Conference yukon::christian_v7

At least for those who were originally Christians, goddess spirituality is
more directed to destroying traditional religion than to seeking new sources
of truth.  It is unlikely that anyone believes the wisps of fairy tale that
practitioners call "goddess traditions".  In reality, ancient pagan deities
were not benign; historic witchcraft was not the pretty enchantment of a
movie Merlin.  Present-day understandings of primitive goddess religions
and of archaic witchcraft are based on scattered and uncertain sources in
mythology, legend and superstition and on trial records of less-than
absolute objectivity.  The Old Testament condemns the worship of "strange
Gods" as an abomination hateful to YHWH, involving ritual prostitution and
human sacrifice, but clinical detail is not provided, nor is its interior
logic explicated.  Temple prostitution, which feminist art historian Merlin
Stone admiringly calls "sacred sexual custom", was practiced in the Middle
East as worship honoring the goddess as patron of sexual love.  Some
authorities believe that children born to temple prostitutes were commonly
killed in sacrifice.  The faithless wife of Hosea left him to live as a
ritual prostitute.

Among many examples, Jer 7:16-34, condemning such idolatrous abuses as
offering "cakes for the queen of heaven" (Ishtar, Assyro-Babylonian goddess
of fertility, in v. 18) and the sacrificail immolation of children at
Topheth (v. 31).  Jer 19:5 and 32:35, 2 Chr 28:3 and 2 Kings 17:16-23 also
condemn child sacrifice and threaten God's punishment.  Hos 2:7-15, 1 Kings
14-24, 2 Kings 23:7 and Dt 23:18 mention sexual practices honoril Ba'al as
male principle of reproduction and goddess Asherah (Astarte Ashtaroth) as
his mate.  1 Kings 18:26-28 describes pagan ritual.  Nb 25:1-9 refers to
the early seduction of the Israelites from worship of Yahweh to worship of
the golden calf, referred to also in Hos 9:10 and Ps 106:19-23.  References
to later apostasies appear in Jg 2:11, 13 and 6:25,31; 1 Kings 16:31-32;
18:19; 19:10,14,18; 22:54; and 2 Kings 3:2-3; 10:18-28, among others, until
YHWH said, "Even Judah will I put out of my sight as I did Israel.  I will
reject this city, Jerusalem", and permitted the Babylonian captivity (2
Kings 23:27).

	*** Clarinet articles may not be forwarded outside Digital ***

	Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 3:59:39 PDT

	NEW DELHI (UPI) -- A 4-year-old girl was sacrificed by a rural
landlord before a tribal goddess in northern India to ward off evil
spirits, the Press Trust of India reported Sunday.

	Tunu Murmu was killed Friday in a village near the city of
Jamshedpur, 140 miles (225 km) west of Calcutta, by a prosperous farmer
who wanted to propitiate the goddess, the news agency said.

	The child was ritually bathed in a pond before her body was pierced
by arrows and offerred to the deity, PTI said.

	The farmer was arrested by a local court, the report said.

There were goddess cults with common characteristics in many primitive
cultures -- those of Tiamet in Babylon, Isis in Egypt, Ishtar in Akkadia,
Inanna in Sumeria, Astarte in Syria, Aphrodite, Diana, and Kor� (Persephone)
in Greece -- all figures in dualist fertility cults, of which, some claim,
European witchcraft may have been a folk-level corruption.  Consistent in
the old myths is the Great Goddess or Great Mother as female life force,
representative of fertility and appearing in the "triple aspect" of maiden-
mother-crone.  In the annual religious cycle, she bore a son (in winter,
usually at the solstice) who became her lover (May Day), impregnated her,
then died or was sacrificially killed by the goddess at the firstfruits
festival, to be reborn as her son.  In primitive cults, the high priestess
as an earthly incarnation of the goddess annually took a young consort,
symbolic of the son/lover (the Horned God), who was ritually sacrificed (in
later times he was castrated or an animal substituted) at the end of the
year.  The goddess was one of many deities, all of them forces to be
placated.  The term "grim reaper", for example, originated in pagan
England, where, according to English scholar Joanna Bogle, the last
harvester in the field was ritually killed as a blood offering to the earth
as Mother Goddess so that she would bear again the next season.  In a more
colloquial description, feminist Robin Morgan has said, "Witches were the
first Friendly Heads and Dealers, the first birth-control practitioners and
abortionists".  (WITCH Documents: New York Covens, Sisterhood is Powerful,
New York, Random House, 1970, 539)

How closely contemporaty witchcraft may resemble that of the past and to
what extent there is today a defined "thealogy" (because they refer to
a goddess rather than to God, feminists put the word in feminine form)
interpreting it for an "inner circle" of the enlightened are not entirely
clear.  Margot Adler, a "participant-observer" whose book "Drawing Down the
Moon" is the most authoritative internal report on the neo-pagan movement,
says that many "revivalist Witches" invent their own mythic stories,
unconcerned about authenticity or logical consistency because they assume
that psychic experiences are natural phenomena not yet understood; they "do
not believe in a supernatural".  Others follow esoteric theories originated
over the past century by entusiasts whose opinions, if they were ever taken
seriously by scholars, have been discredited.

Radically anti-male "Dianic" groups -- and Matthew Fox -- draw on the
theories of nineteenth-century anthropologist J.J. Bachofen, who held that
Stone Age European societies centered on the worship of Mother Earth lived
in matriarchal harmony until patriarchal males seized power some five
thousand years before Christ. (Relition, Myth, and Mother Right)  Elizabeth
Gould Davis popularized much the same views in "The First Sex" in 1971.

Theosophy, the enormously influential strand of nineteenth-century
occultism founded by Helena Petrovana Blavatsky, not only survives but
flourishes today in the strange but widely popular blend of gnosticism,
spiritualism, and scientism called the New Age movement.  While New Age
involvement is considered less bizarre than witchcraft, little in fact
separates the two, and devotees often dabble in both simultaneously. 
Occult author Isaac Bonewits, who claims to be a Druid priest, explains
that traditional witches always concealed their beliefs under "more
respectable" coloration (Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism in the 18th
century, Spiritualism and Theosophy in the 19th") while continuing to
practice the same "occult arts".  ("Witchcraft", Part III, Green Egg 9, no.
79, June 21, 1976)  Starhawk calls the goddess movement "a New Age revival"
of witchcraft; at Matthew Fox's Institute, where she teaches, witchcraft
blends easily into a predominantly New Age curriculum.  According to
neo-Pagan priestess Adler:

    There is a funny saying in the Pagan movement: "The difference
    between a Pagan and `new age' is one decismal point."  In other
    words, a two-day workshop in meditation by a "new age" practitioner
    might cost $300, while the same course given by a Pagan might cost $30.
				("Drawing Down the Moon, p.420)

The most monstrous of the neo-pagan innovators was Aleister Crowley, who
died in 1964.  According to historians of occultism, he was a heroin addict
frenetically promiscuous, and too decadent even for the turn-of-the-century
English occultists in the Hermetic "Order of the Golden Dawn", who expelled
him.  He set up a perverse "abbey of satanic occultism, dissipated his life
in systematic practices of vilest "sex magic" and left behind a trail of
women degraded and terrified into madness.

Most current followers of "the Craft" insist that it is a benign nature
cult, concerned with subjective psychological development (the expansion of
"human potential") and preservation of the environment, having nothing to
do with statanism, sorcery, drug use or horrifying sexual orgies.  Insofar
as that is true, neo-paganism might be regarded as the practice of comparative
religion.  But it inspires little confidence in such protestations of innocence
to learn that Gardner's widely used rituals were written in collaboration with
Crowley or that the well-known English "white witch" Sybil Leek praised
Crowley's "contribution to occultism" on the cover of Francis King's chilling
biography of the man.  In her noteworthy book "The Changing of the Gods",
Naomi Goldenberg, a feminist who teaches the psychology of religion at the
University of Ottawa, mentions "the expression of sexuality in the ritual"
without elaboration, adding later that "witchcraft lets  sex follow its own
laws to a very large degree".  With a calm Christian readers are unlikely
to share, Margot Adler admits that some Wicca groups do employ sexual acts,
including the "Great Rite", but she indicates that such ritual practices
are rare and finds them not at all horrifying.  "In its highest form", when
priestess and priest "through ritual ... have drawn down into themselves
these archetypal forces", to "`incarnate' or _become_" the goddes and god,
the Great Rite is "a sublime religious experience", she says.  (Drawing Down
the Moon, pp.110, 143, 309)

This has only been a short exposition of what Wicca and the Goddess Religion
are really about.  For anyone who has been a Jew or Christian and is tempted
by this religion, I say, "Turn back before it is too late."


		There shall be no strange god among you
		  nor shall you worship any alien god.
		I, the Lord, am your God
		  who led you forth from the land of Egypt.

					-- Psalm 81

            OBVIOUSLY you two have NEVER watched Bewitched!!! :-)

re .12

"Bewitched" had about as much to do with the dark reality of Wicca as
"Pretty Woman" or other movies presenting "The Story of Wanda the Whore
with the Golden Heart" have to do with the ugly reality of prostitution.

/john

    Notes 13, 14, 16-20 have been set hidden.  
    
    Please read this below as a reminder of participation.
    
    Both in the interests of maintaining a peaceful balance, and in view of
    our responsiblity towards digital, significant care has to be taken to
    guard against any difference of stance from becoming personally directed.
    
    Please take the personal discussion offline.
    

						Jim Henderson
						Bing Hunt
						Nancy Morales
						Andrew Yuille
					co-moderators, CHRISTIAN conference
    
    
    

Please also hide .12 which is a personal comment on both Greg and John.

    Mark, .12 doesn't require being set hidden.  Many times a twist or turn
    in a note will take place.  John's note .15 references .12 and brings
    it into proper view and sets the note back towards the topic.

    Thanks,
    Nancy

    I found the bit about the grim reaper fascinating, I never realised
    where that came from. My friend recently saw a documentry about
    Glastonbury where they interviewed a group of pagans who were
    performing various rituals in the place including the dance of the grim
    reaper. At the same time a group of christians were celebrating
    communion on the Tor.
    
    I went to Glastonbury when I was seriously backslidden and even then I
    found the place horrible. Although I think we give the devil too much
    space sometimes by highlighting his power (that can often freak us out)
    I think there is a realm which we know very little about but that we
    need to be aware of, however I believe God is bigger than our ignorance
    and if we abide in Him then He is our shield (I had a wonderful
    experience in prayer once when God showed me so clearly where I stood
    in Jesus and I felt like I was in a tank with thick armour and a
    massive gun at the front [I hope this sounds OK, it's hard to describe
    without sounding weird]).
    
    

    Thankfully, "greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world".

    I too attended Glastonbury festival with a friend several years ago. I
    wasn't as committed then as I am now. I did, however, find a Christian
    bus there, which I ended up visiting quite a few times just to keep
    myself sane. 
    I have many unpleasant memories of the festival (the lavatories, for a
    start!), but this was a good example of Christ's soldiers fighting the
    enemy on his own territory.

    Genesis 3:14  And the lord god said unto the serpent, because thou hast
    done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
    field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
    thy life:
    
    Can anyone tell me what the GREEK word for dust is used in this
    scripture?

    I don't know what the word means, but shouldn't it be Hebrew?
    
    Bing

    re: last two
    
    Perhaps Nancy is looking for the Greek word used in the Septuagint?
    
    

    Well, can you give me both?
    
    :-)

    Hi Nancy,
    
    The word is aphar {aw-fawr}
    
    1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish
     11) dry or loose earth
     1b) debris
     1c) mortar
     1d) ore
    
    It is the same word used in Genesis 2:7, where man was created from the
    dust of the earth.
    
    Bob 
    

    Good. Step one has successfully been addressed, viz. what does the
    verse *say*. Step two: what does it *mean*?
    
    	BD�

    I heard a teaching recently that this was being equated with "sarx"
    sinful flesh.  That the dust represents what we are made of and that
    sin resides in the flesh, therefore, it was taught that to Satan eats
    upon our flesh and that this is the true interpretation of said
    scripture.
    
    What do you scholars think?
    
    BTW, Bob Shallow heard this teaching too.

    I wouldn't call myself a scholar, but my take on this verse is simply
    that God cursed the serpent to be a legless land-dweller, i.e. "you're
    cursed to slither along in the dust all your life". (I'm not feeling
    particularly creative these days ;-)
    
    	BD�

    Barry,
    
    It's important for me to ascertain whether the teaching of this man is
    good or not.  He is a pastor and while I was "impressed" at the time of
    his teaching, I was not exactly convinced it was sound doctrine.
    
    He taught this:
    
    The dust being referred to in Genesis was actually referring to flesh. 
    The flesh was made from dust and the snake was told that it would eat
    dust.  Therefore demons, satanic beings, eat off the flesh of believers
    and unbelievers.  Therefore, each sin we allow to reign in our bodies
    gives Satan an open invitation to "dine on our flesh".  
    
    He also taught that "off the record", he believed that UFO's were
    actually demons.
    
    I was "intrigued and beguiled" by this teaching, but afterwards felt
    convicted that it was "questionable".
    
    Help!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    A little more on this. The title of the teaching was "The devil doesn't
    eat here anymore" using reference to when Jesus said to his disciples
    in John 14:38:
    
    After this I will not talk much with you; for the prince of this world
    cometh, and has nothing in me.
    
    He spoke of what things we may have, that would allow the devil to
    "devour" us. The pastor then elaborated on the "we are dust" aspect,
    and the part of "dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".
    
    I thought it was an interesting sermon. Pastor Dick Bernal of the
    'Jubilee" Christian church is a combination of a preacher, and a
    comedien. In the few times I have attended there, I have enjoyed his
    teachings. The worship there is better than most that I have
    encountered, and I have felt the presence of God there, in a peaceful
    way. Last Sunday night, they had a miracle service, where a man who had
    several operations on his leg had hands laid on him, and did appear to
    be greatly relieved of pain.
    
    I do not claim to be adequate in discernment, so in other words, what
    do I know? I am able to praise God there, and actually felt joy, for
    the first time in weeks/months from singing, and swaying back in forth,
    in worshipping God.
    
    Pastor Bernal spoke of affiliations with TBN, and will have Oral
    Roberts there for a Sunday in October. I am certainly not wise enough,
    or discerning enough to say whether they are right, wrong, or somewhere
    in between. And I know enough to not bad-mouth ANY person who makes
    claims to be a "Man of God". The place is packed for 2 services on
    Sunday AM, and are going on international TV very soon. (they are
    currently on local stations.) Some of their teachings are similar to
    what I have heard in the "Faith movement", but I'm still not convinced
    that all of the "Faith movement" people are incorrect in their doctrine. 
    
    On Saturday, there was a seminar by "Jillian", a recording artist,
    speaker, author, and former model. She had an excellent testimony of
    what God has done in her life to heal the effects of abandonment,
    adoption, 12 foster homes, physical, mental, and emotional abuse.
    I'd recommend to anyone who has problems in these areas to attend her
    concerts/seminars if she is in your area.  
    
    So far, my experience there has been pleasant. God is in that place,
    and in the hearts of the people there. They give alter calls, and teach
    repentance, and Jesus being the ONLY way to heaven, and the rejection
    of the gift of Grace means you don't go to heaven. Seems simple,
    concise, and taught with love. And so far, when I leave after a
    service, I can not bring myself to speak, as the feeling of "God, after
    hearing what others are going through for you , how DARE I complain?" 
    seems to be dominant in my thoughts. Perhaps it's conviction, as I
    don't feel badly (much humbled though), and there is no condemnation.
    
    Further visits may warrent further comment. God willing, I will post 
    further comments here. (Unless otherwise instructed by the wonderful 
    moderators to place them in another topic 8-)
    
    Loving the Lord more and more for His faithfulness, and tender mercies,
    and so much more! He is so good to me! And I deserve nothing but the
    cross, in a realistic view of my life before Him thusfar.
    
    Bob                         

     Nancy,
     
     What I offer here are some thoughts that came to me after reading
     your notes and Barry's.  I haven't spent the afternoon doing 
     a lot of intensive, academic research, but I hope that this is 
     at least reasonable and will be helpful to you.

     My theory in Biblical interpretation is always to go with the
     simplest meaning of the verse that best correlates with what
     else I know of the world that God has made and what is written
     in the rest of the Bible.  Also, I think we should try and under-
     stand it a passage in the context in which it was written.  

     Too often we bend words and use symbolism to make a passage into 
     a proof text for something we are trying to put forth, rather than 
     trying to understand what the passage itself means.  
 
     There are times, though, when something has multiple layers of meaning. 
     The rest of God's word is a key to those layers of meaning.  An example
     of multiple meanings is the bruising the heel and striking the head 
     in that same passage.  When a snake strikes, it is usually at a lower 
     body part that it can reach, and humans will kill snakes by crushing 
     their heads.  Another meaning is that this is metaphor for how Satan, 
     who took the form of the serpent, struck a blow to God's plans
     for humanity by having successfully tempted A&E to sin, and would 
     strike a blow to the Messiah, whom God was promising during that same 
     incident, by seeing the Messiah crucified - but because of the 
     resurrection and forgiveness of sin, the Messiah, and through Him, 
     humanity, would not be eternally, fatally damaged, but, in the end,
     Satan would be destroyed.  This is the difference between striking the 
     heel and crushing the head.  

     In the case of serpant eating dust, I would tend to go with Barry's 
     analysis - this passage is stating that the serpent will slither on its
     belly on the ground earth with its face and mouth down in the dust.  
     This fits within the context of a curse on the serpent, rather than an 
     empowering of Satan to "devour" mankind.  It might also be a parallel 
     statement about Satan - never again will he hold the type of position 
     he once had in heaven, but he will be the lowest order of creation -
     figuratively crawling in the dust.  

     Another thought is that speaker's view of Satan feeding on our bodies 
     reminds me more of that old Star Trek episode where some alien creature
     feeds on the energy of human anger, and other negative emotions - hate,
     greed, jealousy, etc., or the Next Generation episode with those peptide
     sucking creatures that infected the Enterprise crew.  

     One thing to remember when reading the Bible is that Hebrew langauge in
     which the Tanakh (O.T.) is written, did not have a lot of words for 
     expressing abstract ideas, but many things are expressed through 
     metaphor.  Some examples are:

     To look is to "lift up the eyes" in Genesis 22:4
     To be angry is to "burn in one's nostrils - Exodus 4:14
     To reveal something to another is to "unstop someone's ears" - Ruth 4:4
     To be determined to go is to "set one's face to go" - Jeremiah 42:15
     Stubborn is "stiff necked" - Acts 7:51

     In several places there are references to Satan as being a prowling
     lion, ready to devour the unwary - I really think that is a metaphor
     for Satan is constantly looking for ways to destroy human beings,
     rather that literally meaning eating someone who is not paying attention.

     But I do agree that giving way to temptation makes it easier
     to give way to temptation again, (more difficult to turn away from
     temptation the next time), just as familiarity with sin makes sin less 
     repugnant and easier to accept.
       
     Leslie

    >                         -< Jubilee Christian Center >-
    
    we have one of those in Phoenix too.
    
    Re: flesh = dust
    
    The problem I have with this is where the Bible refers to Satan as
    having to ask permission to do anything to us, and most of Romans that
    deals with our victory over the flesh and sin when we are saved.  
    I think he may be reading a little too much into this verse and his
    analogy doesn't really apply to believers.
    
    Mike

    Bob,
    
    I don't think it prudent to have brought the name of the ministry into
    the conference.  I am more questioning the teaching of that evening
    versus the entire ministry.  There have been times that my own Pastor
    has taught things which I feel are questionable too.  
    
    I hope you don't feel that I was attacking Bernal... honestly, I do not
    know enough to do such, but am interested in how much validity there
    was to *this* message.  
    
    The problem with the "feel good", which is what I felt after the
    service, is that feelings are subjective and moveable where as sound
    doctrine is not.  Whether it feels good or not isn't a prerequisite to
    the Word of God.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

    Nancy (.38),
    
    What Leslie said :-). In summary, there is a principle called Occam's
    Razor (I think) that says we should place great emphasis on how the
    passage reads in its simplest, most straightforward form. Given the
    context of the passage, who wrote it, to whom they wrote it, under what
    conditions was it delivered, etc., how would the primary audience
    understand what was written?
    
    Of course, there are times we need to go deep, but it seems folks are
    more inclined to pore over the minutiae when the plain reading of the
    text is perfectly clear. This seems to happen most when someone is
    trying to "proof-text" their way to a pet doctrine. (I'm not implying
    that's what was going on in this case.)
    
    People do the same things with parables. They don't recognize that a
    parable is told to convey a primary truth. Instead, they look at all
    of the details of the story and try to make them mean a myriad of
    things and end up losing the point of the story.
    
    These techniques (i.e. of getting lost in the trees when the forest is
    unmistakable) may make for interesting sermons, and may make sense, and
    may get people fired up because of the applications that are derived,
    but I think it's dangerous - regardless of how well intentioned - to
    read into Scripture things that aren't there.
    
    	BD�
    
    P.S. I can live with the "UFOs-as-angels" theory. Don't know whether,
    if pressed, I'd vote for fallen angels (demons) or holy angels, but I
    can't think of any Scripture that would speak against the theory.

	Nancy,	

	Romans 7:17b-18a " ..but sin that dwells in me, for I know that in me,
that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells..."

	Our experience, verified by this word in Romans 7 shows that within our
flesh sin dwells. Literally this word means that sin "houses itself". In other
words sin makes its home in us, that is, in our flesh. Paul wrote this letter to
christians, so this is our case as well. Satan is sin personified. It is
accurate to connect sin, Satan, and the flesh as partners and co-dependents of
one another. 

Ace 

    I would suggest that any of you seriously interested in learning more
    about Wicca read Margo Addlers book Drawing Down the Moon as referenced
    here by John Covert.  It is an excellent source.
    
    Wicca is a religion with no dogma, so those who are adherents to Wicca
    are a diverse lot.  
    
    Some are monotheistic believing that the Earth,
    Air, Fire, and Water used in ritual are all elements of One Divine
    Reality.  Some believe that all Gods and Goddesses are One.  That the
    myths developed over time are representative of peoples understanding
    of the Holy One who dwells within and around all of us.  Those who
    adhere to this belief trace the history of religion from a time when
    God was universally worshipped as a women, to a time when God was
    worship as a Male/Female pair to the development of Male centered
    Monotheism.
    
    Some are Liberal Christians, searching for the Feminine aspect of the
    Divine.
    
    Some are Polytheistic, believing that the Earth is inhabited by a wide
    variety of spiritual forces.
    
    Most believe in Magic, although they define magic differently.  I have
    a Pagan friend who constantly reminds me that Words are magic.  If we
    speek positively and are positive, we will help create a positive
    reality.  Most believe that all acts of kindness and love contribute to
    a universal Kindness and Love.  What goes around comes around is a
    common expression.  The person who loves all his/her earthly neighbors
    as themselves has Love returned to him/her.
    
    Wicca has nothing to do with Satan Worship.
    
    Salom,
    
    Patricia
    

    .45
    
    Thanks for the information Patricia and welcome to CHRISTIAN!
    
    Nancy

    >    Some are Liberal Christians, searching for the Feminine aspect of the
>    Divine.
    >
>    Some are Polytheistic, believing that the Earth is inhabited by a wide
>    variety of spiritual forces.
>    
>    Wicca has nothing to do with Satan Worship.

    The Bible clearly states there is only 1 God.  If you're worshiping
    anyone/anything else, it is an abomination and unto Him and you aren't
    a Christian.  For worship, there is only God, Satan, *OR* Self.  There is
    no all of the above.

    Mike