A young witch of my acquaintance...

[Justin]

From fistful's first post:

I would appreciate any useful input or just meaningful opinions on paganism as sincere belief versus individualistic rebellion.

Now, an initial reading, in context, would seem to be in reference to this girl:  is she rebelling or is she serious about doing whatever it is Pagan types do.

Seems to me, the quickest and easiest way to find this out would be to put her in touch with someone who's rather serious about it.

In which case, you find out if she's really into it for real, or just trying to piss off Mom, Dad, and you.

In the end, she either goes off and hangs with the Pagans, or you get to have a Come to Jesus meeting.

Either way, she's out of your hair.

*bam*

Problem solved.

[RayannaDeerfox]

Fistful,

I am the friend of Hunter Rose who suggested that you direct the woman to the library.  When I made this suggestion, I had mentioned that there are many books on a multitude of religions, INCLUDING Christianity.  From a logical point of view, would you rather the woman join your fold from being bullied into it or because she has truly accepted Jesus Christ as her savior?  For that matter, would you really feel morally okay in accepting a Christian who was only practicing a particular faith because she was so weak-minded as to do something because someone else told her to?  Knowledge is a powerful tool.  If your particular faith truly is the one true way, I, for one, would be very interested in seeing some tangible proof.

[Strings]

Thanks Justin: that was what I was suggesting in my first post!

 Fistful: if you think you and I have disagreements about faith, try watching an encounter between a fluffy rebellious teenager, and someone who has been walking the  pagan path for years. Might I suggest bringing popcorn and plastic (the popcorn to eat, the plastic to cover up with ala Gallager shows)...

[Guest]

The problem with Fistful isnt what he believes, it is that he wants to inflict that belief on another person who doesnt seem to be interested in it. It is a very simple distinction that everyone in this thread seems to grasp with the singular exception of the OP. Once you get your head around the idea that you dont get to decide what other people should believe, then maybe people will stop seeing you as an inollerant hypocrit, untill then noone is going to be changing their minds.

[gunsmith]

There were a lot of hippie wiccans and pagans where I lived in Ireland (on an organic commune)
I had a great deal of fun with them.  
This young lady  (I suspect) would hate it there.
No electricity, water from the well, no TV or PC...really primitive.

[Perd Hapley]

Really?  The last twenty-five posts haven't been occupied with an attack on two foundational beliefs of Christianity, that Truth is absolute and that "no one comes to the father except by [Christ]"?  Have you not all been saying that the historical, exclusivist understanding of Christianity is intolerant and therefore wrong?  And did you not just tell me my religious beliefs led naturally to criminal assault?

You're saying that anyone not practicing Christianity is inheriently attacking your religion?

Uh, no.  I don't even know how to correct your thinking here, because I don't know where you got this idea.

And no, we said YOU are intolerant, not Christianity or the majority of Christians.  We did not say you were wrong to have your beliefs

You have all said that my belief, my exclusivist understanding of Christianity, is intolerant and that I am wrong to have that belief.  It is hypocritical to say this and then complain that I have insulted Paganism by saying that it is wrong.  "Do what you feel" is your religion, Christian exclusivism is mine.  Furthermore, exclusivism is inherent in Christianity, as the Old and New Testament repeatedly affirm.  So, the attack on my exclusivism is an attack on Christianity.  Don't worry, I'm used to it.  

When you read C.S. Lewis, do you imagine that he did not believe in exclusivism just as I do?


I've got to go to work, now.  You can all feel free to scream at me until I come back.

[mfree]

So indulge me here, Fistful. When do you stop the attempt at proselytizing one who would not adhere to your religion?

[SpookyPistolero]

I was involved very, very heavily in a christian evangelical youth group for about a decade, through high school and part of college. I was one of the leaders of everything, and helped start a 'cell group' program, where groups of folks would meet and talk about various topics, or just things that bothered them. While it was often a good opportunity to help people vent and lend them support, it's base was clearly to convert as many others as possible to christianity. To throw some numbers up on the scoreboards.

On a missions trip to Mexico, it was the same game. I spoke spanish fairly well and served as a translator on this trip. We didn't go and build houses for people living in the cardboard cities we visited, or bring food to the hungry people we spoke to. It was all just different kinds of talk, rehashed and prepackaged.

Amongst a few other reasons, this led to my disillusionment with the amount of 'good' I was doing. After I was done with any of these groups or mission trips, I knew I wasn't leaving the people I talked to any better off than before. They still had no home, they still had no food.

It wasn't that my faith was altered or shaken, but my trust in the function and actions of the church was certainly broken.

One day a year or so later, I caught the end to a movie on tv, called The Big Kahuna, with Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. Sort of a Death of a Salesman take. Something a character said in the movie really stood out to me, mostly because it underscored a lot of the problems I was encountering:

"It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.' That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep."

And everytime you feel like you should explain to someone else what the 'path' is, you're steering that conversation, and then you define yourself.

The only other option I found is to live your life according to your beliefs, treating everyone exactly the way the teachings you study tell you to, and to let your actions and behavior explain those beliefs. Then someday someone will ask you what makes you tick, and you can tell them.

These are only my experiences, but I felt that they were worth sharing. If they appear condescending or pompous, I apologize, because they were certainly not meant to be.

[SADShooter]

fistful-

The responses to your question carried the question to its logical conclusion: "What are appropriate strategies for determining whether an individual's interest in Pagan/alternate/non-Christian religions is genuinely spritually motivated, or an expression of rebellion against perceived authority?" I believe this is what your thread was intended to address. If I've misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize

By starting the thread, you implied that the discussion might result in action on your part. When presented with suggestions and alternatives, you responded adversely to ideas which you believe would be harmful to the subject. I don't have a problem with that, although my approach probably would have been different. I think the disconnect comes in determining whether your subsequent actions would restrict the free determination of her path by "Mersades". In a forum predicated on the exercise of individual freedom, the reaction was predictable.

It's not necessarily your responsiblity to encourage her to explore spiritual avenues you disagree with. I think your tone created a perception that you would actively discourage it, which is different, and with which, as a Christian, I disagree. That's bad fundamentalism, regardless of faith. If one doesn't come to a belief after freely and honestly questioning it, can it be genuine? My own experience coming to Christ after years of intellectual skepticism tells me no.

My own thought? I hope when "Mersades" comes into your church, that she sees a warm, safe place where she feels welcome. If you can do that, no one should ask any more of you.

[Perd Hapley]

 None of us called made insulting comments towards your religion that I noticed.

I guess it depends on your definition of "insult."  If it is an insult to say that non-Christian faiths are wrong and therefore harmful to the non-Christian believer and those he influences, then by that standard I have insulted paganism.  But the implication is that I did so flippantly, just to hack people off.  This is untrue.

And no, it's not your religious beliefs per se that lead towards violence.  Intolerance combined with fanatism is a dangerous combination, regardless of the religion of the believer.  You acknowledged your intolerance and fundimentalism.  You repeatedly affirmed this, not I.

My beliefs, per se, include exclusivism, which you call intolerance.  However, I have repeatedly denied any intolerance on my part.  If I said I was intolerant, I used quotation marks around the word, to indicate that it was the opinion of others.  This is common practice.  Tolerance, as I have tried to explain, implies that one does not agree with or approve of the thing tolerated.  If I approved of paganism, I would not need to tolerate it.  Fundamentalism, of course, has nothing to do with violence or coercion, unless such things are a fundament of the belief system in question.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, you know, the only way to know for certain is to die, and then you aren't exactly going to be able to tell us anything.

Agreed.

Fistful believes he is right, which makes it impossible to present an opposite view.

Do you believe you are right about that statement?  The opposite views are in abundance here, so they can be presented.  If these views fit with reality, I would most certainly agree with them.

I'm probably not the only one who thinks this thread should come to a crashing halt

No, you aren't.  Unfortunately, I have to keep going.

[Perd Hapley]

Justin, I don't see why it makes sense to send a confused young woman to another person for advice, if you believe that other person may in fact in be even more confused.  And getting her out of my hair is not the ultimate goal.

[Justin]

Then why did you even bother to start a thread to solicit advice on Paganism in the first place?

Especially given that there's obviously more than one pagan type here who's willing to chime in.

You should have known you weren't going to like the suggestions that you'd get.

[Tallpine]

Fundamentalism, of course, has nothing to do with violence or coercion, unless such things are a fundament of the belief system in question.

So just out of curiousity, what about the genocide of the Canaanites purportedly commanded by "God" in the Old Testament...?

[Tallpine]

Well, as someone who was caught up in that christian stuff for 20+ years (what can I say ... I once was blinded but now I can see at least somewhat more clearly), I would seriously like to know the answer.

[mfree]

As with most things Christian, to my understanding, for a *good* argument you've got to go with new testament, since there was pretty much a sea change upon the arrival of The Lord Christ. Otherwise Christianity would be very, very close to Judaism in it's traditions.

[Tallpine]

mfree: Yeah, but the OT hasn't been discarded and even Jesus is quoted in the NT as affirming the OT (or at least "the law and the prophets" - I believe Samuel is considered among the prophets?)

Anyway, I somehow got sucked into believing all that stuff for a long time ...

But if it makes you happy and you harm no one, that's okay with me

[Perd Hapley]

From a logical point of view, would you rather the woman join your fold from being bullied into it or because she has truly accepted Jesus Christ as her savior?  For that matter, would you really feel morally okay in accepting a Christian who was only practicing a particular faith because she was so weak-minded as to do something because someone else told her to?

I would much prefer the latter of the first two options.  Have I indicated that anyone is bullying her?  Do you assume so based on your experience with other Christians or psuedo-Christians?  As to weak-mindedness, I think most people believe according to their up-bringing.  I don't know if such people are necessarily weak-minded, but most humans don't think as hard or as deep as we ought.  As Christians are human beings, I'm sure a lot of us are only doing it because Grandma was a Christian or because they equate being a good, solid citizen with attending Sunday morning services.  Then again, some people are brought up in the church, as I was; have doubts, as I did; question their beliefs, as I did; and find that Christian beliefs are very consistent with reality.  Of course, there are those who come in from outside, whether from a "religious" or more secular background.

Mersades, in particular, I would class as weak-minded, which is why I would not wish to see her influenced by religions I believe to be false.

If your particular faith truly is the one true way, I, for one, would be very interested in seeing some tangible proof.

So would I.  I have encountered a lot of evidence, but I wouldn't say Christianity is proven air-tight.  I believe it's pretty close, though, and I haven't found anything else that is as reasonable an explanation for the world we see around us.  If by tangible, you mean physical or touchable, that may be too high a standard to demand.  There are a lot of things we believe without tangible proof.  We probably all believe that humans have rights, but there is no tangible reason for this and it can't be proven by any other secular means.

We do have the bones of Caiaphas, a prominent figure in the crucifixion, and we have the Dead Sea scrolls which demonstrate how well the Biblical text has been preserved.  Any number of artifacts have demonstrated the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments.  Or so I'm told; I'm no archeologist and my history degree is still on hold.  Of course, there are opposite points of view on this.  But in any case it only tells us that the Biblical authors had a good handle on the facts.

The real question is whether Christ was God incarnate, who rose from the dead.  That He was dead seems pretty certain from Scriptural and secular history.  That He rose again is the only explanation that fits the facts.  Eleven disciples, and many others who saw Him risen were so certain of this that it changed their lives.  They were cast out of society, imprisoned and/or killed for this belief.  The New Testament was written very soon after the Resurrection, almost certainly before the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70.  Otherwise, why is it not recorded in the NT?  Even if I had to cede that point, most of it would still have been written when those who knew and would have seen Jesus were still alive.  This enhances its reliability.  I recommend the book, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.  If it is too popular and you would like deeper, more scholarly reading, it contains an extensive bibliography.  Josh McDowell has also written some massive tomes, called Evidence That Demands a Verdict.  I haven't read that one, but it seems worthwhile.  Obviously, there are plenty of skeptical books out there.  Let me know if you have read any, and if so, recommendations would be appreciated.

fistful

[grampster]

Well said, SpookyP.  

[Perd Hapley]

The problem with Fistful isnt what he believes, it is that he wants to inflict that belief on another person who doesnt seem to be interested in it. It is a very simple distinction that everyone in this thread seems to grasp with the singular exception of the OP. Once you get your head around the idea that you dont get to decide what other people should believe, then maybe people will stop seeing you as an inollerant hypocrit, untill then noone is going to be changing their minds.

I hope you didn't miss my tribute to you on post 32.  I thought it was just darling.

You don't have a problem with what I believe?  You seem to be very insistent that I should believe in your kind of "tolerant" pluralism.  Does that mean you are inflicting your belief on me?  I'm not sure what that means.  I do try to share with Mersades the only thing that gives transcendant meaning to life.  Is that what you mean?

You forget that she is asking to come to our church, and when she is there she is less respectful of our beliefs than we are of hers.  Por ejemplo.  If she wanted to talk calmly about whether the Bible is sexist, we would be happy to explain that it is.  But all she wants to do is rail about how it ought not to be.  This is not productive.  We sometimes end up with conversations as acrimonious as this one.  Her more sensible, quasi-pagan friend does not cause this kind of problem, yet he doesn't want to come if she is not there.  The main fault we have with our teen group is that we continue to let teens come that are disruptive.  We don't wish to exclude anyone, but we should draw the line somewhere.  I think really, we are too tolerant.

I'm getting used to hypocrites accusing me of their own crime, so I will just let that one go.

[Perd Hapley]

No one has posted for some time.  There must be some Black Sabbath afoot.  I will alert the elders.  

When do you stop the attempt at proselytizing one who would not adhere to your religion?

Normally, we stop when restraining orders have been filed against three or more of our evangelists.  In some cases, though, we stop when the unconverted dies painfully in the arms of his false god.  If the heathen comes not to the faith under extreme torture, he will surely bear more easily the torments of hell.

I'm kidding, of course, but really it should never end until the non-believer dies, after which the person has forever made his choice.  I think God gives us as much time as we need to make up our minds which way we will go.  No one in hell will be asking for forgiveness.

This doesn't mean that if I find someone who doesn't believe that I pester them non-stop.  For the most part, I am very reluctant to have these kinds of conversations in real time.  For one thing, I don't think fast enough.  For another, it's hard to have a serious conversation with most people.  The real factor for me, though, is that I'm usually pretty withdrawn around people I don't know very well, for the reasons stated above.  I try to keep things on the surface most of the time, except in a setting such as this one, which lends itself to fully-orbed discussions.  It's something that I struggle with.

But to more fully answer your question, a Christian should always be ready to share the hope of everlasting life.  If someone makes it clear they don't want to hear, we can always wait until things change.

[Perd Hapley]

Spook,

It seems most of the short-term missions I hear about are more service-oriented.  When growing up, I went to a Charismatic church and there were a number of trips to Mexico, Guatemala, etc.  I didn't go on these, but I think they were more in the service way of things.  We knew a missionary who ran an orphanage in Guatemala.  The church packed ConEx's of stuff for the kids.  I thought that was normally how those trips worked - even if you don't help them physically, there is a long-term effort doing that for which the short-termers are just auxillaries.  

Is that how your trip worked?  Which denomination, if I may ask?  Anyway, don't dismiss spiritual help as if it were not important.  It is the most important.

[Perd Hapley]

It's not necessarily your responsiblity to encourage her to explore spiritual avenues you disagree with. I think your tone created a perception that you would actively discourage it, which is different, and with which, as a Christian, I disagree. That's bad fundamentalism, regardless of faith. If one doesn't come to a belief after freely and honestly questioning it, can it be genuine? My own experience coming to Christ after years of intellectual skepticism tells me no.

Thanks for understanding, sad one.  I'm not sure what you mean by "actively discourage," but I would advise her not to go to such a person.  If everyone here knew this girl, I think they might even agree with me.  I don't want to be mean, but she's just not the sharpest crayon in the box.  I'm not very familiar with things like learning disabilities, emotional problems and the like, so I'm not sure what's going on there.  She just seems a little slow on the uptake.  And as I said earlier - much opinion, little understanding.  She might latch on to whatever this person said and follow them religiously for years.  With a young woman, this is very fearful to me.  These days, especially with the families most of our kids have (parents are usually not members of our church), any girl who doesn't stay in "the fold," the next thing we hear she's an impoverished single mother.  I'm not saying that a pagan group would get her knocked up, I just don't know that they would do much to discourage it.  So her religious beliefs are not the only factor, here; her future is also at risk.

I hope when "Mersades" comes into your church, that she sees a warm, safe place where she feels welcome. If you can do that, no one should ask any more of you.

Yeah.  I guess she must have seen some of that or she wouldn't keep coming.  Unfortunately, most people just don't know how to deal with someone who says, "I don't believe in the Bible, I'm a witch."  Usually, some pat answer is returned, to which she only shouts the louder.

Prayer is the answer, I suppose.

[Tallpine]

So the main problem is that she is being disruptive...?

It's your church - do whatever you want.  Either ask her to not come back or else keep talking to her.

Just don't ask us heathens how to convert her to christianity

[BrokenPaw]

I know I said I was out, but it seems perhaps I misjudged fistful's intentions and attitude, so I'm back in, in order to apologize if I did so.

Fistful, I understand that you are following what your beliefs tell you to do in dealing with this particular young lady.  That's all any of us can do.  I took offense not because you believe what you believe, and not even because you actively dismiss what I believe.

I took offense because your tone seemed to contain derision when you spoke about the beliefs of people who are not Christian.  

It's entirely possible to disagree with someone vehemently, and still treat that person with respect, and to respect that they're not stupid just because they don't agree with you.  

With regard to your historical proofs of Christ's divinity:  I don't believe anyone here has attempted to disprove anything about the basis of your (or any other Christian's) faith.

But the key word is "faith"  You don't, and can't, know with absolute certainty that the Bible is correct in every regard.  If you knew with absolute certainty, it wouldn't be called "faith".  That is not to say that it's not possible for you to believe with absolute certainty.  But believing and knowing are two different things.

And until you know with absolute certainty, then you have no foundation from which to tell others that their faith is less valid than yours.  The thing is, Fistful, the Big Three (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism -- the People of the Book) all have absolute certainty that they have it right and the others have it wrong.  Yet not all three can possibly have all of the answers.  Either Jesus was the resurrected Son of God, or He was not.  Either Mohammed was the last Prophet, or He was not.  If neither were what they claimed, maybe the Jews have it right.  

In any case, certainty of belief is not knowledge, and just as you would be put off by a Muslim telling you that Islam is the One True Faith, and that your Christian beliefs are misguided and wrong, however quaint, many of the rest of us have come to our faiths through study and scholarship, not through ignorance and trendiness, so we find your flippant and offhand dismissal of our beliefs quite rude.

The "pluralism" that we pagans espouse, and that you denigrate, does not come from the belief that "all things are equally true", as many Christians think we believe.  It comes from the understanding that, because I can't fully comprehend the Universal Truth, and neither can anyone else, it hardly makes sense for me to tell someone else that their limited understanding of the Ineffable is worse than mine.

Let me restate that, with emphasis:  not all opinions are equally valid, and any person, pagan or otherwise, that tells you that they are hasn't done enough actual thinking.  Not all opinions are valid.  But until we meet the Ineffable, YHWH, Allah, God, the Great Spirit, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever is there beyond death, we don't have an absolute reliable way of determining which faiths are valid, and which are not.

The Pagan Plurality simply recognises this.  I don't buy Gardnerian Wicca.  But I could be wrong.  I don't buy Islam.  But I could be wrong.  I don't buy Satanism.  But I could be wrong.  

That's a basic Pagan tenet, Fistful.  "Here is what I believe.  But I have not learned all there is to know, so I could be wrong."

You have not learned all there is to know either.  You could be wrong.  All of the Pagans here have acknowledged, to themselves, the certainty that they don't have all the answers and the possibility that they may be wrong.  I'd be willing to bet that some of them would even be willing to admit it on the open forum, as I am.

But can you?  Can you admit that, no matter how fervent your belief is, you could be wrong?  And if there's even the slightest possibility that you could be wrong, you have no soapbox whence to cast aspersions on the rest of us.

Namaste,
-BP