

In fact, let's suppose that tomorrow morning, every Christian woke up and grabbed their weapons and went out and murdered everyone who was a non-Christian. Would this change the fact that Jesus rose from the dead? No. Past events do not change because of future happenings.

Now we can get to sex. If there is anything that is misunderstood in this area, it is sex. I will not deny that the church was largely fearful of the issue of sex. I will also say though that I can understand it considering the kind of culture that they grew up in.

The biblical view though is that sex is a good creation of God. In fact, I would say it reflects his own nature. The Bible has a book called the Song of Solomon (Sometimes called the Song of Songs) which is a love poem celebrating the joys of sexuality.

However, sexuality does not mean that anything goes. The reasons that I am against homosexuality and pre-marital sex and masturbation and other such actions are because of the nature of sex itself and the nature of human beings. If need be, I would be glad to go into those.

Is this because I am a prude about sex? Not at all. Pagans are right in saying that sex is sacred, but if something is sacred, it is treated with special honor and not like it is commonplace. I can assure you that my wife someday will know that she is a treasure. She is not an object to satisfy my desires. That kind of sex is other-seeking. It seeks the joy and pleasure of the other. In seeking the joy and pleasure of another, you lose yourself and find your own joy and pleasure.

What does that have to do with anything? Because this is not like the view of Mary Daly where sex is essentially a path of salvation and experiencing the divine. In that case, sex becomes a way of using another person to meet your own goals. Instead, the Christian views it as a relational act where one gets to show the other just how much they are loved and accepted. This can only take place truly in the context of marriage.

This gets us into the nature of God. Why is God described in masculine terms and why did Jesus come as a man? I will start with the latter. If the assumption is that Jesus came as a man because men are superior in some way, then we have to make assumptions.

The 1st century period is superior because Jesus came then.
The Aramaic and Hebrew languages are superior because Jesus spoke them.
The area of Israel is superior because Jesus lived there.
Carpenters are superior because Jesus came as a carpenter's son.

I could go on. You get the picture.

I mainly ask, do you really want to go down that road with Jesus?

I would agree that God contains masculine and feminine characteristics, but if you are attributing this to two gods, then I have a question. Where did they get them from? There are some philosophical problems with polytheism that are avoided by one infinite God. Now you could supposedly have lesser spiritual beings with unique powers (Which Christians do believe in and refer to as angels.), but you cannot have two gods with infinite abilities. If these two gods have finite abilities, then where did they come from? I could explain this further if need be.

I would say though that God is referred to as a male because the male is the position of leadership. Does this discount femininity? Not at all. Femininity is highly sacred and it's not because they are to be submissive in the sense that they bow to the whims and wishes of the man. If you check the requirements in Ephesians for instance for husbands and wives, the husbands have it a LOT harder.

To have a problem with their being no "mother" is to throw physicality at God somehow. It is to say that God reproduces to form the Son the same way a lady and I could reproduce to form a son. It is just a major non sequitur and it doesn not follow.

In conclusion, Christianity is not paganism. It cannot be and it will not be for the moment it is paganism, it ceases to be Christianity. Jesus is Lord and God and Jesus rose from the dead whether anyone likes it or not. It has happened and nothing can change that.

[Simeon]

What do Christians have to learn from witchcraft and the occult?

More specifically, what can Christians learn about their own faith from Wicca, magick, witchcraft, occultism, and various world folk religions?

Red

The Bible can help us learn the truth about the Occult, and The New Testament addresses this issue: St. Paul condemned sorcery (Galatians 5:19). In Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul rebuked Elymas, the magician, calling him son of Satan and enemy of all that is right (Acts 13:8ff), and St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus, a magician, who wanted to buy the powers of the Holy Spirit to make himself more powerful (Acts 8:9ff). In the Book of Revelation, Jesus declared, As for the cowards and traitors to the faith, the depraved and murderers, the fornicators and sorcerers, the idol-worshipers and deceivers of every sort—their lot is the fiery pool of burning sulfur—the second death (Revelation 21:8).

[A Cup of No]

It is quite beautiful and glorious enough as it is, providing we don't mess it up further. I guess I feel to covet a better Earth is ignoble and insulting to the one that gave us birth. I'm so petty . . .

Arion

I heartily agree that it has incredibly beautiful and glorious aspects, but you realize that it also has some quite hideous ones, something I'm sure with which you also agree. I think the true ignoble and insulting act is to treat the earth with such disdain by desiring that it should stay in its corrupt state, not to desire a better one. An earth where life appears for a moment and then vanishes, an earth where tsunamis ravage countries and leave dozens destitute, an earth where death reigns uncontested - this was never God's plan for the earth. The earth you hold so dear is a fallen and corrupt one, one longing to be released from this bondage. I don't call you petty for admiring what is already here, but for adoring the ruined painting which has yet to be restored, refurnished, and remade.

[Red Mark]

I would like to share a couple reasons I was motivated to ask the original question.

1. Sometimes different religions are trying to answer different questions. This happens more often when one crosses cultures and religions. (I do not mean questions that presuppose the religion) Christians in other cultures will continue to practice certain aspects of other religions simply because they have not seen how Christianity answers certain important questions.

Now, it might be that various pagan religions within the U.S. are simply trying to answer the same questions as Christians within the U.S.--but with different answers. However, if there are some different questions altogether that pagans are asking, then Christians can benefit by reflecting on how they themselves might address those questions.

2. I do think that there are many of the same questions Christian and pagan religions are asking. It might just be that Christians are emphasizing certain questions while those who follow pagan religions are emphasizing other different questions. Again, this is an area that Christians can learn from by realizing that they have perhaps forgotten or neglected some of the very things that are offered within Christianity as answers to the questions that pagans are more concerned with.

3. I certainly am not looking for some kind of mix of the two religions. Admitting difference is healthy and good. I was not intending to find out who was right or more intelligent or had better followers or who was more respectful or behaved better or whatever. And yes, I'm quite familiar with what the Bible says about witchcraft and a host of other things.

However, the Christian tradition is broad enough to admit the possibility of a variety of different answers to any question someone might ask. There might be one truth in the universe, but there are many different Christianities each holding parts of that truth. And the doors of theology have been open wide enough to let in almost any belief for consideration. I am interested in seeing where some of the many pagan religious beliefs overlap with the many different Christian traditions--including Christianities I have very little to do with. I try to see a variety of different subtle shades that exist in any religion--as well as see the things people share in common. But I'm sure there are enough pagan religions and Christianities to admit far more religions than we have names.

----------------------------------------

Amber,

With those Christians you've known, it sounds like you haven't really felt respected as an individual. And it sounds like you don't feel valued, cared about, or accepted by them. And I strongly hear the message that you've felt looked down on and not seen as equal. I would feel pretty hurt and angry. I never got along with pretty much all Christians myself either.

It sounds like you are saying that if you yourself choose to continue your spiritual path following Christ, then you have decided that you would be very different from those Christians you've seen. You would take a different path. You'd take your path as more real and not shallow or as an exclusive club. You would respect others freedom to be different and be their own person. You would value and accept others and care about them; your acceptance and value of people wouldn't be based merely on how well they performed, if they fit in, or if they agreed with you. You'd be passionate in being against injustice and inequality.

And I also hear you saying that you would put a lot of work in on your spiritual path so as to grow strong through whatever practices you discovered and found valuable, like maybe meditation or sharing feelings with God or others or something. You seem to be saying that you would take the gifts/powers of God and the spiritual realm quite serious, apply them in this life to heart, and you would refuse to be guilt-ridden or feel worthless or desperate like those you've seen. You'd want to help others feel worthwhile and free as well. Finally, I hear you saying that you would courageously face hard questions others run from, admit when you just didn't know, and patiently take the time to research and hammer out each individual belief for yourself. You want to make things your own and not just blindly accept popular unreflective answers thrown at you.

But right now you are having trouble with the spiritual path you have been on because you really desire safe healthy relationships but are not finding them with people who claim to be on your path. Instead, you have found the relationships you desire with people who are on a very different path than the one you are on. And I gather you feel that they would care about you and accept you no matter what path you choose. So, you are considering the beliefs they hold because you think maybe their beliefs have something to do with the difference in how you've been received. So, you are considering making serious modifications of the path you have been on--and to what degree or in what way, you haven't decided.

Is that a fair assessment? or have I completely misunderstood?

Red

[Simeon]

I would like to share a couple reasons I was motivated to ask the original question.

1. Sometimes different religions are trying to answer different questions.

Really, can you name a Religion based on a question? Are you confusing culture with Religion? Think about what is Holy, or cherished or sacred? Source? Origin? Meaning? Authority?

Now, it might be that various pagan religions within the U.S. are simply trying to answer the same questions as Christians within the U.S.--but with different answers. However, if there are some different questions altogether that pagans are asking, then Christians can benefit by reflecting on how they themselves might address those questions.

since paganism predates Christianity, what were those poor people thinking?

However, the Christian tradition is broad enough to admit the possibility of a variety of different answers to any question someone might ask.

Obviously that depends. Straw Man pending?

There might be one truth in the universe, but there are many different Christianities each holding parts of that truth.

Clearly false, since Christianity teaches that Jesus is the truth. John 8:28 - 32 ~ somewhere there.

And the doors of theology have been open wide enough to let in almost any belief for consideration.

Do you mean heretics, or opening the doors for Apostates (Ex-Christians) to leave? Do mean open the doors to discuss comparitive Religion? Or, discuss errors?

Why should you be surprised by Christianity and exclusive truth claims, and no doubt some pagans may pretend to be open and tolerant, but in the end, no can join up and just believe anything they want to? Total contradiction and choas would result. (And that might sum up the latest recycled dogma or Eastern Religion repackaged. 50% of wiccans are solo and outside the "circle" of Fundy paganism.)

Total chaos and lost souls wandering 'round and 'round?

[Stabbytheclown]

I heartily agree that it has incredibly beautiful and glorious aspects, but you realize that it also has some quite hideous ones, something I'm sure with which you also agree. I think the true ignoble and insulting act is to treat the earth with such disdain by desiring that it should stay in its corrupt state, not to desire a better one. An earth where life appears for a moment and then vanishes, an earth where tsunamis ravage countries and leave dozens destitute, an earth where death reigns uncontested - this was never God's plan for the earth. The earth you hold so dear is a fallen and corrupt one, one longing to be released from this bondage. I don't call you petty for admiring what is already here, but for adoring the ruined painting which has yet to be restored, refurnished, and remade.

I am curious as to how the planet could be "healed". There would be no volcanos or earthquakes without the hot mantle. Unfortunately, neither would we have a magnetosphere, which protects us from death via solar winds. I find it a rather poetic symetry. I also find there to be a strange beauty in the unpredictable, dynamic (and, yes, often destructive) nature of the world.

For a god or gods to make it safe and predictable would requre not so much a healing, but to start from scratch. Assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your ideal Earth is a lion-laying-down-with-the-lamb death free war/famine/pestilence free world, He/She/they would have to redesign the physical planet and all carnivores and parsites beyond any level they could be recognised at present.

If I were a god, I would probably decide it was easier to make a brand new immortal sentient being that could live comfortably in a vacuum at temperatures slightly above absolute zero, feeding of solar energy.

Sorry Stabby, but the World Religion Section, and the sub forums like Wicca are for theists only.

[GhostontheNet]

I am curious as to how the planet could be "healed". There would be no volcanos or earthquakes without the hot mantle. Unfortunately, neither would we have a magnetosphere, which protects us from death via solar winds. I find it a rather poetic symetry. I also find there to be a strange beauty in the unpredictable, dynamic (and, yes, often destructive) nature of the world.

For a god or gods to make it safe and predictable would requre not so much a healing, but to start from scratch. Assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong), your ideal Earth is a lion-laying-down-with-the-lamb death free war/famine/pestilence free world, He/She/they would have to redesign the physical planet and all carnivores and parsites beyond any level they could be recognised at present.

If I were a god, I would probably decide it was easier to make a brand new immortal sentient being that could live comfortably in a vacuum at temperatures slightly above absolute zero, feeding of solar energy. I'll take a shot at answering for my friend A Cup of No, now "L" of Death Note I guess, though he can probably answer for himself anyway. I myself have an appreciation for both the beauty and the pain of the present world, a major reason I have taken a liking to beautifully ethereal sorrow of gothic rock and darkwave (more groups like the Sisters of Mercy, the Bauhaus, and Lycia, than heavy metal groups like Marilyn Manson or Rob Zombie who people have wrongfully attatched the label due to a focus on darker themes). I mention this as the types of music a person enjoys listening to says a lot about the ways in which they think of the world they live in without going into incredibly elaborate detail. God's "fearful symmetry", as William Blake put it in The Tyger is an interesting line of thought to muse about, but not really the final endgame of the ordering of the world from the Christian perspective.

What he has in mind when he speaks of the world "healing" is the old Jewish and Christian doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the age to come where God raises all people who ever lived from the dead, body and soul, brings them before Him in a grand trial, and those whom He finds "justified" inherit the age to come, kingdom of God, and several alike phrases of the same meaning. This age is a time when "God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28), that is to say "to be everything and in everything", in other words, when God maintains a degree of involvement in all the world at every level so intimate and intense that John's apocalypse sees God replacing the sun with Himself. In such a world God maintains all life in a state of deathlessness as a gift even among those exiled to Gehenna, and if the ability to have bodies be destroyed by physical processes is no longer in place, the fundamental makeup of the world changes dramatically on all levels, and even if the earth shook or volcanoes blew, it wouldn't mean much more than an interesting spectacle or perhaps more work to do. If it was not necessary to eat to survive, anything could look like anything and still not kill. I will object to the "starting from scratch" objection by noting the difference between "form" and "substance", and that as L and I concieve it, while the earth would contain the same substance in the age to come, it's form and properties would be changed. I would also object that with an omnipotent God, "easy" or "hard" would have no meaning, being merely linguistic symbols we humans use for how closely something approaches the edge of our possible abilities.

[trappedinAmber]

Amber,

With those Christians you've known, it sounds like you haven't really felt respected as an individual. And it sounds like you don't feel valued, cared about, or accepted by them. And I strongly hear the message that you've felt looked down on and not seen as equal. I would feel pretty hurt and angry. I never got along with pretty much all Christians myself either.


I wouldn't say I'm hurt and angry because I wont let them hurt me even when they try to make me feel bad about myself. It just makes me wonder that if the God Squad slogs around scripture and preaching and praying as much as they do and turn out that way then why would I bother? That is definately not the kind of person I want to be!
(Finally figured out the text-quoty thing!)

It sounds like you are saying that if you yourself choose to continue your spiritual path following Christ, then you have decided that you would be very different from those Christians you've seen. You would take a different path. You'd take your path as more real and not shallow or as an exclusive club. You would respect others freedom to be different and be their own person. You would value and accept others and care about them; your acceptance and value of people wouldn't be based merely on how well they performed, if they fit in, or if they agreed with you. You'd be passionate in being against injustice and inequality.


Pretty much. The thing is id' be all those things wether I followed Christ or not. That's one reason why I'm confused. I was taught basically that there are Christians and there are bad people. Now I see that there are good people who aren't Christians, and some (most) of the Christians I know aren't the kind of people I want to be if that makes sense.

And I also hear you saying that you would put a lot of work in on your spiritual path so as to grow strong through whatever practices you discovered and found valuable, like maybe meditation or sharing feelings with God or others or something. You seem to be saying that you would take the gifts/powers of God and the spiritual realm quite serious, apply them in this life to heart, and you would refuse to be guilt-ridden or feel worthless or desperate like those you've seen. You'd want to help others feel worthwhile and free as well. Finally, I hear you saying that you would courageously face hard questions others run from, admit when you just didn't know, and patiently take the time to research and hammer out each individual belief for yourself. You want to make things your own and not just blindly accept popular unreflective answers thrown at you.

Bingo!

But right now you are having trouble with the spiritual path you have been on because you really desire safe healthy relationships but are not finding them with people who claim to be on your path. Instead, you have found the relationships you desire with people who are on a very different path than the one you are on. And I gather you feel that they would care about you and accept you no matter what path you choose. So, you are considering the beliefs they hold because you think maybe their beliefs have something to do with the difference in how you've been received. So, you are considering making serious modifications of the path you have been on--and to what degree or in what way, you haven't decided.

Pretty much except I wouldn't really describe what I'm doing as being on a path. I mean Ive been exposed to the Lutheran church and confirmation and all of that but every time I tried to get answers to my questions I got more smoke. I don't want to be a Christian just because my parents were and everyone else does. I want my path to be meaningful for me and help me be the kind of person I want to be. When we sat down and wrote out what our spiritual beliefs were in confirmation mine weren't very much like other peoples in a lot of ways. For instance what I hold in my heart and know to be true other people had to look up in the Bible to see if it was what they were supposed to believe. Thats kind of cheating on the test if you know what I mean. I've been talking to the Wiccan clique more and more the last few weeks until Summer and I'm hearing a lot of stuff that seems more in tune with whats in my heart. And every time I hear from a Christian about my questions I get a scripture that's supposed to answer everything and it never does. Or they want to pray over me and I find that patronizing and annoying. But dfon't think I'm some sad little socially challenged wallflower looking for a cult to join. I'm quite the nerdy social butterfly. I don't need a clique or a crowd to make me feel better about myself which is one reason why the God Squad annoys me. Because they desperately want me to join their church and all I can think of is Gee, where's the kool-aid?

There was one thing that made all of this start up and I'll be brief. A girl in my school got pregnant and when it became known there was a lot of hollerin and fussin about it. The God Squad was all over this poor girl and wanted to know who the father was and whether or not she would have an abortion. They told her that it was a consequence of her sinful life. Duh. We know where babies come from. The Wiccans all told her that it was her choice and the God Squad all said that she had to have it. No surprise. She went on and had the kid. But after she decided the God Squad didn't want anything else to do with her and even protested that she would be allowed to Prom and Graduation and trashed her in MySpace. She had the baby a few weeks ago and none of the God Squad showed up but three of the Wiccans did to see the kid and bring presents. Anyway, the GS got me thinking Do I really want to belong to this religion? So that and a school paper are where all this started.


Is that a fair assessment? or have I completely misunderstood?

Red

Pretty much. I'm not an idiot even if I don't always write well (working on that!). I've been talking to a lot of people about religion and it is making my parents nervous and my pastor wanted to send me to some Christian horse camp out west this summer. Not happening. I'm almost done with HS now and I think its time I made some of my own religion decisions. Reading these forums has been a big help. Both sides here have some good insights. I'll keep reading and asking questions of everyone until I come to some decision.

Love Amber

[A Cup of No]

I'll take a shot at answering for my friend A Cup of No, now "L" of Death Note I guess, though he can probably answer for himself anyway. I myself have an appreciation for both the beauty and the pain of the present world, a major reason I have taken a liking to beautifully ethereal sorrow of gothic rock and darkwave (more groups like the Sisters of Mercy, the Bauhaus, and Lycia, than heavy metal groups like Marilyn Manson or Rob Zombie who people have wrongfully attatched the label due to a focus on darker themes). I mention this as the types of music a person enjoys listening to says a lot about the ways in which they think of the world they live in without going into incredibly elaborate detail. God's "fearful symmetry", as William Blake put it in The Tyger is an interesting line of thought to muse about, but not really the final endgame of the ordering of the world from the Christian perspective.

What he has in mind when he speaks of the world "healing" is the old Jewish and Christian doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the age to come where God raises all people who ever lived from the dead, body and soul, brings them before Him in a grand trial, and those whom He finds "justified" inherit the age to come, kingdom of God, and several alike phrases of the same meaning. This age is a time when "God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28), that is to say "to be everything and in everything", in other words, when God maintains a degree of involvement in all the world at every level so intimate and intense that John's apocalypse sees God replacing the sun with Himself. In such a world God maintains all life in a state of deathlessness as a gift even among those exiled to Gehenna, and if the ability to have bodies be destroyed by physical processes is no longer in place, the fundamental makeup of the world changes dramatically on all levels, and even if the earth shook or volcanoes blew, it wouldn't mean much more than an interesting spectacle or perhaps more work to do. If it was not necessary to eat to survive, anything could look like anything and still not kill. I will object to the "starting from scratch" objection by noting the difference between "form" and "substance", and that as L and I concieve it, while the earth would contain the same substance in the age to come, it's form and properties would be changed. I would also object that with an omnipotent God, "easy" or "hard" would have no meaning, being merely linguistic symbols we humans use for how closely something approaches the edge of our possible abilities.

Thanks Ghost. I affirm everything said above, and would add only that I do think that you are right when you say that the world would have to be fundamentally different than what it is now (parasitic animals, etc). The details are not given in Scripture - only the fact that God will put the world to rights and that this is guaranteed by his resurrection of the man, Jesus Christ, from the dead, the one through whom he will judge both the living and the dead.