I really appreciate you taking the time to write to me.  Thanks so much.  In thanks, why don’t you grab this banner for your site?  I’ll even throw in the code for you…  This is 272 by 82 pixels

This is the HTML code:

<a href=”http://davensjournal.com/index.htm”><img src=”JourBanner.gif” border=0 alt=”Daven’s Journal.  Pagan information freely available on the Internet!”></a>

Here’s another one just in case you didn’t particularly like the first one.

This one is 427 by 113 pixels.  The code for this one is:

<a href=”http://davensjournal.com/index.htm”><img src=”JourBan.gif” border=0 alt=”Daven’s Journal.  Pagan information freely available on the Internet!”></a>

And this is a “standard banner” size.  It’s 486 by 60.

<a href=”http://davensjournal.com/index.htm”><img src=”468-banner.gif” border=0 alt=”Daven’s Journal.  Pagan information freely available on the Internet!”></a>

And finally I have a button for those with limited space:

<a href=”http://davensjournal.com/index.htm”><img src=”DJButton.jpg” border=0 alt=”Daven’s Journal.  Pagan information freely available on the Internet!”></a>

I’m no good at saying “thank you” to a whole bunch of people.  Your emails let me know that I’m doing a good job and that I matter.  I’m very glad that you all are communicating with me.  It helps when I get down that I’m not reaching anyone.  I know it’s silly, but hey, I’m human too.

Anyhow, thank you very much for taking the time to drop me a line.

Originally posted 2009-10-30 09:55:49.

From time to time the topic of Pagans and Sacrifice comes up in various forums online. Unfortunately, the majority of people (including pagans) who talk about Sacrifice don’t seem to understand about sacrifice. Most think of sacrifice (in the connotation of Pagan religions) as dealing with human sacrifice or animal sacrifice. While those are ancient practices and valid forms of sacrifice, they are not all that is.

First we need to understand the definition of sacrifice. Sacrifice means simply “to make sacred”. It is from the Latin root and in modern times it is defined as giving up something of value to gain something you wish.

Pretty cut and dried, but when it is translated into Pagan Religion, all anyone can see is things like the Wicker Men of legend, bog drownings, burning bodies and cattle dropping dead.

Because of this persistent vision of what sacrifice is, the act of sacrificing something to the Gods has a VERY bad reputation.

But let’s think about this for a few moments. Sacrifice does not have to be bad, since it’s done all the time by most Pagans.

Ever think of the act of consecration? Cleansing it and going over it with the salted water and so on or whatever ritual you do to make that item sacred sacrifices it to the Gods. You just gave something to Them. Granted you still get to USE it in your rituals, but taking that special goblet that your grandparents drank their wedding toast out of and consecrating it to use in ritual has taken it from the realm of the mundane and special into the realm of the sacred. So that sacrifices it.

You have, in effect, given it to the Gods.

You can do this with any object; a knife, a harp, a person, a steer, a mouse, an owl, a candle, a poppet, a stuffed animal or anything else. Heck, you can even take food, already prepared and cooked food and sacrifice it to the Gods.

Time is another sacrificial object. Most people don’t realize that it can be sacrificed until someone points it out to them blatantly like this, but time, effort and energy can all be sacrificed. It takes time to do something, to make something, to create something of your own. That is a sacrificial act. Creating candles and dedicating them to the Gods is sacrificing them to those Gods, even if you go out and use them to burn on the altar or to light up the chapel or circle.

Creating a poem is a sacrifice. I wrote an article on Lugh and on Tailtu at one point and sacrificed them to them during a ritual to get a new job. It’s perfectly valid to do so and a good and original sacrifice as well. It represented my willingness to sacrifice something that I spent time creating for Them.

In my opinion these original sacrifices are worth more than all the gold and food in the world. They show that one was thinking and that you actually took the tastes of the deity you are sacrificing to into consideration. If it were up to me, I would be more inclined to look favorably upon someone who was sacrificing something that was original than something that everyone gave.

In some cultures and deity sets, the more valuable a sacrifice is to the giver, the more acceptable it is to the Gods in question. One story I remember hearing as I grew up is of a ritual where the Gods would bless this town with health, wealth and prosperity if a sacrifice made to them was valuable enough. The Gods favor would be shown by the bell in the main cathedral ringing with no hand touching it. There had been ten years straight of famine so it was very important that this ritual come about and please the Gods. So the entire town gathered to make their sacrifices to the Gods, and as time passed things became more and more worrisome. Hundreds of people paraded past the altar and made their sacrifice with no result. From the poor to the rich, each gave what they considered to be a proper sacrifice to the Gods, but nothing happened. Finally the King himself knelt before the altar and placed his crown on the altar, sacrificing it to the Gods. Still no bells. The people were crushingly depressed. Finally, the last person to make an offering was this little beggar boy. He approached the altar with a silver coin he had begged from passers by. With this coin he could eat for a month. He placed it on the altar and when he moved away, the bells rang out for hours. The Gods were pleased with the monumental size of the sacrifice the beggar gave.

The beggar boy had given his entire worldly goods and in the process directly harmed himself to please the Gods, so his town could prosper. It showed a willingness to give that is the core of sacrifice.

The ritual of Cakes and Ale is a sacrificial ritual. Yes, it is also a ritual of Thanksgiving, one of sharing the bounty of the Earth with the Gods, but it is a Sacrificial rite.

Most people have this idea that sacrifice has to involve a living thing. But what about burning herbs in honor of the Gods? Is that a sacrifice? I say it is.

You worked to find those herbs. You dried them, and now you are giving them to the Gods in a ritual of honor. It takes energy and time to do all that, plus the herb you grew/found is now not usable by you for any reason. It is therefore a sacrifice. It may look like it is not since the Gods grew the plant and all you did was harvest it, but you fussed over it too. Even if you wild-crafted the herb (meaning you went and searched for it in the wild), you still had to do the work to find the herb if nothing else.

This point I have spent many hours in debate with the Gods about. It basically comes down to this; if you feel the Gods would enjoy something, if it is something you enjoy or that is valuable to you, then sacrifice it to Them.

I didn’t believe this, so I tried it once. I baked a loaf of bread for the Dagda for a spell I needed to come to pass. He loves bread and porridge, and I thought it was appropriate since it was something that looked to me as though it would be of little importance. I mean, bread is bread.

My wife and I made a big deal of it, grinding the meal (we added oats to the bread), pounding and rolling it out, braiding it and putting it in the oven. And I offered it to Him. He was very pleased and even more so when I gave it all to the Birds who would be hungry for it. But it was such a little thing and it gave so much joy to many people around us. And the Gods were pleased.

Which brings up the point of what about the Voodoo custom of bringing cakes and alcohol to celebrations and giving them to the spirits? Well, understand that I’m not a practitioner of Voodoo, but I have learned (despite everything) from some of the specials on voodoo on channels like Discovery. What I remember one mambo saying about that was that the loa eat the spirit or the essence of the food offerings, leaving the physical behind. It is only natural at that point for the celebrants to have that to share in the bounty with the loa. It’s like a partnership where one animal eats only the forequarters, and another eats only the hindquarters. It makes sense for them to hunt together at that point so there is no waste.

Now, what I have talked about are the other forms of sacrifice. Your time, your energy, items you made, your attention, spells, poems, service and so on can all be sacrificed to the Gods. Let’s grasp the nettle here and talk about Human, Animal and Blood sacrifice.

Any discussion of these three topics needs to start with the disclaimer of these are special case sacrifices, and the people participating in them HAVE to know what they are doing. Those who have no clue are letting themselves in for a world of hurt and are going to spoil what is a sacred rite.

Here’s the point of these sacrifices; there should be no pain. The goal of these sacrifices is the energy bleed off.

When a life ends, there is a rush of energy that is released by that death. This is true for ANY living thing, plant, animal, human or whatever. It happens when a bacteria dies (but it’s so miniscule that most people don’t sense it). This life energy is exactly like the “Force” of Star Wars fame, and it can be channeled into the same purposes. That energy is simply lost when something dies, but those that know what they are doing can gather that energy and force it into spells or into other uses to boost it. BUT pain and anger and hatred and fear “taints” that energy. Just like using a paint stick that has mixed red paint to mix white paint without cleaning it first will result in a bucket full of pink paint, so too will fear and anger make this energy useless.

Blood sacrifice is exactly that, spilling your blood and offering that to the Gods. For some there is a mystic use for blood. Like Lugh (the Celtic God) had to store his spear (which had a flaming head) in a bucket of puppy blood to keep it from burning down everything from an unquenchable fire. For others, there is no greater essence of life than blood. Plus, it is nutritional all on it’s own. You can eat blood and live off it. Granted it’s very hard to do so and you will get sick, but what do you think Blood Sausage is? It’s mostly cooked blood.

But those that have been analyzing the attraction of Vampires have done a better job than I could do in telling you about the mystic use of blood. It is a primordial substance and an essential one. Because of CENTURIES of association with life, spilling blood voluntarily becomes a huge sacrifice for others.

Now, I’m not saying that every deity out there will enjoy a sacrifice of blood. Far from that, most will be repelled. However, there are some that do demand blood sacrifice and have demanded it in the past, therefore sacrificing blood to them will help your cause with that deity. Should you do this lightly? Not at all. It should be done only when there is little else that can be done and when there is great need.

Are there other solutions besides just letting it drip out of your hand/arm? Certainly. One of the most original blood sacrifices is dealt with in this article.

As to animal sacrifice. This one is a lot more problematic. There are traditions out there who practice it currently as part of their holy rites. There are some versions of Santeria, Voodoo and some pagan beliefs that do so as well. In EVERY case, the animal is treated with respect and honor. It is fed the best of the best, it is praised and sung to and the death it experiences is quick and painless. Great care is taken to ensure that the animal does not suffer during the actual sacrificial process. For the object of the sacrifice to suffer and to have a torturous experience is a terrible omen and will destroy the sanctity of the rite like nothing else will.

This is not about pain. This is about an offering to the Gods. The best animal in the herd is offered to the Gods, the energy is taken to fuel the ritual or spell the animal was sacrificed for, the soul of that animal is sent to the Gods for THEIR feast, and the flesh of that animal is eaten in a mirror feast among the practitioners. It’s not discarded or thrown into the ditch as some believe (that is an act of sacrilege and wasteful. Why praise and take care of the animal, thanking it for sacrificing itself and then throw it aside casually like day old bread?) but it is eaten and partaken of in a sacred rite. It also occurs to me that this act can have the same effect as other eating rituals.  Eating the heart of a deer one has hunted and killed ritualistically takes the power of the deer into oneself.  Ritually eating the body of a sacrificed animal takes the purity and those blessings of the Gods into oneself.

Human sacrifice is a different order of magnitude. Let me state that this is NOT practiced by any sect or religion that I know of currently. It may be done illegally, but if it is, the participants would be charged with murder under most laws of Western Nations. However, it was a valid form of worship back in the day.

Basically it’s the same as animal sacrifice with two differences: The first was that the sacrifice went to plead the case of those committing the sacrifice directly to the Gods themselves and second, the flesh was (normally) not eaten afterward. I say “normally” because some cannibal tribes probably did eat it.

Once again the sacrifice themselves was the best of the best, someone who was pampered and praised and made to feel special, then they were killed in a ritual that did the least amount of pain to them. When the soul got to the afterlife, they were normally under orders by the priests to plead whatever case they had to the Gods directly. This showed the Gods that the situation was very serious and that immediate help was needed. I mean, if you are willing to give up your life to talk to the Gods about a problem the tribe is having….

One special note on Human sacrifice; the people who were the sacrifices were volunteers. It may have been a case of “I can sacrifice you in a ritual, or we can starve/torture you to death, but either way you are going to die” kind of a choice, but they could trade a potentially painful death for one that would allow you to die at peace. But they were volunteers.

There are some who may still practice this, but it is not a matter of someone else doing it to them, but more along the lines of self-sacrifice in the form of suicide. Groups like the Heaven’s Gate cult can be seen as practicing self-sacrifice to bring about a specific end. It is simultaneously a form of protest and channeling their lives into a greater goal. Buddhists used to do this all the time.

Some notes on sacrifice: There are those who believe that sacrifice, especially willing human sacrifice, has the power to change the world. Not the extreme cults either, but Judeo-Christianity believes this. Let’s look at the biggest sacrifice in history, Jesus’ crucifixion. According to the belief of the followers of Christ, his sacrifice saved the entire world, past, present and future from the fires of Hell so long as they believe that he sacrificed himself for their sins. And that is a hugely powerful magickal act.

Scapegoating has been known for centuries by many peoples. It is basically a cleansing ritual in which the purest animal in the village is ritually “loaded down” with all the evilness, pettiness and sins of the people of the village, then it’s sacrificed to the Gods. That takes all the sins of that village to the Gods and the people are clean again. This allows for closure on many things that could fester and get worse and worse over time for those people.

And if you look at it, the sacrifice of Jesus was just another form of scapegoating. Ritually cleansing the whole planet so long as they buy into the ritual in the first place.

Now, all that said, I know of very few groups who still practice Blood or Animal sacrifice and I know of no groups who actively practice Human sacrifice. But this is not to say that those who do are wrong. It is saying that their practices are not my practices and may not be YOUR practices. It makes them different, not wrong.

If you think of it, there are mainstream practices of Animal sacrifice all the time. Kosher law (in which the blood is removed and the rabbi checks to make sure the animal is clean) is a sacrifice of a kind, and saying prayers before dining CERTAINLY is an animal sacrifice. In case you don’t get it, the animal is killed and made into hamburger patties. Then you bless and thank the animal for sharing its body with you. That is one definition of a sacrifice, since the food is now blessed and sacred. This happens every day. So don’t jump to conclusions too quickly about the need or evils of sacrifice. And this holds true for any meal you eat, it was a living thing that has given its life for you and you have thanked it, therefore it is now a sacrifice.

I mean, if you base an entire religion around a human sacrifice, it can’t be THAT bad, can it?

Let me add a personal observation here.  Sacrifice is not bad.  It simply is.  Animal sacrifice may not have any place in Wiccan practices, but that does not mean it is not a valid form of worship for others.  Human sacrifice isn’t bad either, so long as it is not done casually and care is taken for the person to be sacrificed, but unfortunately most law enforcement agencies aren’t going to see it that way.  Thankfully this is not that big of a problem, no matter what the fanatics try to convince you of otherwise.

Update March 3, 2006

I was contacted by a lady who read this article and had some things to add to it.  I’ll share her comments with you here:

By Cassi Dixon

Thoughts on Sacrifice, in specific animal sacrifice:

Animal sacrifice in which the animal is eaten afterwards also serves the purpose of connecting the participants with the cycle of life/death.  In industrial society most people get their meat prepackaged and are very removed from the actual process of animal husbandry and slaughter.  There’s little relationship between the cellophane wrapped bundles in the store and the animal that gave up its life to bring you dinner.  Most people have no idea of their place in the lifecycle because they have no relationship to their food.

You cannot have an functional acknowledgment of the cyclic nature of life without seeing yourself in that lifecycle.  Animal sacrifice serves to drive home “something dies, you eat – you die, something else eats”.  This of course has even broader implications for most practitioners of Pagan religions because our gods are not only gods of life, but gods of death as well.  In many cases our gods have even died in order to keep the lifecycle moving.  Bringing our awareness to our place in the divine order brings us into unity with the Divine itself.  Sacrifice not only makes the food sacred and consecrated to the Gods, it makes the person who consumes the food sacred as well.

You can do this of course with plant products, but most people are not capable of easily making the leap that plants are also alive until we kill them for food.  Many sacred stories and practices were created in the past to try to illustrate the point to us, the God of the grain dies at harvest time and is consumed by the followers in a ritual manner, but even in modern day Paganism such practices and stories are rarely observed.

Sounds good to me.  I wish I had thought of this.

Originally posted 2009-12-24 03:02:58.

So, you want to create a website to tell the world about your new found spirituality and how happy you are about it? Fantastic.

Let me offer some pointers for you to think about before you start coding the HTML.

First off, think about what you want your website to be about. I mean this. It may seem obvious, but there are facets of your spirituality that are reflected in your website, and all of them are going to affect how your website looks.

Things to consider:

1. Is it going to sell products you make and dedicate to the Gods? Some possibilities are candles, oils, incenses, food, tools and many other things.
2. Is it going to talk about things you learned?
3. Is it going to educate those who find your website?
4. Is it going to deal with problems you have and how you over came them?
5. Is it going to be filled with all the things you find cool and neato about your spirituality?

Each of those questions are going to mandate a different style of website, and in some cases it may require you to buy some software to help you make the site.

For instance, an education website can be maintained by a couple different ways. You can do the coding by hand in something like Dreamweaver or Front Page, but you can do the same thing in what is called a CMS or Content Management System.

A CMS is basically just a program that comes with a lot of functions and a lot of features along with templates for different pages. All you have to do is plug the appropriate information into the correct places, and BINGO! you have a website. If you aren’t really concerned with how it looks, you can do this in under an hour or so. But you have to know what you are doing with a website to get it set up that fast. I have a friend who can create a whole new look and feel for a website using a CMS program called Mambo in about 2 hours. She sets up the asthetics, and you fill in the content. She also charges about $300 to do that.

I would make some recommendations to the above list.  (Please note that this list follows the above list. Each number corresponds to the same number above.)

1. Use a shopping cart software
2. You may wish to consider putting it in a blog
3. This one may be best if it is simply a series of pages that a visitor can click around in
4. Another blog is a possibility, but you may wish to put this on your own server instead of something like blogger or livejournal
5. This can be anything.

Any sales oriented site has to have a shopping cart. It’s the easiest thing to do and it offers the most choices for your customers and the most versatility for you. It reduces the PITA factor by about 500. Most of the work is already done, and similar to a CMS, a shopping cart will have blank areas for your content. They will also have a healthy community of users to help you with your problems. I have used ZenCart in the past and it’s free and very easy to set up.

Blogs: There are a number of websites out there who will allow you to make journal posts to them and then repost those posts to a page you can have display someplace else. The ones like Blogger and Blogspot are very versatile and customizable. I have known a lot of people to use those exclusively and make VERY good looking websites from them. But those sites have one major problem; versatility. They are limited in how some of the information is given to the web browser and sometimes they won’t let you do something that is very simple or necessary for you to do. So another option is to go with a Blogging Software set up, like TypeKey or WordPress.

Both of these are programs you buy, like the shopping cart software and the CMS software, which you upload to your webserver and then configure for your use. They also have theme capabilities. Once again, once you have the software in place and configured the way you want it to look, all you do is plug in your content.

I have seen simply AMAZING sites made on nothing but one blog. Some examples are WilWheaton [dot] net and Websnark. Both these sites are nothing but one blog running where the author can comment on whatever, and the readers can comment themselves.

But blogs function best when used as a Journal type thing. You think of a point you wish to make, you make an entry. It’s useful for keeping an electronic diary of information, kind of hard to do other things with it.

CMS work in that there is some incredible versatility in the components you add to the base part. But blogs are not generally part of it, and frankly everyone is using some type of CMS these days. The main reason for that is because it is EASY. You don’t really have to think much to plug content into a CMS simply because it is designed for Cut and Paste operations.

But with CMSs you get one HUGE drawback; gewgaws. Look the base term up. Go to Google and type define: gewgaw. I’ll wait.

Okay, what has that to do with online content? It is simply something that is useless but looks pretty. It adds nothing to what is there.

Look around the Journal. Notice anything missing? No forum. Want to know why? It’s a gewgaw. I don’t need one. At one point I had considered putting one up for those who wanted to talk to me, but then I realized that I had five other ways for that to happen. I had my email. I had my ICQ and other IM programs, I had three different Yahoo! groups that I ran, and I had a mailing list from the Journal itself for updates. Any of those venues would allow people to talk to me, to discuss things with me. But NONE of them were getting traffic and none of them were being utilized as they should be. So I closed them all, redesigned the functions I had for them to other things. When I closed the Journal Yahoo! Group, I had been using it for announcements of things on the Journal, such as new articles and updates. So I changed it so that the RSS feed for the blog which I DID use a lot took over in that capacity. It’s more versatile and does all that I want it to do AND it allows me to tell users who are signed up as well as those who just visit that I have a new article up.

But a forum would be useless. All it would do is take up space. If I need a teaching spot, I have some programs available and I have a LARGE forum available on other servers. Traditionally, however, forums fail when I get involved with them. I’m a pontificator, a preacher, a teacher, not one that does Socratic Method and I generally don’t talk unless I have something of substance to add to the conversation. So mostly I don’t talk. Which means that others would have to do all the chit-chat talks that keep a forum alive, or I would have to get 400+ members immediately. I’m popular, but not that popular.

So avoid useless programs and functionality on your site. CMSs, however, tend to make adding those features as easy as clicking a link and putting it in position. It becomes a matter of about 20 seconds work to add a fourm to a website that probably doesn’t need one.

This point I’m making is that just because something looks cool and pretty, that does not mean that your website will be helped by having it. Yes, there are a lot of things I would love to have on this site, mainly because my reaction is “Ohhh shiny!” but I resist because the Journal won’t be helped by them, and it just may drive my readers away.

That’s something you have to continually consider, the website visitor. The goal here is to make it as accessible to them as possible. Not everyone uses Internet Explorer, so creating a site that has a lot of coding that only Internet Explorer can use is counterproductive. Not all of them have T1 broadband connections to the internet where they can download the 2 MB movie on your site in under 10 seconds, and not all of them are healthy enough to keep from having a seizure when the flashy blinkie things on your website start playing. Heck, some of them may not even have vision, so they will have to have their text reader read your site to them. That means they won’t be able to turn off the MIDI you put on your site in the background since they have to have the sound on to hear the content of your site.

Also remember that thin code is preferable to code bloat. If you create a page in Microsoft Word, it puts all these extraneous formatting tags in there that only Internet Explorer can read. If you go and take them all out, you wind up with a page that is generally 1/10th the size you started out with. So a 240 KB page goes to 24 KB, and it loads up in 1/10th the time, from 20 seconds to 2 seconds or so. This gives you three advantages.

First off, it takes less space on your webserver, which means you can have more content there. When it’s loaded by a websurfer, it takes less bandwidth of yours, and it is more likely that the other people who requested the page will stay to read it, rather than get bored waiting for it to load up and surf to some other site.

These are the kinds of questions that professional web designers ask themselves all the time.

• Lean code?
• Cross browser/platform compatibility? (Can someone on Windows 98 see it the same way a UNIX box can?)
• Handicapped accessible?
• Is there useless functions incorporated?
• Can I get rid of the silly stuff that doesn’t add anything?
• Is this component I need already part of what I have there, or do I need to get another program?

Seems like a lot of things to consider when all you want to do is tell the world that you found Wicca and you are really happy, right? I’m glad I got that across to you.

I want to offer this advice: If you just want to talk about how wonderful you feel because of Wicca and you, do so on a site like LiveJournal, GreatestJournal or one of several other blogs that are already out there. Your page is not really needed. It’s not that you and your thoughts aren’t needed, it’s simply that there are five or six thousand pages out there that give basics of Wicca to those who don’t know about it, and many of them are probably better than you will be able to put together. Consider sending people you care about to those pages instead of repeating the same information that is already out there. Heck, consider sending them to a book.

If, however, you have something to say, perhaps the teen view of what Wicca is, then by all means, put up a website and say it. Just remember what I have said previously. They are as basic as saying “please” and “thank you”. It’s Internet Courtesy and it’s very important to the success of your site. Don’t simply duplicate what is already out there.

When I surf the Internet, I’m looking for what YOU have to say. If I wanted to know what Silver Ravenwolf had to say, I’d buy her books. If I wanted to hear what Fritz Jung was saying about Wicca, I’d ask him directly, and I’d go to his site. So you may reference their statements, but say what you want to say. Don’t cop out and have others saying it for you. That’s lazy.

Ten years ago, you didn’t need to know anything to put up a website, and these days you need to know even less. Tons of sites went up over night (almost) and most of them sucked. It seems that the intervening years not much more has been learned by new users, for the same mistakes are being made.

When I first put up the Journal, I had a cool site navigation. It was on the left, just where it is now, but it had buttons. Each button was a plain one, until you put your mouse over it, then it showed a pentagram on the far left, showing that you were looking at the “Articles” sub section. When you actually clicked on it, you got a sound that was a page turning. I was so proud of that.

Time passed, I took it off. I had a lot of people complaining about the sound screwing up their music, and the navigation not showing up properly and the JavaScript being disabled on their site so it wouldn’t let them get to other pages of my site. I had other pages they could use, just without the cool effect, and finally I decided to just get rid of it all together. It was taking up space and sucking up my bandwidth.

It was for a similar reason that I finally moved to paid webhosting. I had my site on Crosswinds, Homestead, Geocities, and a couple other “free” sites. I found out that those sites were only free if I permitted thousands of advertisements to be placed on my site, or if I allowed the “free” site host to keep my property. When I read the agreements, I was stating by hosting there that the people who owned that server could reprint my work as much as they wanted without asking or even telling me. That’s why it was free.

When I saw an advertisement on my site (in the form of a pop-up which I despise) advertising a lock picking set to instantly jimmy any car open, I got a paid host. I don’t advocate illegal actions and I won’t allow the people I host with to say that I do by putting that ad on my site.

Those free sites are good for personal pages. They are decent for telling grandma that you got an A in Honors Physics. They are okay for hosting the picture you want to put into an email to dear mom on her grandchildren. But for information sites, unless you are destitute, put them on a paid host. I am chronically short of money, most times I have to scrape to feed my family, but I can afford the less than $20 a month to pay for this website. With that I get probably 80 times the space of a free host, 50 different email addresses I can use, a domain name that is MINE, listings on various search engines, the capability to do a heck of a lot of neat things with my site (like keeping people from linking my images without my permission), the ability to save my files in a secure place so I can transfer them between my PC at work and the one at home. Then there is the free software I get along with it. Better than $8000 worth of software that is provided to me by my webhost simply because I host with them.

Please note, that I’m not USING it all, but I have it available should I need it, like for my blog. AND if something goes wrong, the paying customers get the attention first, not the free hosters. Last time I had a problem, it was fixed in a few minutes, not two or three days.

All these combine to make the Journal and many other sites like it the examples many people cite, and why most people tend to dismiss those sites that are on Homestead and so on. The basic point here is to help you design a good site to tell people what you learned and what you are not believing.

After all, you want people to read what you have to say, not click out of your website because it took so long to load up, right?

Originally posted 2009-10-27 16:08:33.

AE: this is the abreveiation for “American Eclectic” in which elements of many different traditions are taken and mixed to form a new kind of spirituality, while respecting the cultures those elements were taken from. Has a strong sense of history and a seeking of continuity. See this article for an excellent discussion of the various flavors of Wicca.

BTW: this is the “short term” for British Traditional Wicca. Normally this is typified by Gardnerian and Alexandrian, but it can be any group that is a lineaged mystery tradition. See this article for an excellent discussion of the various flavors of Wicca.

Emo (an abbreviation of “emotional”) is a term now broadly used to describe almost any form of guitar-driven alternative rock that expresses emotions beyond traditional punk’s limited emotional palette of alienation and rage. It is also used to describe fans of this genre, most commonly teenagers. (e.g., emo kid). The actual term “emo” originated in the mid-1980s D.C. scene, with the band Rites of Spring. The term addressed both the way the band connected with its audience, as well as its tendency to deal more with topics of personal and relationship politics than with the standard themes of rock music.

Evoke: To ask a being/emotion or other noun to mainfest outside of ourselves to be with us, as another person would be. To evoke an emotion is to bring that emotion forth. To cause to occur.

Fluffy Bunny: A full explanation of this condition would take too long. A short definition is one who insisits that their view of Wicca or Paganism is the correct one, despite reams of evidence being presented to the contrary. A person who is willfully ignorant. For further explanations, see What Makes a Fluffy Bunny and Standard Fluffy Statements

Godiots: Defined as a God Idiot or a God Zealot. Basically a Fundamental Religious person who makes it their business to shove their beliefs in everyone else’s faces. Most notably refers to Christian Zealots, but can and does apply to Pagan, Muslims and other religious practices.

Invoke: To invoke something is to bring that something to being inside ourselves. To invoke a deity to to ask that deity to manifest within us and within our lives, as reflected by ourselves. It is literally to bring something from outside ourselves within, to invite it in.

Karma: Religious doctrine that each rebirth in the cycle of lives is based on the sum of the merit accumulated by an individual during his previous lives. Karma establishes the general tendency of a life but does not determine specific actions. In each life, the interaction between individual character and previously established karma forms the karma of succeeding lives.

Polyamory: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships DOES NOT IMPLY PROMISCUITY.

Sheeple: People sheep. A person who just follows the crowd with whatever they are told, who never questions or wonders or tries. They simply do what they are told to do like good little sheep.

Spitball or Spitballing: to toss ideas around with no expectation of them coming to pass, to brainstorm.

Straw Man: A straw man or man of straw is a dummy in the shape of a human created by stuffing straw into clothes. Straw men are used as scarecrows, combat-training targets, effigies to be burned, and as rodeo dummies to distract bulls. In otherwords, a disposable target. In the context of an argument, it is a distraction, a target presented to sidetrack the discussion from one area onto it with the purpose of derailing the discussion/debate/argument. A target intended to be destroyed.

Vanity Search: A Websearch where you enter your name, handle, or website, to see who mentions or links to you. Normally used as an ego boost.

Wictim: A Wiccan Victim or one who believes that you are persecuting them right now. Generally a trait of the Fluffy Bunny.

Yahoogroup: A group run and hosted by Yahoo! Groups which is based on the email list format. Emailing an address as a member will post that email to the entire group, as well as all responses. MajorDomo is a form of this, but it is a bit more clunky to use.

Originally posted 2005-05-31 10:37:59.

When the discussion topic of “can I charge for the reading I did” comes up in most forums, it really turns into a free for all fight. There are the proponents of “yes you may” and the opponents who say “no you may not”. I can see both sides of this discussion and I offer my own humble thoughts here.

First, the side that opposes payment.

Most often they point out that you are using a gift from the deities and that, as such, you will “contaminate” it by having money change hands for using it. They point out that since the future is always in flux and you could be wrong, that it is impossible to guarantee that you are accurate or that what you state will happen. They also (if they know their craft history) might point to the “ardanes” and show that Gardner didn’t want the Arte being sold, meaning that by his rules that one could not take money in exchange for the casting of a spell. They also point out that it’s traditional.

Next the side that proposes payment.

The proponents will point out that it’s only fair to exchange money for the work of readings or spells. I mean, they worked for the money; therefore it’s an energy exchange, them giving their energy (money) for yours (spell). That in those who have used their spells or their readings to make a living, that it didn’t corrupt them or make them less of a priest or priestess. There are assertions that you can exchange service for service, mowing a lawn, cooking a meal or what have you.

My opinion?

I will accept money for my service. I may not do it for religious services, like a Handfasting or a Wiccaning, definitely not for a Sabbat or Esbat, but I will take money for a Tarot reading (as shown by the ads I have for just that service). My reasoning is simple.

One goes to a lawyer to have legal documents drafted. It is his skills that create a binding legal document that says what you want done after you die, or that you have now set up a trust fund and so on. You pay him. You go to a doctor for medical treatment. You give your money to him, he gives you medicine and he tells you if you need to lose weight. You take your car to a mechanic. You give them money, they repair your car and give it back to you. You buy food from the grocer who takes your money and gives it to a farmer who gives him the fruits of his land, which the grocer gives to you so you may eat.

Where is it mandated that these professions must give away their skills or their knowledge or their components? Why should the doctor fix you for free? Should the mechanic expend several hours of work on your car and use many, many parts to correct a problem in your car for free?

It would be nice to have a communistic society where that happened, but it’s not reasonable. Greed and sloth, many human failings as well as the need to acquire all conspire to make most communistic groups fall apart fairly quickly. But this is neither here nor there.

Selling professional skills is a normal part of society. An author would count it theft if you took their words and republished them without his permission and without royalties being paid to him, after all, he wrote those words. The Music Industry has a long history of going after people who take their work and who don’t pay for it. So why should I, as a Tarot reader, be expected to give away MY professional skill?

It is a skill. I may have a talent for reading the cards, but there still has to be a connection to the Universe, an intuitive link, that will help me interpret the card correctly when they come up in a reading. I also must study and learn not only surface meaning of cards, but their deeper symbolism, expending my time and energy, something of value to me at least. I have to be aware of the cards, I have to be aware of the client, I have to be aware of the connection to everything, and I have to know when to depart from the “book standard” reading. I also have to supply my cards, replace those cards when necessary and invest in books to give nuances in meaning and so on. This is a pursuit that could take quite some time and significant amounts of energy and money.

Shouldn’t I be reimbursed for all that?

Gypsies certainly were. They would refuse to do a spell or a Tarot reading without an exchange of money first. Temples did this also. There were some temples in the past that would do oracular readings for money (or other service) for the clients. The Witches of the past did this too, taking their “payment” in many forms, just one of them being cash.

It is true that in a village, one can do a reading for someone in need and let the community take care of you in exchange, that the reading would be your contribution to the whole. I can see this happening in a coven situation where there are only a few members and each of them contributes to the health and welfare of the whole. I can see the one who is talented with the Tarot cards giving readings to the rest of the members of the coven, just as the High Priestess gives her home for the Covenstead, the High Priest supplies the candles and other alter items, the Maiden prepares the feast for everyone. I can see that and understand it totally.

I can also see in the “brotherhood of card readers” one that is skilled at doing readings being generous and allowing another who has a similar set of skills to do a reading for them. I exchange my Tarot readings for a rune reading or a dowsing. That is an equal exchange of effort and energy.

Those special cases are fine, but to believe that because I am Wiccan I must give my skills (which have taken me a lifetime to learn) to whoever asks, for nothing more than a smile, is asking me to bastardize my skills as nothing more than a sideshow trick.

Part of human nature is to value little what comes for no cost. The car that Mommy and Daddy gave to their child has little intrinsic value to a teen; therefore it is of no consequence when it is wrecked. But the car you bought for yourself is taken care of, it is pampered, it is treated like it was a one of a kind vehicle. Because YOU paid for it. It was your talents, your skills and labor that gained you the money to purchase that vehicle and therefore you prize it. That is the way it should be.

A reading or a spell is one of the most personal things one can do. A spell to protect, a spell to bring revenge, a spell to help someone over come an inhibition are all very personal and the person requesting them MUST hold them in value, pamper them and so on. But more often than not, if the spell is cast for free without the expectation of return, then they will go “Oh, pretty lights” and do nothing more with it, negating the spell in its entirety and thus “discovering” that magick is nothing more than mystic passes with the hand and chanted phrases.

But if you ask money for it, then they pay attention. They have ritually infused themselves into the spell or the reading. They have taken their labor and their effort, their sweat and blood, made physical by the money, and they are now completely and totally tied into that reading. They pay attention to each word, each hesitation and they hold onto that reading. They invest their soul and their energy into the spell, and by god they want it to WORK, therefore they believe in it. After all, they gave MONEY for that, they can’t buy that carton of cigarettes or that tank of gas. That’s a valuable reading now.

Because of this personality infusion in the process, because of this energy exchange, I believe that more people should charge for readings and spells. That any time a Tarot card is turned or a prophesy is spoken or that a stick of incense is lit, there should be an energy exchange of SOME sort, be it in labor, food, or cash.

If Priests, Monks and ministers in the churches (including Buddhist and Hindu) are willing to take money for prayer (through the medium of tithing or donations, which pay for their upkeep), then why can’t we for the same reason? It doesn’t make sense.

Oh, you can say that it cheapens the gift that by charging and that the person will feel ripped off. To that I say the only person who can cheapen it is the person who refused the money. When you are giving it away, you are inclined to do less than you may normally do, simply because you are getting no reward. So, asking for and receiving money is a way to make you work harder to give good value to others.

I know when I started Tarot readings, I gave them away. I did readings and I didn’t take any money. It was easy for me and my talents to do so. I did the minimum I could to answer the question, never really delving into the problem the person came to me with. And I did regret it.

When I started taking money, I knew the value of a dollar. I know what *I* would expect were it me paying for the reading, and I make sure I give value for that money. One reading I do costs $90 and takes about an hour. I had one lady purchase one from me, and I didn’t feel that I had given her full value for her money since one HUGE question went unanswered in my mind. So I did another reading for her while she sat there, answered that question and did some more explaining. That I felt was good value and I performed to my best. She commented later that she was satisfied with the first reading, and that the rest was icing on the cake, unnecessary but really good.

This philosophy can be applied to any discipline, not just to Tarot or divination or even spells. It can be applied to writing, singing, playing an instrument, teaching, computer work, secretarial work or anything. ANY professional skill and manual skills can be seen in this light. Paying for something makes it valuable, if SOLELY for the fact that one has given money for it. That is the textbook definition of value. That which has value is treated differently and is treasured. That which is free is treated as less and with no value, thus is treated with contempt.

I know that when I get done with a reading, I feel a sense of satisfaction in the reading, that I did my best. I want the other person to value that reading as well since I worked my backside off. To see my effort and energy treated with contempt makes me mad. To see them take what I have said to heart and believe it, to see them put what I advised into practice, well, it makes me very proud.

And if I have to take a few shekels or tuppence for that, so be it. I’ll take it gladly and use that money without shame.

Originally posted 2009-11-11 22:21:07.

I follow a lot of people here (on Tumblr), and most apparently don’t understand that it’s not just the outside package that is beautiful, but the internal personality, attitude, love and joy that shine out that combine to make someone beautiful.

Yes, the outside package is what people react to first.  Yes, it is the one that most will judge you on first.  But just like a Christmas Present, sparkly gold paper and nice ribbons do not make the Popeil Pocket Fisherman any better.  Just like wrapping an iPad in the comic section of the newspaper doesn’t detract from the present.

However, since humans are visual oriented, presenting an attractive outer casing is what seems to be important in the very short term.  Yes, beautiful people are more desirable to be around, they are more envied, but that is ONLY because people who look at them ONLY see them as the outer casing.  Just as if you only saw the gold wrapped package or the comics wrapped package.  The casing would be what you would judge on first.

And we are even warned against this.  ”Don’t judge a book by its cover.”  ”Beauty is only skin deep…” and many other such sayings warn us that it’s not the casing, the package, the wrapping that is important, but the contents of the mind, soul and spirit.

So I see people worried about their appearance to the exclusion of all else, and I get very sad.  I get upset when I see someone who only thinks that attractive appearance is what is important.  Hey, I like looking at pretty things around me too, but to stay around those pretty things there has to be more than just pretty appearance.  Because beauty fades, the nicest flower in the world will whither, and the most gorgeous gown will rot with time.  But the personality and the internal qualities are what will last.

I’ve known many girls in my life.  The beautiful ones are very rarely the ones who stay “beautiful” and “thin” and “tanned” and “fit” and “skinny” three or more years after I come to know them.  There are a few like that, but most understand that while their looks may have initially turned my head and had me look at them, the contents of their character are what kept me around.

And I’ll tell you something else.  It’s the “sad, weird” people I enjoy spending time around.  Cookie cutter personalities like are shown on Mean Girls or Bring it On are not anything that interests me.  But the girl with an armful of books, the one who wears spiked hair or a collar, the girl with the black makeup and the pale complexion, THOSE people are interesting.  They have a persona they want to show, and they apparently are willing to show it and be contrary to society rather than trying to conform and blend in.

Those people are worth the time to get to know.

So, ladies and gentlemen, no matter who you are, please revel in yourself.  Yes, put on an attractive appearance but understand it is not the appearance that will keep someone around.  The gestalt of you is what keeps someone.  And understand that even if this person over here left you, it is their loss due to you being a beautiful creature.  Someone else will be with you and the others, well, they have to content themselves with the Pocket Fisherman.

The Witches’ Almanac LTD., 2010 $11.95 US
ISBN 978-0-9824323-0-3

Review by Daven

Rating: ★★★★☆ 

I honestly thought this was a mistake when it was sent to me. I hadn’t requested this book, and I tend to avoid reviewing things like calendars and date books, since their usefulness is very limited. But I am glad to have the opportunity to review this book.

Like all almanacs that I have ever seen, this has a calendar in it. It has articles and also information on planting cycles. The required articles and mentions of astrology are also present. But as the title implies, this also is a book packed with information for Witches.

No, there are no recipes for making your own wormwood flying ointment, but there is an article on the use of Cauldrons in Celtic Myth. There is an article on the Mexican Day of the Dead. The Holidays for most Pagans are listed in the calendar accurately. There are moon phases in the calendar as well.

One thing that I noticed for this book, and it is the first time I have seen it, is that the calendar, instead of being broken down into January, February and such months on the Gregorian calendar, is instead broken into Zodiac Signs. So the “year” of the calendar starts with Capricorn, and then goes to Aquarius and on until the entire cycle has been covered, and then it continues for three more signs to give you time to pick up a new copy to continue the cycle.

There are full length articles in the front and back of this book, and there are little snippets of articles on the pages facing the month that you are dealing with. A glance at the calendar is enough to show you what the moon phase is, as it is printed graphically on the days it occurs. I was a bit confused by the days having the signs of the zodiac on them until I read the planting suggestions that are just before the section of the calendars. There it tells me that the zodiac names are qualities in effect as the Moon moves through the houses, and what you should be planting on those days.

ON the calendar pages are little snippets of information on the zodialogical attachment to what stone or metal. They call come from the “ABC of Magic Charms” and I’d bet you that it is another book published by this publisher.

I have to say that like most almanacs that I have read, I like this a lot. There is useful information in there instead of the information that I have to ignore because it’s not for me, like the times of tides and so on. The articles are informative (if in some cases short), but I did find myself reading those articles and learning something from them each time.

All in all, I’m giving this 4 out of 5 stars. The reason it’s not higher is the limited usefulness that it will have after the Spring of 2012. But don’t let that stop you if you find a copy in a used book store, the facts contained in these articles won’t change, and it can be used for reference later.

Who knows, maybe next year’s edition will have the date of the End of the Fifth world in it.

Originally posted 2010-11-13 20:51:08.

[Copyright Freeman and Sky Dancer, 2003. All rights reserved.
Permission to repost or otherwise distribute is granted provided
the essay is kept intact and this notice included.]

The question keeps coming up, what makes someone fluffy, or a fluff-bunny?  The concept of a fluff-bunny is similar to “twinkie” as used in many American Indian communities: someone who either plays at the spiritual practices or is serious about it but goes for stereotypes and glitz rather than factual information.

Practicing any significant number of these characteristic behaviors will be good and sufficient cause to label you accordingly. These are from actual experience, but they don’t all apply to any one person — we hope. Several of them seem contradictory; this doesn’t appear to matter to the people in question. Note: if you find this list offensive (especially if it bothers you that it has 13 items), then you are probably a classic fluffy. If you think we’re being unnecessarily confrontational with this, you may be right (but see item 5). If you think we’re picking on Wiccans, maybe so; but we do know plenty of non-Wiccan fluffies (check out http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/ and http://wicca.timerift.net/ for other detailed views on the Decadence of Wicca).

1. Claim to be practicing some really old path, but don’t put forth the effort to find out what people actually did or believed on that path.

2. Ignore anything dark and threatening, even if pretending to work with dark deities. Talk about how your deity of choice is always good or always right, or pretend your favorite dark goddess is really a misunderstood sweetie-pie.

3. Accept any kind of nonsense you’re told by another fluffy or read in some book with a crescent moon on the spine. Alternatively, accept any one source as definitive, no matter what those tight-assed intellectuals think about it. And do pass along whatever it is you think you know as if you invented it.

4. Get all worked up at any kind of challenge involving logic or fact. Only feelings really matter. Especially, make a big point of being huffy at anyone who doesn’t take whatever you say at face value, because “everyone is entitled to an opinion.” Disregard what others have to say if it doesn’t affirm what you already believe, whether or not they can prove their claims.

5. Avoid conflict at all costs, and jump into other people’s disagreements, even if you’re not directly involved, to try to get them to agree for agreement’s sake.  Agree with other people just to smooth things over, or even lecture them on how they should just get along.

6. Try to get others to refrain from using profanity or stop talking about a subject because it makes you uncomfortable. For example, go to a clothing-optional event and then pitch a fit if anyone opts to go fully or partially nude.

7. Tell non-fluffies how horrible and/or unspiritual they are for not accepting all pagans, regardless of how asinine their behavior may be; but be sure to tell everyone at the drop of a hat that you’re Not A Satanist, whether they asked or not.

8. Be sure to complain frequently about persecution, whether you’ve actually experienced any or not. Extra points if you think someone choosing not to do business with you is “persecution” or if you repeat any form of the Burning Times Myth:
   - 9 million died (or any number greater than about 40,000)
   - Those condemned as witches were Wiccans (or any kind of Pagan)
   - People were burned at Salem (try hanged and pressed)
   (You might want to check the Covenant of the Goddess website for a reasonable account of the Witch Hysteria from a source with impeccable Wiccan credentials, except that doing so might be non-fluffy.)

9. In conversation in person or otherwise, always assume that the Wiccan Rede (or whatever your code of honor happens to be) applies to all Pagans. If mildly challenged on this, act confused; if strongly challenged, go into Major Evil Eye Mode and accuse the Rede-Infidel (who OBVIOUSLY has no ethics whatsoever) of Satanism or Crowleyism or worse.

10. Presume to lecture others on any of the Favorite Fluffy Topics:
    -  Why Witchcraft is a religion
    -  Only Wiccans are Witches
    -  What Witches (your definition) don’t do: Hexes, spells for selfish purposes, animal sacrifice (we’re not like those awful Santerians and Vodou-ists), sex magick, etc.
    -  Why not use magick to interfere with another’s Will or Karma — even by healing them
    -  How the world was a happy, peaceful matriarchy until those horrible men had to mess it all up
    -  How ritual nudity, sex magick, and the scourge are all in traditional Wicca only because Uncle Gerald was a dirty old man.

11. Insist that Wicca, or whatever your path is, is whatever you make it, regardless of its history. Demand respect for what you’re doing even as you trash the efforts of your precursors and insist on calling the trash by the same name.  Don’t bother renaming what you do, however loosely based on the original form, because you want to ride on the coattails of people who went before and claim some sort of lineage regardless of the lack of similarities between what they did and what you do.

12. If your belief is that “All Goddesses are One Goddess” and “All Gods are One God” and ultimately all deities are aspects of the One, use this as an excuse to not bother learning about or working with specific deities. Or, when you do call on a Lord and Lady by name, mix and match any two from any pantheons and any times.

13. You can be lacking in all of the preceding Fluffy Traits, but if you demonstrate this one, you’re in the Fluffy Club: Don’t show any signs of having been touched by divinity or ecstatic experience. Many mainstream Christians sing hymns as if they were laundry-lists, and everyone accepts them, so that is what we want to do. Look askance at people who actually get out of themselves in ritual or celebration. Care more about what society and/or your friends think than what your deities think or whether you are actually getting anything out of what you do.  Be sure not to do anything, even if it would develop your path/abilities/insights, that might possibly provoke disapproval or make you lose face.

Why do we make such a big deal about fluffies?  We’d happily let it pass if they weren’t so busy trying to impose their fluffy values on the rest of the community.  The rabid fervor with which they attempt to impose their flippancy on others gives outsiders the impression that we’re all stupid, incapable of critical thinking skills, and inconsistent.  Quite frankly, we don’t appreciate that and we don’t appreciate being told we need to behave in stupid, unthinking, and inconsistent ways.  So while you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish, you don’t have a right to force it on us, but we do have a right to call you on your bullshit when we see it.

Originally posted 2009-11-14 23:17:28.

<– continued from

*WHAT SAYS THE WORD?*

(I must make a digression here. It is true what this man says here. But remember that it is only true if YOU BELIEVE IN HIS RULES. By our very religion, we do not believe in any of this and never will, so who’s rules are we violating? A God whom we honor, but whom we don’t give homage to? An individual person? It does not matter what someone else’s religion says we are doing, because WE DON’T BELIEVE IT. So given that, none of this has any authority or power over us, only the Christians. This is a very important distinction since you will hear things like this thrown at you all the time by the Bible-thumpers. They will try to use their rules to force you to do as they say. It is analogous of obeying the laws of Angola while living in the USA and being an American citizen. And having an Angolan citizen try to force you to follow his country’s laws. It is ludicrous and beyond belief that anyone would apply their standards to you and me. But unfortunately, it happens far too often. Daven)

Since witches do not generally accept the teachings of the Bible, we will not spend much time on a biblical critique.[4] However, even a cursory review of Scripture is enough to demonstrate that the beliefs and practices of witches are utterly incompatible with the Bible. Witches who honestly examine the Scriptural testimony will have no choice but to admit that the Bible condemns their beliefs and practices.

In fact, Scripture gives a blanket condemnation of all forms of the occult — divination, sorcery, and spiritism – in diverse passages throughout the Old and New Testaments. For instance, in Deuteronomy 18:10-12 God’s view of occultism is expressed in the following warning: “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD…”

If this were the only biblical passage dealing with this issue, it would be clear that all forms of the occult are denounced by God. (Then why did Kings in the Old Testament go to wise women and soothsayers and “a woman with a familiar spirit” <the witch of Endor> for counsel? Wasn’t it strictly condemned? See 1 Sam chapt 28 where Saul swears by God that no harm will come to her if she divines for him. Pretty hypocritical God if He lets a King get away with swearing in His name if He hates occult practitioners that much. Daven) Yet, this is only one of many condemnatory references (see, e.g., Lev. 19:26, 31; 20:6; 2 Kings 17:10-17; 21:1-6; 23:4-7, 24-25; 2 Chron. 33:6; Acts 13:6-12; 16:18; Gal. 5:20; Rev. 9:21).

Moreover, numerous forms of god and goddess worship are explicitly condemned in Scripture. There are, for example, a multitude of denunciatory references to worshipping or invoking the various gods and goddesses of the Near Eastern religions: the Assyrian and Babylonian Ishtar, the Ashtoreths of the Canaanites (e.g., the Sidonians and Phoenicians), and so forth (e.g., Deut. 16:21; Judg. 2:10-14; 10:6-16; 1 Sam. 7:3-4; 12:10; 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13-15). Ashtoreth is described in 2 Kings 23:13 as “the vile goddess of the Sidonians” (NIV), or — as the KJV and NASB translate it — “the abomination of the Sidonians.” The Bible speaks out not only against worshipping, invoking, and consulting pagan gods, but also against the idea that human beings — individually or collectively — are divine.

In one sense, witches are right about the antiquity of some of their beliefs and practices. The belief that human beings are or can become divine is a good example. In the first book of the Bible (Gen. 3:5) we find the original proposal — made by the serpent — of the idea that we could become “like God.” But Scripture emphatically states that there is only one being who is God (Deut. 6:4; 32:39; Isa. 43:10-11; 44:6-8; 45:5-6, 14, 22; 46:9; Jer. 10:10-11; Mark 12:29-31; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19). Though there are many so-called gods or goddesses — in the sense that people worship entities conceived by their imaginations — there is only one God _by nature_ (1 Cor. 8:4-5; 10:20; Gal. 4:8). As one astute observer remarked:

“There are two foundational facts of human enlightenment: (1) There is a God; and (2) You are not He.” Humankind has not only demonstrated a great proclivity towards self-deification, it has also been strongly inclined to confuse God’s creation (or His creative process) for the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:21-25). This is certainly the case with those entangled in the teachings of modern witchcraft.

Some witches have actually tried to reconcile the above passages and others with their own practices. Nonetheless, the Bible — particularly in the original languages — renders any such maneuvering futile.[5] We therefore ask that witches at least acknowledge that the Bible in no sense condones their practices, but rather expressly condemns them. {So?}

*The Source of the Force*

Like a drunkard who continually returns to the bottle, so mankind’s bent toward self-deification and creation worship has been irrepressible, as has been its blindness towards its own deplorable predicament due to the ravaging effects of sin. To wit, witches are deceived _not only_ about the inherent falsity of their often sincerely held beliefs (see Prov. 14:12), but as well about the _source_ of their misguided belief system. Despite what witches claim, witchcraft originates from Satan – the “father of lies” and the “god of this world,” and from man’s corrupt nature. Thus, though witches do not acknowledge the Devil’s existence, they are nonetheless (all the more so) trapped in the talons of his tyrannical grip (2 Tim. 2:25-26).

To witches who believe that magic is a natural, neutral force or power, Christians reply that it is rather empowered by “the prince of the power of the air that now works in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2).

As such, whether witches acknowledge it or not, _all_ occultism involves interaction and trafficking with demonic spirits (see Lev. 17:7; 20:6; Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:36-39; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20-21). [6] As W. Foerster comments, “For Paul witchcraft is meddling with demons…. But there can also be intercourse with demons in the normal heathen cultus (1 C. 10:20f.)…. While idols are nothing…demons stand behind paganism.”[7] Or, as Bietenhard informs us, “Since dealing with demons lies behind sorcery…it is rejected (Gal. 5:20)…. Heathen worship brings men into contact with demons (1 Cor. 10:20f.), for demons stand behind paganism in general (Rev. 9:20).”[8]

This is why occultism in all its forms is condemned in the Bible. Occultists therefore fall under the judgment of God for participating in such inexcusable activities (Rom. 1:18-25; Eph. 4:18-19; Rev. 21:8; 22:15).

Since witches generally do not accept the Bible, and because there are other inherent weaknesses and failings in their worldview — metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical — we can and should critique witchcraft in these areas as well. This I shall do in the remainder of this article.

*METAPHYSICAL MALADIES*

In Part One I discussed the importance of polytheism as understood by witches and the related concept of an “open” metaphysic — that is, the position that there are multiple levels of and meanings to reality. This is expressed in the belief that there is “no one way or right religion for all,” and no “one truth.”[9] We are told by witches that all religions lead in the same direction; they simply take different paths to get there.

*Existential Essence*

Witches further believe that everything one experiences is in some sense real and therefore true. Since reality is multiple and diverse, and since the possible levels or planes of meaning are infinite, there is always more to experience. We should therefore remain open-minded and tolerant of differing views.[10]

Witches who think along these lines hold that everyone has a part of the truth, for every person operates from a limited subjective perspective of the world.[11] And since no one has an absolute knowledge or perspective of reality (ultimate reality is inaccessible to us), all views and experiences must be seen as equally valid. One view is as good or true as another (minimally, it is true for that individual). Reality, then, is a matter of perspective — and everyone has a different one.

*Romantic Rationalizations*

Christians certainly grant that witches have the right to believe whatever they choose, as much as we might disagree with their views. However, we reject that logic and reason should be ignored when we encounter two different views that are obviously incompatible.

We also grant that life is complicated and diverse, and that people can and do have an incalculable number of experiences. However, this does not prevent us from knowing many significant truths and facts about ultimate reality. We need to distinguish between knowing all about life or ultimate reality, which no human being is capable of, and knowing some true things about it. These are two different issues. Without this distinction, we could not make any meaningful statements about reality.

*Experience and Truth*

Many witches fail to recognize a key distinction regarding the validity of experiences. Over and over again, one finds a failure on the witches’ part to distinguish between real experiences that people actually have versus experiences that are true. For instance, a man could have an experience or sensation of falling. The feeling might be quite intense. Upon awakening from his sleep, however, he realizes that he was not falling at all but lying on his bed. Did he have the experience of feeling like he was falling? Yes. Was he really falling? No! The latter question is not “Did he have this experience?” but “was he really falling?” These are two entirely different issues. To confuse the two is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

We do not dispute that witches have many experiences that may appear to support their religion, but we must ask: Do these experiences really prove their assertions or only prove that they had some type of experience? Appealing to experience only establishes that one might have had one, not that one’s world view is true.(The same argument could be used for YOUR religion bucko. Daven)

The idea that each world view is like one more flower in the garden of life is a nice sentiment, but it does not fit the real world. In fact, it is nothing short of metaphysical madness. To paraphrase and adapt a quip by Edgar Sheffield Brightman, “In a world where Christianity and witchcraft are both true, we do not have a universe, but a cosmic nut house!”

As we shall see presently, the metaphysical framework of the witches’ world has important implications in the realm of testing truth claims.

*EPISTEMOLOGY*

With their emphasis on experience and their belief in the intuitive and existential nature of truth, witches fall into diverse epistemological sinkholes on the road to truth. One finds a consistent appeal to “knowing” not by the intellect but by experience and “intuition.” One also finds an implicit or explicit depreciation or denial of the principles or laws of thought.

For example, Starhawk — a popularizer of the witchcraft/neopagan world view — disdains what she terms “any beliefs which would…deny the authority of experience…” thus reinforcing what she calls “the lie that there is only one truth.”[12] In the same way, Margot Adler — another popular neopagan writer — argues for the superiority of experience over dogma, and metaphor and myth over theology, doctrine, and creed.[13]

Although one often hears witches downplay or outright deny doctrines, dogma, and beliefs — still, they too vehemently champion their beliefs.[14] To say that experience and ritual are more important than doctrine is itself a doctrine. Besides, how is it possible to have rituals in the first place if there are no beliefs to give them meaning? In short: no beliefs, then no rituals. Additionally, one must assert doctrines or beliefs and use logic to even refute the idea of doctrine. (True and good point. We do have doctrine and beliefs, but we avoid dogma. Dogma is a blind following of the doctrine and beliefs. We teach the whys and wherefores so dogma is unnecessary. We are not perfect, we just try harder. Besides, we do have beliefs, they just vary from coven to coven and member to member. We do not force all of our members to believe the same thing, whether or not it is right for the member or not, just to have a “church” of all the same people. We do not rubber stamp people as “saved”. Daven)

*Is Logic Necessary?* (No. Daven)

Many people berate the use of logic and talk as if they could think and do without it. The fact is, however, that it is impossible not to use logic. Should a person attempt to refute logic, he or she must use logic in the very process of refuting it — thereby refuting his or her own argument. Let us be clear on this: one must use logic to disprove logic. For instance, suppose someone asserts that magic and experience are beyond logic and reason (i.e., logic does not apply to these realms). The person making this assertion has failed to note that this statement is itself predicated upon the use of logic — that is, logic had to be utilized to even formulate it. Logic therefore does apply.

Due to limited space, we will consider just one of the primary laws of thought — the law of non-contradiction.[15] This principle affirms that a statement cannot both be true and false (A cannot be non-A) at the same time and in the same sense. For example, it cannot be the case that one both can and cannot (at the same time and in the same manner) safely cross a busy street. It is one or the other, but not both. If one says it is both and attempts to keep his (or her) actions consistent with his words, he will end up being run over. When people fail to yield to logic, they will also end up being run over by their own arguments (i.e., they assert false, self-defeating, and/or meaningless statements).

Some (many?) witches try to avoid the anvil of logic, but to no avail.[16] A case in point is Stewart Farrar, who approvingly quoted C. G. Jung’s assertion that “everything human is relative.”[17] To which we respond: Is this statement relative too, since it was uttered by a human? If it is not relative, then the statement is not true. But if the statement itself is relative, that would mean there are times when it is not true — when some things human are _not_ relative, and are hence absolute. But this would contradict Jung’s original statement. Thus, it is both false and self-defeating. Clearly, the sword of logic cuts both ways. (Why are you trying to confuse the issue? Metaphysics and Religion are relative, in that it is only true for those who wish to believe it. Your belief is not mine, even if we are in the same sect.)

*Magical Immunity*

Witches often attempt to defend their magic castle from the battering rams of logic by erecting supposedly impenetrable walls.[18] Different explanations and rationalizations are offered to protect their views. These include the aforementioned depreciation, denial, or alleged inapplicability of logic and objective standards for discerning truth; postulating diverse planes or levels of reality and meaning; dichotomizing between emotions and the intellect, or between normal versus altered states of consciousness; and a number of other distinctions. To be fair, many of these attempts are simply sincere efforts to understand the mysterious world of the occult. Nonetheless, such attempts appear to be cases of special pleading and of employing double standards — resulting in an assumed immunity from the normal criteria of truth-testing used to verify or refute a world view.[19]

No matter what explanations and defenses are used, however, experience and intuitive feelings are often an essential element of the witches’ world view validation — “It feels right; I have truly experienced it.” Witches “know” via powerful spiritual and emotional experiences that their views are true. Therefore, they can at times affirm apparently contradictory assertions. (Just as you know that your Redeemer lives. Last time I checked, dead was dead. And they still don’t have a body, one way or another. Daven)

Again, regardless of which of the above distinctions are used to advance or protect the witches’ world view, the distinctions themselves are based upon the validity of logic. Try as they may, witches simply cannot not use logic. (Here’s some logic for you, use that same logic that you are slicing us with against your own beliefs and dogma. Tell me where YOUR ceremonies and ways came from, and then show me in the BIBLE proof that supports it. Daven)

Our pagan friends are, so to speak, “up the metaphysical creek,” without a trustworthy epistemological “paddle” — and are caught in a whirlpool of subjective circularity that makes one’s head spin. Witches cannot appeal to logic when it suits them and ignore it when it refutes them and still expect to be taken seriously. (… and you would know this from years of doing this yourself? Daven)

As we shall now see, the use of logic in the categories of “both/and” as opposed to “either/or” have implications not just for thinking but for ethics as well.

*ETHICS*

Witches do not believe in the concept of sin as defined by orthodox Christianity. Sin is viewed as an outdated concept that is “only a tool used to shackle the minds and actions of people.” The only “sin” or evil is that of being unbalanced and out of harmony or estranged from oneself, others, the varied life forms, and Mother Earth. As there is no sin or divine retribution to be saved from, “salvation” has only to do with attaining and maintaining harmony with the above.[20]

To their credit, many witches consistently appeal to their ethical code — the Wiccan Rede: “an it harm none, do what ye will.”[21] They further claim not to use their occultic abilities for malevolent purposes since they believe (1) that any evil done to another will come back upon the perpetrator threefold or more, and (2) in some form of reincarnation (and the moral law of karma which governs it). Some, such as Donald Frew, incorporate other guidelines to determine the rightness of an action, such as the general consensus of the witchcraft community, common sense, the laws of the state, science, and pragmatic considerations.[22] While the aforementioned is true, the Wiccan Rede is not consistent with — nor does it logically or ontologically follow from — the world views most commonly held by witches: pantheism and panentheism.[23] It must derive, then, from someone or something external to or independent of the universe or Goddess/God or Life Force itself. But how can this be? In both pantheism and panentheism, nothing is outside or independent of the One, and even death and evil are an intricate and necessary part of reality.[24] The witches’ ethical code is therefore inconsistent with their metaphysical world view.

This dilemma is reflected in the teachings of Starhawk. For example, though she does not think destruction is necessarily evil, she states: “The nature of the Goddess is never single…She is light and the darkness, the patroness of love and death, who makes all possibilities. She brings both comfort and pain.”[25] Elsewhere she says, “As Crone, She is the dark face of life, which demands death and sacrifice…In Witchcraft, the dark, waning aspect of the God is not evil — it is a vital part of the natural cycle.”[26] This aspect of the divine manifesting itself in polarities is echoed by almost all (if not all) witches. Erica Jong tells us that “Satanists…accept the Christian duality between good and evil; pagans do not…Pagans see good and evil as intimately allied, in fact, indivisible. They conceive of deities as having several aspects — creation, destruction, sustenance — rather than externalizing all destruction and destructiveness (‘evil’) in the form of devils.”[27] (And your problem with this would be…. What? It is about as straight forward as your “Trinity is One” doctrine that has been talked about for centuries. Daven)

*The Problems of Life*

Whether witches realize it or not, these views raise some very problematic ethical issues: (1) Where does the Wiccan Rede derive from? (From a moral code to do as little harm as possible to others.) (2) If there is “no one right religion, way, or truth for all,” then why is this rule (the Wiccan Rede) universal? How do we know that witches are not just trying to impose their rule on us to “shackle our minds and actions”? (Because we don’t scream that you are wrong if you choose not to believe it. It is a common belief in Wiccan communities, but not a common Pagan belief.) (3) How do witches account for the origin and existence of evil and suffering?(Purely human actions? Or the Will of the Gods in the world? How about the destruction that is the cleaning of the canvas of Life.)

Space forbids us from addressing each of these questions, but the third should — indeed must — be addressed.

*Evil*

In Dreaming the Dark, Starhawk attempts to grapple with ethical issues and the problem of evil: “Evil is a concept that cannot be separated from the stories of duality. Power-over, violence, coercion…are not evil in the sense of being part of a force in direct opposition to good. Instead, we can see them as mistakes, processes born of chance that spread because they have served their purposes…. The problem of evil is really a problem of randomness.”[28] Other witches appeal to reincarnation and the law of Karma to explain the existence of some evil and suffering. Raymond Buckland asserts, “For its own evolution, it is necessary that the soul experience all things in life. It seems the most sensible, most logical, [sic] explanation of much that is found in life…Why should one be born crippled, another fit and strong…if not because we must eventually experience all things”[29] (ellipses in original). Sybil Leek offers similar reasons for the existence and necessity of evil in the world.[30] (Sounds reasonable to me.)

*Naturalistic Fallacies*

The above two explanations create more problems than they solve. For instance, if one must experience all in life (as Buckland suggests), does this include being abused, tortured, and so forth?[31](Ultimately, yes.)

It logically follows from such a view that whatever is, ought to be. This is known in ethics as the naturalistic fallacy, as it confuses “the way things are” with how they morally should be. Hence, what about the child born with crippling birth defects who dies an agonizing death within two years? Should we respond, “Oh well, whatever is, ought to be” and thus just accept it as the way things are? No, even a witch could not consistently live by this approach. The witches world view logically and ontologically justifies any condition or conduct.

This results in an inability to morally distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. With such a naturalistic approach one can only describe the way things are (e.g., the drink is hot or cold). One cannot make a moral evaluation. If life and death, comfort and pain, joy and sorrow, are inherent to the very nature of the world, then how can one call any action morally wrong, including burning witches? It can’t be done. But witches do say some actions are wrong. Or are they simply saying that they do not prefer certain actions? Hardly! Intuitively, they/we know certain things are wrong — such as torturing witches, confiscating their property, abusing children, and so forth. They do not say these things are merely unpleasant or inconvenient; they insist that they are wrong.

Christians, then, have every reason to ask how witches answer the problem of the existence of evil. This is a perplexing problem, and merely dismissing it will not solve it.

(Interesting that this should be here. In a conversation with a Christian Minister, I asked him to explain these very questions to me. His answer was “It is God’s Will.” Which is what you are accusing us of. Besides, you are talking about two different kinds of Evil here. Manmade evil, and Celestial Evil. Manmade evil is tortures and burnings as well as child abuse, etc. Celestial Evil is evil from another extra-planar being. Manmade evil is wrong, and we will try to stop when we can. But, “The Devil made me do it” is a pretty flimsy excuse.)

*The Problem of Evil*

There are conspicuously few in-depth discussions of the problem of evil in Neopagan literature. Many witches seem ignorant of this issue, or — for a number of reasons — do not believe it applies to their particular worldview. For these, the existence of evil is not a problem, because they do not conceive of the Goddess/God or Life Force as being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. These witches explain the problem of evil in one of three ways: (1) they deny that evil exists; (2) they appeal to finite godism (or goddessism); or (3) they appeal to humankind’s free will. Let us briefly consider each of these.

Does evil exist? Is evil only an illusion? Or is evil not really evil but just unfortunate circumstances? These views are delusions.[32] To say evil does not exist is to be blind to reality, for evil not only exists — it is all around us. From cruelty, corruption, calamity, flood and famine, disease and drought, hatred, war, suffering, misery, pain, injustices, rape, murder, and on and on — evil exists. Evil is a fact of life. And it is not just a case of “unfortunate” circumstances or the “breaks of life.” It is unfortunate when one gets a flat tire at night on a country road in a rain storm. It is rank evil to kill six million Jews as Hitler did. The death of human beings is the epitome of evil and is not “natural” but is the greatest nemesis we face. The existence of evil delivers a debilitating blow to the witches’ world view.

But, some witches counter, the Goddess/God and/or Life Force is/are finite — that is, not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Thus, they/it cannot be held responsible for evil. The defense of finite godism, however, is wishful thinking.[33] Even finite godism/goddessism must grapple with the existence of evil. If the Goddess and/or God are finite, this does not excuse the evil it/they have birthed. Do we hold a finite inflictor of suffering upon humanity — like a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao — any less culpable simply because they were not infinite in their abilities? Clearly, the finite godism appeal will not exonerate the Goddess and God.

At this point, some will answer that evil derives from humanity’s failure to live in harmony with nature and/or from exercising free will. But this cannot be the answer either. Since the Goddess/God or Life Force itself contains or causes both life and death, good and evil, how can it be said that one is not in harmony with them/it if one commits or causes suffering or death?

We acknowledge that free will might account for some of the evil in the world. At best, it might explain evil that derives from one human being forcing his or her will upon another. (Which if you look closely, would account for ALL evil in the world.) But it certainly cannot account for physical or natural evil. Where, then, does evil come from? What is its origin? According to the witch’s world view, it can derive logically and ontologically only from the Goddess/God or primal Life Force. Are not they (or it) the ultimate source of all? If they (or it) created everything, and everything is a part or manifestation of them, then they are the source and origin of evil. If one says that the Goddess/God are not ultimate, then where did they come from? Who created them or gave them their free will or nature?

Depending on whether a witch is a pantheist, panentheist, and/or polytheist, there are only so many possible explanations for the origin and existence of evil. The problems inherent in a polytheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic perspective on the problem of evil are too numerous to list.[34] However, we will address some of the more significant ones.

In a pantheistic or panentheistic universe, witches must realize that, ontologically, evil emanates or flows naturally and necessarily from the very nature of the ultimate Life Force. Creation and the existence of evil are synonymous and simultaneous.[35] This entails that suffering, death, evil, and so forth are part of the Goddess/God’s very essence or nature. Good and evil are both aspects of the One. All is contained in, arises out of, or is a manifestation of the absolute universal Life Force or principle. Evil is ultimately and necessarily part of the One which is all. Therefore, in one sense or another, the universal Life Force is responsible for all the pain, suffering, and evil that has, does, or ever will exist.

In a polytheistic framework, the Goddess(es) and God(s) are no more praiseworthy. From a brief survey of history and the evidence around us, we would have to conclude that these divine beings are blithering, bungling idiots — sort of the Inspector Clouseaus of the cosmos. They are either unwilling or unable because of their limitations to eliminate evil. They should be held in contempt inasmuch as they are responsible for much of the evil of our world which they supposedly created. (Feel better for that cheep shot?  The God and Goddess are only long-lived.  They are the wise personifications of what we are.  They are us in a number of Eons.  They are Human, not perfect, just a lot better and wiser.)

Whether in a polytheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic universe, we can have no assurance that the Goddess/God or Life Force can or wants to defeat evil. Nor can we be sure that this is even an appropriate question, since in the latter two worlds evil is part of the One’s very nature. Therefore, evil will no more cease to exist than these entities or the Life Force itself. In other words, evil is eternal — it will always be with us.[36] It is eternal because it is either an aspect of the very nature of the “divinity” which creates and composes all (pantheism, panentheism), or these deities are too limited to permanently accomplish the task (polytheism). Only an infinite and benevolent personal God could and will banish evil from the universe.[37]

This alleged Goddess/God or Life Force is not worthy of reverence but of our rage. It is responsible for all or nearly all the pain, suffering, and sorrow that has existed or ever will exist. Who would want to worship or admire such a Goddess/God? This is an affront to our moral sensibilities. The optimism of witches and neopagans is not justified; despair ought to be their response, and a longing for the death of this alleged Goddess and her tyrannical rule.

The problem of evil is an acute dilemma — indeed, an Achilles’ heel for witches and neopagans. In light of this issue — and the witches’ emphasis on the joyful celebration of life — we must ask: Do they simply ignore evil because it is not joyous? Remember, the goddess is not only mother and maiden, but crone as well.

*POSTSCRIPT FOR PAGANS*

The world is full of wonder, beauty, and joy. This same world, however, contains paralyzing heartache, agonizing pain, misery, and the stench of death. (Yes, it is… so why are you adding to it? We do not ignore pain and misery, we choose not to dwell on it exclusively. Unlike others.) Let us experience and appreciate the joys of life. But let us view the whole panorama of life and not just a postcard picture, nor turn a deaf ear or blind eye to the suffering of humanity and creation — which is bleeding to death from a fatal wound unless a divine physician can administer a healing touch and save us.

The witches’ world is fraught with problems, and we have attempted to point out just a few of the pitfalls in the interest of their finding life — and that more abundantly (John 10:10).

*Notes*

1 C. S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_ (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1975), 33.

2 For striking examples of this, _see_ note 32 in Part One of this series, and T. M. Luhrmann, _Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 202, 279-96.

3 _See_ Norman Geisler, _Signs and Wonders_ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988), 47-81; _See_ also Danny Korem and Paul Meier, _The Fakers_ (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1980); and Danny Korem, _Powers: Testing the Psychic and Supernatural_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

4 _See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_ (DNTT), ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), vol. 2., s.v. “Magic, Sorcery, Magi”; _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,_ rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), vol. 1, s.v. “Divination”; _Ibid.,_ (1986), vol. 3, s.v. “Magic, Magician”; _Ibid.,_ s.v. “Medium”; and _The New Bible Dictionary,_ ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), s.v. “Magic and Sorcery.”

5 These attempts and the arguments which counter them are available upon request.

6 _See_ the _DNTT,_ vol. 1, s.v. “Demon, Air, Cast Out.” For the definitive treatment, _see_ the _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (TDNT), ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), vol. 2, s.v. “_daimon, daimonion…._”

7 TDNT, vol. 2, 17.

8 DNTT, s.v. “_daimonion,_” vol. 1, 452.

9 _See_ Margot Adler, _Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today,_ rev. and expanded ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986), 23-38, 169, 172, 299, 455; Raymond Buckland, _Buckland’s Complete Book of Witchcraft_ (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1988), 99; Scott Cunningham, _The Truth about Witchcraft Today_ (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1988), 66-67; Sybil Leek, _Diary of a Witch_ (New York: Signet Books, 1969), 14; Starhawk, _Dreaming the Dark,_ new ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), 37-38; Starhawk, _The Spiral Dance_ (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 188-89.

10 _See_, e.g., Adler, 172.

11 _See,_ e.g., Luhrmann, 290-93.

12 Starhawk, _Dreaming,_ 22, 41.

13 Adler, 27-36, 169-73, 441-42, 455.

14 _See,_ e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 190, 197; Adler, 20, 169-73.

15 Consult Irving Copi, _Introduction to Logic,_ seventh ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), 306-8.

16 _See,_ e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 188-90.

17 Stewart Farrar, _What Witches Do: The Modern Coven Revealed_ (London: Sphere Books, 1971), 43.

18 _See,_ e.g., Adler, 36, 43, 86, 164-65, 169-73; Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 188-92; Luhrmann: 274-96, 301-3, 335-36.

19 For some good treatments on logic and adequate criteria to test truth claims, _see_ Edward J. Carnell, _Introduction to Christian Apologetics_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 45-62; Norman Geisler, _Christian Apologetics_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 141-47; and Norman Geisler and William Watkins, _Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 105, 262-69.

20 _See,_ e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 11-12, 14.

21 Despite the claim that witches _never_ use their real or imagined abilities to harm another, there is ample evidence to the contrary. References are available on request.

22 B. Alexander and D. Frew, _Christian/Pagan Forum,_ audio cassette (A 010), (Berkeley: SCP, 1986), October, 19.

23 Space does not permit a thorough discussion of these points. However, they are discussed at length by Geisler and Watkins in _Worlds Apart,_ 75-146, 239-53, 255-69; and Geisler, _Christian Apologetics,_ 173-213.

24 _See_ note 22.

25 Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 80.

26 _Ibid.,_ 29.

27 Erica Jong, _Witches_ (New York: Harry N. Abrams Publishers, 1981), 52.

28 Starhawk, _Dreaming,_ 43.

29 Buckland, 17.

30 Sybil Leek, _The Complete Art of Witchcraft_ (New York: Signet Books, 1973), 146-47.

31 _See_ note 28 for the horrific results of this type of belief. For some critiques of reincarnation, consult Mark C. Albrecht, _Reincarnation: A Christian Critique of a New Age Doctrine_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 51-111, 127-30; and Norman Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano, _The Reincarnation Sensation_ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 57-86, 99-102, 107-9, 112.

32 _See,_ e.g., Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan, _Philosophy of Religion,_ 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 297-98.

33 _Ibid.,_ 299-300.

34 _See_ notes 22 and 35.

35 Albrecht, 106-9.

36 _See_ Albrecht, 106-9, and note 22.

37 For a full discussion of this issue, _see_ Norman Geisler, _The Roots of Evil_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979); and Geisler and Corduan, _Philosophy of Religion,_ 293-385.

————-

Craig Hawkins is currently president of Apologetics Information Ministry (AIM, 921 South Birch, Santa Ana, CA 92701) and the author of two new books due out in early 1996: Goddess Worship, Witchcraft and Other Neopagan Movements from Zondervan (an introductory level work) and for an expanded treatment of the article contained in this file, Witchcraft: A New Look at an Old Religion from Baker Books.

————-

End of document, CRJ0069A.TXT (original CRI file name), “The Modern World of Witchcraft: Part Two” release A, October 2, 1995 R. Poll, CRI

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)

Originally posted 2009-11-14 22:03:47.

(Note from Daven:  Some might question the necessity of this piece of information here, but I think it’s necessary.  So long as we are living in the United States, it behooves us, as Wiccans and Pagans, to take a hard look at those in power and in charge of our government and look at the weapons that we can use and what can be used against us.  Even if you live in another country, you may want to think about the points raised here.)

Magick and the Second Amendment

Yael Dragwyla
More from this author:  http://www.livejournal.com/users/polaris93/
http://www.greyarchive.com “Yael’s Page”
email: polaris93@aol.com

The “anti-witchcraft” pogroms of many times and cultures have in some sense been the esoteric equivalents of the current “anti-gun” and “anti-self-defense” movements now in full cry in the USA. Or perhaps it is more accurate that the “anti-gun” movement in this country at this time is a secular analogue of all “anti-witchcraft” movements, and that both are just different expressions in different times and places of “anti-self-defense movements” and laws and official penalties of all kinds the intent of which is to restrict, hinder, even ban outright any and all forms of self-defense, especially citizen self-defense against oppressions visited upon them by state, religious, or other authority. Magick is just a generalized form of engineering and technology that includes biophysical — psychic and telekinetic — applications as well as strictly physical ones, and can be used to produce very effective methods of self-defense against any and all comers. Aleister Crowley was just the Ned Buntline or the Winchester of esoteric Art and Science; Anton Szandor LaVey is their Gatling — or maybe their J. Robert Oppenheimer or Leo Szilard or Enrico Fermi. Whosoever is truly serious about banning Magick — or any of the other disciplines upon which it dependent for its theory and techniques, such as astrology or Alchemy — is therefore just another manifestation of the same spirit that would cripple or destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This Amendment was put in place so that the people would be able to guard the other rights guaranteed them by the Bill of Rights, especially those covered by the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is only by exercise of the First Amendment that men’s souls are kept alive. If a man’s* soul is dead, not all the guns in the world will give him the Will to take charge of his life or act of his own initiative, for his own reasons, in his own behalf or those he loves. And if his soul and Will are dead, Magick is impossible for him — for Magick is the Art and Science of causing change in conformity with Will, and is only possible for live-souled men with healthy hearts and Wills. The First Amendment is to esoteric engineering and technology — Magick — what the Second is to physical engineering and technology: an end-product of weapons technology by which men are capable of defending themselves, their loved ones, and all else they hold dear — especially their liberty, their right and ability to determine their own destinies, free of interference by tyranny of any sort. The right to Magick springs from the same roots that the right to possession and responsible use of physical weapons of all kinds does: the love of liberty and the determination to defend it from any and all would-be tyrants and oppressors, whatever it may take, whatever does the job best. Pagans, NeoPagans, and occultists of all kinds therefore are on the same side of the political fence as those dedicated to defending and preserving the Second Amendment, whether either realizes it or not: for all of them are dedicated to preservation, study, development, and application of technologies which can enable _anyone_, of any age or gender or ethnic background, to defend him- or herself against oppressors of any kind. I therefore think we’d better hang together, gang, whether we are “evil sorcerous nigger-lovin’ queerboy Jewboy nerd wimp bra-burnin’” occultists/Pagans/NeoPagans/etc and/or “religious right-wing Fundamentalist gun-nuts” promoting the Second Amendment — because otherwise, one of these days the Conspiracy is gonna hang us all separately (assuming that they don’t just do a mass barbecue trip on us, instead, or blow us to smithereens with a pocket nuke that CNN then tells everyone was a “fertilizer bomb” . . .).

____________________________________________________________________

*_Nota bene_: “Man” here is meant generically, the same word used in German to mean “one,” “any designated sentient individual of either sex and any age,” etc., rather than “adult male human being.”

Originally posted 2009-11-14 22:16:27.