Theology III

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

First of all, I will say that because I believe the Bible to be inerrant, if its condemnation of witchcraft was all the evidence needed, it would be sufficient for me. There is very good reason, in my view, to believe the Bible to be inerrant, but discussing this foundational issue would lead to a whole different (and very broad) debate.

Leviticus Chapter 17
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them; This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded, saying,
3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp,
4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:
Has your sandwich been to the tabernacle?
5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD.
6 And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Where is the fat burning in your sanctuary?
7 And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
8 And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,
9 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people.
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
15 And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.
16 But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

What did you have for dinner?

19.19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

What is the fiber content of your shirt?

19.27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Do you cut your hair or own a razor?

20.25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.
27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Cast the first stone. I dare you. Jesus knew that it wasn't the 'government' enforcing these things.

"Sin" is condemned in God's eyes. "Crime" is condemned in human eyes. My position that witchcraft constitutes a crime is based first on the Bible. The Old and New Testaments present witchcraft clearly as a real, powerful, and terrible phenomenon, and the Old Testament (the New doesn't spend much time on the role of the government) condemns it in law. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, so the early Christian nations, after Christianity had gained a position in the political realm, made witchcraft illegal. They made it a crime because the Bible does.

I have a lot less faith than you do in the early church fathers. That isn't God's errancy, it's man's.

I have heard people talk about their firsthand experiences at the receiving end of witchcraft, and it's pretty dark.

I've heard people talk about a lot of things. People lie. Also, people suffer from mental illness. Sometimes both.

No, it is not "she turned me into a newt" . I also have had some drastically negative experiences with powerful demons (as opposed to mental peeves) in my own past, which convince me thoroughly that the spiritual realm is powerful and can be very dangerous. Witchcraft has never been used on me,

How do you know? Perhaps half the board has a Lief doll they stick pins in on a regular basis. The girl you sat next to on the bus set a hex on you this morning. You can't possibly prove this assertion.

but I have talked with people that do dabble in witchcraft or who have experienced it.

Review. People lie and are unwell.

I also once had an experience of seeing a person in a college class for the first time, someone I had never known or seen before, and the instant I saw him and heard his voice, I had an extremely powerful sense of darkness and personal revulsion toward him.

Yeah. Some people you don't like. It happens.

I have also heard stories of believers in foreign lands, particularly Africa, who have had spells used against them, and when they had forgotten to pray for safety, these spells created bizarre kinds of incidents. For instance, one family's mother and father prayed every night for protection against magic (they had heard threats that spells would be used against them). One night, they forgot to pray for defense, and that night their tent burned down in a fluke accident. They barely escaped with their lives.

I have many African friends who have not "died of witchcraft." I even know people who have lost tents. Can't you hear how unproven this argument is?

Evidence outside of the Bible convinces me that the common human consensus since the origin of our species, that witchcraft has real power, and the conservative Christian consensus, that witchcraft is dangerous, is correct.

The consensus of the early church fathers was that spontaneous generation was a big issue, too. Why isn't that worrying you?

Your argument makes as much sense as it does to allow a drug dealer to have full access to your children.

No. My argument makes as much sense as allowing someone who has imaginary drugs to take them, if he pleases. My children are not threatened by his delusion. They may be threatened by yours.

You don't see me bombing abortion clinics, do you?

Oh, is that why? I don't know what you're bombing.

We live in a democracy.

No thanks to you, and your kind.

[BeardofPants]

*smooches sis
I agree with everything you said.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, I'm not referring to the principles of the world, I'm referring to the anti-heresy laws of the past.

I'm in the process of becoming a Catholic right now, and am learning all I can, both about modern Catholic perspectives and historical ones. I may not have it all together yet, of course, but I don't think that the historical Catholic Church would have condemned someone who was seeking to come into unity with them.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I'm aware that you are not coming up with this out of your head. Do you know the justification that was given for witch-slaying. The book of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". I, personally, do not think that as a Christian, I ought to live by the Old Law as my guide.

I know. Christians have been shying steadily further and further from the Old Covenant Law, since the beginning of the modern era.

During the Religious Wars, Catholics and Protestants fought each other hard enough that they became war weary. Religious freedom came from an environment of exhaustion and rapidly increasing secularism. Secularized governments felt less religious compulsion than their forbears, and so were less inclined to fight over religious unity. The parents of religious freedom were originally secularism and exhaustion. People wanted to get back to their normal lives, to live at peace. Peace came at the price of exchanging some of their old convictions about the function of the government for new ideas.

Religious freedom was, in its turn, a parent for many more of the modern freedoms that were rejected by Medieval law and the Old Covenant Law. It all comes from secularizing roots, though, and from sources of thought that opposed traditional Catholicism.

The Early Church Fathers, and the writers of the Epistles, had very bad things to say about heretics. They had no political power, but the first Christian emperor, Constantine, took the first action against heretics on religious grounds. He banished Arius from his kingdom. Other Christian emperors or rulers followed the same kinds of practice. From the beginning of Christian involvement in politics, this was practiced, and the Church felt that it was a good thing, so that orthodoxy might be complete. St. Augustine said the heretics should be banished. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed that force should be used against heretics. Many of the greatest church saints and popes agreed on this, and it was the normal Catholic viewpoint throughout Christian history, until the modern era.

Prosecutions for heresy weren't all that necessary through much of the Medieval Ages, because very few people fell for it, and it therefore wasn't a severe threat. Often the Church simply excommunicated the heretic and left it at that. But in the late Medieval Ages, heresies became much more widespread and threatening, as they had been in the days of the Early Church. So the Church again worked with the secular monarchs to put it down with force as well as evangelism.

The Church's practice, both at the beginning of the Christian era and at the end, was pretty consistent.

On a purely legal basis, the Old Testament certainly tells a lot more than the New Testament does about how a government is to be run. Jesus talked more about how people should behave in their own lives, whereas Moses was very concerned with governing a nation. God gave Moses a national law, the practices of the government of God's kingdom, and Jesus gave humans a much more personal law, a law described in the New Testament as "written on your hearts." It governs our actions from within us, purifying us so that good earthly laws won't hurt us, simply because we obey them out of love for God and because of his goodness within us.

But the Old Testament offers a lot more information than the New about just government practices. The New Testament is incomplete, on its own. It has to have the Old Testament to complement it. The Old Testament describes God's justice, principally (though certainly not exclusively), and the New Testament (again, principally) seems to describe his mercy. They complement one another.

Law should be practiced with mercy, but it should also be just. Therefore, looking for justice of law in the Old Testament is a logical course of action for a government to engage in, even as they should note that they should practice the law with New Testament mercy.

A number of things in the Old Testament Law, of course, were rituals, things that symbolically represented truths that would be given in their completeness with the New. So those rituals can be discarded, as Paul did when he eliminated the requirement that males be circumcised. Putting a ceremonially unclean person outside of the camp was likewise a symbolic gesture that represented the removal of sin from the soul.

Other parts of the Old Testament Law were not merely about ritual. The treatment of witches in the Law could not have been merely a way of symbolically representing greater truth that would later be fulfilled. And when one looks at the way God actually supernaturally intervened to prevent Balaam from cursing the Israelites, it becomes apparent that this was something that the Old Testament presents as having real power. At least when it's not done by frauds . It's not hard to see why God would want authorities to execute someone like Balaam. And when Simon the Sorcerer tried to get Peter's power for money, Peter called him a "child of the devil."
There are a few times in the Old Testament where God brings judgments on people for witchcraft, and I the Book of Revelation also describes this.

Like me, you still accept that some of the Old Testament Law is valid to establish in society. "Thou shalt not murder," and "thou shalt not steal," are pretty broadly accepted in today's society. The number of Old Testament laws that are accepted is shrinking rapidly, though, and it has been shrinking for centuries. This is because, as Christianity loses much of the power it had in the past, as a result of separation of church and state, and rulership by the people, for the people, among other things, Christian laws are being pulled away. Because many old Christian laws had their roots in the Old Testament, we get along with the general socially accepted position by consigning those laws to a place in the Old Testament, and saying that they do not belong in a New Testament society.

I'm sorry for being so longwinded and rambling on this. I'm having trouble finding a way to concisely respond to your point.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's also worth noting that Catholicism was not monolithic.

Yes, but this was certainly the Vatican's position until the mid-20th century. It also was the generally accepted Catholic perspective. The early Protestants also generally agreed with it, though for less long, I think.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

So if I was actually in office I could dish out judgement in any way I wish? If this is true, Lief, why are you so adamant about public schools and....oh, wait, sis beat me to it.

No, Jesus' mercy must be practiced in law as well as on a personal basis. And God's principles should be the source from which law springs.

Take a law against murder, for instance. It's rooted primarily in the Old Testament. Jesus never says in the New Testament, to my recollection, that the government should practice this law. He gave the Ten Commandments to a man and said, "do this and you will live," but he didn't say, "the government should practice the Ten Commandments." Yet for Christians, this government law has its moral foundation in the Old Testament.

People don't have the right to dish out judgment however they wish. "Judge not, or you shall be judged," does not mean that the courts should not pronounce any judgments, though.

Humans shouldn't be the ones who make up the law, either. They should base it on what God told them is true, and on what God told them to do. Human judgment is so weak and fallible that to base our legal systems on it, rather than rooting law in the commands of God, is to my mind folly.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

( I am NOT discrediting Paul's testimony here) So, if a government has the right to come after you for a crime (which it should, to a point), would that mean that I could deal out the punishments I see fit? This ties in to the point about judgment in office. But why does a mere man have the right to say either way? Why do we listen to the flesh and not God?

Exactly. I completely agree with you here. That is why law should be based upon Biblical principles rather than man-made ones.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Quote:
I believe that when there are murderers in society, they should be brought to justice. The same for thieves. The same for witches.


But on who's authority? Your's? The government'? Maybe, just maybe, God's? If you hit someone at a crosswalk by mistake and kill them, should you go to jail, even if you stopped to help? What if the govenmental office says so? What is legal, is not always right, Lief.

Agreed. That is why the government's laws should be based on the commands of God. Unfortunately, they must be enforced by humans rather than by God, so errors are inevitable, just as they are in our current justice system. But mercifully, people could be quite sure in this case that the principle of the law is valid, even if sometimes its application is faulty. When the principles of law are also man-made, however, then the potential for errors that must exist in any legal system is vastly compounded.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Back to the crosswalk analogy, who claims malicious intent? And to say that all laws should be repealed is useless. People will always make their own rules, it is almost constant. Malicious intent should be paramount. (Along with stupidity for that matter )

Well, there I must disagree with you. You see, I feel that deception is the root of a great deal of the evil in society. Murderers often deceive themselves, and thus justify their actions to themselves. Thus they many times wouldn't classify themselves as having "malicious intent." The powers of the human mind for self-justification are very extensive, and if it's for other people to judge that the person had a malicious intent, then that's still a very subjective rule. Many of the Nazis did not kill out of malicious intent, I believe. I saw photos of them laughing and making jokes with one another, and they seemed very much like normal people. Often, they were killing because they believed in what they were doing, and they thought it was right.

I really feel malicious intent is too subjective to be a sufficient basis for judgment. That's my personal view, anyway, for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Yes. Very true, but once again: who says the government is taking the right course of action in their judgment. Not that it matters in the end (the very very end), but, in your view, should they not at least consult the Lord? In a perfect world human judgement, of course, would not be a factor, but one never knows.

The ruler is given the sword for a good reason: to protect the masses according to what they think is the best way, not the other way around.

The problem is that the masses are no more likely than the ruler to be able to come up with "the best way." That's why my view is that, as you recommend, they "consult the Lord." And I think they should base all of their laws upon his counsel, and the human judgment of both the masses and the rulers are insufficient to determine the principle society should follow.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

But whose to know who did or not? A jealous woman could accuse a man's wife of it rather easily. Simple superstition put on a pedestal.

I know. In the witchcraft course I took, I was very disappointed by most of the criteria for conviction that were presented me. I don't know what the witchcraft trials were like prior to the beginning of the modern era, when most witchcraft trials took place. I'm hoping that they usually sought evidence of a more reliable kind.

Eyewitness testimony would of course be important. A witch might have friends or neighbors who have seen things from time to time.

With modern tools, reliable evidence would be easier to assemble than it was in the past. However, the kinds of criteria that were often used in the 1450-1750 witchcraft trials were often very bad, in my view. The Catholic Church objected to many of those criteria also. A lot of what would commonly be today called "superstition" did get in, toward the end. I personally hate the word "superstition," because it is such an incredibly conceited word, but I do feel that many of the views that developed during that time period about the supernatural were eroneous.

It is very sad.

[Lief Erikson]

Sis, the five questions you asked above and highlighted in red were symbolic rituals that were later fulfilled in Christ. Here's the response I gave above to Gwaimir about that:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A number of things in the Old Testament Law, of course, were rituals, things that symbolically represented truths that would be given in their completeness with the New. So those rituals can be discarded, as Paul did when he eliminated the requirement that males be circumcised. Putting a ceremonially unclean person outside of the camp was likewise a symbolic gesture that represented the removal of sin from the soul.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have a lot less faith than you do in the early church fathers. That isn't God's errancy, it's man's.

That is a common perspective in modern times, but it actually isn't very logical, in my view. The disciples passed on their teachings to their followers, who in turn passed them on to theirs. The teaching of the Early Church Fathers was mostly the assembled teaching passed on by the disciples. Thus it contains immense value for someone who is seeking to understand the earliest interpretations of the scriptures, and thus the interpretations that most likely are closest to the views of the disciples.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I've heard people talk about a lot of things. People lie. Also, people suffer from mental illness. Sometimes both.

Thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
No, it is not "she turned me into a newt" . I also have had some drastically negative experiences with powerful demons (as opposed to mental peeves) in my own past, which convince me thoroughly that the spiritual realm is powerful and can be very dangerous. Witchcraft has never been used on me,


How do you know? Perhaps half the board has a Lief doll they stick pins in on a regular basis. The girl you sat next to on the bus set a hex on you this morning. You can't possibly prove this assertion.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
but I have talked with people that do dabble in witchcraft or who have experienced it.


Review. People lie and are unwell.

Thanks again for the tip.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
I also once had an experience of seeing a person in a college class for the first time, someone I had never known or seen before, and the instant I saw him and heard his voice, I had an extremely powerful sense of darkness and personal revulsion toward him.


Yeah. Some people you don't like. It happens.

There is a difference between that and sensing darkness and evil. That has been my experience.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I have many African friends who have not "died of witchcraft." I even know people who have lost tents. Can't you hear how unproven this argument is?

Sure, a coincidence of this kind could occur. Not probable, in my view, but not impossible.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Quote:
Evidence outside of the Bible convinces me that the common human consensus since the origin of our species, that witchcraft has real power, and the conservative Christian consensus, that witchcraft is dangerous, is correct.


The consensus of the early church fathers was that spontaneous generation was a big issue, too. Why isn't that worrying you?

The time of the Early Church Fathers was frequently a time where people debated and hammered out orthodoxy, separating it from the heresies that proliferated. That there should be disagreement about some doctrines is hardly surprising. We read in the New Testament about arguments over circumcision St. Paul had to deal with.

Exactly what books should be considered canonical was also not agreed on universally until around 400 AD.

There were many debates back then, and the Church didn't fully resolved every one of them.

[Curufin]

I don't have a problem with the principle of killing witches for witchcraft. They are dealing with Satanic powers, and it is going to be harmful to anyone they "bless."

*backs away slowly*

Hmm. Satanic powers, eh?

It's interesting that Christians accuse us of dealing in 'Satanic powers' when we don't even believe in Satan.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

*backs away slowly*

Hmm. Satanic powers, eh?

It's interesting that Christians accuse us of dealing in 'Satanic powers' when we don't even believe in Satan.

That's all right. Evidence suggests that many people who self-identify as 'Christians' don't believe in Christ's message, either.

I personally like the way CS Lewis sorted everything in Narnia.

Tash knew who his guys were.

[Curufin]

That's all right. Evidence suggests that many people who self-identify as 'Christians' don't believe in Christ's message, either.

Well, that's obvious, from all the wars fought in the name of Jesus. I'm sure he would have loved that.

Oh, and don't forget the whole: 'Kill a commie for Christ' in the 1960's. Yep, that's Christianity and Christian love and kindness for you!

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Christian, but I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who are and who practice Jesus's message truthfully. Good for you! It's a great message and an even better way to live your life. It's these people who use obscure parts of the bible to practice bigotry against people they disagree with that make me sick.

Oh, and FYI, I'm a witch, and slowly backing away from the matches in this room...

[Insidious Rex]

so do you weigh as much as a duck then?

[Curufin]

Can I plead the 5th?

[Insidious Rex]

You can but dont blame me if the rabble insist on making a bridge out of you.

[Curufin]

I'm pretty sure I can take care of myself, thanks.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm in the process of becoming a Catholic right now, and am learning all I can, both about modern Catholic perspectives and historical ones. I may not have it all together yet, of course, but I don't think that the historical Catholic Church would have condemned someone who was seeking to come into unity with them.

Oh, are you? I hadn't heard of that. Never mind then, and congratulations! Welcome home. Do you know yet when you will be received?

I know. Christians have been shying steadily further and further from the Old Covenant Law, since the beginning of the modern era.

During the Religious Wars, Catholics and Protestants fought each other hard enough that they became war weary. Religious freedom came from an environment of exhaustion and rapidly increasing secularism.

The first form of Religious Freedom I know of in the Western World was Constantine legalizing Christianity. The second was when Julian the Apostate re-instituted Paganism as the state religion of Rome, but did not start persecuting Christians again, because he had experienced religious persecution, and knew what it was like. Neither came from exhaustion or secularism.

It all comes from secularizing roots, though, and from sources of thought that opposed traditional Catholicism.

I would not say that Emperor Constantine opposed traditional Catholicism!

The Early Church Fathers, and the writers of the Epistles, had very bad things to say about heretics. They had no political power, but the first Christian emperor, Constantine, took the first action against heretics on religious grounds. He banished Arius from his kingdom. Other Christian emperors or rulers followed the same kinds of practice. From the beginning of Christian involvement in politics, this was practiced, and the Church felt that it was a good thing, so that orthodoxy might be complete.

It's interesting that the same thing was not done to pagans.

St. Augustine said the heretics should be banished. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed that force should be used against heretics.

I remember St. John Chrysostom had a sermon stating that those who opposed the use of wine as evil ought to have force used to disabuse them of this heresy. Three cheers for Chrysostom!

Like me, you still accept that some of the Old Testament Law is valid to establish in society. "Thou shalt not murder," and "thou shalt not steal," are pretty broadly accepted in today's society.

I would say that the moral teachings of the Old Testament are true, but I'm dubious about importing the punishments. As you point out, the Old Covenant is more concerned with justice, while the new is the establishment of mercy and grace; as Christians, we are not under the Old Law:

"Rev 21:1, Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea."

"Romans 7:6, But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held;"

Romans 6:14, For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

etc.; you of all people know I could keep going on at great length!

Since you mention that you are becoming a Catholic, I'll note that the Catholic Church opposes the use of the death penalty, except where it is necessary.

I would also point out that many, many people who call themselves "witches" these days are nothing of the sort. They are usually just a rather bland sort of neo-pagan, whose "spells" are nothing more than prayers to Gardnerian gods. These are not the sort of people with whom Kramer and Sprenger concerned themselves.

[Curufin]

I would also point out that many, many people who call themselves "witches" these days are nothing of the sort. They are usually just a rather bland sort of neo-pagan, whose "spells" are nothing more than prayers to Gardnerian gods.

I suppose that depends on how you define "neo-pagan", "spells", and "prayers."

Personally, I don't think there's anything whatsoever 'bland' about my religion, as I'm sure you don't think there's anything 'bland' about yours.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was referring specifically to Wicca; having essentially (as I understand it) two deities, the Goddess and the God, who seem to be sort of most conceptions of female and male deity (respectively, of course! ). Obviously, it does interest other people, though!

Also, as a disclaimer, I was just trying to prevent you from suddenly finding yourself well-done.

I believe that there are more kinds of religion that identify as "witches", but they are far less common.

I would define neo-paganism as a set of religious beliefs of relatively modern origin, based on and/or inspired by ancient paganism.

Spell and prayer are more difficult; I know it when I see it. I'm not really very big on definitions, anyway.

EDIT: Hmm...way too many winkies in this post...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lief hasn't gotten the update that "Perfecti" are no longer part of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the elevation of a former Nazi gave him room for optimism on this point.

[Curufin]

Also, as a disclaimer, I was just trying to prevent you from suddenly finding yourself well-done.

Thanks for that.

No, I'm not exactly Wicca, because I think it attracts too many annoying 'trendy' people. I'm my own combination of different 'pagan' beliefs, actually.

I would define neo-paganism as a set of religious beliefs of relatively modern origin, based on and/or inspired by ancient paganism.

I don't think that's too far off base for most people. I don't think mine is really much of either, but a combination of pantheism and myriad other things.

Oh, and as for spells, I've never really done any. I pray to the God/Goddess for guidance (I don't really think that there are two seperate beings, but one that has both parts), and I do a lot of meditation, but not really spells. Oh, I've done one or two - one to help a friend who was deeply troubled at the time and had attempted suicide, and one to help me with an exam. But really, they're not anything more than the directing of my energy in a certain way. I can't conceive of anyone thinking they're evil or satanic!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Eh? My brain is scrambling, but all I can come up with is the "perfecti" of the Cathars, which doesn't seem to have much bearing on anything mentioned...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Curufin

No, I'm not exactly Wicca, because I think it attracts too many annoying 'trendy' people. I'm my own combination of different 'pagan' beliefs, actually.

I'm glad to hear that. A lot of the time, Wiccans can be pretty silly, from my experience.

[Curufin]

Oh, I agree completely.