Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[Dawnpiper]

the world according to paganism can’t be orderly and logical because their beliefs and gods are not orderly.

May I also ask you to elaborate on the criteria for “orderliness” (and, I believe by extension of your argument, therefore logical behavior) for a god?

 

[rlg94086]

I fully understand that, but Ian said that *within *ADF there is not a set doctrine, only defined rituals. If you don’t have defined doctrine, then the only thing that ties you together is your ritual.

If some ADF members’ understanding of the rituals is different, that is apparently acceptable since there is no defined doctrine? That’s where I don’t understand. Karen mentioned “common values”…is that what you call your doctrine?

The concept of a single “neopagan religion” has been hammered home by the popular media and by shouting Christian “talking heads” seeking an easy target.

If it helps, RLG, think of it like this - the term “paganism” is roughly equivalent to the term “polytheism” - it mostly addresses a mode of religious thinking, rather than a religion per se.

You are a member of a church (Roman Catholic), within the religion of Christianity, that falls under the umbrella of monotheism. We are members of a church (ADF) within the religion of Druidry, that falls under the umbrella of paganism. It’s not an exact comparison, but it’s close enough.

Just as you do not expect that every aspect of Catholic doctrine applies to non-Catholic Christians, much less Jews and Muslims, so the teachings of ADF are meant to apply to the members of ADF - not necessarily to members of other Druid “denominations”, still less - if at all - to members of other pagan religions such as Asatruar (followers of the Norse Gods), Kemetics (worshippers of the Gods of ancient Egypt), and so on.

 

[Dawnpiper]

I fully understand that, but Ian said that *within *ADF there is not a set doctrine, only defined rituals. If you don’t have defined doctrine, then the only thing that ties you together is your ritual.

Yep; we consider that what the individual believes is basically between them and the Gods.

If some ADF members’ understanding of the rituals is different, that is apparently acceptable since there is no defined doctrine?

As long as the public rituals, and any information given in the pre-ritual briefings, are in accord with ADF guidelines, then yes.

 

[Contarini]

latin_rite;1757407:

One we don’t want to stop you. You are free to do as you wish, and as fast as you think it’s growing it still isn’t growing as fast as Christianity, islam or judaismQUOTE]

Could you elaborate on how the growth rate of Islam and Judaism should be considered a good thing or victory for Christianity? The only thing I can possibly see is that you consider any monotheism, even one you (or at least your Church) considers blasphemy, to be better than polytheism?

The Catholic Church today would not consider Islam and Judaism to be blasphemy.

Edwin

 

[Dawnpiper]

…as long as the public rituals, and any information given in the pre-ritual briefings, are in accord with ADF guidelines, then yes.

Been thinking about this and wanted to expand on it a little… ADF Groves are required to hold public or semi-public ritual - that generally means open to anyone who wants to come, although if the ritual is being held in a private residence then reasonable precautions are permitted, the world being what it is - on each of the eight High Days (ADF follows the Wicca-inspired Wheel of the Year).

These rituals should conform to the official ADF Order of Ritual, which does encode a number of theological and cosmological assumptions, and are expected to be addressed to deities worshipped by one or more of the ancient civilizations belonging to the Indo-European cultural/linguistic family. If I were to hold a public ritual dedicated to Quan Yin, for instance, or Isis and Osiris - or one where I cast a circle and called on the Watchtowers of the Quarters - most people would not condemn me for it, but there is no way that I could represent it as an ADF ritual.

Beyond that, it is recommended (not sure if it’s required, I don’t belong to a Grove) to give a pre-ritual briefing, a short discussion of what will be happening in the ritual, which Deities are to be honored, and so on; this can also set the stage for a commonality of understanding and purpose, at least within the context of that particular ritual.

 

[KarenNC]

If you don’t have defined doctrine, then the only thing that ties you together is your ritual. If some ADF members’ understanding of the rituals is different, that is apparently acceptable since there is no defined doctrine? That’s where I don’t understand. Karen mentioned “common values”…is that what you call your doctrine?

It is more than shared ritual that binds us. It is a general shared worldview, a common dedication to accurate scholarship, and a sense of obligation of piety to our gods.

ADF does espouse a series of common moral/ethical principles, that we call the Nine Virtues. These are not doctrine as you are using the term, more like a code or standard of conduct. They are part of the Dedicant Program (our initial religious training program), which includes a requirement to reflect on these and write a short essay on each, including what it means to the Dedicant at that point in their life journey, and how it applies to his/her life.

This annotated list comes from a website maintained by one of our priests, at chronarchy.com/mjournal/virtues/.

Nine Pagan Virtues
Wisdom: Good judgment, the ability to perceive people and situations correctly, deliberate about and decide on the correct response
Piety: Correct observance of ritual and social traditions; the maintenance of the agreements, (both personal and societal), we humans have with the Gods and Spirits. Keeping the Old Ways, through ceremony and duty
Vision: The ability to broaden one’s perspective to have a greater understanding of our place/role in the cosmos, relating to the past, present and future
Courage: The ability to act appropriately in the face of danger
Integrity: Honor; being trustworthy to oneself and to others, involving oath-keeping, honesty, fairness, respect, self-confidence…
Perseverance: Drive; the motivation to pursue goals even when that pursuit becomes difficult
Hospitality: Acting as both a gracious host and an appreciative guest, involving benevolence, friendliness, humor, and the honoring of “a gift for a gift”
Moderation: Cultivating one’s appetites so that one is neither a slave to them nor driven to ill health, (mental or physical), through excess or deficiency
Fertility: Bounty of mind, body and spirit, involving creativity, production of objects, food, works of art, etc., an appreciation of the physical, sensual, nurturing

Now, do we all always measure up to exhibiting all nine Virtues at the same time to the same degree, or to the degree that we would like? No, we are human. But they definitely set a standard for which to strive. Someone who did not see these virtues as important, or was determined to act in direct opposition to one or more of them would not be sharing our common values in ADF.

 

[KarenNC]

The Catholic Church today would not consider Islam and Judaism to be blasphemy.

Edwin, could you expand upon this a bit so that I am sure we are using the same definition of “blasphemy?” I am using the term in its meanings of “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God” (Merriam Webster, definition 1a) and “irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable” (MW online, second definition).

Judaism and Islam both deny the divinity of Jesus, in fact deny it pretty vehemently. Normative Judaism regards him as a failed Messiah at best. Islam regards him as a prophet, equivalent to Abraham, David, etc, believes that he was never crucified, much less resurrected, and was fully human.

My understanding, both prior to and after discussions on this list, is that the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection and his status as a part of the Trinity, of the same being with God, are major if not the core beliefs of Roman Catholic Christianity. It would seem to me that denying Christ as God meets the criteria of failing to show proper reverence for Jesus and, therefore, for God. Am I incorrect?

Now, it is possible that there is a technical theological definition for the term with which I am not familiar. Is this the case?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

To my mind, polytheism is a much better explanation of “things as they are” than monotheism. I don’t think I have ever claimed in this discussion that “your god is as good as mine.”

polytheism is worshiping the material world. people when they didn’t understand cause and effect and an orderly universe, attributed spirits and gods to the natural forces. this is why gods in paganism are almost interchangeable from one culture to the next.

to be catholic is to believe first that there is truth–i.e. there is an is–and that we can know this truth. and because of this we all have an obligation to come to know the truth. God is truth. he is the uncaused cause, the first mover, whose existence is its essence.

modern science is dependent that we accept this even if we don’t explicitly hold the catholic faith.

you can’t get order from disorder and today would never come if there wasn’t a beginning.

modern science came about from the intersection of the hebrew God who created everything from nothing and ordered it in number, weight and measure, and greek philosophy which gives us understanding of first principles of various subjects and things.

 

[dessert]

Edwin, could you expand upon this a bit so that I am sure we are using the same definition of “blasphemy?” I am using the term in its meanings of “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God” (Merriam Webster, definition 1a) and “irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable” (MW online, second definition).

Judaism and Islam both deny the divinity of Jesus, in fact deny it pretty vehemently. Normative Judaism regards him as a failed Messiah at best. Islam regards him as a prophet, equivalent to Abraham, David, etc, believes that he was never crucified, much less resurrected, and was fully human.

My understanding, both prior to and after discussions on this list, is that the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection and his status as a part of the Trinity, of the same being with God, are major if not the core beliefs of Roman Catholic Christianity. It would seem to me that denying Christ as God meets the criteria of failing to show proper reverence for Jesus and, therefore, for God. Am I incorrect?

Now, it is possible that there is a technical theological definition for the term with which I am not familiar. Is this the case?

Judaism doesn’t really even recognize Jesus as the messiah at all so it is not logical to say failed. Some are still waiting for Him to come.
We are not to judge.

 

[KarenNC]

Judaism doesn’t really even recognize Jesus as the messiah at all so it is not logical to say failed. QUOTE]

Judaism considers Jesus to be one of numerous men who either claimed to be or were acclaimed as “the Messiah” throughout the centuries. None of them have met all the criteria (according to the Jews–religiously, not necessarily ethnicly -- whose criteria it is) required to be the Messiah. Many of them lived during the first century CE, a time when Jews were suffering under Roman domination.

Interestingly, the website Judaism 101 (www.jewfaq.com) says that it is preferable to use the Hebrew word “mosiach” to refer to the Jewish messiah rather than “messiah,” since “messiah” has come to mean an entirely different thing in Christianity.

I will grant you that the terminology of “failed Messiah” may be less widespread than “false” or “pseudo Messiah,” though we have encountered it fairly frequently in our reading in Judaism over the years. Personally, I prefer that term because it doesn’t have the associations of ill intent, etc that the term “false Messiah” does.
It acknowledges that these men and/or their followers may have sincereIy and honestly believed that the individual was the Messiah foretold by Hebrew Scriptures, but that they all failed to meet at least part of the crucial criteria.

Whether a person is or is not the mosiach is not merely an ancient issue. It is currently ongoing in regards to the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn—My Jewish Learning - Judaism & Jewish Life.

f you would like to explore this further, google on the terms “Jewish” or “Judaism” or “Jews” and “false messiah” or “failed messiah” or “psuedo-messiah.” The online Jewish Encyclopedia (www.jewishencyclopedia.com) is a good place to start.

BTW, I would like to thank you for rejoining the conversation as you have. It can be very difficult to be open to conversation with someone whose beliefs are so radically different from your own, especially as (if I understood you correctly) a relatively new convert. To be able to do so and actually be willing to hear what the other person is saying (whether you believe it is right or not) is a credit to you.

 

[IanCorrigan]

I fully understand that, but Ian said that *within *ADF there is not a set doctrine, only defined rituals. If you don’t have defined doctrine, then the only thing that ties you together is your ritual.

If some ADF members’ understanding of the rituals is different, that is apparently acceptable since there is no defined doctrine? That’s where I don’t understand. Karen mentioned “common values”…is that what you call your doctrine?

What ADF, along with most/all of Neopaganism, has tried to avoid is the promulgation of specific ideas and belief positions as mandatory for proper observance of our path. This does not mean that ADF does not have teachings - about the Gods, about ritual, about the way humans can live well together. We have teachings on all these things, and we even encourage members to work with some of the ideas, whether they exactly agree with them at the outset, or not.

The terms ‘doctrine’ and ‘dogma’ derive from the same Latin root, meaning ‘opinion’. The ‘Doctrines’ of the Roman Church are the opinions it has agreed on, and which it expects its members to agree with it on. The most-agreed-on opinions have come to be called by the other variant of the word - dogma. Dogma, to me, seems to imply legislated opinion - that is what Pagans don’t, generally, do.

Paganism does generate doctrine, but we don’t demand doctrinal agreement to be able to work together spiritually. Since we know that the reality of the spiritual world is multiple, we expect different individuals to perceive it differently, to relate to it differently, even when they are doing spiritual work in a group together. When I know that the divine takes many forms, it is no threat to the truth of my experience when my neighbor’s experience varies from mine.

ADF does propose certain opinions as the basis of rules of practice. For instance, we encourage members to think about the Gods as persons more than as abstractions, or archetypes, or aspects of some All-One. We encourage a formal, repeatable approach to ritual. We encourage members to choose a specific Indo-European culture and work within it, rather than mix-and-match a personal pantheon out of many cultures. We nearly require that public ceremonies be done within one specific culture.

All of these things we enforce - but only in terms of ritual practice that defines itself as ADF. We do not - ever - ask members what they believe, or require them so state their personal beliefs, or even require them to agree with the general opinions of the organization. We some times say we are not a ‘credal’ religion - no-one is ever required to recite ‘credo’ - ‘I believe’. On the other hand, we might, in certain cases, hold a local group to account for what they do in their ritual work - we require that ritual forms follow certain guidelines.

So - we sometimes say that we have an orthopraxy - ‘right practice’, rather than an orthodoxy - ‘right opinion’. We do teach a body of ideas about the spiritual world and how it works, but we don’t stake our validity on them, or require members to agree with them.
Ian

 

[IanCorrigan]

**polytheism is worshiping the material world. **

No. Polytheism worships the spiritual component of the natural world. Paganism doesn’t have much use for the concept of ‘supernatural’ - we don’t understand the spiritual to exist outside of the natural - we see both the material and the spiritual as within the idea of ‘nature’

We are no more worshipping the Sun than you might worship a wooden statue of Mary.

>people when they didn’t understand cause and effect and an orderly universe, attributed spirits and gods to the natural forces. this is why gods in paganism are almost interchangeable from one culture to the next.

Natural forces have a spiritual component - all things do. Some of these are ‘Gods’, some are in other categories of spirit. All are a part of humanity’s relationship with the world.

**you can’t get order from disorder and today would never come if there wasn’t a beginning. **

The relationship between order and chaos is a fascinating part of modern science - I don’t think it’s a given that order isn’t generated from/by chaos.

One place where Pagan philosophy always differed from monotheism is in the idea that a First cause must be a ‘supreme being’. Aristotle certainly doesn’t imply so.

All Pagan cosmology includes a First Cause. However, the First Cause is not the Creator of All, nor is it the owner-operator of the cosmos at this time.

 

[KarenNC]

** polytheism is worshiping the material world. people when they didn’t understand cause and effect and an orderly universe, attributed spirits and gods to the natural forces.**

To be accurate, “polytheism” is “belief in or worship of more than one god” (Merriam Webster online). If you will go back and read over the thread as a whole (yes, I know there are a lot of posts ), I think you will have a better idea of some of the discussions we have already had around this claim, as well as the claim that Neopaganism is nothing more than indifferentism. The arguments are much too long and involved to fully repeat them here.

In summary, however, I will simply reiterate that I do not “worship” the material world any more than a Roman Catholic “worships” the wood of a crucifix, the beads of a rosary or the plaster or stone of a statue of Mary. Neopagans are (and ancient pagans were) just as capable of differentiating between symbol and referrent or speaking figuratively as Christians are. To say that Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built the Church does not mean that Roman Catholics believe Peter was literally (and nothing more than) a piece of granite.

** God is truth. he is the uncaused cause, the first mover, whose existence is its essence. modern science is dependent that we accept this even if we don’t explicitly hold the catholic faith. **

This may well be a Roman Catholic belief and even one held by at least some other Christians, but it is not what I have seen presented as the normative opinion in scientific circles, and certainly I was not taught this in my science courses in the university (my bachelor’s degree is in physics), not even in what was (at that time) one affiliated (albeit loosely) with a Christian denomination.

lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm describes a survey of “517 members of the National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers).” Only 7% of respondents reported a “belief in a personal God.”

 

[KarenNC]

Judaism doesn’t really even recognize Jesus as the messiah at all so it is not logical to say failed.

Judaism considers Jesus to be one of numerous men who either claimed to be or were acclaimed as “the Messiah” throughout the centuries. None of them have met all the criteria (according to the Jews–religiously, not necessarily ethnicly – whose criteria it is) required to be the Messiah. Many of them lived during the first century CE, a time when Jews were suffering under Roman domination.

Interestingly, the website Judaism 101 (www.jewfaq.com) says that it is preferable to use the Hebrew word “mosiach” to refer to the Jewish messiah rather than “messiah,” since “messiah” has come to mean an entirely different thing in Christianity.

I will grant you that the terminology of “failed Messiah” may be less widespread than “false” or “pseudo Messiah,” though we have encountered it fairly frequently in our reading in Judaism over the years. Personally, I prefer that term because it doesn’t have the associations of ill intent, etc that the term “false Messiah” does.
It acknowledges that these men and/or their followers may have sincereIy and honestly believed that the individual was the Messiah foretold by Hebrew Scriptures, but that they all failed to meet at least part of the crucial criteria.

Whether a person is or is not the mosiach is not merely an ancient issue. It is currently ongoing in regards to the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn—My Jewish Learning - Judaism & Jewish Life.

If you would like to explore this further, google on the terms “Jewish” or “Judaism” or “Jews” and “false messiah” or “failed messiah” or “psuedo-messiah.” The online Jewish Encyclopedia (www.jewishencyclopedia.com) is a good place to start.

BTW, I would like to thank you for rejoining the conversation as you have. It can be very difficult to be open to conversation with someone whose beliefs are so radically different from your own, especially as (if I understood you correctly) a relatively new convert. To be able to do so and actually be willing to hear what the other person is saying (whether you believe it is right or not) is a credit to you.

 

[KarenNC]

NOTE: I apologize if this post comes across formatted wider than normal; I’ve been tinkering with it for half an hour trying to get it to format normally, and it just won’t.

**Judaism doesn’t really even recognize Jesus as the messiah at all so it is not logical to say failed. **

Judaism considers Jesus to be one of numerous men who either claimed to be or were acclaimed as “the Messiah” throughout the centuries. None of them have met all the criteria (according to the Jews - religiously, not necessarily ethnically - whose criteria they are) required to be the Messiah. Many of them lived during the first century CE, a time when Jews were suffering under Roman domination.

Interestingly, the website Judaism 101 (www.jewfaq.com) says that it is preferable to use the Hebrew word “moshiach” to refer to the Jewish messiah rather than “messiah,” since “messiah” has come to mean an entirely different thing in Christianity.

I will grant you that the terminology of “failed Messiah” may be less widespread than “false” or “pseudo Messiah,” though we have encountered it fairly frequently in our reading in Judaism over the years. Personally, I prefer that term because it doesn’t have the associations of ill intent, etc that the term “false Messiah” does.
It acknowledges that these men and/or their followers may have sincereIy and honestly believed that the individual was the Messiah foretold by Hebrew Scriptures, but that they all failed to meet at least part of the crucial criteria.

Whether a person is or is not the moshiach is not merely an ancient issue. It is currently ongoing in regards to the Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneersohn.

If you would like to explore this further, google on the terms “Jewish” or “Judaism” or “Jews” and “false messiah” or “failed messiah” or “psuedo-messiah.” The online Jewish Encyclopedia (www.jewishencyclopedia.com) is a good place to start.

BTW, desert, I would like to thank you for rejoining the conversation as you have. It can be very difficult to be open to conversation with someone whose beliefs are so radically different from your own, especially as (if I understood you correctly) a relatively new convert. To be able to do so and actually be willing to hear what the other person is saying (whether you believe it is right or not) is a credit to you.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, could you expand upon this a bit so that I am sure we are using the same definition of “blasphemy?” I am using the term in its meanings of “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God” (Merriam Webster, definition 1a) and “irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable” (MW online, second definition).

Judaism and Islam both deny the divinity of Jesus, in fact deny it pretty vehemently. Normative Judaism regards him as a failed Messiah at best. Islam regards him as a prophet, equivalent to Abraham, David, etc, believes that he was never crucified, much less resurrected, and was fully human.

My understanding, both prior to and after discussions on this list, is that the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection and his status as a part of the Trinity, of the same being with God, are major if not the core beliefs of Roman Catholic Christianity. It would seem to me that denying Christ as God meets the criteria of failing to show proper reverence for Jesus and, therefore, for God. Am I incorrect?

Now, it is possible that there is a technical theological definition for the term with which I am not familiar. Is this the case?

I suppose it’s largely a matter of rhetoric. This isn’t the kind of language that Catholicism since Vatican II uses about other religions (though of course you can find individual Catholics, such as those on this forum, who do). However, I think one could also make the case that the core beliefs of Islam and Judaism are not blasphemous. The denial of Christ’s divinity would be blasphemous if it was malicious (i.e., if someone believed Jesus was divine but said otherwise out of spite). But on the assumption that non-Christians are acting in good faith, their failure to recognize who Jesus is is a defect, but not a malicious one. And the post-Vatican II Catholic Church focuses rather on the areas of common ground–which in the case of Judaism and Islam would be the recognition of one God who reveals Himself to us through law and covenants, who commands us to love our neighbor, etc.

If you were to say that islam and Judaism, objectively considered, blaspheme Christ’s divinity, you might have a case. But you said that the religions as a whole are, from a Christian point of view, blasphemy. And that’s not how mainline Protestants or official Roman Catholicism would view it. We don’t condemn entire religions because one incidental feature of them is that they deny some of our central beliefs. Rather, we (that is to say, moderate, non-fundamentalist Christians) focus primarily on areas of common ground, without denying the real differences.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One place where Pagan philosophy always differed from monotheism is in the idea that a First cause must be a ‘supreme being’. Aristotle certainly doesn’t imply so.

What exactly do you mean by “supreme being”? I’d describe Aristotle’s God as a Supreme Being. However, the term “Supreme Being” does have 18th-century connotations I’m not fond of. Certainly Aristotle’s God is a being and has/is intelligence.

All Pagan cosmology includes a First Cause. However, the First Cause is not the Creator of All, nor is it the owner-operator of the cosmos at this time.

The phrase “owner-operator” is too anthropomorphic for my taste. But certainly a difference between Christianity and Aristotle is the view that God is the Creator–that is to say, the efficient as well as final and formal cause of everything else that exists.

Neo-Platonism, it seems to me, is closer to Christianity in this respect, though if I’m not mistaken in pagan Neo-Platonism the universe emanates from God rather than being created out of nothing. However, traditional Christian theology such as that of Aquinas would say that everything has being insofar as it participates in God Who is present in all things (though not a part of them). That’s not quite the same thing as Neo-Platonic emanation, but it’s not as far off as modern Christians often imagine.

Edwin

 

[KarenNC]

But you said that the religions as a whole are, from a Christian point of view, blasphemy. And that’s not how mainline Protestants or official Roman Catholicism would view it. We don’t condemn entire religions because one incidental feature of them is that they deny some of our central beliefs. Rather, we (that is to say, moderate, non-fundamentalist Christians) focus primarily on areas of common ground, without denying the real differences.

I see your point and stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

In light of this, let me rephrase the question to latin rite:
“Could you elaborate on the ways in which the positive growth rate of Islam and Judaism should be considered a good thing for Christianity?”

 

[dessert]

It has been interesting to discuss this as it does strengthen my beliefs in the catholic doctrine and hopefull enlighten you all to christianity and the catholic.
Judaism are awaiting the first coming of their “messiah”
Yes we believe Jesus the Christ to be the “messiah” as Christ means the “annointed one”.
We are awaing the “second comming” for God to judge the living and the dead.
As also Jesus the Christ means the savior the annointed one.
Emmanuel- God dwelt among us
The Word made flesh

An analogy I could use is that, as you have used several and maybe I should try some, now I am not trying to stereotype or criticize and please protes. please don’t get offended but if you like just tell me, the non catholics or christians claiming to be such as, and I hate to term it this way have legal green cards to christianity, ie; to heaven as legal aliens do to the USA. Does that sound like a strange analogy?
I cannot say who is going to go to heaven any more than I can judge.
Blashemy is a very very strong charge, aas we would maybe charge someone as being a heretic and would be a last resort as God teaches us forgiveness. By the way is this one of your virtues? Your list is interesting, I am sorry somewhat vague but then I am sorry also i have been somewhat judgemental.

Please clarify how you acknowledge a persons sin against you and then how you proceed the forgiveness process. thanks
Do you feel you ever sin or sin against your many gods or the one you"pray "to ? hopefull I am not changing the topic too much as I see you usually go back to the same question alot so I guess I am not explaining quite properly to reach an understanding or mutual connection no aura I guess, but don’t want to give you any bad fruit or virtues acrross the net.

return

 

[lissamorris]

My sister is bound by the spirits of Wicca. She is so confused she can’t even articulate what she believes in…and it certainly doesn’t help her in her personal life; with her husband, with whom she constantly fights; with her children, which parenting seems to be a non-issue and “self” all-important. Yet she keeps trying to convert me which is impossible since I am a devout Catholic.
I say look at the fruits of someone’s life! Have they been divorced? Is their personal life a shambles? Do they give of themselves to others? Do they give money to support their local “covens”, which then operate soup kitchens or homeless shelters or relief agencies? Do they believe in abortion or contraception?
“By their fruits, you shall know them.”