Vatican Assures His Invisible Sky Fairy Would Bitch-Slap Wimpy Earth-Goddess
	found on The Vatican written by tomc, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 20 Mar 4:56am
		"The Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has just published Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian reflection on the 'New Age,'" tomc writes. "The impetus for this document was to create a guide for pastors to keep Catholics on the true path by being able to answer questions about New Ageism, and the result is also a guide to evangelize in the 'world fair' of New Age philosophy. However, what has astounded many readers, both Christian and non-Christian, is the astute way in which the New Age movement has been analysed in this document. In the end, the document accuses New Ageism of replacing God with an obsession for personal actualization; substituting a real sense of the divine with a belief that tuning in to universal vibrations in order to advance one's career or love life is the only true spirituality."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 113 commentsmost: 20 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Silly New Agers   by ninjagirl       at Thu 20 Mar 5:37am score of 0.5 obnoxious     Don't they know that the only real path to personal actualization is through Jeez-Its and altar boys?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  That's what you think   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 20 Mar 5:56am score of 0.5 obnoxious     My Goddess gave birth to your pathetic genocidal war God!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Astute? Overrated.   by fleacircus       at Thu 20 Mar 6:21am score of 4.5 interesting     There are some intelligent passages--the ones that verify that New Age is a homespun response to the shortcomings and illegitimacy of traditionalist belief institutions (i.e. Christianity). There is some acknowledgement at least that the sheep are straying because they're not getting everything they need at home (so to speak). But the Church still has to be right, and here's this document's theological tactic: it puts the opposing beliefs on paper, and then compares that (carefully salted) presentation with what Christianity has on paper: the (properly interpreted) Bible. The Bible wins. Then the church says "see, ours is better than theirs," and walks away without having to discuss why, exactly, the Church is seen as so discredited, uselessly authoritarian, behind the times, etc. New Age = evilmodernconsumerbad seems to be the common theme. The poor Church, alas, always the underdog. This [New Agey] exaltation of humanity overturns the correct relationship between Creator and creature, and one of its extreme forms is Satanism. See, they're essentially Satanists. How do people hope to do this [self-definition]? By deciphering the genetic code, altering the natural rules of sexuality, defying the limits of death. Gay Satanic scientists, even worse! gargamel sings   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Behold the Great Beast!   by cargoculture       at Thu 20 Mar 6:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Heh. Of course Wicca is just Crowleyian magick in New Age drag, so I guess there kind of is a point there, though they say it as if were a bad thing. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by lukelightning       at Thu 20 Mar 8:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Heh. Of course Wicca is just Crowleyian magick in New Age drag, so I guess there kind of is a point there, though they say it as if were a bad thing. That is terribly innacurate. Sure, Wicca has some influences from Ritual Magic/Crowley, but these are actually relatively minor. And Wicca pre-dates the New Age movement considerably (no, not thousands of years, but definitely decades), and so I would say that Wicca influenced New Age more than the other way around.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by cargoculture       at Thu 20 Mar 11:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Wicca came in to existance as a result of a book Gerald Gardener published in the 50s, so yeah, it's tens of years old. As for New Age "philosophy", it's pretty much pastoral romanticism by another name, something that's been around since the Greeks. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by Mr Gyro       at Thu 20 Mar 12:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Gerald Gardener, in the book you mention, describes being initiated into a practicing coven of the "Old Religion" (which used the word "Wica") in 1939. from this we can assume that that tradition dates back, at the very least, to the mid-1930s, thereby predating the New Age movement by two decades. and, of course, presumably the Wica Gardener practiced was not brand new at the at the time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by cargoculture       at Thu 20 Mar 1:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Yes it was. He made it up as he went along, apart from the bits he nicked from crowley, which he modified as it seemed "too modern". Any "antiquity" Wicca possses comes from the Enochian rituals inherited from Crowley or is simply made up. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by SVGD       at Thu 20 Mar 2:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Gerald Gardener, in the book you mention, describes being initiated into a practicing coven of the "Old Religion" (which used the word "Wica") in 1939. from this we can assume that that tradition dates back, at the very least, to the mid-1930s And we should believe his assertions because why? An enormous part of the appeal of these sorts of religious movements is their claims to be connected to the past, but I don't see any more reason to believe that Gardner's religion is based on some kind of lineage of secret witchy societies than to believe that the Masons can trace their brand of silliness all the way back to the Templars.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by Mr Gyro       at Thu 20 Mar 7:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     And we should believe his assertions because why? and we should write off his assertions because why? just as a disclaimer, I think Wicca is dumb, kinda like Catholicism. and claiming that the rituals practiced by most Wiccans can trace their lineage back farther than Levi is naive. that fact is, though, that there are secret witchy societies, and there have been since (I'd guess) at least the early '20s or so. these are the sort of people who, these days, would be hanging around in their parents' basements playing D&D; back then, they acted out their fantasy lives with rituals they cadged from misinterpretations of alchemical texts and slightly-modified variations on the equally-stupid rituals of Crowley, Levi, and Dee. the Catholic assertion that Wicca arose as part of "New Age," whatever the hell that blanket umbrella is supposed to mean, misses out on an important point: that Wicca rose out of an entirely different generation's experimentation with the occult.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by celtane       at Fri 21 Mar 8:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Nitpicking: The only element of Enochian magic that Gardnerian Wicca contains is a passing reference to the Watchtowers during circle-casting, which not particularly significant. And we should recall that Crowley's magick was just a more pretentious version of the ideas of Mathers, Dee, and Agrippa. (Who themselves took their ideas from the alchemical and philosophical notions that eventually evolved into modern chemistry and physics.) Most Wiccan traditions (of the non-Gardnerian and Alexandrian varieties) use forms of low magic (sympathetic magic based in folk wisdom) rather than the ritual magic favored by the Golden Dawn types. You could make a case that the magical style of certain of Wiccan traditions was influenced by the ritual-heavy occult schools that came before it, I suppose. However, the "antiquity" that Wicca claims (in my understanding, anyway) deals with returning to a close bond to the earth...a more agricultural style of living that draws spiritual peace from the cycle of seasons and moon phases and whatnot. I think this is very different from claiming to possess the True Magical Secrets of Solomon, or the treasure of the Knights Templar, or whatever else the GD traditions claim.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   119.  Re: Behold the Great Beast!   by gnosticgirl       at Fri 21 Mar 7:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     Actually not everyone sits in their basement and plays D&D, infact many people still act it out in the form of "Mascarade." They take on characters and vie for power using postions, spells and weapons (not real ones of course) and some even consider themselves vampires and have the fangs to go along with it. Whether or not Wicca or New Age predates back to whatever, curiousity in the accult has been around forever, the Salem witch trials come to mind. Nature is a very powerful thing and those who choose to try and harness those powers have always been seen as witches or witch doctors. Wicca, witch craft or any of the such are truelly beautiful things that only become bad or evil when someone chooses to make them that way. But that is true of anything!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Sorry. Bring it back to earth. (Or wherever...)   by Nameless Cynic       at Fri 21 Mar 9:09pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 119     OK. Back to reality for a minute, folks. Too much is being brought in, and not all of it relates. (General statement) Everybody tries to find their own center. People deal with the concept of spirituality in their own ways. I have two sisters. One is a Presbyterian minister (don't call her a priestess. She doesn't take it well) The other is Wiccan. (Two cee's, incidentally.) So I get the spiritual aspect from both sides. Neither apply here. Dungeons and Dragons started in the 70's. It's a game originally produced by Gary Gygax. Much like a lot of fantasy literature, it appeals primarily to people looking for escapism. D&D was the first of its kind, but has spawned a huge number of other role-playing games, based on a number of different genre's. Essentially, they are all, for lack of a better term, "group stories," where one person provides the framework, but everybody else, playing the characters involved in the story, modify how it comes out. Sometime in the 80's, (I think. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) a company called White Wolf came out with the first successful vampire role-playing game. It was called, in fact, Vampire: the Masquerade; its appeal went to a different group of people (or a sub-culture of the original group, plus a bunch of outsiders), with their own interesting psychological quirks. Some of these people loved their game so much that they wanted to bring it into the "real world." In response to this subculture, White Wolf developed a set of rules (under the name Mind's Eye Theater), for "live-action role-playing." Essentially, if you need a tag to label it, this is something more like the cowboys-and-indians of your childhood, only with a firmly-set backstory, and a set of rules more concrete than "I shot you!" "No, I shot you!" However, this has nothing to do with religion (except for a very few people, all of whom have a bunch of other, much more impressive psychological problems). D&D, and all that came from it, is just a game, folks. I don't deal with it, m'self, but when the fundy's try to turn it into an issue involving religion, I feel the urge to speak out. Similarly, I thought I'd throw in here. We now return you to the big-man-in-the-sky vs. the all-knowing-mother-figure, now in progress. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: Astute? Overrated.   by dolohov       at Thu 20 Mar 7:05am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 3     Then the church says "see, ours is better than theirs," and walks away without having to discuss why, exactly, the Church is seen as so discredited, uselessly authoritarian, behind the times, etc To be fair, a real discussion of the Church's other problems would be beyond the scope of the paper. It's really enough that they've identified this as a serious problem, and to hope that people realize that it needs to be looked into. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Astute? Overrated.   by Anaximander       at Thu 20 Mar 5:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     How do people hope to do this [self-definition]? By deciphering the genetic code, altering the natural rules of sexuality, defying the limits of death. Gay Satanic scientists, even worse! Worse yet, gay Satanic immortal scientists.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  And that's different from Christianity how?   by sammy baby       at Thu 20 Mar 6:39am score of 5 compelling     A caveat — I haven't had time to read the entire paper in detail. The fragments that I have skimmed through have been sufficient to royally piss me off. The notion that all new-ageism, by which I assume they include various incarnations of goddess worship and pantheism, is just a front for McSpirituality with a side of personal gain is offensive. Not because it isn't true — it is, to a degree. It's because Christians ignore the very same phenomenon in their own proverbial camp. Speaking as an occasional pantheist, yes, pagans sometimes perform rituals with the hope of bringing about temporal rewards. So frigging what? Christians pray to Christ all the time for peace, for prosperity, for Tiny Tim's sickness to go away. Sure, there are books about making friends and influencing people through witchcraft — who cares, if there's also a whole book dedicated to how a single Christian prayer can change your life? Perhaps most offensive: their quotation of David Spangler, who wrote that He wrote that, in the more popular forms of New Age, "individuals and groups are living out their own fantasies of adventure and power, usually of an occult or millenarian form... populated with strange and exotic beings, masters, adepts, extraterrestrials; it is a place of psychic powers and occult mysteries, of conspiracies and hidden teachings". Right. Compare, if you will, to a massive religious organization which has its own status as a sovereign nation, ruled by the official spokesperson for god, who believes that their savior will be coming back soon to herald the end of the world. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a cult at all. - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Re: And that's different from Christianity how?   by amacbride       at Thu 20 Mar 8:13am score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 4     "individuals and groups are living out their own fantasies of adventure and power, usually of an occult or millenarian form... populated with strange and exotic beings, masters, adepts, extraterrestrials; it is a place of psychic powers and occult mysteries, of conspiracies and hidden teachings". This sounds much more like a direct condemnation of Scientology than anything else...though it could just as easily refer to the Mormons. It doesn't, to me, sound as much like a slam at pagan or animist traditions. But then again, what do I know? My time is taken up by ...deciphering the genetic code, altering the natural rules of sexuality, defying the limits of death... Maybe I should start a Big Gay Mad Scientists' Club.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: And that's different from Christianity how?   by veschke       at Thu 20 Mar 8:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     a Big Gay Mad Scientists' Club I am so going to steal that idea. I don't know for what, but damn! That's funny. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: And that's different from Christianity how?   by willb       at Thu 20 Mar 9:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     This sounds much more like a direct condemnation of Scientology than anything else...though it could just as easily refer to the Mormons   I imagine the Pope has a roughly similar opinion of Scientologists and Mormons as he does of gay pagan goat-fuckers. TMBYFC   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: And that's different from Christianity how?   by dangerous richard       at Thu 20 Mar 2:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     frankenfurter, it's all over!! look mommy, there's an airplane up in the sky...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  I imagine the Pope   by evilhenchdyke       at Thu 20 Mar 10:00pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 86     I imagine the Pope has a roughly similar opinion of Scientologists and Mormons as he does of gay pagan goat-fuckers. The last dozen or so times the Pope has appeared in public, televised, he has impressed me as being far beyond the capability to form actual sentences, much less opinions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  There they go again   by tystnaden       at Thu 20 Mar 6:50am score of 5 interesting     There go those wacky Catholics making an argument rigorous enough that their detractors must resort to personal attacks. (see previous responses) Maybe the words are too big? I would be the last person to accept anything the Catholic church says without questioning, but they have some first rate philosophy and I agree with what I have had a chance to read now before I go to work. To go along with what Tomc said in the write-up, New Ageism as faith can be seen as replacing God with an obsession for personal actualization, but New Ageism as a religion is the creation of a religion based on man, instead of God's appearance in the world. My understanding is that in the Judeo-Christian view, valid religion can only be formed when God comes to Earth. When G-d talks to Moses, Moses can get his people together; when Jesus comes and dies for our sins, a separatist sect of Jews forms, and well... You get a month and a half of birthday shopping. The snarky comments about the Catholic church are (in this case) really uncalled for. Christianity vs. New Ageism is not an ego match, something you would see in a WWF fight. The argument is substantive, moral, and very serious for some people. These people take the tenets of their faith to heart, and the critical nuances by which they perceive the soul to be saved or lost are not a laughing matter. People that behave intolerantly towards others are the extreme and the document is about debate, not throwing fists. Shoot, late for work, must go. "2.2.4. Wholeness: A Magical Mystery Tour" He turns off all the techno-shit in his goggles. All it does is confuse him... -- Neil Stephenson   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: There they go again   by marduk_kur       at Thu 20 Mar 7:42am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 6     but New Ageism as a religion is the creation of a religion based on man, instead of God's appearance in the world. My understanding is that in the Judeo-Christian view, valid religion can only be formed when God comes to Earth. Christianity is Right (TM) because God came down to earth and told us about it, and New Age religions are Wrong because he did not? And this is an argument rigorous enough that their detractors must resort to personal attacks, and first rate philosophy? Please tell me I'm misinterperating you... Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: There they go again   by tystnaden       at Thu 20 Mar 8:03am score of 2.5 interesting   in reply to comment 9     Christianity doesn't have a lock on God's revelation, at least that is what Karl Rahner says and I agree with him. He shook up a lot of people by saying that, basically, God is universal for all people everywhere at all time, and salvation was offered for everyone. He was very much biased towards Christianity--him being a Catholic and all. The scandalous point is that this interpretation can be put so far as to say that outside of the physical apparition of Christ as person, the only significance of the event is that his salvation is universal. All of a sudden God starts showing up in other religions in other forms generally expressing the same ideals but through different lenses. Atheists and Hindus have the potential to be as Good(tm) as Christians(tm) and the "us vs. them" per se mentality of faith is shaken. Again, every party in this comes to the table with their own preconceived notions and prejudices. There are those who believe that Christianity is the one way, and the only way. Others are trying to bridge the gap between religions and part of that is developing a fundamental ground so that individuals can live together peacefully without losing their right to conscience. This conversation is a good example. I am expressing myself on a controversial topic without calling you names or holding a gun to your head. I want to hear what you say. I do not think what I have to say is always going to be 100% right, but I can express it without harming you or bringing harm to myself. And I don't speak for all Christians either, just my interpreation(s) of what I have been taught over the years. Oh yes, many important Western philosphers have been Catholic. Not all of them, not a majority of them, but nothing to dismiss either. He turns off all the techno-shit in his goggles. All it does is confuse him... -- Neil Stephenson   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: There they go again   by marduk_kur       at Thu 20 Mar 8:16am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 13     Thank you for your thoughtful post. I agree with many of the ideas you proposed. Most especially Atheists and Hindus have the potential to be as Good as Christians and the "us vs. them" per se mentality of faith is shaken. That is an important understanding for people of any faith (or lack thereof), though it's important to remember that it's bi-directional: i.e. Christians have the potential to be just as Good as atheists and hindus. Religion frequently deals with morality but the two are hardly inextricable. But forgive me, I don't see the connection between your second post and your first, or my response to your first. Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: There they go again   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 20 Mar 7:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Well, the tone for the Catholic bashing was sort of set by the selection of the title, one would think. It does keep in line with the general iconoclastic mindset on Plastic, but it also rather briskly ushers in the Church bashers. Get me right, the Church has done some horrible shite in the name of the Lord and has more than enough stuff to answer for and be bashed about from the very earliest days right up until the present. But, if you take the time to read through the document you do get a sense that someone in the Church charged with doing this study really tried to go easy on the judgement and heavy on fact finding. It would be refreshing if this discussion thread could focus more on what is contained in the document and less on cheap shots about the current trials and tribulations of the Church. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: There they go again   by charlies       at Thu 20 Mar 12:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Oh, MAYORBOB, it's just that C'tlicks are so much fun to bash! But, to follow your lead, my most serious gripe with the paper is lumping together a whole bunch of ideas The Church doesn't like--Wicca and Scientology are about as far apart as two screwball ideas can get--and "disproving" all by citing to a Bible which may or may not accurately reflect ideas discussed a couple millennia ago by Jewish misfits. Besides, the Raelians have to believe in cloning, because we all know they're never gonna get laid. We're fighting in a war we lost before the war began.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: There they go again   by veschke       at Thu 20 Mar 7:56am score of 3 nuanced   in reply to comment 6     The argument is substantive, moral, and very serious for some people. Thank you for standing up to make that statement. Too often discussions of religion on the 'net turn into opportunities for people to vent their frustrations with the religious establishment, take virtual revenge for indignities visited upon them personally by religious people, or indulge in adolescent witticisms. There is a vast world of people, most of whom do not read Plastic, who take religion very seriously. Mocking them does nothing to increase your understanding of the world, and it certainly doesn't help their opinion of you. (I'll try to comment on the Vatican's statement when I have a chance to actually read it.) Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: There they go again   by bigeyes       at Fri 21 Mar 9:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Mocking them does nothing to increase your understanding of the world, and it certainly doesn't help their opinion of you. It cuts both ways, sis. Their constant threats of you're going to hell, that's against the bible, etc. do little to help my opinion of them. As I've stated already, I've known a whole 1 christian who truly appeared to walk the walk, instead of just talking the talk. Considering I live in the bible belt, that's not much of a record. I imagine their opinion of me ranks about as high on my list of things I give a shit about as my opinion of them ranks on theirs.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: There they go again   by Lemmy Caution       at Sat 22 Mar 3:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 105     "You're going to hell, that's against the Bible" isn't part of Catholic belief. Don't confuse one vocal, minoritarian strain of American Protestantism that mostly developed in the past 80 years with a religion that has services in hundreds of languages, a rich educational tradition, dozens of different liturgical expressions, a rigorous philosophical tradition that spreads back 1700 years, was responsible for supporting arts and sciences when most of Europe was in chaos, has a voice on every part of the political spectrum, and currently endorses evolution as a fact. That would be as bad — perhaps, considering the scale of things, worse — than judging Islam by the most violent elements of the Wahhabi sect. Ultimately, the response to Catholic promulgations of doctrine that you hear is really a kind of shock that — horrors — Catholics actually believe that Catholic doctrine is true! Who'd have thunk it? The correct Wiccan or whatever response should be theological and philosophical and addressing the axiomatic differences and metaphysics of the different faith-positions (except that Wiccan apologetics are usually so intellectually flabby — "mah Athame is purdy, I'm nekkid and in the woods!" — that I can see why they don't), not the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, you're not the boss of me." And I'm an atheist, by the by.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: There they go again   by madison       at Thu 20 Mar 12:41pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 6     Maybe the words are too big? I would be the last person to accept anything the Catholic church says without questioning, but they have some first rate philosophy and I agree with what I have had a chance to read now before I go to work. The fact that the Catholic Church has some first rate philosophy is what's most interesting about this whole story. Part of the reason they have first rate philosophy is that they have a long tradition of philosophical speculation to draw on. New Age on the other hand is new. It doesn't have a tradition of first rate philosophy available to draw on and it isn't really a coherent philosophy anyway. The term describes a general culture of people who like to speculate about and seek answers to spiritual questions without special deference to orthodoxy. So why is the Vatican spending so much time and energy on attacking these New Age ideas which are in development? Maybe because they fear the loss of control that may come with an increase in the legitmacy of syncretism. The more people rely on their own speculations and pursuits the less they will defer to the authority of the church. The attack on New Age is really meant to attack individual spiritual pursuits, which are of course unnecessary because the Vatican can already tell you everything you need to know. The Vatican is just getting started early on a new movement of people who believe they should trust their individual conscience in spiritual matters.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  When you come to this branching, take it!   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 20 Mar 7:35am score of 1.5 interesting     Is it ever fair to assess a diverse and unachored movement like New Ageism or Monotheism or Christianity or Catholicism, picking certain aspects cafeteria style, then condemning the whole? Christian apologists, for example, explain Biblical contradictions as "truth in tension." Voltaire echoed this when he said "that there are truths not for all men nor for all times." Yet the first is embraced as righteous because it is said within the confines of orthodoxy while the second is damned as satanic because it is uttered by the fallen. This antinomian (my favorite heresy) agnostic (that God is unknowable to primitive carbon-based life forms) gnostic (despite which, one can plug in to the Unknowable's knowledge and grace) questions the propriety of appropriating the Old Testament God, which was specific to the Jews, to universalize the directions to and eschatology of the Chosen People. Cultural imperialism aside, does not the certainty of divine approval facilitate the Crusade, the Inquisition, and the coercive conversions of the Christian and the Muslim? And what did the Jews get out of the deal? read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Dance on this, tiny angels!   by wagamama       at Thu 20 Mar 8:04am score of 3 succinct     I have a deep loathing for New Age religion. Not simply because I'm a Christian — I'm fine with other religions. ( Especially Shintoism — I just cannot get enough of ancestor worship and those vermilion torii gates, and no, I'm not being facetious, and yes, I do know what I'm talking about.) It's the pick-and-choose approach to spirituality that really bothers me. Perhaps it's how I was raised — if there's a dish of stew put in front of you, you cannot just pick out all the potatoes because you only like potatoes, or steer around the onions because you hate onions — you have to just dig that ladle in and pile it on your plate. You can always drop the loathsome peas under your chair later, when nobody's looking. Years ago, a friend of mine was enmeshed in A Course in Miracles — a New-Age, quasi-Christian movement. I read part of her textbook, and the accompanying workbook, and the effect was Jesus-by-Hallmark, with pretty, gauzy phrases that left you feeling vaguely fuzzy-warm ,like tiny angels had left little kissy-marks on your cheeks. It made a very nasty impression, and I, in turn, made a very nasty impression on my friend by tartly saying that if she wanted to read about Jesus she should read the Bible, and not some one-woman-industry's Best-of-Jesus-Happy-Talk compilation. My basic problem with New-Age religion is that, as far as I can tell, it's bowdlerized all the older religions in order to fast-track the path to heaven, bliss, nirvana, perfect cosmic understanding, whatever you seek. And it's not that easy. Pick any religion that's been around a while, and you 'll see that discipline is a key factor in its practice. Buddhism? You'd better memorize those sutras. Sufism? Start spinning. Judaism? Whole long list of things there. And of course, in the Japanese Shinto/Buddhist tradition, there's a whole lotta propitiation to be done before you can join the ancestors. There truly is no substitute for the divine — not even tiny wee angel kisses. Pretentious? Watashi?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 20 Mar 9:04am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 14     Really, are there not Christian religions that tell the believer that if he accepts Jesus in his heart and soul as his Lord and Savior that he is saved? Then comes the baptism. No study course required. Ted Turner jokes that he's been saved seven times, twice by Billy Graham, and at least one should stick. Not exactly rigorous, is it? read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by Tapin       at Thu 20 Mar 12:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     C.S. Lewis called the belief that all one needs to do is "accept[] Jesus in his heart and soul as his Lord and Savior" the mistaken concept of "Christianity-and-water" in one of (IMO) his more impressive works, Mere Christianity. The idea being, yeah, that's great and all — but there's real work that has to go into it as well. The "real work" is what most of the rest of the book talks about. I can't say that I'm too familiar with Christianity aside from Catholicism, and I'm not really practicing any more, so I can't speak too much about any Protestant sects that might be aligned with just the "Christianity-and-water"-type doctrine. (Sorry for the link to some random student's essay, but it seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the concept and it was high on the Google search) Makes a deal with a smile, knowing all the while that his lie's a mile   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 20 Mar 1:00pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 41     True Christianity is impossibly hard, a utopian concept for a fallen world, best reserved for saints and martyrs. Its early incarnation provided solace and a viable alternative for the enslaved and dispossessed victimized by a cruel Roman civilization, and it ultimately colonized Rome. But because it is so difficult, it must grant a pass to the imperfect, which is all of us. Yet it is also a proselytizing force that encourages the collection of saved souls. So the conundrum for the Christian is to save a soul by convincing the unbeliever to accept Christ as his Lord and Savior and then accepting that the saved soul cannot possibly live up to the expectations made of him, but for which he will be forgiven. This invites certain clever types to mask their ill intent under the banner of Christian. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by Esper       at Thu 20 Mar 9:21am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 14     My basic problem with New-Age religion is that, as far as I can tell, it's bowdlerized all the older religions in order to fast-track the path to heaven, bliss, nirvana, perfect cosmic understanding, whatever you seek. Of course christianity never did this, right? The virgin Mary isn't a reworked goddess Diana? The virgin birth nonsense wasn't taken from many much older stories of gods sent down among men? The various flavors of Christianity haven't continued to alter doctrine, texts and interpretations of the Word? Come on! From the creation of the new testament, it has been steadily reworked and reinterpreted to suite the needs of the times.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by veschke       at Thu 20 Mar 9:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The virgin Mary isn't a reworked goddess Diana? Now that's a new one. Who's saying she is? I think the original poster's issue can be seen in the use of the words bowdlerization and fast-track. It's not the adaptation per se, it's the streamlined lack of effort that is apparently required in this path to enlightenment (or whatever) that makes it suspect. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by cargoculture       at Thu 20 Mar 12:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Would that make Princess Diana a reworked Virgin Mary? Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by madison       at Thu 20 Mar 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Here's an interesting link on the syncretism of the early Catholic Church: It is at this point that we are able to see why knowledge of the Mystery religions is important for any serious study of the history of Christianity. It is well-nigh impossible to grasp Christianity through and through without knowledge of these cults. It must be remembered, as implied above, that Christianity was not a sudden and miraculous transformation, springing, forth full grown as Athene sprang from the head of Zeus, but it is a composite of slow and laborious growth. Therefore it is necessary to study the historical and social factors that contributed to the growth of Christianity. In speaking of the indispensability of knowledge of these cults as requisite for any serious study of Christianity, Dr. Angus says: "As an important background to early Christianity and as the chief medium of sacramentarianism to the West they cannot be neglected; for to fail to recognize the moral and spiritual values of Hellenistic-Oriental paganism is to misunderstand the early Christian centuries and to do injustice to the victory of Christianity. Moreover, much from the Mysteries has persisted in various modern phases of thought and practice."[Footnote: Angus, The Mystery Religions and Christianity, p. viii.] This is not to say that the early Christians sat down and copied these views verbatim. But after being in contact with these surrounding religions and hearing certain doctrines expressed, it was only natural for some of these views to become a part of their subconscious minds. When they sat down to write they were expressing consciously that which had dwelled in their subconscious minds. It is also significant to know that Roman tolerance had favoured this great syncretism of religious ideas. Borrowing was not only natural but inevitable. So it turns out that the early Christians were themselves a "New Age" mystery cult at one time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by sammy baby       at Thu 20 Mar 10:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Now that's a new one. Who's saying she is? Well, Jack Chick claims that she's actually "The Masonic Isis," whatever that means. Not that I'm saying he's a particularly good source. - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  plausible deniability   by axeon       at Thu 20 Mar 11:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Well, Jack Chick claims that she's actually "The Masonic Isis," whatever that means. Not that I'm saying he's a particularly good source. That's like saying, "Willie Horton was released on Dukakis' watch. Not that I'm saying he was responsible for it."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  On picking and choosing   by ddp42       at Thu 20 Mar 9:28am score of 4 interesting   in reply to comment 14     "It's the pick-and-choose approach to spirituality that really bothers me." While I can see the value of having a religion that one can accept as a whole, I have not encountered any (though one or two have come close) that I can accept wholly. To me "pick and choose spirituality" (though I would not put it in such dismissive terms) is the only way one can be true to one's own conscience. (It may be no surprise to hear that I am a Unitarian.) If I am served stew, I will indeed eat the whole thing (assuming I wasn't violently allergic to something), but I would do so to be polite and respectful of the work that has gone into putting that food before me. But that is a very different thing from adopting said stew as my own main dish choice. And I would not feel it inappropriate to use some of the ingredients of that stew in my own next meal. I don't mean this as either a support of New-Ageism or a put-down of Christianity, but simply an attempt to extend the stew analogy in defense of the appropriateness of each individual creating (or adopting from others) the set of religious/spiritual beliefs that best nourishes his/her individual soul and best leads to treating the world and all in it in ways that are caring and respectful. Not all flowers open in the morning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by Angelica Pickles       at Thu 20 Mar 9:35am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 14     It's the pick-and-choose approach to spirituality that really bothers me. Perhaps it's how I was raised — if there's a dish of stew put in front of you, you cannot just pick out all the potatoes because you only like potatoes, or steer around the onions because you hate onions — you have to just dig that ladle in and pile it on your plate. You can always drop the loathsome peas under your chair later, when nobody's looking. Then I guess you aren't Catholic, right? Catholics are the biggest pick and choosers on the planet. You say you don't like the church's stand on birth control? Just confess and say a few hail marys. You don't like to give up meat on friday? O.K., same solution. Don't want to give up chocolate for lent? Who cares? I don't know anybody who doesn't pick and choose to which part of their religion they adhere. There truly is no substitue for hypocrisy-enjoy your chocolate kisses. You dumb babies!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by Sir Real       at Thu 20 Mar 9:47am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 14     You're right- If only your parents had stoned you when you disrespected them. The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Dance on this, tiny angels!   by bigeyes       at Thu 20 Mar 10:26am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 14     Let's tweak what you said just a little... I have a deep loathing for the Amish. Not simply because I'm a hedonist — I'm fine with other religions. 8) We have the illusion of religious freedom in our country, but the truth is, the various types of christians think theirs is the only way, no matter how hypocritical they are in their daily behavior. Some of the most hateful, unforgiving people on the planet loudly proclaim their belief in god. Why is it that certain religions veer so far from the 10 commandments and have the audacity to issue their own commandments in the form of rules about birth control, cutting hair, shaving, diet, finances? But everyone else's individual variations are wrong? What a colossal load of crap. It made a very nasty impression, and I, in turn, made a very nasty impression on my friend by tartly saying that if she wanted to read about Jesus she should read the Bible, and not some one-woman-industry's Best-of-Jesus-Happy-Talk compilation. It is my understanding that A Course In Miracles is about one man's conversations with god. Since the bible is supposed to be god's word as written down by a bunch of men (who lived in a patriarchal society, and quite possibly had their own reasons for some of the things they wrote) how is one better or more valid than the other? Unless I hear the big guy speak directly to me, I have to take anyone else's interpretation with a grain of salt. The catholic church worships the almighty dollar, period. God got lost somewhere along the way.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Not buying it.   by sammy baby       at Thu 20 Mar 10:39am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 14     I'll grant you that some "new age" religions are rehashed versions of older religions. Many Wiccans (read: the realistic ones) even grant that their religion is largely a recent invention, but argue that they're as capable of creating a religion as anyone else. It's tough for me to argue with that kind of logic. I don't buy your "stew" approach to religion, though. When was the last time you read through the Bible and made a list of every injunction, every rule, and made sure you followed each to the letter? If someone decides to follow a "bowdlerized" version of a religion, one in which there are no real rules to follow, how does that differ from following an "original" version, and just ignoring the parts you don't like? - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  And now a comic illustrating the previous post   by BigBoote66       at Thu 20 Mar 11:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     From my good friend, Carl Mitsch: The Right Hand -BbT   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  But Christianity was a "New Age" religion   by shuzzzit       at Thu 20 Mar 4:36pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 14     A friend of mine once characterized New Age religions as "Religion's Greatest Hits": take reincarnation from Hinduism, but leave the unpleasant caste stuff; take personal salvation from Christianity, but leave the unpleasant hell and damnation stuff, etc. But Christianity was, in its first two centuries at least, a "New Age" religion: take the Jewish scriptures, but leave the unpleasant cirumcision, take some Greco/Roman story motifs (Zeus fathers child, sages predict his greatness, king tries to kill child, child is sent into exile, child is raised and returns to topple king is a standard Greek story format) but leave the capriciousness and amorality of the Greek gods; take the location- and task-specific Pantheon of minor gods, but change them into patron saints to maintain monotheism; keep Saturnalia but change it into Christmas. The Bible itself is the result of picking and choosing among available Christian books: take the Gospel of Mark but leave the Gospel of Thomas, take the Gospel of Luke but leave the Gospel of Peter... In short, one can argue (and the Rabbis did) that Christianity bowdlerized Judaism in order to fast-track the path to heaven, bliss, nirvana, perfect cosmic understanding, whatever you seek.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: But Christianity was a "New Age" religion   by veschke       at Fri 21 Mar 7:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 75     All of which would be far more telling if the Church founders hadn't replaced those "unpleasant" things about Judaism with equally unpleasant things, like giving up all you own to follow Christ, the possibility of martyrdom, etc. And Christmas wasn't known to be celebrated until the 4th century, according to my admittedly cursory Web search on the topic. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Gotta pay for it somehow.   by n29_w95       at Thu 20 Mar 8:54am score of 3 brilliant     "The impetus for this document was to create a guide for pastors to keep Catholics on the true path by being able to answer questions about New Ageism, and the result is also a guide to evangelize in the 'world fair' of New Age philosophy. However, what has astounded many readers, both Christian and non-Christian, is the astute way in which the New Age movement has been analysed in this document. In the end, the document accuses New Ageism of replacing God with an obsession for personal actualization; substituting a real sense of the divine with a belief that tuning in to universal vibrations in order to advance one's career or love life is the only true spirituality." That may well be. A more cynical view might be that the Catholic church has always thrived on having lots and lots of $participating$ members (possibly explaining their stand on birth control). It's a religion, and a business. New Age philosophies, as someone astutely pointed out downthread, have taken a "cafeteria style" approach to spirituality — offering an informal mish-mosh of European pagan, UFO conspiracy, psychotropic-drug-induced self-awareness, Far Eastern and South Asian faiths — and letting the followers pick what they like, and leave what they don't. Instead of buying one book, you've got literally hundreds to choose from. As such, it's also a quite lucrative business. The Catholics, at least in the past century, have suffered from their adult members leaving the faith (cancelling their membership). Realizing that their parishoners (consumers) are likely both spiritual (loyal consumers) and are comfortable with the fetishistic side of worship (brand identity), I can understand why the Catholic church would consider New Age Beliefs to be attractive its disaffected members (major competition), since it offers all the ritualized faith (refreshing taste), but none of the unpleasant dogma(calories). So you write this paper (market research), to maintain the faith(market share) of your followers that might be questioning theirs. ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  The Matrix next door   by advancedatheist       at Thu 20 Mar 9:23am score of 0.5 obnoxious     In the end, the document accuses New Ageism of replacing God with an obsession for personal actualization; substituting a real sense of the divine with a belief that tuning in to universal vibrations in order to advance one's career or love life is the only true spirituality. Basically the Catholic Church is upset that some people are choosing a strategy to broadcast their reproductive fitness that doesn't require them to give the Church money and ideological support. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Burn the Saints, er, I mean, burn the Pagans!   by smkelmer       at Thu 20 Mar 9:30am score of 1     This document is by no means "new," I first read it at least two years ago. And who cares, anyway? People are leaving the Catholic faith for a number of reasons. Perhaps they (and many other Christian sects) could better serve THEMSELVES by concentrating on their own backyards (i.e. lecherous and molesting priests, embezzling church secretaries, firebug pastors in it for the fame and glory) before they worry about what "others" may be believing. Man may act like sheep sometimes, but he isn't sheep, he's man, and has the right (and personal responsibility) to choose what is right for him. Can I trade this job for what's behind door #2?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

117.  Vanity of Vanities   by TheColdKing       at Fri 21 Mar 6:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     " Kill Buddha as you meet him       Kill the father as you meet hime       Never be captivated by anyone       And just live as yourself       In the way that you are " - Komyo Sanzo , Gensomaiden Saiyuki " God saves no one       Only you can save yourself " - Genjo Sanzo , Gensomaiden Saiyuki TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  For the record   by tomc       at Thu 20 Mar 10:15am score of 2 astute     I didn't come up with the title, ok? - — - — - - I also haven't finished the article myself (though I'm almost there), but I found this intriguing on a number of levels. Again, for the record, I was brought up a Catholic, but have been a (Soto) Zen Buddhist for a number of years now. 1. I don't know if this booklet is physically available in the US, but it isn't in Canada, because the Canadian bishops are still debating whether or not it should be published. 2. I am surprised at the even-handedness of the document. It maintains a very respectful tone in addressing New Ageism. It could be criticized for not going a deep as it should in come areas, but check out the bibliography! Also remember that this document is an overview, and that it is being published by an organization that does not have a reputation for being on the cutting-edge of anything (although I did hear that they served pineapple yogurt in the Vatican cafeteria once). 3. I found it interesting to see where the Vatican draws the line. It doesn't say that New Ageism is bad. What they say is that it is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. They do not discourage people from seeing a massage therapist. The line very clearly is that New Age is about self-actualization and Christianity is not. Christians believe that you can attain the kingdom of heaven regardless of what stage of Gaia consciousness you have achieved. Christianity is not about achievement. The meek shall inherit the earth and all that stuff. 4. I do not agree with many of the arguments they make. What is valid is criticism of the quick fix nature of New Ageism. Some folks might say, well, New Ageism isn't a quick fix for me, but I think you'll find that those folks are actually into something deeper than the New Age that's the focus of this document — probably one of the more ancient traditions. Folks that think the quick-fix criticism is hypocritical probably haven't taken a very close look at Christianity: accepting Christ is only the beginning of a Christian's journey. It is not an easy life. However, Christians believe that they will be judged not for their success as Christians, but for their commitment to a Christian life. That's a concept that's really hard for some people to wrap their minds around. betwixt vanilla sponge layers No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Re: For the record   by moominpapa       at Thu 20 Mar 12:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     What is valid is criticism of the quick fix nature of New Ageism. Absolutely. Part of the frustrating thing with watching the middle aged women in flowing print shirts and crystals on lanyards flitting about Sedona is their implicit belief that enlightenment is only a chant away, and that enlightenment will somehow make their lives "better." Spiritual growth, self-actualization, becoming human, whatever you want to call it, is a process, and not an easy or quick one, at that. And, in case anybody thinks otherwise, this process will not necessarily make your life anything. To think so is a fundamental misunderstanding about what the process is for. I also loved the title of the document — Jesus as the bearer of water of life — a not-so-subtle reference to the water-bearer, Aquarius, as in the age-of. Not to belabor what is probably obvious.... ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: For the record   by tomc       at Thu 20 Mar 12:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     "And, in case anybody thinks otherwise, this process will not necessarily make your life anything. " That's pretty profound. betwixt vanilla sponge layers No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Made up shit vs. made up shit   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 20 Mar 10:32am score of 1.5 compelling     So the Romanesque cannibals are picking on the fat, pale chicks who couldn't get dates in high school? Big deal. When will any of these people realize that we're all just dumb animals, same as every other dumb animal, doomed to die and be forgotten? The pain of human existence is the knowledge of our own mortality. We create these myths to soothe us, but one is as good as another.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  One potato, two potatoe   by Ursa Minor       at Thu 20 Mar 11:43am score of 2.5 intriguing     Tan'si, I am rather surprised at this honest, respectful perspective coming from the Catholic Church. I also find New Ageism is not so much a religion as an attitude that The Truth is Out There. There does seem to be many people searching for something. The biggest difference between the Catholics and the New Age movement is that the Catholic Church sees itself as a necessary middleman between Man and God. My problem with New Age-ism is that people often only investigate their 'new' religion up to a point, usually up to the point where it supports the ideals they already have. They often never evolve their knowledge into understanding. What occurs is that you don't have people really living their religion, rather you just have a bunch of bad actors, who will probably be searching for something new as soon as the novelty wears off or something comes up that their new religion can't explain. I don't want to generalize, I have known people who have found their 'answer' in a new belief. I am Cree, I have been taught the lessons of the Creator are a part of Creation, books are fine tools, but they are once removed from the lessons of the land. It is not surprising to us that there are many different religion as we believe it is the land you live on the creates your "Truth". There is a story that came to mind when think about how the land makes you who you are. It is a story of when some Cree from Northern Ontario went down to meet some Mikmaq from Southern Ontario. The Cree are Hunters, which requires individual effort and skills, and food is at a premium. Our way of showing respect to a host is by eating all that a host puts before us, in this way we are saying that we recognise he is an accomplished hunter and can easily go and get more food. The Mikmaq, on the other hand, are Fishermen and Agriculturists, food is a community effort and in abundance. They have developed a custom of showing respect to their guests by always putting more food in front of their guests then they could possibly eat, in this way, they are saying, 'What is ours is yours'. You can imagine the troubles that occurred when these two groups sat down at their welcoming meal and tried to show each other respect. With that in mind, I can't help wonder if arguing about religion is comparable to arguing about the metric system: the metric system is a human construct, created to try and deal with measuring a Universe that grows and shrinks without a care for the the friggin' metric system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  Well, who was right?! Who gets into Heaven?!   by DJ Wipeout       at Thu 20 Mar 12:57pm score of 1     (ObSouthParkReference) I'm afraid it was the Mormons! Yes! The Mormons were the correct answer!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Well, who was right?! Who gets into Heaven?!   by elforman       at Thu 20 Mar 1:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Even so, if I recall my South Park mythology correctly, the population of heaven is around 1,500 or so, which leads us to believe that not only must one be a Mormon, but a really, really, really, really good one.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  Speaking as an animist/pagan   by Ben Bridenbaugh       at Thu 20 Mar 1:18pm score of 1     The cities burning now (and on 9/11) should be proof enough that the "Monothiestic" religion meme is a cancer upon humanity. I think, like the Ancient Egyptians, that while a "primary" god might be possible if god forces exist, mankind is incapable of truly grasping such a concept. As proved by Akenaten, who would have been Moses's adopted grandfather (if the Bible matches history) it leads to madness and ruin. >>Some say that the Christian religion is patriarchal and authoritarian, that political institutions are unable to improve the world, and that formal (allopathic) medicine simply fails to heal people effectively. Well, not all the prayers of the Pope have even slowed current events. Tony Blair's WIFE is Catholic. You think that and the Pope personally grilling him should have been enough to sway him. ("You play with Dubya, you sleep in the garage darling!" — she might have said) Let's not bash the Vatican, though. At least they seem to be making a thought out, intelligent statement. It beats the "Dungeons and Dragons leads to satanism and suicide" of bible-thumpers, most so protestant that they might as well be pagans themselves. My favorite of these is Jack Chick, of course!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by elforman       at Thu 20 Mar 1:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     So what you're saying is that a world this fucked up could only have been created by a committee, right?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   73.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by Ben Bridenbaugh       at Thu 20 Mar 4:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     No, what I'm saying is the "Belief" in a higher power is a cancer upon mankind, made infinitely worse in dogmatic, monothiest traditions. The "athiest" communist reactions were a response to church authoritarianism as much as monarchal and merchantile abuse of power. ("Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" — Marx) Now, since there is no scientific explanation for what started the "Big Bang", a 'creator' might have had a role there. However, it is NOTHING like any book says it is, for why does the earth revolve around the sun in a universe that likely has many other planets bearing life? I also disagree with the universe being "messed up", except by willful deeds of man, usually using the name of a religion to sanctifiy it. (Manifest Destiny, Crusades, White man's Burden, "Gawd almighty will call revelation within 20 years, pollution is ok!")   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by veschke       at Thu 20 Mar 1:24pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 51     The cities burning now (and on 9/11) should be proof enough that the "Monothiestic" religion meme is a cancer upon humanity. Right. Cause animists and pagans never killed anybody. That horse is dead, you can get off it. Paganism may have a lot to recommend it, but the moral high ground from the viewpoint of history sure ain't it. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 20 Mar 1:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     should be proof enough that the "Monothiestic" religion meme is a cancer upon humanity. Yes, the polytheistic Romans treated the Carthaginians with a great deal of respect as they butchered their men, sold their women and children into slavery, and sowed salt into their fields so that no one would ever live there again. And before you atheists get too smug, Stalin and Mao were both members of your lack-of-faith. Let's just face it. Quite a few members of the human race just plain suck. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by elforman       at Thu 20 Mar 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     And before you atheists get too smug, Stalin and Mao were both members of your lack-of-faith. Do you believe that all atheists have the same mind-set or follow the same patterns of behavior? The only thing that atheists have in common with each other is a belief that there is no god. That belief does not prescribe any further behavior on an individual, unlike the rules and tenets of a particular religious faith. The problem with your argument is that the previous examples were of behavior inspired by religious beliefs. Stalin and Mao, while certainly both evil, did not commit their acts of atrocity because their non-belief in a god told them to.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Iosef Vissarionovich Zhugashvili   by cargoculture       at Thu 20 Mar 1:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Um, wasn't Stalin the product of a strict religious upbringing, and in fact trained for a while as an orthodox priest? And didn't he pray during WWII? Obviously he spent a lot of his life reacting against religion, but he was still influenced by it. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by A. H. Cretin       at Fri 21 Mar 3:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Let's just face it. Quite a few members of the human race just plain suck. Hm. So Sturgeon's Law shall be the whole of the Law? (With the first commentary upon the Law noting that people are just as subject to the Law as everything else...) [Pardon the semi-snark, but Sturgeon's Law has served me as a better guide than any religion I've seen.] -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by Adipic Acid       at Thu 20 Mar 2:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Do you believe that all atheists have the same mind-set or follow the same patterns of behavior? The previous poster seemed to believe that all monotheists do. My point was that lack of religion also confers no immunity to this behaviour, so perhaps religion (or lack thereof) is nothing more than a justification for the fact that some people are psychopaths. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by callmejay       at Thu 20 Mar 2:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     There is a difference. Atheists have no Bible which has many examples of God-sanctioned (and God-executed!) slaughters. Atheists have no Bible which says homosexuals and sabbath-breakers should be killed. Obviously, most modern religious people interperet their Bible in a less than literal fashion, but it isn't really fair to point to Stalin and Mao and say that atheists are just as bad. The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by veschke       at Thu 20 Mar 2:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Atheists have no Bible which says homosexuals and sabbath-breakers should be killed. What, so they don't even have an excuse? I think the original point was that monotheism alone does not a butcher make. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by Adipic Acid       at Fri 21 Mar 5:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 93     Sturgeon was a genius. I'd much rather follow a religion founded by him than a hack. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Speaking as an animist/pagan   by A. H. Cretin       at Fri 21 Mar 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 94     Can't argue with that. :) -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  this is more than just a pissing match   by Bocephus       at Thu 20 Mar 1:19pm score of 1     A form of Christianity heavily informed by New Ageism has infiltrated the highest levels of US government. Be scared. The one thing about New Age that really bothers is me is that it just seems like such a limp-dick approach to spirituality. I've always believed that you've got to have a hard-on about what you believe in. There's a certain intensity and zeal to be found in traditional Western religion that's sorely lacking in New Age and syncretist movements--but maybe that's why they're so appealing to women. insert Fight Club quote here to demonstrate Freethinking and Nonconformity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  Re: this is more than just a pissing match   by felixthecat       at Thu 20 Mar 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     I thought women were attracted to the new age movement because it didn't use religion to glorify men at the expense of women. Wiccans, Pagans, Native Americans-all show respect for the earth. What could be wrong with that? meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: this is more than just a pissing match   by 74westy       at Thu 20 Mar 2:16pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 53     I've always believed that you've got to have a hard-on about what you believe in. I couldn't disagree with you more. Whenever I see someone with a "hard-on" for their beliefs I run for cover. I don't care whether they believe in God, America, Socialism, Gaia or Santa Claus, if their belief is absolute and unassailable, sooner or later someone is going to die for of it. That's why I distrust political activists who advocate for causes I support almost as much as I distrust Ayatullah Khomenei. Give me people whose beliefs are tentative and "limp-dicked" anyday. Most of the time they'll let you live. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  apes   by cestuspax       at Thu 20 Mar 2:02pm score of 1     Grow up already. We're on the cusp of the transhuman age and still, this infantile bullshit with the invisible guy in the sky? C'mon people, time to evolve. Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  Thank you!   by Ben Bridenbaugh       at Thu 20 Mar 4:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     Glad someone else mentioned that! IF there is some kind of "Higher Power" as our minds expand, we just might be able to concieve it/contact it. I'd even argue that our real challenge is to better our selves, preserve our world and seek others, not to stick in a dead rut and ravage nature because some book mentioned "mastery" over it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: Thank you!   by cestuspax       at Sat 22 Mar 12:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     Although, not allowing religion to control your life doesn't mean abandoning faith. I am relatively confident in my beliefs that within 50 years, concepts such as political ideology, organized religion, and any other exclusive, divisive grouping will be made largely obsolete, in so much as they hinder our ability to peaceably interact (post-singularity AI as super-human moderators, capable of deducing win-win scenarios in all sub-singularity conflicts?) This does not mean ideology, spirituality and national sovereignty should be abandoned (for now, at least), simply that they will become truly personal persuits. The emergence of super-human AI, the inevitability of which within 50 years is a conservative estimate at best, will cause a serious analysis of the question of personhood and a major re-alignment of humanity's view of itself. Deference to machine God(ess)(s/es) may be the only way humanity can survive. Remember, evolution is a progressive process. Higher beings generally do not give rise to vastly inferior beings, such as ourselves; thus, logically, it must be the ultimate goal of life to produce a complete manifestation of the Great Self. Excuse the tangental bullshit, it's a point I harp on constantly, but I think it has serious relevance in this matter. Imagine the possibilities of a world where anybody could have total libertarian freedom, and be incapable, by the very laws of reality 2.0 of infringing on the libertarian freedoms of others. Call me an idealist, the mound of evidence in favor is rather expansive: Foundations of Transhumanism The Politics of Transhumanism And last, but most certainly not least...Mostly cause its pretty funny, but also cause it acknowledges the opposition: In Defense of Humanity: Against transhumanism See, valid as that may be, the emergence of this technology is pretty much inevitable, and we all know the Luddites always lose out. ('Cept maybe for Ted Kaczynski, he seems to have gotten the message across just wonderfully.) I've said it before and i'll say it again...Humanity must grow up and learn to handle the responsibility of self-mastry, or we run the risk of being made obsolete along with the childish antics we create to explain things we're too afraid to understand in any real way. Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: Thank you!   by cestuspax       at Sat 22 Mar 12:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 74     Sorry bout that, must've missed a typo in the links: Foundations of Transhumanism Politics of Transhumanism Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  fresh meat...   by MrConnieLingus       at Thu 20 Mar 2:15pm score of 1.5 helpful     This was a great story to post...since all of us here are totally sick of bashing Bush et al, why not pick Plastic's next favorite target, Christians! Now, I can hardly wait until a good anti-business post cycles through and we get the trifecta.. MrConnieLingus's member profile karma: -786 (disingenous incoherent brainDead onDope)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

67.  Re: fresh meat...   by elforman       at Thu 20 Mar 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     Now, I can hardly wait until a good anti-business post cycles through and we get the trifecta.. What, this one doesn't do it for you?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: fresh meat...   by willb       at Thu 20 Mar 9:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 63     I work for a major label record company, if any one cares to take a pop. It is Friday, after all. TMBYFC   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: fresh meat...   by marduk_kur       at Thu 20 Mar 10:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 88     Booo! Hiss! Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: fresh meat...   by n29_w95       at Fri 21 Mar 8:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 88     Major record label? (Gimme your email , and I'll shoot you some mp3's of my stand up..) Er... ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH! Oppressor!!! (I am soooo sorry.) It's assholes like you are ruining creativity and corrupting the integrity of art!!! (Please forgive me. I can't work in this shitty day job forever. Daddy desperately needs booze money and a new truck... That's actually kind of a story in itself...) ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: fresh meat...   by bitekman       at Fri 21 Mar 5:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 63     Both Bush and Jesus are against living wage laws, you know. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

72.  Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by Saint_Waldo       at Thu 20 Mar 3:34pm score of 1     In the end, the document accuses New Ageism of replacing God with an obsession for personal actualization; substituting a real sense of the divine with a belief that tuning in to universal vibrations in order to advance one's career or love life is the only true spirituality Which is as valid as saying: In the end, Waldo's post accuses Religion of replacing Science with an obsession for comforting myths; substituting a real sense of the factual universe with a belief that tuning in to the word of God in order to advance one's career or love life or place in an unseen afterlife is the only true spirituality So, philosophers and philistines can always find a good excuse to slaughter each other, so long as the reasons are invisible, irrefutable, and irrational. Good show, jackasses. We are all whistling in the dark so long as this pig is trotted out as a white horse to ride into enlightenment. I respect no one who makes it their moral prerogative to demand I respect their beliefs while they in the same breath come up with reasons why my beliefs deserve no respect. Fuck God, fuck religion, and fuck these stupid ghoulish Catholics for fighting over who has the proper claim on my soul. It's MY soul, damn it all, it took me a lifetime to make, with no help from the church, and it'll take more than a scrap of bread and some cheap wine to woo it out of me. If I want to give it to Shirley Maclaine or Bob Tilton or fucking Bob Dobbs, it's my business, so keep your grubby, racist, persecuting, sexist, ignorance-loving, pissant, fascist-backing hands off my theology, got it? Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

78.  Re: Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by silver222       at Thu 20 Mar 5:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     Bravo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by tomc       at Thu 20 Mar 5:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     I'm sorry, did you say you had a Soul? betwixt vanilla sponge laeyrs No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by Saint_Waldo       at Thu 20 Mar 8:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     It's so good to find that people are still reading for comprehension these days. By "soul", I of course mean the counterpart to funk. With this understanding, I can see why Catholics would want to lay claim to it; have you seen what their leaders dress in these days? At least James Brown wore pants with his cape. Further study into my bizarre, non-exclusive, tentative, and definitely nothing-you'd-kill-anyone-over concept of a soul, I'd direct you to the second Crimson Permanent Assurance sequence in the seminal and most philosophically instructive "Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life". I defer to the troupe's most subtle and perceptive definition. I certainly couldn't say it with as much humor. And, of course, I never said one shouldn't postulate the existence of a soul. I will say that one shouldn't be required to. Saint Waldo …the Renaissance will not be Midævalized…   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by tomc       at Fri 21 Mar 12:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 85     Well, Soul is as Soul does. 8^) betwixt vanilla sponge layers No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: Once Again, Mad Libs Reveal All   by autarkie       at Sun 23 Mar 5:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     the point is that man doesn't make his own soul. read some aquinas, read josef pieper, read augustine, read anything. whether you believe in muses or angels or even duende man can only ever inform his soul, not create it. and dont use so many euphemisms, lest someone think you aren't intelligent enough to have a firm grasp of the english language. Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature ... but thee who destroys a good book, kills reason its self. (Milton)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

81.  Here's An Expirement For Ya   by uncarved block       at Thu 20 Mar 6:26pm score of 1.5 interesting     take a spin through this and ponder how often you could replace New Age with Protestantism, and not significantly alter the argument. "Emphasis on personal change" sounds suspiciously similar to "personal relationship with Christ", don't you think?       Do I point this out to bash Catholics? No, rather to note that arguments are larger than the specific moment, especially religious arguments. There are implicit dualities all through this, and the positive side is rarely stated openly. If "picking and choosing" is a fault, then being told what's important is good. If age/continuity is good, then the Church is better than all the competition, not just the New Age (and did anyone else find the italics really annoying?).       Thinking of those Protestants, I also mused about how many of them would find this attempt to understand yet another instance of the Church's iniquity. With the emphasis on personal salvation, alternate religions are treated as tests of faith rather than a societal problem. Established faiths (Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc) are chances to purify your belief; 'invented' religions (Wicca, channeling, magick, etc) are simply tricks of Satan to snare the foolish. The old tradition that all other religions come from Satan has fallen out of vogue, and is more the exception than the rule. (Please note that I am talking about higher end theological writing, and not bashing "ignorant" Christians).       Astute? Hard for me to say; this was clearly written for someone who's never studied "alternative" religions very much (or at all), which I am not. Sympathetic? Again, it's hard for me to tell-- I've read and heard so much venom expressed on all sides of this discussion that it's hard not to bring those past debates to the argument at hand. For instance, am I "picking and choosing" the elements of Taoism that I find meaningful, or am I admitting that there's two gulfs (time and culture) that I would be foolish to say I've crossed? All I know is that the Tao Te Ching is the only religious text I've ever read that made any sense to me personally, and while it may not be the Truth, it holds more truth than any other faith, IMHO.       And for everyone up thread who complained about how 'lightweight', 'feel good', and 'shallow' New Age can be, I would direct you to the Precious Moments Bible, a hot commodity at the used book store where I work. Just thinking about the adult who finds it touching or inspiring makes me nauseas . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

84.  Not I   by Airbag       at Thu 20 Mar 8:26pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 81     I am not sure if Protestantism can be easily plugged in as a replacement value in this work. While criticism of the emphasis on the personal may come close to what you are suggesting, the Protestant tradition is far from seeing the self as the indwelling of the divine. Luther's faith vs works discussion locates the possibility of grace outside the believer. Kierkegaard, in Philosophical Fragments, separates the pagan from the Christian in terms of whether we have the condition to receive the truth already within us or whether we need to be modified by the truth before it can be revealed. It is the sharp otherness of transcendence that the paper finds lacking in the New Age stuff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Not An Exact Fit   by uncarved block       at Thu 20 Mar 9:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never thought the fit was comprehensive, but again, I was struck by the overtones of the argument as often as the argument itself. Perhaps the mental drift was because so much of the history was review, while it was written as an introduction.       I've never read Luther directly, but I would be surprised if he located the possibility for grace in the person of the priest, or the rites of the Church. Or more appropriately, if he admitted the possibility, most of his followers have chosen to ignore that line of thinking. Every great thinker seems to have part of his original message conveniently forgotten: Lao Tzu never mentioned alchemy, yet a whole section of Taoist history is famous for it.       It is the sharp otherness of transcendence that the paper finds lacking in the New Age stuff.       Nice sentence. I can't help but note, though, that lack of passion in practice is a constant theme in all the religions I've studied. As one earlier comment put it, you should "have a hard on" for your beliefs, as if volume were the only proof of sincerity. I guess I overlooked that element as background noise, in a way you didn't.       far from seeing the self as the indwelling of the divine       Due to the notion of innate sin, I can see this in theory, but (as an admitted outsider) I can't see how the practice of continually trying to live in Christ differs much from the New Age emphasis on daily affirmations; I'm thinking here how the Puritans kept journals of their spiritual progress, and how journal keeping is so popular in all the New Age folks with which I've been in contact. One is for the glory of God, the other is for your personal awareness of Nature, but both end up as "I" centered documents, IMO.       I will say, in closing, that I have a definite tilt towards seeing things as parts of systems, and hence don't feel the differences others find so compelling. This may be why I find Taoism so appealing-- the individual is a miniscule part of the process, and discord and evil are caused by trying to expand your size in the grand scheme. OTOH, my hair will be green, crimson and purple in the next couple months, so I'm obviously not trying to be a drone :) Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by Airbag       at Fri 21 Mar 7:10am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 87     One is for the glory of God, the other is for your personal awareness of Nature, but both end up as "I" centered documents You have put your finger on the matter here. They both see the theater of personal experience as an intersection where the "Divine" is encountered. That is why the Catholic Church rightly sees the New Age interpretation of this to be at odds with their own. The history of Christian thought can be seen as a series of rebukes to those who would wrongly conceive of this intersection. In this tradition, there are certain tendencies evident in Protestant thought that do receive criticism in the paper. Especially in section 2.4: So it is clear that people involved do seek wisdom and equanimity for their own benefit, but how much do the activities in which they are involved enable them to work for the common good? Apart from the question of motivation, all of these phenomena need to be judged by their fruits, and the question to ask is whether they promote self or solidarity, not only with whales, trees or like-minded people, but with the whole of creation — including the whole of humanity. The most pernicious consequences of any philosophy of egoism which is embraced by institutions or by large numbers of people are identified by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as a set of "strategies to reduce the number of those who will eat at humanity's table".(47) This is a key standard by which to evaluate the impact of any philosophy or theory. Christianity always seeks to measure human endeavours by their openness to the Creator and to all other creatures, a respect based firmly on love. When I read this, I am reminded of the "prosperity gospel" I have heard at prayer breakfasts and of the gap between the society of the saved and the damned that suggests the latter is deserving of any misfortune that they encounter. The argument here for the rightness of the Catholic understanding is the notion that the pride of being a spiritual person will always threaten to be a "strategy to reduce the number of those who will eat at humanity's table." Le Rochefoucauld expressed the central importance of this tendency when he declared the highest and therefore most difficult Christian virtue to be Humility.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by veschke       at Fri 21 Mar 7:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 87     ) I can't see how the practice of continually trying to live in Christ differs much from the New Age emphasis on daily affirmations.... One is for the glory of God, the other is for your personal awareness of Nature, but both end up as "I" centered documents, IMO. You answered your own question. The Christian is doing what they do for the glory of God, the New Ager for their own personal benefit. The document may be "I-centered" but that is because "I" is the one undertaking the activity. The goal is what defines the difference. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by bigeyes       at Fri 21 Mar 9:29am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 98     You answered your own question. The Christian is doing what they do for the glory of God, the New Ager for their own personal benefit. That is such a load. Yeah, the Pope doesn't get any glory, nor does the archbishop, huh? What about certain preachers who grandstand before their groveling masses? Puh-leeeze. A lot of newage philosophy centers around one's own communication with god/goddess/whoever. Rather than going through an often arrogant and greedy middleman, many people simply choose to have their own relationship with their chosen deity. In my entire life, I have known 1 person who claimed to be a christian who I never heard or saw do anything to contradict that claim. Most of the others openly proclaimed their hatred of other groups, repeatedly broke their own commandments, and just generally were big phonies. This woman was a fine example of what most christians pretend to be. Most of the others seem to use christianity as a weapon, not a faith.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by veschke       at Fri 21 Mar 10:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     And here we go again. No one I know practices the religion the way I think they're supposed to, so the principles of the religion itself are crap. Tell you what, every Wiccan I've ever met is a total flake and all but incapable of running their own life. That doesn't mean Wicca is useless; it means these people are flakes. I can't fix your pool of acquaintances. I can say that in principle neither the Pope nor any other human being is glorified by the spiritual struggle of any individual Christian. I also feel compelled to point out that another principle of the religion is that people screw up (constantly). A lot of newage philosophy centers around one's own communication with god/goddess/whoever. Then they're possibly not the segment of the New Age adherent pool under discussion. A lot of the New Age however is focused on me me me. It was the 70s, I mean, c'mon. :-) And as someone married to a particularly fine example of the Christian faith, I take issue with your tone. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by bigeyes       at Fri 21 Mar 10:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 106     And as someone who has met more than my share of religious phonies, I take issue with your blind refusal to accept any criticism of anything pseudo-christian. If your husband is like my aforementioned friend, then he obviously isn't who I'm talking about, is he? Frankly, I know a lot of new-agers who are big phonies, too. I especially love the ones who preach about their overflowing love for all people while spewing nastiness at anyone who they view as competition. Maybe you live somewhere where all the christians live as they preach, but I live where they practice hate, picket funerals, openly harass anyone who doesn't agree with them, and just generally behave in a way that has nothing to do with spreading god's love. Gee, would it make you feel any better if I tell you I believe in god, I just don't believe in most organized religion?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by veschke       at Fri 21 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 107     And as someone who has met more than my share of religious phonies, I take issue with your blind refusal to accept any criticism of anything pseudo-christian. I have no problem with criticisms of pseudo-Christianity; there's a great deal of it out there to criticize. I have problems when people assume that its existence means that the problem is with the religion, rather than with the people, and that is what you seemed to be saying with your "load" remark. I am not interested in debating the behavior of poor Christians; that would be a colossal waste of time. I am interested in the principles they arguably should be following. This goes for all religions. If someone had said that there is no difference between Buddhists attempting to adhere to the Eightfold Path and New Age daily affirmations, I would have felt compelled to argue with that, too (although admittedly from a standpoint of less personal knowledge). I couldn't care less about your personal beliefs, except to note that you come across as bitter on the topic. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by bigeyes       at Fri 21 Mar 10:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 108     I don't mean to be bitter, but I am cynical about the whole thing. You come across as quite defensive about the whole thing. Obviously, when I criticize the pseudo-christian phonies, if it doesn't apply to you, you shouldn't be offended by it. You seemed to take my remarks personally, and they were not a reflection of my feelings about you at all. Maybe you missed my post in the confederate flag thread, where I pointed out that no matter what you feel about a group, the destruction/desecration of a symbol of their faith is inappropriate. Just because I think most organized religion is junk, I wouldn't deface a church or throw feces on the virgin mary. I find it amusing that most of the criticisms of any religion can be directed at any other. There is hypocrisy in all religions, but it seems only the christians can go around telling others how to act. You can worship a great horny toad for all I care, just don't use your religion to back up feelings of superiority or to legitimize hatred toward another group. Of course, by you I mean the collective you, not necessarily you personally. ;)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Perspective   by tomc       at Fri 21 Mar 11:12am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 108     Bigeyes isn't being bitter again, is she? Just a couple of thoughts: First, this document is a guide to pastors (priests in charge of congregations) to answer questions about New Age and help keep Catholics on the Christian path, so obviously you're going to find arguments in favor of Catholicism. I don't think anything published by the Vatican would be any different — Jesus would be rolling in his grave if they did. Second, this idea of self-actualization really IS an issue. Then Vatican doesn't say it's wrong, they simply state that it's incompatible with Christianity. They then go on to explain why Christianity is better. WE don't have to agree with those arguments. But what resonated with me was this key difference: New Age practice is always "checking personal progress" — how "in-tune" are you today with the great cosmic vibration. Some forms of Zen do this, even some forms of Christianity. Catholicism holds (as do many other religions) that ones personal accomplishments in connectedness to Gaia, while laudable, have no real bearing upon your personal salvation. According to Christianity, greater awareness of or closeness to Christ doesn't buy you a better seat in Heaven. betwixt vanilla sponge layers No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Perspective   by bigeyes       at Fri 21 Mar 11:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 111     Why is it that whenever you throw the same crap back at someone, you're bitter? When I responded to The Christian is doing what they do for the glory of God, the New Ager for their own personal benefit with a statements about how the church glorifies money and showmen, that was hardly bitter, it's fact. There are phonies in ALL religions. The funny thing is, it's the christians who seem to think by telling someone else they'll go to hell, or otherwise be excluded they'll gain converts. It's a not-so-subtle way of implying they're better. Not everyone thinks they are. The article was about the church telling us why new-age is wrong. Notice how it's the church attacking New-age, not the other way around. 8)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Perspective   by tomc       at Fri 21 Mar 12:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 112     Well, I was just kidding about the "bitter" part. As you know, this is one of my weaknesses. I just thought it was unfair to compare New Age personal benefit with Church money-grubbing. Now, you can compare New Age money-grubbing with Church money-grubbing. That's cool. But New Age "personal benefit" means concern with self-enlightenment. And that's very different from what the Vatican is about. This document came about as a result of the Church feeling threatened by the New Age. And threatened it is, if people are leaving the Church to become Gaia worshipped, and New Agers are appropriating Christian concepts (much like the Church appropriated pagan concepts centuries ago). Cheers, T. betwixt vanilla sponge layers No Pussyfooting   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: Not An Exact Fit   by veschke       at Fri 21 Mar 12:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 110     I probably am defensive; thank you for pointing it out. I'll work on that. I actually don't think I read the confederate flag thread at all (my Plastic time is rather spottily spent), so thank you as well for clarifying your position. As for only Christians telling others how to act, I suspect it would be the same for any religion that is as firmly embedded in its surrounding society as Christianity is in the US. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   118.  Wow   by uncarved block       at Fri 21 Mar 7:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 98     (I guess I sparked a tad bit of fire, eh?)       One reason I come to Plastic is to push arguments and assumptions your response has made me do. For one, I had never (quite) realized how fully Materialism dominates my thinking. To be precise, since the content of these journals is largely unverifiable (people lie even to themselves, or misinterpret situations to a degree it can be considered a falsehood), the production of a journal is more important, perhaps absolutely so, than the content.       I'm uncertain if this is a divide that can be crossed, argumentatively. Were the Puritan's journals qualitatively different than me mum's, or even my own (should I have ever kept one)? I'm unwilling to enter the debate, because I can't think of any resolution, other than complete surrender on one side; out of courtesy, I will not press my side of the argument. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  Ah.... no.   by Daniel Shedd       at Thu 20 Mar 7:38pm score of 1     This document is simply a failure. It evens says so. "The New Age movement isn't a movement, it's a millieu". Yet they aren't really interested in conversing in this millieu, so they go right on pretending there's something we can actually call the New Age Movement. The New Age is a time, not a belief system. Thus, calling it a belief system, or even honoring that it isn't and yet proceeding to treat it like one anyway, is a rather simplistic intellectual failure. "The New Age" is a vastly paradoxical vision of the intermingling of ideas, faiths, and practices. "It" is about as useful, or useless, as your ability to discern whether the guy who calls himself a Shaman has really delved into life enough to be your teacher, or is simply dicking around with phrases he doesn't understand, hoping to get laid. The weight is on you, and that my friends, is rather frightening. You don't just choose your faith, and then work within specificly scripted realms of thought which you are allowed to question, YOU KEEP EXPLORING, LEARNING AND CHOOSING. "Substituting a real sense of the divine with a belief that tuning in to universal vibrations... is the only true spirituality." Ah....no. A "real sense of the divine" is exactly what many many people are doing when they meditate, practice energy-work, or ecstatic dance. I beg you to show me a real sense of the divine in a Sunday church service that compares with the depth of love, hope and FAITH IN GOD I feel dancing each tuesday night (219 sullivan st, nyc) with seventy people in a candle-lite room. The world is changing, a lot. "The New Age" is about the melding of faith, knowledge, and hope. Millions of people are full of shit, and millions more are exploring what a world without definite answers is like. Most of us are full of shit AND still exploring, sometimes opening ourselves substantially. Personal actualization is no more prominant than working to transform the world. It is the possibility of embracing both at once that fuels my faith, and that of many others. A spiritual leap beyond a Vatican that insists on polarizing the two as separate principals. Intellectually (not to mention spiritually) immature. ACTUALIZING OURSELVES AND ENGAGING IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIVINE WORLD IS THE SAME WORK. We're operating in a worldview that is not comparable to a Religion, AT ALL. Compared to the idea of "Religion", this is an entirely added dimension of experience. Not more TRUE, simply more REAL. The difference between two and three dimensions. There is no bastion of truth through which to define everything, no exclusive system of control to keep you safe from the ravages of a living earth of which we are all a part — whether you believe it or not. Good? Bad? Neither. Let go of Good and Evil boys and girls. It's time to drop the training wheels. I can be what I see. I become what I say.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

96.  Ph33r my G3nome!   by DarkReazon       at Fri 21 Mar 7:02am score of 1     "deciphering the genetic code" And that's a bad thing? Of course, when your selling snake oil, the last thing you want around you is a chemist. Is it any surprise that established religion doesn't want us peeking around in the black box of genetics? Heaven forbid we really discover something that tears down their scaffolding. But what if, (and this is a big "what if") the potential for God (which I'm told is in all things) is proved by such a approach? The Catholic church doesn't seem terribly confident in their product, if you catch my drift. They (the ubiquitous) don't want to know, and that's the kicker. One who truly believed, and I mean TRULY BELIEVED, would not be phased by such attacks. Bring it on, I imagine them saying. God will triumph, I imagine them saying. But this lack of confidence is staggering. It's a damn near admittance that the whole thing is a fraud. So attack Satanism, and homosexuality, and, what the heck, throw in SCIENCE 'cause that's been a constant source of disruption to our surreptitious explanations....m'kay.... I think I'll stick with secular transhumanism instead. Regards, Shaun. He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a monster. - F.W.N.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]