Fundi Doctor: "Wicca Is Satanism Or Occultism At Its Very Worst"

[Minnesota]

By Mary Rettig and Jody Brown
January 19, 2005

(AgapePress) - The February edition of Seventeen magazine has a feature in its religion section about a girl who abandoned Christianity to practice Wicca. A Christian doctor is warning of the subtle appeal of the so-called "religion."

In the article, entitled "My Religion Isn't Evil," the girl describes how she became disillusioned after her parents started attending an evangelical Christian church that, according to the article, "railed against homosexuals and taught ... that people of different religions were damned." Doubting such teachings -- and wondering why her parents would want to ascribe to them -- "Jessica" sought fulfillment in Wicca. As noted in the article, Wiccans "worship male and female deities, empower themselves through magic, and celebrate nature's cycles."

Dr. Walt Larimore, a spokesman for the Christian Medical Association, acknowledges the growing popularity of Wicca. It is often presented, he says, as "white magic" or "natural magic" -- but in fact is "Satanism or occultism at its very worst." He recalls a personal experience.

"I remember one of the first patients I saw in private practice who had entered into this secret society thinking that it was 'white magic' or that it was 'good magic,'" he recalls. "It wasn't until she had a face-to-face encounter with an evil spirit guide that literally scared her to death that she realized she was playing with some really bad medicine. Fortunately, she was able to escape."

Larimore says since the beginning of time, evil has disguised itself as good -- but he points out that Christians are commanded by scripture to test the spirits. He says when that is done, Wicca's true nature of Satanism is revealed.

smiley source (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/192005g.asp)


And the silly paranoia continues to feed off itself.

[technomage]

Sorry for the late response ... I missed this one.

This ... Minn, I can't really call it "paranoia," because it is logically consistant with certain basic premises of Evangelical Christianity: namely, that Satan is a deceiver, and is trying to deceive as many as he can to prevent them from becoming Christian. If one looks at the world with that basic world-view, then yeah, I can certainly understand that Wicca would be perceived as a deception ... and a particularly attractive one, at that.

The problem is, neither Larimore's assertion that Wicca is Satanism, nor my assertion that it isn't, is "falsifiable" in any context that these evangelical Christians could accept. :shrug: Not much we can do about it either way. Some people will listen and fear, but most will ignore the good doctor, and things will be much like they were before.

Justin

[Minnesota]

Considering one of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's two definitions of "paranoia":

2. a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.

I'll stick with my characterization. Just because it's "logically consistent with certain basic premises of Evangelical Christianity" doesn't absolve those who subscribe to them of paranoia.

[technomage]

Considering one of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's two definitions of "paranoia":
2. a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.
I'll stick with my characterization. Just because it's "logically consistent with certain basic premises of Evangelical Christianity" doesn't absolve those who subscribe to them of paranoia.
Well ... that's the problem. You're assuming that your definition of "rational" is correct: I'm saying that "rationality" is worldview-dependant.

Rationality is, at best, a slippery term. To prove that a Christian POV is not rational, you'd have to positively prove that God does not exist--more specifically, you'd have to prove that the Christian God does not exist. Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that the Christian God exists, the Christian view is possibly rational.

But is it excessive? Well, just like rationality, excessiveness depends on the possibility of the existence of the Christian God. If the Christian God exists, it can be safely assumed that He had something to do with the composition of the Bible. The Bible says that witchcraft is an abomination: therefore, the views expressed by Dr. Larimore are within reason--provided, of course, that those particular passages are accurate.

I know, I know ... I went and interrupted a perfectly wonderful rant with logic. Now I feel bad ... Bad Wiccan!

Justin

[Thedonhopeless]

The age old question: is it paranoia if it is true? heh

[Minnesota]

Justin,

As you know, Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism, and it certainly is not occultism "at its worst." Taking this as a given, anything to the contrary is not rational. It is irrational to say that Wicca is involved in Satanism, because it is not. It is irrational to say that Wicca is occultism at its worst, because it is not. I couldn't find anything in the Bible that connects witchcraft with Satan, and lacking such a connection, the witchcraft-Satanism association is no more than assumption, which at most, would fall into the broad group of those items denounced by god as bad. Are all items denounced by god an expression of Satanism? I wouldn't think so. So why single out witchcraft? Is it rational to do so? Personally, I don't think so. The suspicion and/or distrustfulness is irrational.

[dizzle]

Justin gave Minn a deserved spanking. Justin your posts were wonderfully fair as usual.

[Minnesota]

Sure, Just like it for a sadomasochistic, Fundy Christian to side with a Satan-worshiping witch.

[dizzle]

Yep. The atheists don't even have the sense of devils. :tongue:

[Minnesota]

Hmmm, according to the Christian pooh-bahs, devils are some pretty savvy fellows (or are they all females?--wouldn't be at all surprised) , able to bend the minds of men at will. Thank you, Mistress Dee Dee. Please give me another lashing with your whip of compliments.

[technomage]

Justin,

As you know, Wicca has nothing to do with Satanism, and it certainly is not occultism "at its worst." Taking this as a given, anything to the contrary is not rational.
See, Minn, that's the problem right there. You take those things as given: Dr. Larimore does not.

OK, see if you can follow along ... I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

* According to a strict reading of Christian scripture, any God that is not the Christian Trinity is a demon in disguise. Therefore, anyone who worships anything but the Christian Trinity is guilty of Satanism. (Most Christians do exempt the Jews from this reading, since they worship YHVH, whom Christians call "God the Father.")
* Strictly speaking, Wicca is fairly innocuous-looking. Heck, itis innocuous. For these Christians who read their scripture strictly enough to believe that Wicca is a form of Satanism, that innocuous appearance is the root of the danger: something so innocent that leads to the very pit of hell itself! :ahem:

Now, of course I don't buy it: neither do you, and neither do the more liberal Christians, and some moderates. I have no idea how many Christians believe that Wicca is Satanism (using the assumptions above)--but evidently, there's at least one ... and I happen to know others.

Is it accurate? :shrug: Minn, it's based on his beliefs, and his interpretation of the Bible. I'm not going to get into arguments with someone who interprets their Bible in that particular manner, because of course as a Satanist, I would be accused of lying to cover my heinous activities.

It's a no-win situation. It's not technically irrational or paranoid--just inaccurate.

Justin

[Minnesota]

OK, see if you can follow along ... I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

* According to a strict reading of Christian scripture, any God that is not the Christian Trinity is a demon in disguise. Therefore, anyone who worships anything but the Christian Trinity is guilty of Satanism. (Most Christians do exempt the Jews from this reading, since they worship YHVH, whom Christians call "God the Father.")
Just where in the Bible does it say that all other gods are really demons? Are Odin, Osiris, Ostara, and Oyamatsumi demons in disguise? not mere figments of the imaginations of others? And where does it say that worshiping demons is an act of Satanism? More importantly, just whose "strict reading of Christian scripture" are you referring to, the Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphian, or Primitive Baptist? Are you telling me that all Christian denominations belive that the worship of any other god is guilty of Satanism?

Isn't it at all obvious that my referent was those Christians who believe in the Wicca/Satan connection? You are a puzzlement, Justin, and your not doing your credibility any good here.
* Strictly speaking, Wicca is fairly innocuous-looking. Heck, itis innocuous. For these Christians who read their scripture strictly enough to believe that Wicca is a form of Satanism, that innocuous appearance is the root of the danger: something so innocent that leads to the very pit of hell itself!
Obviously. So what is it you needed to type so slowly? My suggestion is that instead of typing slowly your time might be better spent reviewing what you've written.
Is it accurate? Minn, it's based on his beliefs, and his interpretation of the Bible.
Correct. And we have every right to judge that interpretation by how they justify it. If it sounds like so much hoot and holler I'm going to call it irrational--not rational

Rational:
• adjective
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
2 able to think sensibly or logically.

If you don't think it is, be my guest. If you choose not to pass judgment, be my guest. I choose to judge it.
It's not technically irrational or paranoid--just inaccurate.
If you believe my statement, "The suspicion and/or distrustfulness is irrational." is not "technically" true, then I await an explanation as to why--and just what, exactly, constitutes technical irrationality.

[technomage]

:lol: OK, Minn, I'll stop teasing: this is a serious topic.

Just where in the Bible does it say that all other gods are really demons? Lev 17:7; Deut 32:7; 2 Chron 11:15; Ps 106:37. Use a King James: no, it's not the most accurate, but it has been the most significant in reinforcing this view in the last couple of centuries.

Are Odin, Osiris, Ostara, and Oyamatsumi demons in disguise? not mere figments of the imaginations of others? According to this interpretation, yes.

And where does it say that worshiping demons is an act of Satanism? Well, of course the Bible never mentions the word "Satanism." But by the same token, if (in their views) a person is worshipping demons, what other conclusion is supposed to follow?

More importantly, just whose "strict reading of Christian scripture" are you referring to, the Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphian, or Primitive Baptist? Are you telling me that all Christian denominations belive that the worship of any other god is guilty of Satanism? Mostly among Fundamentalists and Evangelicals ... though it's not universal even among those groups. Indie Baptists; certain Pentecostal branches (especially the "Spiritual Deliverance Ministry" and "Word of Faith" crowds); Jehovah's Witnesses I believe, but you'd have to ask one to be sure--ask Barryrob if you're specifically interested; various Fundamentalist churches. It's actually more of an individual interpretation than a denominational one.

Isn't it at all obvious that my referent was those Christians who believe in the Wicca/Satan connection? Oh, obviously. Minn, the real problem is this: when the word "rationality" is defined, it's usually defined regarding the person's ability to work and process information solely related to a materialistic worldview. Psychology is a science--well, it's trying to be a science :smile:--and sciences are not properly equipped to evaluate religious claims, unless those claims can be tested in a scientific format. So most psychologists work within a materialistic viewpoint, and define rationality as "the ability to work and live within the world."

The existence or character of God / Gods cannot be tested scientifically. But the behavior of religious people can be evaluated: if it goes over certain limits, then it becomes irrational.

In other words, if I say "I believe that the sun is actually Apollo riding his chariot across the sky every day," that's not irrational--it's a religious belief. But if I say "I have to sacrifice a virgin to Apollo every morning before dawn to make sure the sun rises," that's irrational ... because it interferes with my ability to live and work in the "real world." Not to mention that I'd run out of virgins sooner or later.... :lol:

Correct. And we have every right to judge that interpretation by how they justify it. If it sounds like so much hoot and holler I'm going to call it irrational--not rational

Rational:
• adjective
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
2 able to think sensibly or logically. But that's the problem: starting with the premise that "all Gods except the Trinity are demons," Dr. Latimore's conclusion is not only logical, but supremely rational. Now, you can disagree with the logic or rationality of the premise--OK, so be it. Your disagreement does not make it "irrational": it simply makes it something that you disagree with, but that the factual basis cannot be tested, because science cannot evaluate religious claims of that type.

Justin

[sylas]

Justin gave Minn a deserved spanking. Justin your posts were wonderfully fair as usual.

Come off it! I can't believe Justin has ever given anyone a spanking in his life. :teeth:

Justin has given a careful and respectful engagement with Minnesota's point.

I understand what Justin is getting at. I sometimes make a similar point myself, when people speak of this or that as "logical". I get this a lot in discussing cosmology; the expansion of space is not "logical". It is not "logical" that time flows at different rates at different altitudes, and so on.

But "logic" is simply a disciplined way of working out the implications of your starting assumptions. The problem is that starting assumptions can be wrong and need fixing.

"Rationality" covers more than logic. It also pertains to being able to come up with coherent starting assumptions. I understand that the AgapePress article is "rational" in its own lights. And I respect and admire Justin for his recognition that there is no point getting worked up about this or trying to "refute" it in debate.

But when it all comes down to it, I side with Minnesota. The OP is deeply irrational (irrational in a deep sense) in that the starting assumptions themselves are unreasonable. That we can't really debate folks like this is true enough, but that is part and parcel of the pervasive unreason of it all.

Justin will point out, correctly, that we all have starting assumptions that cannot be justified purely by reason. I acknowledge this. It is part of the reason I don't worry must about apologetics for atheism; I recognize that this is not a position based purely on reason and that reasonable people can disagree. I acknowledge that we do not have any direct access to perfect knowledge, and that all conclusions are in principle subject to error and revision.

But on the other hand I don't admit that failing to have perfect knowledge, or the inability to give a universally recognizable knock-down refutation of nonsense like the OP, corresponds to saying all starting assumptions are equal. I know rational and reasonable theists. The authors of the article quoted in the OP don't seem to fit that, IMO.

I think there is a screw badly loose with people who manage to hang up to to such unreasonable starting assumptions, and I think "irrational" is a legitimate term for describing this. But I also don't think debating them or making a great song and dance about it is all that useful.

Cheers -- Sylas

[dizzle]

Justin spanked him. And though I have not analyzed every word of the OP in general I agree with it in principle, and I appreciate that Justin recognizes that is the consistent outworking of my belief system. If you wish to believe I have a screw loose, it really doesn't bother me. However, I think Justin has the better view in the whole affair - the one that is fair to all invovled.

[technomage]

Come off it! I can't believe Justin has ever given anyone a spanking in his life. :teeth:
I have a twelve-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old god-son. Not only have I spanked people in my life, there's been a time or two it's gone all the way out of the ballpark. :wink:

I think there is a screw badly loose with people who manage to hang up to to such unreasonable starting assumptions, and I think "irrational" is a legitimate term for describing this. But I also don't think debating them or making a great song and dance about it is all that useful.
Well ... I still have to respectfully disagree, but I honestly think it's a terminology difference. What I call "irrational" depends as much on results as on starting premises: if the person is still able to live a 9-5 life with a reasonable amount of socialization, then they're not too far off the mark, even if they do believe seven impossible things before breakfast.

Part of the reason for that is, technically speaking, any religious belief can be defined as "irrational"--and I'd even have to include "hard" atheism, and maybe even "hard" agnosticism, in that definition. It's certainly not strictly rational that I believe in a Deity ... after all, where's my objective evidence? It's certainly not rational that a "hard" atheists believes there is absolutely no possibility of the existence of a Deity--for much the same reasons.

While Dr. Larimore has some religious beliefs that I don't agree with, he's evidently not too irrational: he holds down a medical practice, which is a heck of a lot more stress than I even want to think about. He evidently defines "Satanism" differently than I do ... well, OK. An idiosyncratic definition is not necessarily wrong ... and though I am of the belief that his definition is wrong on masis of fact, I have no objective proof of my belief.

Yeah, I know ... I'm going around Robin Hood's barn to say "Agree to disagree." :wink: But Sylas ... since when have I ever let five words stand when twenty would do as well. :teeth:

Justin

[sylas]

Justin spanked him. And though I have not analyzed every word of the OP in general I agree with it in principle, and I appreciate that Justin recognizes that is the consistent outworking of my belief system. If you wish to believe I have a screw loose, it really doesn't bother me. However, I think Justin has the better view in the whole affair - the one that is fair to all invovled.

I don't believe you have a screw loose; that was a phrase I should not have used since it is directed as persons not positions or arguments. In any case, I did not use it of you specificially. I tried to be careful to clarify that I don't think theism generally is unreasonable; and I have no problems with different people evaluating the the whole discussion in different ways.

I'll bet Justin does not equate respectful disagreement and refutation with "spanking", which is part of what I like about him.

Justin makes a good point, and he does so with outstanding grace and reason. He is one of my favourite posters here, and sets a standard I'd like to emulate for how to engage points of disagreement constructively.

And in reply to Justin's post... I guess the major point I want to add or modify in response is that "irrational" and "unreasonable" is better applied to ideas than to people. Your point that the author has demonstrated competance and reasonable function in demanding circumstances is well taken.

The specific comments on satanism are not the whole person. The comments might be reasonable in the light of a particular set of assumptions, but I don't think all sets of assumptions are equal, and some are IMO rather irrational.

What struck me in the OP is not merely thinking Wicca is of the devil, which might be a reasonable perspective. It seems to go much more over the top and descends into unreasonable excess.

Cheers -- Sylas

PS. Substantially expanded in edit.

[technomage]

I don't believe you have a screw loose.
Don't worry, Dee Dee ... I still think you have a screw loose. It's part of your charm, doncha know. :wink:

I'll bet Justin does not equate respectful disagreement and refutation with "spanking", which is part of what I like about him.
Well ... confession time, Sylas. There were a couple of lines when I was poking fun at Minn, but that was more for "comic releif" in the middle of a serious discussion than an actual "spanking." Believe me, on those (rare) occasions that I do "spank" someone on the Internet, there is absolutely nothing jovial about it.

Justin makes a good point, and he does so with outstanding grace and reason. He is one of my favourite posters here, and sets a standard I'd like to emulate for how to engage points of disagreement constructively.
Sylas, coming from someone I respect as much as I do you, that is high praise indeed, and I thank you.

Justin

[Minnesota]

Re: The spanking thing.

[attachment=1] Yup

[attachment=2] Nope

[dizzle]

Not quite sure what that means Minn. Not quite sure I want to either.

[Minnesota]

Well, if anyone is going to do any spanking around here .......................

[technomage]

Well, looking at things that way ... spanking Minn's one job I'm not volunteering for. :wink: