Friday, November 9, 2007

A Foot in Both Worlds?

The question today is an old one revisited; that is, can a Wiccan use a Christian pantheon in his/her spiritual life? Time and again we have pointed out that in working with lower-level stone gods, as they are often called, people can use any pantheon they wish. We have knowingly made no exclusions. Don't overlook the 283 named deities in the Celtic pantheon alone; and it is said that in the Hindu pantheon/s there are over 30 thousand. Aren't those enough to choose from?
The real drawback, though, is that Christianity is a dominator cult-of-the-book, whereas we ourselves tend to articulate and pursue a partnership religion based in Nature. Those individuals who want to omit the red-in-tooth-and-claw bit may do so, of course, though we acknowledge that aspect as part of the real world.
Therefore if you are a Christian, ipso facto you cannot be a Wiccan. The cult of Christianity is not compatible with the spiritual path of Wicca. The Wiccan Ultimate overarching unknowable Deity (or perhaps Spiritual Focus) makes Wicca a religion in the temporal dimension, and in the spiritual dimension a spiritual path. At heart it is henotheistic. (Whoa! What a big word. Look it up, though. Surprise--it's been there all the time.) Yet it is not quite even that. In our terminology it is syncretic monotheism that also offers the option of using hearth god-esses. Differences are slight but worth exploring.
So you can use any pantheon you like--but don't drag in the non-win moral values of another religion such as, no sex until a pimply-faced clerk issues you a $10 license to Do It, or other so-called moral values. Many of western culture's "moral values" drive most people straight to the loony bin or onto the path of walking one walk while they talk another talk.
Of course there are other important questions that we can't address in this blog. Examples:
* When does a tampon with its attached nylon cord become a dildo?
* When is a hip not a crotch to someone who has a crotch fixation?
Show of hands : Is there anybody we haven't offended yet?
Blessed be. Gavin and Yvonne

PS Rhiannon: If you are serious about acreage, come visit us in West Virginia. We'll talk.

95 comments:

The Pagan Temple said...

I kind of sort of feel the same way about Buddhists and even Hindus. What Buddhists I have known in real life seem every bit as fundamentalist as Christians, and I don't think Hinduism is as good a fit with modern paganism as it might appear on the surface.

And by the way, would somebody please explain to me just what in the hell is a "Quaker Pagan"?

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

Buddhism is a non-deistic belief, so for many, it might better be called a philosophy rather than a religion. However, I would debate your claim that Hinduism isn't a "good fit" with modern Paganism. Hinduism IS a set of Pagan religions.

Knowledge Is Power said...

Female Deities in Buddhism
A Concise Guide
Vessantara
ISBN: 1899579532
144 pages, paperback, eight colour plates

Queens and old crones, Buddhas and goddesses, mothers and wild women. Female deities in Buddhism take many forms to inspire, beguile, rouse and protect us. Enter the magical realm of gently compassionate Kuan Yin from China, meet the elusive golden goddess from India representing Perfect Wisdom, and tangle with the energetic embodiments of freedom, the fearless sky-dancing dakinis of Tibet.

Respected Western Buddhist teacher Vessantara invites us to learn more about ourselves as women and men by reflecting on these figures, for within us lie the seeds of love, wisdom and freedom that these figures symbolise in their fullness, qualities we can nurture through contemplating the beauty of these enlightened beings.

Engage not just with your head but with your heart. Follow your intuition ... enrich your life.
My thanks to Vessantara for a treasure trove of fascinating information, explanation, and anecdote on the feminine divine. This is an invaluable introductory source book. Sandy Boucher, author of Discovering Kwan Yin, Buddhist Goddess of Compassion


Pure Land Notes
The Gods of Buddhism
by George Walford
Reprinted from Ideological Commentary
Buddhism is frequently called atheistic, but this credits (or debits) it with a definiteness that is hardly present. An atheist is committed to disbelief in deity as strongly as a theist to belief; Buddhism imposes neither requirement. Evil spirits and demons, witches and ogres occupy a great deal of attention, protection from them perhaps even more, and this feature is no mere external accretion; it plays a crucial role in Buddhist thinking.[2] Unaggressive, not concerned to promote any god of its own, Buddhism early accepted the deities of Brahmanism, and its adherents tend to adopt the local gods of whatever region they inhabit.[3] In Japan the indigenous gods of Shintoism and semi-celestial beings from folk- cults have found a welcome, and Tibetan Buddhism incorporates many figures from the native religion as guardian spirits. (General restriction of literacy to the monks has not hindered presentation of these popular tendencies; they appear in pictures and carvings). This change is more than a recent addition; in the time of the Emperor Asoka (264-228 BC), who played a role in some ways similar to that of Constantine in the history of Christianity, the transformation was already well under way, his intervention rather speeding it up. Occasional assertions present Buddha himself as a great god, but even if we discount these as exceptional (or misguided) the religion clearly accepts less sophisticated conceptions of the supernatural; this already links it with the other great faiths, for each of those also offers a place for spirits, demons and similar beings inferior to the great gods.

The Pagan Temple said...

Buddhism is, to me, ritualized atheism, which is fine, but it's more as you said a philosophy, not a religion, though with certain elements of religion.

My point is that most converted Buddhists I've ever come into contact with seem every bit as stridently fundamentalist as fundie Christians, and seem to be driven to convert people just as badly.

Hinduism is of course a set of pagan religions, but I don't see a lot in common with European based paganism or Wicca. The most important thing they seem to have in common is the fact that they are polytheistic, and that's about it.

On the other hand, to be fair, most of the modern pagan religions of the day probably have as little in common with the original ancient European religions they are based on as they do Hinduism.

I mean, honestly, if I could go back in time to ancient Greece, or even Mychaenea, and did the things I do, I'd probably get run out of the polis. I rather suspect that's true of most of us.

I'm really curious about that "Quaker Pagan" thing I've been noticing. Do they cast circles, and if they do, what do they use at the north to symbolize the element of Earth, a bowl of oatmeal? (SA)

fenix said...

Well, PT, you piqued my curiosity, so I looked up Quaker Pagans. I would have to have a better understanding of the Quaker system before I could really get a grasp on a Quaker Pagan spirituality. Kind of odd, really.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

Interestingly, PT, early Buddhism was quite different than it is today. Practitioners had massive wars in India with Hindus. They were actively involved in proselytizing, and as I recall, early Christianity copied this notion from the Buddhists (Buddhism was growing in popularity in Rome and many Priests had visited the Middle East and Rome.

The Pagan Temple said...

Mr. Anderson-

That's very interesting. Would you by any chance know about what time Buddhists visited Rome? Was it in the first century BCE, or later than that?

In what way was early Buddhism different exactly? I had always assumed their acceptance of many of the Hindu deities was merely a way to gain acceptance among the Hindu populace.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Buddha never mentioned the Hindu deities, either to affirm or to deny their existence. As the author put it, he simply ignored them, or, in his words, "he simply left them behind."

This was in H.G. Wells's "History Of The World".

Knowledge Is Power said...

Gautama Buddha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7357027421761048480&postID=6856034060712260598

According to one of the stories in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1), a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons, immediately after his Enlightenment, the Buddha was wondering whether or not he should teach the Dharma to human beings. He was concerned that, as human beings were overpowered by greed, hatred and delusion, they would not be able to see the true dharma, which was subtle, deep and hard to understand. However, a divine spirit, Brahmā Sahampati, interceded and asked that he teach the dharma to the world, as "there will be those who will understand the Dharma". With his great compassion to all beings in the universe, the Buddha agreed to become a teacher.

Teachings
Main article: Buddhist philosophy
"The original teachings of the historical Buddha are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover or reconstruct."[14] While there is disagreement amongst various Buddhist sects over more esoteric aspects of Buddha's teachings and over disciplinary rules for monks, there is generally agreement over these points, among many others, though Mahayana Buddhism tends to regard them as more or less subsidiary:

The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an inherent part of existence; that the origin of suffering is ignorance and the main symptoms of that ignorance are attachment and craving; that attachment and craving can be ceased; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path will lead to the cessation of attachment and craving and therefore suffering.
The Noble Eightfold Path: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.
Dependent origination: that any phenomenon 'exists' only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in a complex web of cause and effect covering time past, present and future. Because all things are thus conditioned and transient (anicca), they have no real independent identity (anatta).
Rejection of the infallibility of accepted scripture: Teachings should not be accepted unless they are borne out by our experience and are praised by the wise. See the Kalama Sutta for details.
Anicca (Sanskrit: anitya): That all things are impermanent.
Anatta (Sanskrit: anātman): That the perception of a constant "self" is an illusion.
Dukkha (Sanskrit: duḥkha): That all beings suffer from all situations due to unclear mind.
According to tradition, the Buddha emphasized ethics and correct understanding. He questioned the average person's notions of divinity and salvation. He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens; and the Buddha is solely a guide and teacher for the sentient beings who must tread the path of Nirvāṇa (Pāli: Nibbāna) themselves to attain the spiritual awakening called bodhi and see truth and reality as it is. The Buddhist system of insight and meditation practice is not believed to have been revealed divinely, but by the understanding of the true nature of the mind, which must be discovered by personally treading a spiritual path guided by the Buddha's teachings.

Knowledge Is Power said...

* When does a tampon with its attached nylon cord become a dildo?

Since you asked the question Gavin, I'll answer it for you. It would become a dildo when someone uses it for sexual pleasure. As for an adult using it with a child, as stated in your Good Witch's Bible, then it would become pedophilia and child rape.

Shadowhawk said...

Way to go KIP.. you managed to turn a thread discussing buddhism and Quaker pagans into another diatribe about Child rape.. Dont you ever get tired of being a bitch..??

The Pagan Temple said...

I misspoke my question. I meant to ask if Buddhists first appeared in Rome in the first century of the Common Era (AD) or if they appeared later than that.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

PT asked:

"That's very interesting. Would you by any chance know about what time Buddhists visited Rome? Was it in the first century BCE, or later than that?"

Although reports indicate they were there by the 1 c.e., their effect was probably more pronounced after 100-200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world

"These accounts at least indicate that Indian religious men (Sramanas, to which the Buddhists belonged, as opposed to Hindu Brahmanas) were circulating in the Levant during the time of Jesus."


PT wrote: "In what way was early Buddhism different exactly? I had always assumed their acceptance of many of the Hindu deities was merely a way to gain acceptance among the Hindu populace."

Buddhism is to Hinduism as Protestantism is to Catholicism. Buddhism started as a reaction to the harshness of the Hindu Brahmans. At times they were quite violent and had large wars against the Hindus. Although today we think of Buddhists as being non-violent, some have consistently battled
Hindus. Even today, in places such as Sri Lanka, Buddhists have attacked Hindu temples. ( http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=76&id=464 ). Be that as it may, when Islamic invaders attacked India, most Buddhists did nothing to oppose them.

So I would say that in most cases today, Buddhists are far more oriented toward non-violent than in the past.

Also, Buddhists of the past were heavily involved in proselytizing. I do not see it today.

PT wrote: "I seem to recall reading somewhere that Buddha never mentioned the Hindu deities, either to affirm or to deny their existence. As the author put it, he simply ignored them, or, in his words, "he simply left them behind."

Yep. Especially since the way worship of the Hindu deities was supposed to be run was determined by the heavy-handed Brahmans. The Buddha's revolt against Hinduism, IMO, was a political search for freedom from oppression with the understanding that unless a spiritual transformation was included, any political change would be futile. Today, it is mostly the spiritual change that is remembered.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

KIP wrote: "When does a tampon with its attached nylon cord become a dildo?... when someone uses it for sexual pleasure."

Do you do this often? If not, when did you stop? Or have you only done this to others or watched others and become aroused when you saw them having "sexual pleasure?" Do you think that dildos are only for sexual pleasure and cannot have other, including medical, purposes? Have you done a great deal of research into dildos? Are the police aware of your interest in this along with your interest in children?

Rhiannon said...

I disagree that religions cannot be mixed. That is only a mind set of our own making. Have an open mind, discover the religion for yourself, in other words do not believe all that you are told. Read, educate yourself, and learn THEN make your belief structure as you would have it NOT by what others say it SHOULD be.
There is bad in ALL religions just as there is good in all religions.


“I kind of sort of feel the same way about Buddhists and even Hindus. What Buddhists I have known in real life seem every bit as fundamentalist as Christians, “

I feel that any “born again” religion has the problems of going over board with their beliefs and pushing them onto others. For some reason they feel fanatical that if they don’t convert people to their side they will be condemned. Of course I have found this to be true in all religions not just Christian religions. Of course what the church teaches has a lot to do with the born again fanatics.
I threw the church out a long time ago and decided to learn about religions on my own. The church is only there for their own good not for the person’s good.

As I said DO NOT let others dictate to you how you should believe.

Knowledge Is Power said...

Gavin Frost said...
* When does a tampon with its attached nylon cord become a dildo?
(this was written by Gavin himself, HE ASKED the question, I simply answered him, because being the immense brain that he is, he doesn't seem to know the answer.)

Since you asked the question Gavin, I'll answer it for you. It would become a dildo when someone uses it for sexual pleasure. As for an adult using it with a child, as stated in your Good Witch's Bible, then it would become pedophilia and child rape.

November 12, 2007 4:23 AM

Well, as usual, you repeat and display your ignorance yet once more. I was answering Gavins' question, that was a part of this thread. As you've both proven time and time again that you're unable to comprehend and completely understand anything that you read, perhaps you should go back and re-read the post by Gavin.

As for accusing me of pedophilia you disgusting, pathetic mouthpiece who never had an original thought in his entire life, I think not.
Pedophilia is W-R-O-N-G. It is AGAINST the LAW. It is harmful. It is disgusting.

I am here to protect children.

As for Buddhism, have you ever practiced it?
I have.
If so, what kind Mr. Ed?

fenix said...

Geez, learn to take a joke, will ya?

Don't know if you've noticed or not, but civility has been the tone here as of late. No cussing, no name-calling, none of the garbage that was running rampant a month or so ago.

By the way, are you a part of Pagan Nation? I wasn't ever clear on that.

The Pagan Temple said...

Mr Anderson-

My experience with Buddhist proselytizers has been limited to American converts. I didn't mean to imply that this was a typical mindset among Buddhists from more traditional backgrounds. More than likely the American converts brought a Christian mindset into the process.

Also, are you saying that Buddhists of the First Century C.E. were non-pacifists? I am particularly curious about the Buddhists that appeared in Rome during this time. Were they pacifists, or is this known as to whether or not they were pacifists?

I had assumed pacifism had always been a part of their philosophy.

Knowledge Is Power said...

The Pagan Temple said...
Mr Anderson-

My experience with Buddhist proselytizers has been limited to American converts. I didn't mean to imply that this was a typical mindset among Buddhists from more traditional backgrounds. More than likely the American converts brought a Christian mindset into the process.

PT, why not ask a Buddhist? Simply contact any Buddhist organization etc?
You're absolutely wrong about Buddhist proselityzing being an American mindset. It comes straight from the source as a means to gaining positive Karma from within the religion itself. It's simply a human condition, I think. Rather than bringing followers to God as a selfless Christian act, in a way, and in a very roundabout way, it's about promoting your own good Karma.
I know that MR. Ed A. is the expert and authority on everything from psychology to the Archeology of the Art of Altamira, but I think you could learn, of course if you truly want to learn, by speaking to practicing Buddhists. That is of course if you want to learn the truth as it really is.
You can read all the books you want, but until you experience the actual religion how can you truly know?

The Pagan Temple said...

Good point, KIP. My main area of interest though is the pacifistic nature of the religion, and whether that was the case during the first century C.E., particularly among those adherents who traveled to Rome. It's an area of particular interest to me.

What you said though about proselytizing being related to the Buddhist concept of karma makes a good deal of sense. It is actually quite similar to the Christian view of proselytizing. Still, that nevertheless makes it a valid point, that those converts who comes from such a Christian background would fit right in with that concept, so to speak.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

PT, I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I was stating is that early on, Buddhism had a strong conversion ethic. I have not seen that among most Buddhists (with, perhaps, the exception of Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism). However you may be right that the modern Buddhists who do proselytize may be taking their cues from Christian sects.

Buddhism has always had sects--very large ones--that were pacifist. When the Moslems invaded India, Hindus fought them. Most Buddhists did not. It made the invasion and take over of India easier for the Moslem invaders.

KIP, it was clear the Gavin Frost had asked the question and you were giving a reply. I was simply quoting your entire post which included the comment from Gavin.

However, I note that you didn't answer any of my questions. You claim to be anti-child abuse, yet you seem so focused on it, constantly bringing it up, it is quite clear that you are fascinated by it and in a far more personal way than someone who is simply anti-child abuse.

If someone is anti-smoking, they don't go to every web site where people talk about smoking and denounce it. They don't get up in the morning and say, "Hmm...I think today I'll go out and harass some smokers." IF it comes up they may take a stand, but they don't go looking for it because that's not part of their psyche.

You, on the other hand, have sought out the Frosts to attack them. And now, that I've questioned you, it appears that this is too close to home for you to be comfortable. I wouldn't be surprised if you had abused a child in the past or had strong urges to molest a child.

Or possibly you're just caught up as a groupie in Mr. Drews obsessive mental illness. In which case, I hope you decide that helping him get better is more important than supporting his illness.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

Oh, sorry, KIP. I didn't answer your question. Yes, I practiced Vajrayana Buddhism for some time until I became disenchanted with some of the basic concepts which I consider to be anti-life and enjoyment.

I know you are having a wonderful time trying to make up things about me--a simple act from a simple mind, albeit one that you fail miserably at--so please not that I am NOT saying that any form of Buddhism is anti-life and enjoyment, I am only saying that I consider it to be so. It was my experience. I'm sure many others totally disagree.

The Pagan Temple said...

Mr. Anderson-

It strikes me actually that most and perhaps all eastern religions are anti-life and anti-enjoyment, as you say. That seems to be the case to me, though I am far from an expert, with most if not all of the major Hindu sects. This is one of the things I meant when I said Hindu religions don't strike me as being as good a fit with modern pagan religions as they might seem to be on the surface.

Consider-most Hindu sects consider women to be of less importance than men. They might deny that, but the fact is that women just do not have the same degree of rights as men, and men do seem to dominate women as a natural course.

Also, the whole taboo some of the major sects contain against tobacco, alcohol, etc, would be a consideration, in addition to their rather old-fashioned views regarding sexuality.

So, despite the soft spot I hold in my heart for the little blue god, as I call him, I tend to think they are far too rigid for my tastes.

Mstr. E. Anderson said...

Okay. As you probably know, there is no real religion called Hinduism. There are an enormous variety of sects that have some common beliefs. Many have an anti-life (get-me-off-the-wheel-of-reincarnation!!) viewpoint. Others, especially some of the earlier ones, the various pre-Hindu and Tantric sects, are very pro-life. Even though many Hindu sects are anti-life, some are also focused on the idea that one of the things each person must learn is enjoyment in life as opposed to the life-is-horrible, only the next life matters view. So it really depends upon the sects.

Similarly, most Buddhist sects are of the get-me-off-the-wheel philosophy, but some value life so much that in Tibet they adopted pre-Buddhist shamanic concepts and have a black magic technique of exchanging the consciousness of an old and failing magician with that of a virile young person so the old person can continue on.

I would agree with Wikipedia's entry that "Paganism" refers to religions and faiths other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Therefore, various Hindu sects (they're actually collectively known as "Sanatana Dharma") are, by definition, Pagan.

You're correct that mainstream Hindu traditions can be very restrictive to women, minorities, classes, social mores, etc. However, the non-mainstream traditions within Hinduism are quite different.

fenix said...

mr. e. anderson said - "I would agree with Wikipedia's entry that "Paganism" refers to religions and faiths other than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Therefore, various Hindu sects (they're actually collectively known as "Sanatana Dharma") are, by definition, Pagan."

Not to sound like a snob, but I sometimes have a problem with the broad definitions of Paganism. How do we narrow down American neo-Paganism without defining it all as Wicca? Or is American neo-Paganism good enough?

Shadowhawk said...

Not All American Neo Paganism is wicca.. Narrowing it down is impossible.. To many non wiccan strains or flavors of pagan worship.. from Druidry to Asatru to Feraferia to Gnostic Pagans so on and so forth.The broad definition works because its not exclusionary.. If you only define paganism as Wicca then you leave out to much of the other non wiccan pagan traditions.. just my thought.. And Kip doesnt care about Civil discussion as long as she gets her superior attitude across.. and an attack or two

fenix said...

I don't think of American neo-Paganism as being only Wicca, or only Druidism, or only Asatru - I think that sort of thinking is like saying all Christians are Baptists - not correct. But I also wonder why Paganism needs to be such an overreaching umbrella term for so many different paths. What I have learned and studied is nothing like Buddhism or Hinduism, yet it's all called "Paganism."

The Pagan Temple said...

Paganism fits as a collective term, it's a matter of simplification. Perhaps it's over simplification, but it still fits in with what we think of as paganism in general.

Actually, some groups dislike and even resent the term pagan. One example of this would be some Hellenic Reconstructionists, many of whom seem to actually view the term pagan with a degree of disdain.

Of course, these are the same people that will argue you for hours on end as to the true parentage of Hecate, so it's hard for me to take them seriously, certainly not as seriously as they tend to take themselves.

Knowledge Is Power said...

Mr. Anderson,

Thinking about how to respond to your post, the only thoughts that come to mind are this...you have a very simple tactic of what you perceive to be 'fighting back'. When people of opposing thought come to post their feelings, you simply and simplistically attack with the only tools available to you. You diagnose people as being mentally ill, I've asked you twice I believe, if you are in fact a licensed psychologist to which you never responded, I can only assume that you are not. You look like a fool. I told you of my close friend with her masters in Social Work, a Pagan and of her reaction to the book, still to this day, supported by the Frost's and yourself. She was horrified and disgusted. You never responded. You call people "Drewbies" because you very simply cannot conceive that anyone could independently oppose the Frost's version of Wicca.

You've been presented with evidence to the contrary that the Baton de Commandment was not a tool to mutilate virgins with in times past. You deny the archeological evidence. You support a pedophilic instructional, you assume that the Frost's practiced this and you stand by the Frost's and their 'rights'. Now you accuse me of pedophilia, because you have no other recourse, you have no other tools at your disposal with which you can have an honest debate. Therefore, you're attempting to strike the lowest possible blow. Please, do present it to the Police. When they see what you've written, how do you think you'll look? You've been presented with evidence that the 60's weren't a time of completely open sexuality including children, you implied that what I said mightn't be true. People had to work, people had homes, children, family, pets to feed and care for. While we lived a different lifestyle compared to today, one of constant learning and exploration, life wasn't one great big love in where everyone was high on LSD and having sex out in the open. It doesn't matter, you don't want to know the truth as it was, only how you'd like it to be. I don't know if you can understand this, but some people like and enjoy the truth. They like to know it, to understand and to live it. That especially includes education. Some of us will hunt for it and search for it. We don't need to lie for our self esteem. Our self esteem comes from working hard at anything we do and being the best we can be by doing our best work. Those of us who are honest individuals point out dishonesty when we see it. I'm surprised that you didn't learn that while you practiced Buddhism.

People, including myself have come here hoping for an intellectual exchange, to ask questions, to get answers. We are sworn at by Shadowhawk, who sadly, seems to be capable of nothing other than blindly lashing out. No hope of any debate there. No hope of any factual anything, he simply rages on that he will defend the Frost's until the end of time and how incredibly horrible everyone is for 'attacking' them. I didn't write the damn book, the Frost's did. It disgusts those of us who oppose it. Fools that we are, and I'm speaking for everyone that opposes the book, though I don't have that right, hoped that perhaps, just perhaps, the Frost's might say something along the lines of "Yeah, well, we thought it was a good idea at the time, (though how anyone could think it was is beyond my comprehension) and we think differently now. " Nope. Yes, it angers people. Those of us that love our children are very upset and angry and disgusted by it.

I'm not going to try to debate with you any more. I'm not going to engage with you at all. It's purely and simply a waste of my time.

Shadowhawk said...

..Lol.KIP want me to show you the posts where you call me a fucking idiot.. Real debate.. You dont want that.. you want to attack someone for what they wrote in a book.. You accuse them of practicing what they wrote with no proof.. So now lets talk .. have you SEEN them do this.. has there EVER been a victim come forth.. on both counts NO.. so tell me HOW im lashing out providing FACTS these arent assumptions.. So now what KIP. your so ANTI FROST. that you refuse to believe that they havent done what was written in the Witches Bible.. why is that.. or do you enjoy hating someone for no reason

fenix said...

Knowledge Is Power, are you with Pagan Nation?

Ed Anderson said...

KIP wrote:
"...you have a very simple tactic of what you perceive to be 'fighting back'. "

Wrong. A false assumption on your part. I have never said anything about "fighting back." I'm not fighting against anything. I support logic, reason, science, and truth. These are things which you, and some others, can't stand because it opposes your predetermined beliefs based on passion and illogic.

"When people of opposing thought come to post their feelings, you simply and simplistically attack with the only tools available to you."

No. If people want to post their feelings and say, "I feel..." I have no problem with that. Feelings may have nothing to do with logic and reason and it's fair to point that out. However, when people make obviously false and illogical statements, that should be pointed out, too.

Or are you completely opposed to logic, reason, and truth?

"You diagnose people as being mentally ill,"

False. I have only diagnosed ONE person that way. I even quoted from the DSM IV (do you have the faintest idea of what that is?) to show why the diagnosis is valid. And neither you, nor anyone else, has challenged the diagnosis.

"I've asked you twice I believe, if you are in fact a licensed psychologist to which you never responded, I can only assume that you are not."

As has been typical of your past posts, you make assumptions without any proof or logic. I chose not to reply because it's none of your business what I do professionally. You're a nobody. Just pixels on my screen.

But, of course, like so many people who are incapable of thinking for themselves or doing any research, you look to "authorities." Wow! Mr. Drew wrote some books so I have to agree with whatever he says. Wow! I know someone with a second-rate degree so they must only speak the truth. So now, so you'll fall in awe at my bona fides, yes, I am licensed to practice clinical psychology. Look up the term "diplomate."

"You look like a fool."

Ah, another attack with absolutely nothing to back it up.

"I told you of my close friend with her masters in Social Work, a Pagan and of her reaction to the book, still to this day, supported by the Frost's and yourself. She was horrified and disgusted. You never responded."

Really? I'd like to see a COMPLETE review of the entire book from her, not just the few pages you and others quote out of context.

"You call people "Drewbies" because you very simply cannot conceive that anyone could independently oppose the Frost's version of Wicca."

Wrong again. I have NEVER called anyone a "Drewbie." I have continuously posted that the book is a failure, so I hardly have a problem with people opposing the Frost's version of Wicca. Not only that, but I also think there are lots of errors in their other books. So again you're wrong. However, when people repeatedly follow the EXACT PATTERN of what Mr. Drew has posted and believes, I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE that they have come to independently oppose what the Frost's wrote. When they continuously follow his tactics and simply rewrite what he has posted, I don't see any independence, just hero worship.

"You've been presented with evidence to the contrary that the Baton de Commandment was not a tool to mutilate virgins"

No. It's impossible to present such evidence. ALL descriptions of their use--including the ones given by the Frosts--are conjecture about prehistory. Show a contemporary document about how they were used and I'll believe you. Until then, it's all guesses.

"... You support a pedophilic instructional, you assume that the Frost's practiced this and you stand by the Frost's and their 'rights'."

I have never supported any pedophiliac instruction. You're a liar.
I have never claimed the Frost's practiced this.
You're a liar.
I stand by ALL person's civil rights. It would seem that you reject such right and thus, reject the core of everything American and patriotic.

"Now you accuse me of pedophilia, because you have no other recourse, you have no other tools at your disposal with which you can have an honest debate."

No. I have accused you of nothing. To paraphrase the words of your personal god, Mr. Drew, "I'm just commenting on a post." However you do seem awfully focused on child abuse, so much so that it's quite possible that you are like the evangelist who frequently denounce homosexuality until it was revealed that he had paid for gay sex.

"Therefore, you're attempting to strike the lowest possible blow. Please, do present it to the Police."

Present what? There's as much evidence against you as there is against the Frosts: none. Curiously, when I wrote the same things to those who attack words that have had no effect on anyone, they flap like a fish out of water and then go away. Logic and reason can't change beliefs, but they destroy stupidity and illogic.

"... You've been presented with evidence that the 60's weren't a time of completely open sexuality including children, you implied that what I said mightn't be true."

Well, there are two possibilities with this statement. Either you have me confused with another poster (perhaps the reason you made false statements above) or you're just lying. I NEVER wrote that the 60s were a "time of completely open sexuality including children." I never commented on that.

So it would seem that you're following a technique of the Fox News school of reporting: make a false
claim about what someone said and denounce it.

"People had to work, people had homes, children, family, pets to feed and care for. While we lived a different lifestyle compared to today, one of constant learning and exploration, life wasn't one great big love in where everyone was high on LSD and having sex out in the open."

So. I've never posted, said, or believed anything differently. But I would like to know why you're lying about me.

" It doesn't matter, you don't want to know the truth as it was, only how you'd like it to be."

LOL! You make up things I never said and make false accusations about it, but claim I don't want to know the truth? Bwhahahahahah. It would seem you couldn't write the truth if it bit you.

"I don't know if you can understand this, but some people like and enjoy the truth. They like to know it, to understand and to live it."

From this post, it would seem that excludes you.


"That especially includes education. Some of us will hunt for it and search for it. We don't need to lie for our self esteem. "

But that's EXACTLY what you've done!

"Our self esteem comes from working hard at anything we do and being the best we can be by doing our best work."

Which, for you, includes making false statements about what people have said. Either that or NOT doing your best work by looking at who made various posts.

"Those of us who are honest individuals point out dishonesty when we see it. I'm surprised that you didn't learn that while you practiced Buddhism."

Apparently, you've been too busy trying to deny people their right to bother looking in a mirror. That's been the source of dishonesty in your post.

"People, including myself have come here hoping for an intellectual exchange, to ask questions, to get answers."

Now you're self-deluded. You continually focus on the same point--whatever Mr. Drew is currently ranting about concerning the Frosts--and attack anyone who dares to stand up for logic, reason, and freedom.

"We are sworn at by Shadowhawk, who sadly, seems to be capable of nothing other than blindly lashing out. No hope of any debate there. No hope of any factual anything, he simply rages on that he will defend the Frost's until the end of time and how incredibly horrible everyone is for 'attacking' them."

Take that up with Shadowhawk. I have nothing to do with what he says.

"I didn't write the damn book, the Frost's did. It disgusts those of us who oppose it."

From your posts, which simply ape what Mr. Drew has written, I have seen absolutely NO evidence to support the idea that you have read the book. I doubt if you've even seen a copy unless someone waved it in the air.

"Fools that we are, and I'm speaking for everyone that opposes the book, though I don't have that right, hoped that perhaps, just perhaps, the Frost's might say something along the lines of "Yeah, well, we thought it was a good idea at the time, (though how anyone could think it was is beyond my comprehension) and we think differently now. " Nope."

So contrary to your claim, you weren't looking for "an intellectual exchange, to ask questions." You simply wanted the Frosts to bow to Mr. Drew's attacks (and yours) and beg your forgiveness. And when you didn't get it, you became pissy and just attack, attack, attack on a few pages from the book.

"Yes, it angers people. Those of us that love our children are very upset and angry and disgusted by it."

Baloney! Self-deluded baloney. The vast majority of sexual child abuse is done by relatives and close family friends. Do you keep all of your relatives and close family friends away from your children? If not, then you're a liar.

You know, Mr. Drew is mentally ill. But he presents the Frosts as a good target, especially among people with no training in logic or American civics. And I can understand with all of the reporting of child abuse that looking for a target is much easier than looking after your children. It's much easier to blame a book for your problems--even though you haven't produced any evidence to show that it has ever been the direct cause of any child abuse--than to actually take personal responsibility for your actions.

Years ago, it was imagined Satanists who abused children and had "mobile crematories" to destroy the bodies. There were no such people, but it was an easy way to try and fight the very real terrors of modern society rather than actually deal with them. Likewise, trying to focus all of the worlds problems on a freakin' book is an easy way not to have to actually help people.

How many abused children have you adopted? How many clinics have you worked in? How many times have you testified in court in child abuse cases? How many times have you testified in front of government committees to get laws passed that will actually help children?

Right now, President Bush and his sycophants are doing everything in their power to stop the passage of the SCHIP bill that would provide medical care to tens of thousand of children. Have you contacted your congressman to support the bill? Have you contacted your senators to support the bill?

Have you done anything at all? More likely you're all talk and no action.

"I'm not going to try to debate with you any more."

In other words, like a petulant child you're going to take your ball and go home because you can't bowl me over with repetition.

" I'm not going to engage with you at all. It's purely and simply a waste of my time."

Besides, it would show you up for the illogical, anti-freedom, anti-civil rights do-nothing that you are.

Shadowhawk said...

Yes Waiter ill have what Mr Anderson is having.. and GEE KIP..looks like hes got your number.. even down to the Area code.. and yes Fenix KIP is on Pagan Nation

Shak El said...

The Japanese Buddhist Priest Nichiren taught as a major principle in his form of buddhism: "earthly desires are enlightenment."

Shak El said...

There is nothing inherently Xian about evangelicalism. The Ancient Mystery religions (which original Xiniaty was on of) were evangelical especially Mythriaism. Pagans should not shy away from evangelicalism just because the early British wiccans adopted the an anti-evagelical stance which is more cultural than doctrinal.

The Pagan Temple said...

Shak El-

I guess it depends on your definition of evangelicalism. To most of us, the word leaves a bad taste. It implies a sense of reaching out to the uninitiated with what is generally implied as the "one true way". I know that's probably not what you are meaning, but you should understand that anytime proselytization becomes an inherent part of any kind of religious cultural environment, that more often than not is a natural progression.

It's best in my opinion to avoid it. Those who are honest, sincere seekers will find their way, either to us, or away from us.

Shak El said...

Evangelicalism is the sharing of the Good News and in this case the Good News of Paganism. It is a sharing. The Buddha once said "don't be stingy with the dharma treasures (teachings)."

Mr.E__Anderson said...

Shak, in today's world there is a BIG difference between sharing and evangelizing. IMO evangelizing is forcing your opinion onto other who aren't interested. This can eventually lead to intimidation and force to make others follow your path.

Sharing is simply the offering of information to those who ask about.

Sharing=what I believe
Evangelizing=what I demand you must believe

I'm strongly in favor of sharing. I'm strongly opposed to evangelizing. I have never seen Pagans evangelize. I have seen them be willing to share.

fenix said...

If what Shak El does is considered evangelical or proselytizing, then he has a very gentle way of going about it. I've known him for years, and while he does share his knowledge of Buddhism (among the many spiritualities he has studied!), he has never made me feel harassed or pressured.

I suppose, in our own little way, what we do here in our little city could be considered proselytizing of a sort. We have a tv show and websites, we speak at college classes, we're getting ready to gear up a newsletter (thanks for the info, Shak El). I have no problem with sharing the information, up to a point. But I don't think any of us would ever stop a stranger on the street and say, "Cerridwyn loves you!"

Shak El said...

I do think we should counter-evengelicalize, that is, if handed a tract give one back

fenix said...

Heh! Wonder if mom still has any copies of "The Other People?"

The Pagan Temple said...

Maybe somebody should become the Pagan Jack Chick. Hahahaha. That would be hilarious. Of course, I think Jack Chick is funny, what do I know?

Shadowhawk said...

There are Pagan Chic Type Tracts.. the are 2 .. one is called The Other People.. and one wear its a spoof on the asatru its in English and Runes.. The guy who puts them out is Pete Pathfinder Davis of the Aquaeian Tabernacle Church

Shadowhawk said...

Just call it the ATC..lol

The Pagan Temple said...

Those kinds of tracks could actually make a big splash, when you stop to think about it. It depends on how they were done. If they were taken as a satire of Chick tracks, it would garner a lot of attention, provided they were well done and hopefully funny, and at the same time it could make people more interested in learning about paganism, without having to hastle people. Just leave a bunch of tracks laying around places, and let whoever wants to read them read them, and then have numbers, web-sites, etc. printed on them for those interested in more information.

fenix said...

http://www.aquatabch.org/afwe/antitracts.php

This is the addy for the tracts that Pete Pathfinder has done so far. I'd love to see more done!

MrAnderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrAnderson said...

Anybody can pop over and read Mr. Drew's blog. He's commenting on this post of the Frost's, and it shows just how obsessed and mentally ill he is.

In his blog he writes, "It is my great hope that Wiccans one-day share some of the values of the larger Christian community..."

Hmm. Non-toleration of other religions? Homophobia? A focus on only the individual and an abandonment of community? These, unfortunately, are the values of many Christians today as they seemingly abandon some of the ideals of Christianity.

But the big thing is that Mr. Drew, who has claimed that he is not a Wiccan, wants to determine what Wiccans should do and believe. This is just a further sign of his mental illness. His blog, as usual, is another repetitive attack on the Frosts (how many times can you say the same thing and not bore everyone?). He is willing to abandon EVERYTHING Wiccan, everything Pagan, just so he can tilt at the Frost windmill.

In the past, I have posted that Mr. Drew will destroy everything, including the Pagan community, in an obsessive assault on the Frosts. If you're a Pagan, you don't matter to Mr. Drew, I don't matter, NOBODY matters to Mr. Drew. All that matters is fulfilling the illness of his mind. As long as his issues are focused on all of Paganism can rot as far as he's concerned, . He is one sick puppy and he needs help.

But let's go further. Again, his blog is an attack on the Frosts, loosely based around a sentence of the "A Foot in Both Worlds?" blog by the Frosts. Now, because of his obsession, I have said that he is the Fred Phelps of Paganism (look Phelps up if you don't know). In his blog he notes that he has been called "...the Adolph Hitler or Rush Limbaugh of paganism..." (Note that like Christianity, Paganism consists of a set of religions and therefore, deserves to be capitalized. But since in his mind only he matters, he refuses to capitalize the word, clearly indicating that he thinks more of Christianity than he does of Paganism.), refusing to address the much more appropriate naming I gave him. Perhaps that hits far too close to home.

However, that is just conjecture. I can say, however, that he does clearly write, "I would prefer it if folk use the name Bill O’Reiley as that would greatly impress my aging mother & to be honest, I rather like some of his antics as well as his common use of the word “folk” and of course the plural “folks”."

I would encourage EVERYONE reading this to do a web search for the name "Andrea Mackris." Ms. Mackris was sexually harassed by Mr. O'Reilly. As a result, he settled out of court allegedly for millions of dollars. Fox News was so terrified over Mr. O'Reilly's actions, that there are no longer any women producers or assistants for him.

But as the commercials say, "But wait, there's more!"

Mr. O'Reilly wrote a novel in 1998 called Those Who Trespass. There's even a "books on tape" version with him reading it. Now, get ready for this: it includes child pornography! It has a main character having sex with underaged girls by getting them stoned on crack cocaine. Here's a quote from the book:

“Robo used his “product” only occasionally, but tonight was special. He had two fifteen-year-old girls who would do anything for the drug, and he was determined to exploit the situation.

“Say, baby, put that pipe down and get my pipe up,” Robo said to one of the girls. She was so intoxicated she had trouble standing, but Robo was her sugar daddy, and as he sat on a filthy, imitation, leather couch, there in the living room of a run-down three-bedroom apartment, she obediently performed oral sex on him.

Five feet away, the other teenage girl sat on a mattress on the floor and watched, greedily sucking on the crack pipe Robo had passed to her. Edgar looked over and grinned, showing yellow, decaying teeth. Obviously, he preferred oral sex to oral hygiene.

“You’re next, girl, and I want you to do her too,” he ordered. As Robo took the crack pipe back the girl groggily nodded her consent. Inhaling deeply, Robo blew the cocaine smoke out through his nose and mouth. The bitter taste left him feeling powerful, energized, and free of worry. He was bad and he was flush.”

Do a web search and you can actually find him reading it.

So who does Mr. Drew "prefer" to be compared to? A child pornographer who sexually harasses women. Please remember that as part of his illness he will denounce the group he pretends to be a part of and support those who do what he accuses the Frosts of.

********
The source of Mr. Drew's attacks has NOTHING to do with the Frosts. It's all about Mr. Drew's mental illness.
***********

I'll say it again. If people know him personally, PLEASE advise him to get into therapy. If he is in therapy, it's not working and he desperately needs new care. Will someone please, please, get him the help he so desperately needs before he harms someone close to him?

wushih said...

Maybe Mr. Drew's wife didn't write his latest post but I sure bet she helped him. What is he going to do next? Will he leave Paganism entirely and get himself saved? Was he ever really a Pagan in the first place? Where does he get off accusing all of Paganism of molesting little kids? I have seriously wondered about his own tendencies.

If he gets saved he can attack Paganism and claim to be completely justified.

No wait, he is already doing that.

Shadowhawk said...

I almost wonder if Drew is Paranoid Schizophrenic.. And Pagans being more like Christians.. Lets hope not. Thats the dichotomy weve been shrinking away from for years.. Why would we embrace it..?

The Pagan Temple said...

You can list multiple ways in which Christians have been abusive to everybody in their congregations, including but not limited to children.

For example, the Catholic Church. Then, there are some branches of Mormonism. Yes, I understand that mainstream Christians don't think of them as Christians, but they are at least a Christian sect, one that is growing and powerful, and certainly mainstream in the sense of it's acceptance overall.

I also understand that mainstream Mormonism no longer advocates or tolerates multiple marriages. However, this is mainly because the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints were obliged to officially discontinue this practice in order to pave the way for Utah becoming a state.

Still, there are various sects of "fundamentalist" Mormons that continue to practice this aberration, for to them, it is mainstream Mormonism that is the aberration. And, in typical cases, these multiple marriages involve young teenage girls married to older men-in many cases much older men.

As for Protestant Christianity in general, how can it not be described as cruel to teach impressionable children that if they don't tow the line, so to speak, that when they die they will suffer in hell for eternity?

I am not one of those who hate Christians, so to speak. I have Christian friends, and this would include socially conservative Christians, of the Jerry Falwell variety. In fact, the father of one of my best friends from years past sits on the board of Liberty University, or he did the last I heard.

Furthermore, in my opinion, children have no business-no fucking business whatsoever-being involved in any kind of religion or religious environment. Sure, they can be taught the basics, by their parents and other family members, but they shouldn't be involved in any kind of adult rituals-sexual or otherwise.

I base this on the same reason that you wouldn't just hand your car keys over to your eight year old after you've let him or her drive up and down the driveway a few times. They just aren't mature enough to process certain things.

There are certain things about all religions that are similar, and there are certain things in which they are different. From what I have seen and understood, Paganism and Wicca, at least as a general rule, is far superior an environment to bring up children than a religion that teaches them they are bound for hell the minute they get a little pissed off and say "the Lord's name in vain", or get a hard on, or what the fuck ever, unless they pray for "forgiveness."

Wicca and Paganism, at least at it's best, can teach people to become responsible adults and to be the best person they can possibly be, and to live their dreams and pursue them in moderation, and to contribute to society.

Christianity, at least at it's worse, can turn them into a bunch of neurotic fucking nuts.

fenix said...

I'm curious to know why some people think Christianity has a lock on morality. I had always thought the ethical code behind "Harm none, do what thou wilt" was a helluva lot tougher than, say, the ten commandments.

Besides, as Pagans, aren't we supposed to think for ourselves, rather than allowing someone else to make all our decisions for us?

Shadowhawk said...

Lol yea right Christianity has the lock on morality..look at Ted Haggard . Oral, and now Richard Roberts who is chancellor of Oral Roberts University Tulsa Okloahoma. Or Jim Bakker and Jessica Hahn.or Jimmy Swaggart and his I have sinned against you speech..Yep thats some killer christian morality for ya.. And they call us barbaric..i just knew it wouldnt be long before pagans would groove to the fundementalist beat..Kinda sad

Shadowhawk said...

Lets not forget that blockbuster film...JESUS CAMP

A.J. Drew said...

Ya know, if I were able to control people as well as some of these folk say, I would live on mountain high with riches exceeding my desires. I think a much easier answer to why it is that so many people seem to agree with my view point is that it is the common opinion and I simply agree with them.

Read the book. Make up your own mind. I say children should not be initiated into Wicca via sex and I think most Wiccans agree.

fenix said...

Children should not be initiated, period. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that thinks otherwise.

Shadowhawk said...

So which is it AJ are you Wiccan Christian or Heathen.. Your a very confused guy i think.. Knew you couldnt not comment in here for long.. Its that disease.. Youlve been bit by the fundementalism bug.. You think your some charismatic call to arms kind of pagan.. But really your just deluded

The Pagan Temple said...

I know there will never be any children initiated, in any manner, or otherwise involved in any way, in any rituals conducted by any coven group I'm a member of, and for damn sure none that I'm a High Priest of. Dem be just da facts, ma'am.

MrAnderson said...

Once again, Mr. Drew points out that his illness has made him blind to his own shortcomings.

He ignores the fact that he now "would prefer" to be favorably compared to a writer of child pornography who lost millions for sexual harassment. He says nothing about that. Why? Because it's not in his view. Nor does he comment on the fact that he's far closer to Fred Phelps than Hitler or Limbaugh. He can't see that.

So the people who oppose HIM (not necessarily support the Frosts) for his attempt to destroy Paganism are necessarily wrong. In his latest post here he invents the claim that people have said he is controlling others. I have seen no evidence to support that. It's a "straw man" argument. Invent some false cause and attack it, thereby disproving what others have said about you.

Let me make clear, others voluntarily choose to follow what you say because they want a piece of your supposed fame. They make posts supporting your claims for the same reason that groupies have sex with rock musicians. That is why I have called them groupies.

In fact, the vast majority of them, as is clear by their posts, have never read the Frost's book. Rather, they simply, and repetitively, post what you have posted. There doesn't seem to be an original thought among them on this issue.

None of the people posting here or who have countered your innumerable illness-driven posts has suggested that children should be initiated into anything via sex. Saying otherwise is yet another of your straw men. Of course, your mental illness, clinical obsession, prevents you from understanding that.

You claim that "so many people seem to agree with my view point." Of course, your obsessive disease keeps you in an environment where that is all you see and hear. It's like George Bush who keeps around him only people who agree with him. There are hundreds of thousands of Pagans in the U.S., and I doubt if more than a few thousand have even HEARD of you. So without any documentation--especially using spurious push polling as I'm sure you'd love to do"--your statement is unproven and without support.

Mr. Drew, there are only a HANDFUL of people who agree with you. They're all on your website. It's all you ever see. Having such a closed vision is typical of people who are obsessive. Nothing matters except the obsession.

Mr. Drew, you now say you would prefer to be compared to a child pornographer and a sex harasser. I think most Wiccans agree that harassing women a being a child pornographer is wrong. You also wrote that you want to "share some of the values of the larger Christian community." I think most Wiccans have abandoned Christianity because they can no longer support the values of the "larger Christian community."

As someone who now says he wants to be like Christians, write child porn and harass women, why do you think what you write has ANY relevance to any Pagan? It's because that doesn't matter. All that matters is your obsession, your illness that you refuse to get treatment for.

I do hope you get into appropriate therapy and get treatment soon before your obsession switches over to your family and friends and you hurt someone close to you.

For your sake, the sake of your loved ones, and for the sake of the Pagan community, get some help!

The Pagan Temple said...

I've come to the conclusion that stealing is wrong, and I am sure most pagans would agree with me. Everybody bow down, and in lieu of flowers, kindly send money.

Rhiannon said...

My My My! You all have been busy since I have been gone!
Wow!
Now we have the typical Christian Bashing from Wiccans. Once again the wheel has turned.
Sounds like a bunch of radical Pagans in here.

Anyone can look back at old posts and see where anderson calls people names and mentally ill besides Drew and where he does call people who disagree with him Drew groupies.

BTW I was in WV on my last business trip checking out some things there.

Anyway I don't know when I will get time to be back so....
Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!

I'll leave you all with a little song.....
Drewbie dobie dos your so enlightening.
Drewbie dobie dos you strike like lighting.
Drewbie dobie dos, they love you sooooooooo.

Hey have fun while you can kids! :)

Mister Edward Anderson said...

Poor Rhiannon!

As a groupie for Mr. Drew she complete avoids the fact that he "prefers" to be equated with a known child pornographer, a man who paid over a million dollars to have a case of sexual harassment dismissed and his producers fired all of this man's women assistants to make sure it didn't happen again.

Nice person you're supporting, Rhiannon. Who are you going to follow next, Kenneth Bianchi?

fenix said...

Christian bashing? I thought we were discussing evangelism and proselytizing as it pertains to Pagans, Buddhists and Hindus, and that Christians have taken it to an extreme. Didn't realize that was "bashing," although I suppose a Christian might see it that way.

The Pagan Temple said...

Alright, for one thing, what in each individual's mind makes a Christian? Certain people seem insistent that we be "tolerant" towards Christians. All right, let's do that, then.

Let's join hands, or try to do so, with Christians such as those of the Episcopal Church, who have made great strides in recent years to exercise tolerance towards homosexuals, and have ordained women to be priests. Let's also show some degree at least of acceptance towards such Christians as tose that make up the United Churches of Christ. They seem to be, on average, very liberal, tolerant people.

See, though, I have an idea that's where it stops with these people that want to be "tolerant" towards "Christians". See, I never called any names, because of course I know there are exceptions to every rule. However, speaking in a general sense, most peopel that talk this blather generally are very selective as far a what the consider a "Christian" should be.

Well, I am not so selective. To me, a Christian is not only the branches I have mentioned, but also the Roman Catholic Churches and Orthodox Church two Christian churches that tend to be very conservative in some things.

Then of course there are the good old Southern Baptists. They tend to be very, very conservative in almost everything, and tend to take every single word written in the Bible as literally the word of God.

Well, I tolerate and respect them as well, with all their warts, and all their beliefs, including the ones I don't agree with. In fact, including the ones I disagree with strongly.

See, I walk the walk. I don't talk fucking shit, in other words.

I am every bit as tolerant of the rights of one, as the other-yes, including even Fred Phelps, though I draw the line at his protesting military funerals, which I personally feel he ha no constitutional right to do, as in doing so he is intruding on a family's private grief. Otherwise-no fucking problem whatsoever.

If I was to see Fred Phelps, or James Dobson, or any religious leader, I would be the first one to invite him for a cup of coffee. I would listen respectfully, and then I would tell them what I believed, which in many cases might be the same, and in a good many cases would be totally different, fro what they believe.

If by the time our coffee discussion was over, if anybody would be tearing their hair out, it wouldn't be me.

That's neither here nor there. The point is, just because you are tolerant of someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything. Or, for that matter, anything.

I would appreciate it if those people who are so insistent that we be tolerant towards Christians, would specify just what Christians they are talking about. You see, I have this very strange fucking idea their opinions as to what is a Christian are highly fucking selective, to say the least.

fenix said...

Our little town is home to the world headquarters of the Assemblies of God - you know, the church that brought you John Ashcroft and Roy Blunt (shudder). I'm all for being tolerant of Christians - any Christians - if they would only extend the same courtesy to us.

For example, a local lawyer, Dee Wampler, has been waging this campaign for the last few years to put the "Christ" back in "Christmas," and back into the schools. We have "winter breaks" here, and our schools have students that are Christian, Jewish, Pagan, atheist, etc. Honestly, I don't think the kids care one way or another what the winter break is called, just as long as they get a couple of weeks off from school.

Unfortunately, the people here that are associated with the A of G are more politically motivated than spiritually motivated, so it's difficult for me to say they are Christian in the sense that they actually worship Christ. I know they are NOT tolerant of the Pagan community. One local preacher suggested to his congregation that if they were to see a Pagan crossing the street in front of the car, maybe they should accelerate instead of stopping. Love thy neighbor, . . . .

Shadowhawk said...

You notice i only commented on the worst of the CHRISTIAN offenders.. i might have bashed Haggard and the boys.. but those guys arent CHRISTIAN they are wolves in sheeps clothing.. So yea i bashed some people.. but you know this is STILL America..a place i can voice my opinion. Like my opinion of Rhianoon isnt all that High.. Am i bashing her.. You make the call

The Pagan Temple said...

I've criticized Haggard as well, and others also, including Fred Phelps. I even suggested Haggard might find himself more at home at the Temple of Cock (a modern neo-pagan gay oriented cult that worships Priapus) than as an evangelical Christian.

The point is, criticism is not by definition hate. People can agree or disagree all day long, but you can still accept their rights to believe as they want. If you do that, you go a long way toward gaining acceptance, if little by little.

As for the Christmas controversy, that is a manufactured load of crap, something that's not worth any more time than the time it takes to point that out.

I don't have any problem whatsoever saying "Merry Christmas". What the fuck is the big deal? Nor do I have a problem buying a "Christmas Tree" as opposed to a "holiday tree".

No, I don't blame Christians for being upset at this kind of insanity, but it is mainly something that is manufactured by the "leaders" on both sides, by liberal groups like the ACLU working in tandem with right wing groups jacking each other off behind closed doors while the money comes pouring in from both sides from people that don't have any better sense than to see that they are both being fleeced.

But no, I tend to take the Christian side in this argument, for the simple fact that when a Christian child isn't allowed to have Christmas plays at their schools, or sing Christmas carols-that is pretty fucking sad.

It's also fucking uncalled for, and when pagans and other religions support this nonsense, they do themselves absolutely no fucking good whatsoever.

A.J. Drew said...

Actually, what I said was:

“Although I am not all that offended by being called the Adolph Hitler or Rush Limbaugh of paganism, I would prefer it if folk use the name Bill O’Reiley…”

Yep, would much rather be compared to Bill O’Reiley than Adolph Hitler or Rush Limbaugh. In reference to the book being kiddie porn, it is a fictional account. What the Frosts wrote was an instructional. So while I did not say I want to be likened to Bill O’Reiley, Rush Limbaugh, or Adolph Hitler; I think it is funny that folk would twist my statement in defense of the Frosts by ranting about Bill O’Reiley.

It has been rather clear for some that the Frosts simply have mindless followers who will not face the fact that the book was published with pedophilic instructions which to date have not been removed. As I can not believe those who support the Frosts also support pedophilic instructions, I conclude that they simply have not addressed the issue within themselves or that they simply do not care about such an undertaking.

So it is not much of a surprise that the very same folk who would express outrage about what Bill O’Reiley has written don’t seem to notice what the Frosts have written.

It is all kind of funny actually.

fenix said...

What do we want?

Brains!!!

When do we want it?

Brains!!!!

(mindless zombie induction, as some would have us believe)

Mister Edward Anderson said...

Amazing!

Mr. Drew prefers to model himself after a man who had to pay millions to get out of a sexual harassment lawsuit and says it's okay to write kiddy porn.

Why do his groupies follow this hypocrite?

I can understand why he does it. He is mentally ill and his obsession will let him come up with any sort of rationalization to cover his hypocrisy. This is just an example of it. He's literally shouting, "I don't care if someone writes child pornography so that thousands of sick bastards get sexual enjoyment and encouragement to abuse children. I want to be like that! And I also want to be just like a person who sexually harasses women. After all, they like it and want that abuse. That's just who I am."

But a little known book that has a few passages that nobody has ever followed...well, that's something Mr. Drew is going to obsess over for more than a decade!

This has nothing to do with the Frosts. It's all about Mr. Drew's mental illness.

My only question is when (not if) will his groupies start seeing him for the mentally ill person he is?

More importantly, when they start falling away from his falling star, what will Mr. Drew do? Will he turn his obsessive behavior to someone closer, someone whom he can reach out and physically harm?

If you groupies really care for Mr. Drew, see that he gets the therapy he desperately needs. And if he is in therapy, it has failed. Get him to a different therapist soon, before he harms family members or friends.

fenix said...

Why so much interest in the right-wing authors? Maybe it's because I follow my own path and choose to think for myself, but I'm having trouble understanding the insistence for conforming to Christian ethics. Is that really something we should consider as Pagans? Or even Heathens? I would be interested in hearing what Shak El thinks about this, considering the many paths he has studied and his dedication to the Asatru path.

The Pagan Temple said...

The difference between Christian ethics and Pagan ethics I think can be boiled down to collectivism versus individualism. Christians tend to be collectivist in their approach, while I maintain Pagans are, or certainly should be, individualist.

Christians would deny this, of course, as a matter of fact they would vehemently deny it.

Still, if you tell a Christian that there are parts of the Bible that are good, and parts that aren't so good, and might even be bad-or as I sometimes say, there are parts that are fucking shit-what would be their response?

Well, in many if not most cases, they will tell you that you can't "cherry-pick" what parts of the Bible you believe and what you don't. It's all the "word of God", and you have to accept it all. If it doesn't make a lick of sense to you, you should still accept it "on faith" as the holy revealed word of God. You should not only accept it, you should embrace it, pray on it, and even go so far as to actively promote it.

Well, that is a collectivist, "group think" approach. When it comes to this aspect, the so-called "liberal", or "progressive" Christians are no different.

Where as conservative Christians feel all of the Bible is literal, more modern minded Christians feel a great lot of it is symbolic, or allegorical. Of course, I agree with them. Still, if you are a member, you don't get a vote. You are expected not only to believe that it is symbolic, you are expected to adhere to the standard interpretation as to what that symbolism means.

Again, it's a matter of collectivism-group think.

That might be fine for individual covens and their inner workings. Not so good for the overall Pagan movement. In fact, it would be a death blow as far as Paganism being a vital and creative movement. We would become just another set of nominally diverse groups adhering to the rules of a monolithic power structure.

That's why I won't sign on to any set of guidelines or principles, regardless of how good they might appear to be on the surface. It's not so much a matter of disagreeing or agreeing either one with any set of principles, it's a matter of accepting that any person or group of people have the right to dictate them. I will never agree to that.

Shak El said...

Historical Pagans have always had sets of ethical guidelines which a pagan could adopt. Outside of rites which did not change (officially), pagans did have the right to choose their philosophies of life. There are many ethical testaments from classical pagans which have survived the tests of time

Shak El said...

Word up: For those in Springfield Mo there is going to be a class series on pagan ethics/ethical systems being in Jan 08'. Deatails will be posted on Springfield area elists as they become available.

Shadowhawk said...

When ethics of one man become the basis of a crusade to oust another from a religios group, that is wrong.. Christianity, Buddhism, Heathenism,Druidism, all have moral standards. But not a lock on morality.. I dont need AJ DREW, or Ted Haggard, or Emma Restall Orr telling me whats moral.. I decide that.. Society can influence me, but in the end i live my life, right or wrong. When one trys to impose there value system on me thats when they get a polite Fuck Off.. And Rhiannon i may be a monkey but your a deluded ass kisser.. I think thats much worse

A.J. Drew said...

Fenix – I love Zombie movies and of course the sometimes blue liquid by the same name. However, I did not say brainless. I said mindless. The word “mind” refers uniquely to human consciousness and awareness in much the same way eastern religions speak of being “mindful” (being aware). In speaking in a religious context, to say s person is mindless is to say they are unaware as opposed to being brainless or stupid.

As expressed in the post to which you refer, I do not think that folk who support the Frosts are brainless or stupid. I think they are unaware (potentially by choice) of the pedophilic instructions on anything other than a very superficial level. As an example, consider the number of people who have thus far demanded that the Frosts have not themselves raped a child. If folk who make such claims do so in response to issues taken with the pedophilic instructions they provided to others, then the folk making such claims seem clearly not to be mindful of what the objection is.

My only alternative to believing these folk are mindless / unaware (again, potentially by choice) is to believe that deep down inside they really do not have a problem with pedophilic instructions in the name of their or any religion. I find that difficult to believe. Especially when one looks at my pointed questions about if folk believe the book constrains pedophilic instructions. Such questions tend to go unanswered. Additionally, many claim the material has been removed despite the fact that it has not. I conclude that such folk have not or will not address the issue itself, they are mindless as opposed to being mindful.

Mr. Anderson – Ah, now it is “model himself”. I provided the quote right before your post. I said I would rather you folk compare me to Bill O’Reiley than Adolph Hitler. Until Bill O’Reiley’s confirmed kills exceeds 6,000,000 innocents I will still consider him superior in human value to Adolph Hitler.

You will latch onto almost anything won’t you?

Fenix – I do not think there is a lot of attention to Bill O’Reiley other than from the Frost supporters. In my personal blog, I said I would rather be compared to Bill O’Reiley than Adolph Hitler in response to Frost Supporters comparing me to Adolph Hitler. Frost supporters then started talking about Bill O’Reiley almost non-stop.

I could say: Damn, I just farted. Frost supporters would go into a rant about farting. To be honest, the main reason I continue to push buttons is to see what they will come up with next (yep, that was another button).

Pagan Temple – I do not think that is the difference between Christian and Pagan ethics. That is the difference between Democracy and Anarchy. Commonalties are what makes a community. The rest is just expressing those commonalties (or not). Nobody has authority to dictate these things to you other than the law of the land / government.

What CUUPs and many, many other pagan groups are now doing is to establish statements of sexual ethics which clearly state that those groups do not believe it is moral or ethical for adults to have sex with children. Such groups have come to the conclusion that with so many instances of pedophilia being associate with Wicca and the pagan movement, with instructionals like the one the Frosts wrote that it is necessary for their opinion to be shared.

Statements of sexual ethics are simply a vehicle by which a voice is heard. Much like the Frost’s book which indicates that children should be sexually initiated into Wicca, these are not mandates or forced ethics. They are expressions of such ethics and morals which have been written on paper such that others can see what moral and ethical values a group of folk stand for. Without such, I do not think it would be possible to have a community. How would you know what the commonalties are?

Shak El is dead on right. Historically, pagans have had such stated guidelines. In fact, many of those guidelines defined the religion, the methodology or re-legion / re-joining. This is because such was necessary for survival, people had to depend on each other or they died. Today, weather you know it or not, the modern pagan community tends not to have such because it does not have to rely on itself for survival. Instead, the folk who promote anarchy do so while they enjoy the benefits of a democracy.

Word up? Shak El, I think I am going to like you. Hammer down.

Shadowhawk said...

No Aj we wouldnt rant about you fartingf, you give yourself to much credit there. As far as CUUPS dictating sexual ethics to its membership. ill believe it when i see it. Nowas far as morals ethics and values.. what are your ethics.. well lets see.one is to be DEVISIVE as in reveling in and striving for a schism in the pagan community. next ethic.. FALSE TRUTH.. to impose what YOU see as true about a person.. with nothing to back up what you say.. some pages in a book.. Pretty weak way to impart truth. Your Values. Well since you identify now as a Christian heathen wiccan.. your morals are very confused. Wanting others to conform to your askew sense of right and wrong.. I just dont see it.Your only sphere of influence is those you have duped into rallying to the cause.. Why is that the case AJ.. id really like to know..?

fenix said...

You are free to believe what you want, just as I am free to believe what I want.

For every instance you have of Paganism being associated with pedophilia, there are many, many more instances of Christianity being associated with pedophilia. Would it not be wiser to say that pedophilia is a HUMAN problem, and not just one religion or institution or country or whatever? I could say that pedophilia is an Ozarks problem, too, in light of the rape and murder of a nine year old girl just south of Monett this month. Shocked? Disgusted? You bet your sweet ass. Not surprisingly, a number of people in this area started accusing the men that did this of being drugged out trailer trash that had probably been abusing this little girl for months. The fact that they lived in a middle-class neighborhood in a little ranch house and go to a nice little Baptist church means nothing - let's not let the truth get in the way of our hate.

I realize it doesn't matter what anyone says anymore. People will believe what they want about me, my parents and the Frosts. There is no sexual initiation of children, but I'm sure if you keep saying it long enough people will start to believe you. Then you can pull together your lynch mob, maybe burn a book or something, all in the name of morality.

Shak El said...
Historical Pagans have always had sets of ethical guidelines which a pagan could adopt. Outside of rites which did not change (officially), pagans did have the right to choose their philosophies of life. There are many ethical testaments from classical pagans which have survived the tests of time

I think the operative word there is "could." Not that they were forced to adopt a set of ethics, but that they could if they so chose.

The Pagan Temple said...

A system of ethics is something that every individual group has. If you are a Bible believing SOuthern Baptist, for example, you are obliged to adhere to a standard of ethics that states, according to the by-laws of the Southern Baptist convention, that partaking of alcohol is against the moral code fo the Bible, therefore is at least potentially a sin. This applies not merely to drunkenness, but to the sale, purchase, and even to the modern partaking of any alcoholic beverage.

Well, if you are a Southern Baptist, you believe in this, or should. This belief can be traced back to a woman named Carrie nation, the leader of the Temperance Movement of the Nineteenth Century. She was a very devout woman, and in her own way courageous, but at the same time, arguably insane.

Small wonder, as she was raised by an alcoholic, abusive father, and a mother who was so insane she suffered from the delusion that she was, in reality, Queen Victoria.

At any rate, she birthed the Temperance Movement, which led in time to Prohibition, an Amendment to the Constitution that was eventually repealed.

Southern Baptists, as a group, still adhere to the Temperance philosophy, despite the fact that it is not Biblical. At the same time, there are many and probably most Christian sects that do not adhee to it, and never will. That is because the Christian community at large does not adhere to it, nor will they inany case allow the SOuthern Baptist convention to dictate what does and does not make a Christian.

Similarly, it is well and good that various pagan sects have their own individual guidelines and system of ethics that all members should be expected to adhere to.

Every member has one vote and one vote only, which they exercise with their feet. If they don't agree, they can feel free to leave.

That's how I see this situation. If it gets to the point where all pagans are expected to adhere to a set fo ethics, no matter how laudable it might appear to be, where does it end? Are we then all expected to jump on the Global Warming bandwagon, and demand that all Pagans should replace their regular standard light bulbs with mercury filled incandescent bulbs?

Are we to suddenly find that we are all expected to become vegetarians?

What if some future set of Wiccan "leaders" reveals a revelation that the true name of the goddess was Mary Magdalene, and the Wiccan God, was, well, what do you know, Jesus Christ?

Sorru, I still se all this as a self-serviong power grab, utilizing that same old tired, and what should by now be painfully obvious tear-jerker "but think of the chiiiil-dreeeen."

Sorry, I say we nip it all in the bud. I don't like the idea that at some future date some predominant sect of hairy legged Dianics might decide I don't need a set of testacles after all.

Shadowhawk said...

Like Oberon Zell once said.. If you dont like it, you cant have any.Meaning you are free to do whats right for you, but if you dont like what i do dont try to tell me to do whatever it is that you do..Because its not right for me.And PT .. lol a Hairy leg Dianic is going to have to carry a big machete to get at my heuvos.

Mister Edward Anderson said...

Poor, poor, Mr. Drew.

Now he plays word games to avoid the fact that he actively wants to be compared to a man who writes kiddy porn and sexually harasses women.

This from someone who has been obsessed for years over a book that has NEVER been responsible for any abuse of children, is not pornography, and the authors have never sexually harassed anyone.

His rationalization? The man he so admires isn't responsible for killing 6 million people! (So if he only killed 3 million would you still "prefer" to be compared to him?)

Mr. Drew doesn't get it because he is too mentally ill to see that this is not about the Frosts, it's about him. It's about his illness. He would side with mass murderers (as long as the number of kills is under 6 million), child pornographers, and the sexual harassment of women rather than give up his obsession over a book that has not harmed nor damaged anyone.

I repeat, won't any of his friends help him? Won't you get him the care he needs? When his obsessions turn to someone closer to him resulting in emotional or physical harm, you will be responsible for your inaction. PLEASE take action to help this sick individual.

Shadowhawk said...

This Article says it best

Pagan Ethics
Common principles of the Pagan Community
© Elizabeth Farrell

May 15, 2007

Even though there is no set of commandments, the Pagan community has a strong sense of honor, ethics and personal responsibility.
The Pagan community is one that is made up of many traditions and beliefs. A common thread among all of the varied traditions, from Dianic, to Wiccan, to eclectic, is the fact that they are autonomous and are not ruled by a central authority. This fact can often cause confusion for people unfamiliar with the many and diverse Pagan beliefs, who mistakenly think that if Pagan traditions have no set of commandments or standard by which to be judged by, then it must be nearly impossible for one to be ethical.

But in actuality, ethics and honor are strong principles in Pagan spirituality and although the ethics involved in different Pagan paths may vary, the general rule is that all life is honored and treated with respect. Some traditions have a statement or a written code of ethics such as the Wiccan Rede or the Nine Noble Truths of Asatru, but this isn’t the case for all Pagan paths. In general you will see that Pagan traditions offer varying sets of values, but on the whole each person is responsible for their actions. In other words, Pagans are taught to find the truth within themselves rather than from an outside source. Nurturing inner wisdom and developing intuition are vital parts of Pagan spirituality and in this way enriches the connection to Deity.

Personal responsibility can also bring a sense of empowerment to one who follows a Pagan path. It lifts a person out of being a victim or ruled over by an outside hierarcy and into the awareness that one is connected with all of life. In Paganism, people and Deity are mutually dependent upon each other and if a person’s actions are ethical and positive, then sacred is enhanced. But if it is unethical and negative, then sacred is diminished.

Of course there are those who are misguided and do not always follow their path in an honorable way, or who mistakenly think that magickal rituals will give them some sort of power over others. But this is not what a Pagan path is about; there is no place for revenge or the seeking of power by causing another person to suffer. Every action has a consequence and the results of those actions are weighed by each person to be sure that no harm is caused. In essence, Pagan spirituality should enrich rather than deplete, connect rather than fragment, and nurture a sense of personal, community and worldly responsibility.

The Pagan Temple said...

"Do what you will so long as you harm none".

That's pretty much good enough for me.

A.J. Drew said...

Fenix – Yes, pedophilia is a human issue. However, I do not know of a Christian leader who wrote a pedophilic instructional, later stated firmly that it was the original teachings of his or her church, refused to recant that book, refused to remove the content from the book, continues to sell that book and who is written about and praised by other Christian authors, events, publishers, and so on.

The pagan community is different from the Christian community in that it is so tolerant that the Frost’s continue to be welcome despite what they have written. Fortunately, folk are waking up. Acceptance of those things which should not be accepted, tolerance for those things which should not be tolerated, these things are fading and a common sense of morals and ethics is growing into maturity.

Eventually material such as this and the people who promote it will not be tollerated:
http://ajdrew.blogs.pagannation.com/defrost-please-read/

Shadowhawk said: “Like Oberon Zell once said.. If you dont like it, you cant have any.Meaning you are free to do whats right for you, but if you dont like what i do dont try to tell me to do whatever it is that you do.”

Then Shadowhawk quoted an article on pagan ethics ending with

“…and nurture a sense of personal, community and worldly responsibility.”

So then, it is a pagan ethic that have a sense of responsibility to ourselves, our community, and our world. However, “if you don’t like what I do don’t try to tell me to do what ever it is that you do”.

One statement seems to indicate that a person has no responsibility beyond himself. The other indicates that one has a responsibility to his community and the world.

Pagan Temple quoted something - "Do what you will so long as you harm none". -

Pagan Temple then said: "That's pretty much good enough for me."

Let me guess, your personal version of the Wiccan Rede?

Shadowhawk said...

You Still havent answered my question from an earlier post AJ.. Why are you so devisive.. Why are your morals so random and out of Sync.. AGAIN i ask WHY IS THAT SO AJ.?

fenix said...

I'm curious - how many books have been written by Pagans that promote ideas you don't like? How many books have passages that you find offensive? How many books have Gavin and Yvonne written that you don't like? How many of them contain similar passages to the GWB?

In order to promote anything, it would have to be in several different books, right? That's the definition of "promoting," - to continually push one point over all others. If Paganism is becoming equated pedophilia, then there must be many others promoting it as well. Let's see, who do we know that is obsessed with pedophilia in Paganism, . . . .???

The Pagan Temple said...

Yes, AJ, I guess you could call it "my" version of the Wiccan Rede, though I certainly don't take credit for it. Let's just say it's "a" version-the one I personally adhere to, and which in my view is all I need state publicly as a statement of ethics.

At any rate, I am pleasantly surprised you can recognize it expressed outside the Middle English dialect.

Just so you know, by the way, and to be fair, I like Bill O'Reilly too, though I would imagine for a different reason. He strikes me as being an independent thinker. Though I disagree with him on a great many issues, I do recognize the fact, having watched him innumerable times, that he can be as harsh and combative with conservatives as with liberals.

In fact, you might go so far as to say he is one of my "heroes", for want of a better word, for the simple fact that he doesn't march blindly behind anybody's drumbeat, for all his other flaws. That's the way he strikes me anyway.

Fenix-That was a damn good point you made about the Frosts. It would be difficult to imagine how they can be "promoting pedophilia" based on three pages out of one book out of the innumerable others they have published.

wushih said...

Regarding Mr. Drew's comments, I think what bothers me the most is the assumption that nobody except him and the Christians he appears to support have any clue what morality is. Apparently (and I have observed this repeatedly in comments by fundamentalist Christians and members of other fundamentalist religions), no one else is intelligent enough or good enough to know the difference between right and wrong.

It seems that those of us who somehow manage to work morality and ethics out by ourselves and who somehow manage to live good lives while taking care of ourselves, our families and our children are, according to people like Drew, wrong unless we follow what he and others like him believe - or at least claim to believe.

And I wonder about that at well. I remember when the big flap about the Ten Commandments was in the news, there was a letter in our local newspaper from a teen aged girl who stated that if the Ten Commandments were not posted everywhere that no one would know how to behave.

Do we have to have the 'rules' posted everywhere because we are too stupid to think for ourselves? Is that the underlying thinking behind Mr. Drew's continued attack? Is our behavior dictated only by words on three pages in a book written 30 years ago? Are we unable to make our own personal moral decisions in our own lives? Have we been so corrupted by the terrible Frosts that we must all be saved by Drew? Or condemned by Drew?

Or is this just more manifestation of Drew's mental illness?

Fr. Pneuma, OAS/OAB said...

Order Motto: "All Knowledge comes by Faith... All Understanding comes by Experience."

Ave Fratres et Sorores:
Dear Spiritual Cousins & Friends:

Recently I was referred to a number of public statements by well known Wiccan practitioners and teachers Gavin and Yvonne Frost of the Church and School of Wicca concerning the blending of Wicca and Christianity in theory and in practice. Those comments appeared on the web site of their organization as a monthly topic for May 2007 at: Beware the Christo-Pagan/Wiccans! (http://www.wicca.org/gavinandyvonne/teaser0507.html) and then again in August 2007 on their on line blog at: Can A Wiccan Be A Christian? (http://gavinandyvonne.blogspot.com/2007/08/can-wiccan-be-christian.html). The discussion continues there and has been somewhat heated on occasion. Gavin and Yvonne Frost - neither strangers to controversy - have made their points of view known and have taken their share of heat for their beliefs - yet again. Whether you agree with their point(s) of view(s) or not - you have to respect their position and admire them for their courage.

As in most topics regarding occult philosophy and specific groups, inevidently the subject came up, and I was asked by individuals on both sides of the argument what the Society of The Astral Star's, (aka The Order of The Star of Bethlehem) position is on the subject. Several individuals on various e-lists have chosen to respond to the Frosts on their blog. Some individuals felt that making a response would do no good at all and was not worth the effort. We remembered our work and the principles held within a civil rights organization founded to defend the rights of all Americans to be allowed to practice their spiritual faith within a lawful religion. That organization was known as AMER. I remember President Kiwi Carlisle say to me that if we did not respond to the views of our opposition people would assume that we were in agreement with them. Therefore, with consent of numerous members of the Order's Executive Council, we choose to make a public response on the Order's behalf. We do so without anger, resentment, and without prejudice towards the Frosts or to those whose opinions differ with them.

Due to the length of my response (c. 16 pages), the entire post has been listed in our Order's Journal, _The Crux Mystica_; Autmnal Equinox (Sep. 23, 2007) and is archived for the reader's review in full at: http://www.astralstar.org/journal/regular/2007_09.html#christianwiccans

From The Article...

IN CONCLUSION:
I would have to say that I respect Gavin and Yvonne Frost's decision to state that you can not be a Wiccan AND a Christian if you are involved with their church - initiated into the craft by their organization/traditon. They have a right to control their own organization and all organizations have a right - nay - a *duty* to list rules of membership and to enforce those rules.

I further believe that Gavin and Yvonne make an excellent point indicating that there are energies that do not mix well in the real world. The reality is that some forces do not combine positively. Some energies can and do mix with explosive results. Any magickal working should be well researched, well thought out and fully understood - at least as fully as the practitioner is capable of doing so here on this plane. Practitioners should be prepared for the unexpected. I believe that there is a genuine need for caution.

However, I completely disagree that it is *impossible* to be both a Christian and a Wiccan in at least some nominal sense of the words. It may be difficult sometimes regarding working out some of the perceived incompatabilites. Some incompatatibilites will never *be* resolved satisfactorily for *every* believer or practitioner. These are going to have to be addressed personally as well as by groups of individuals who attempt to practice a blended form of this spirituality. I base my opinion primarily on how one defines each of those terms. I believe that a Christian is a person who accepts Yeshua (Jesus) as the Christ. I believe that a Wiccan is a person who learns to bend and shape their consciousness and inner spiritual powers for directed ends. This is not in opposition of God or Christ (however you perceive Deity), but if aligned correctly is done in conjunction *with* deity. Such a practitioner becomes a vessel of the Almighty. The *Will* of the magician becomes in line with Divine Will - and thus we become instruments of His/Her purpose(s). For this reason a number of people who have decided to call themselves Christo-Pagans, Christian Wiccans, and Christian Witches have been admitted into the Order. In my opinion, it is vitally important that we allow individuals to explore their own natures and their relationship with divinity as their own consciousness guides them. The two of you had it and made use of it regarding your faith - even though it was fraught with personal danger. Others should be acknowledged as having the same right to try to blend traditions that are of value to them personally and in groups. In this country, they have the legal right and that personal freedom to do so. THANK GOD/DESS!

I wish the two of you well and extend my complements to your students and to the members of your church. I look forward to hearing from you both (and/or visiting with you) soon. Until then on behalf of the Order I remain most sincerely and respectfully,

Yours In The Light,
Fr. Pneuma (Michael W. Humphrey)
Chief Adept & President, OAS
Hierophant, Stellar Temple Polaris, OAS-KY
fr.pneuma@astralstar.org
frpneuma@aol.com
-----------------------
For:
The Order of The Astral Star, Inc.
aka The Order of The Star of Bethlehem
...an Organization of High Ceremonial Christian Magicians & Mystics...
P.O. Box 1482 / Georgetown / KY / 40324 / USA
E-Mail: order@astralstar.org
HmPg: http://www.astralstar.org/
-----------------------
*finis*

Mister Edward Anderson said...

By redefining accepted definitions of Christianity and Wicca, it is possible to believe anything.

Fr. Pneuma wrote, "I believe that a Wiccan is a person who learns to bend and shape their consciousness and inner spiritual powers for directed ends."

So if someone believes that a Wiccan sacrifices animals and eats Christian babies, does that make it so?

You are certainly welcome to believe in the concept of "Christo-Pagans," etc. You can also believe in Nazi-Jews, Roman Catholic-Protestants, and the Ishtar...er Easter Bunny.

That doesn't mean they exist, except in the fantasies of children and others poorly trained in logic, philosophy, or comparative religion.

wushih said...

Boy oh boy. If you wanna see my eyes glaze over, post a long meandering message and then sign it with titles and pedigrees. I am obviously not as important as you are. Yawn.

fenix said...

Since everyone is welcome to believe as they choose, why make a big public statement about it? And that thing about "if we don't say something about it, someone might think we agree," - since when did Pagans think that way?

I've seen a few people recently that can't seem to make up their mind what they believe about Pagans and Christians. They might benefit from your thoughts some.

Is the Society of The Astral Star affiliated with the Church and School?

The Pagan Temple said...

Fenix-

You must not have seen this:

The Order of The Astral Star, Inc.
aka The Order of The Star of Bethlehem
...an Organization of High Ceremonial Christian Magicians & Mystics...
P.O. Box 1482 / Georgetown / KY / 40324 / USA
E-Mail: order@astralstar.org
HmPg: http://www.astralstar.org/
-----------------------

They are Christian ceremonial magicians.

fenix said...

Ah, ok. Guess I missed the "Christian" part. Still, I'm wondering why bring this to the Church and School? There are plenty of other organizations that are more than happy to say their piece about Christianity and Paganism, and very publicly as well.

The Pagan Temple said...

Well, I guess they figured it fit with the subject of the post. At least they were respectful, give them that much. They aren't too far from my neck of the woods, I might check them out. I doubt I'll change anything as far as my own beliefs or practices goes, but at the same time, it's always good to keep an open mind when given the opportunity to meet new people and learn their ways.

Rhiannon said...

Mister Edward Anderson said...
Poor Rhiannon!

As a groupie for Mr. Drew she complete avoids the fact that he "prefers" to be equated with a known child pornographer, a man who paid over a million dollars to have a case of sexual harassment dismissed and his producers fired all of this man's women assistants to make sure it didn't happen again.

Nice person you're supporting, Rhiannon. Who are you going to follow next, Kenneth Bianchi?

Shadowhawk said...
You notice i only commented on the worst of the CHRISTIAN offenders.. i might have bashed Haggard and the boys.. but those guys arent CHRISTIAN they are wolves in sheeps clothing.. So yea i bashed some people.. but you know this is STILL America..a place i can voice my opinion. Like my opinion of Rhianoon isnt all that High.. Am i bashing her.. You make the call
Shadowhawk said...
Society can influence me, but in the end i live my life, right or wrong. When one trys to impose there value system on me thats when they get a polite Fuck Off.. And Rhiannon i may be a monkey but your a deluded ass kisser.. I think thats much worse
________________________

Gee guys is this the worst you can come up with????
You must really be tired or just can't come up with anything more to bitch about? Ah welllll.....

Anyway
Hope you all have a Merry Christmas/Yule and a Bright New Year!!!!

BTW to The Frosts I just may be interested in that Acreage! Let me know where exactly.