"Couple mix Christian and pagan rituals" the teaser headline called out to me at the bottom of the page A1 of the November 2 edition of the Washington Post. Promising a look at a couple "celebrat[ing] the rites of marriage in a most unorthodox fashion," I turned to the Style section front page to read more.
But what followed in Ellen McCarthy's "For heathens' sake" only confirmed when it comes to religion, particularly orthodox Christianity, the media just don't get it.
McCarthy's feature made abundantly clear to any orthodox Christian reader than the cermony she witnessed was 100 percent pagan. The only tenuous claim to Christian influence in the ceremony presided over by a "black-robed high priest and priestess" was the use of the "Christian" ritual of the "unity candle" and the fact that the bride, raised Catholic, has not "formally dedicated herself to the [pagan] religion but now refers to herself as a Catholic witch."
To be fair to McCarthy, she was not making explicit claims about the compatibility of Christianity and paganism, but by failing to include a critical note from a Catholic priest, for example, the implication to the average reader would be that the newlywed couple in question have found a way to to reconcile their paganism with Catholicism. Of course no effort was taken to explore from the Christian perspective whether there can be such a commingling, or if the notion of being a "Catholic witch" is patently absurd.
What's more, by boiling down the Christian-ness of a wedding ceremony to ritual, McCarthy forsakes the conception in Christian thought as a picture of Christ and His Church and in Catholic sacramental theology as a sacrament itself.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphases mine)
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
1602 Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb." Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.
[...]
1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but "one body" in Christ.
The bottom line: Christian thought on marriage is far deeper than rituals which can be ripped out of their context in non-ecclesiastical weddings.
As for the aforementioned Christian "unity candle," that itself is a relatively new "ritual" which is foreign to the Catholic Rite of Marriage, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explains in a paper on "An Analysis of Diocesan Marriage Preparation Policies" (emphasis mine):
Additional Symbolic Rituals
Unity Candle
Although lighting a “unity candle” is not part of the Rite of Marriage it has become very popular as an additional ritual. Most policies do not prohibit this custom but many suggest that it be done at the reception since the Rite of Marriage already has abundant symbols of unity. Cincinnati’s Celebrating Marriage booklet has a pastoral explanation for this. If the unity candle is used, the couple should light their individual candles from the paschal candle, the individual candles should not be extinguished, and the candle should not be placed on the altar. The Sioux City policy reinterprets the unity candle as the “Christ candle.” Liturgists continue to discuss the use and conflicting meanings of the unity candle.
As a storyteller relaying the tale of an "unorthodox" wedding ceremony held on Halloween, McCarthy succeeds. But religious readers have sufficient cause to complain that her story lacked any skepticism about the compatibility and/or interchangeable nature of the wildly different pictures of marriage afforded by paganism and Christianity.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
unreal
November 2, 2009 - 11:21 ET by Candance MooreI have had the displeasure of knowing several "Christian witches" in my life. All of them, without exception, were heavy on the witch part and clocked out on the Christian part.
Someone needs to ask McCarthy exactly how she came to the conclusion that a unity candle was a Christian idea since most experts agree it began as a pagan ritual.
No such animal as a "Christian witch."
November 2, 2009 - 12:03 ET by Mike BrattonChristianity "plus" anything else isn't Christianity.
Those people aren't married in the sight of God, because they did not seek to be. They threw a few crumbs to the Almighty, and pulled a stunt worthy of Barack "Many Paths" Obama by using Christianity as a prop.
But ha, ha, isn't it cute.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Let's just make a few
November 2, 2009 - 12:26 ET by Doc_NavyLet's just make a few things clear...
1. There is no such thing as a "Christian-Witch", a "Catholic-Witch" or anything else that melds Witchcraft (Which is not an all emcompassing term for "Paganism".) with any aspect of Christianity. Any time that Paganism or Witchcraft have been melded with Christian beliefs it has spawned something COMPLETELY different (IE: Voodooism).
Although, those of use who know our Theological history, know that Catholicism IS a mixture of Paganism (Sun worship) and the original church of Christ.
2. The "Unity Candle" is a completely contrived ritual, less than 40 years old, that has absolutely ZERO basis in ANY Christian wedding ceremonies. In the same manner as "Kwanzaa", the "Unity Candle" was just INVENTED OUT OF THIN AIR because it seems like a nice thing.
Doc
what's up doc?
November 2, 2009 - 13:10 ET by lotrCareful -- you tread on very thin ground with statements like that here. NB has made it clear that sectarian comments and/or debates are not welcome here -- at best, they are distraction from the topic at hand; at worst, they generate fruitless divisiveness and bad blood. There are a large number of folks out there (namely, orthodox Catholics) who would beg to differ with your inaccurate assessment (Sun worship??) of their religion.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Again, it is not my
November 3, 2009 - 14:22 ET by Doc_NavyAgain, it is not my intention to insult, offend or cause divisiveness, and all the Orthodox Catholics who wish to differ with me, may. That is their perogative, they may BELIEVE as they choose, but a fact is a fact, is a fact. No amount of "differing" with me will change that.
Example:
Baptism- NOT invented by Christians nor by John the Baptist, but practiced by (Levite) Jews prior to entering the Temple and Synagogs long before the birth of Christ. John was the son of a levite Mother and Father, and Christ himself proclaimed Baptism to be a true principle of his Church. Nevertheless, Baptism is not of Christian origin, but Jewish.
Doc
you do not seem to comprehend
November 3, 2009 - 21:46 ET by lotrA fact is a fact, and the fact is that Catholic-Christianity is not pagan, and to make the claim is to scandalize conservative Catholics, regulars and visitors, at this site.
Your first example, even assuming it is true (which I immediately question, given that I have read nothing pertaining to Baptism in the Old Testament) proves absolutely nothing -- Judaism is not pagan.
Back to my original statement -- while I love debate, such inflamatory POV statements regarding a Christian "denomination" (the largest, actually), have no place on a blog about liberal media bias.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Again, go ahead and
November 3, 2009 - 22:19 ET by Doc_NavyAgain, go ahead and question it. I invite you to. But quit trying to tell me I'm wrong if you haven't looked it up.
Also, the example wasn't given as one of paganism, but one in which (as you so aptly prove) Christians(Catholics) THINK has it's origins in Christianity, yet doesn't.
On Baptism:
Ok, if you think you have all the answers, and I'm all messed up...
Question, John the Baptist was practicing baptism PRIOR to meeting Christ (Therefore he predates the organization of Christ's original Church and thusly Catholicsm)... Who taught and gave authority to HIM to Baptize?
Doc
huh?
November 4, 2009 - 12:19 ET by lotrExcuse me? You're the one who has dropped the bomb, on a news blog dedicated to liberal media bias, that Catholicism is really some sort of "Sun worship." My first response was to charitably provide you with a warning that such inflammatory statements are not appropriate, nor welcome, here. This attempt on my part appears to have been ignored. My subsequent response here was to provide an immediate rebutal to more untruths, only to have you backtrack and say "well, this example only says that there are pre-Christian practices." Newsflash: Christianity has Jewish origins, something that most everyone knows. Christians also consider the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, to be the inspired Word of God. So that makes them Jews?
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Apparently you still have
November 4, 2009 - 13:42 ET by Doc_NavyApparently you still have problems reading. I never said Catholicism was really "Sun Worship".
YOU took it that way, for the THIRD time:
I said that Catholicism as we know it now is the ORIGINAL Church of Christ with the addition of adopted traditions and practices that have Pagan origins, and have been remolded to conform with Chirstian Gospel.
A good portion of those "adoptions" came from the 1st Council of Nicea, called for and headed up by Emporer Constantine (who was a Pagan of the Sol Invictus Sun-cult).
Doc
PS. BTW, you've never actually confronted ANYTHING I've put out there. Just said, "nope, you're wrong." and that's that. With that said, see below. I'm done with this conversation... time to get back to the other unmentionable subject: Politics and Liberal Spin
Apparently, you still have problems comprehending your own post
November 4, 2009 - 16:03 ET by lotrGlad to hear that you don't think that Catholicism is "Sun worship." But don't blame me if I read into the statement "Catholicism IS a mixture of Paganism (Sun worship) and the original church of Christ." All your statements since then seem to suggest that what you really mean is that "several Christian practices have pagan elements," which is perfectly valid.
True -- if this is all you meant, then I don't think there's any argument, nor is there anything wrong with making such a comment. Again (for I stated it below, to which you disagree), this is a far cry from the original statement.
And sorry, but I've confronted everything you've put out there. Just what exactly haven't I confronted?
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Out of Line
November 2, 2009 - 13:32 ET by TomsPlace"Although, those of use who know our Theological history, know that
Catholicism IS a mixture of Paganism (Sun worship) and the original
church of Christ."
As was stated by another response Doc, you are on very thin ice with this statement and it is completely out of line. As an orthodox Catholic, I take great offense at such a statement, not only for its inaccuracy, but for its purposeful inetent to incite.
Please dial back, this article deals with a com-Post article, not personal opinions about Catholicism.
God Bless
Tom,Sorry to offend
November 3, 2009 - 14:33 ET by Doc_NavyTom,
Sorry to offend you, maybe you should grow some thicker skin. My statements are not hateful, offensive, nor inaccurate. I'm quite certain that I'm skating on pretty solid ice.
By the way, my statements on Catholicism are far more respectable and sensitive than those put out by posters here at NB whom have discussed Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Jehovas Wittnesess, Etc...
Before you accuse me of trying to "incite" maybe you should make sure I'm wrong by looking some of it up. (IE: It's not an opinion if it's a fact.)
To that end, I have included some basic research (with links) below from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I guess it's time for you to learn about your own religion, my friend
God Bless you too,
Doc
sorry, but
November 3, 2009 - 21:50 ET by lotrYour statement was 100% inaccurate -- it is your opinion, not a fact. And you do indeed tread on thin ice.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
For someone who hasn't
November 3, 2009 - 22:22 ET by Doc_NavyFor someone who hasn't responded to the substance of my statements, how can you possibly say it's opinion and not fact when I'm providing verifiable links to proof, and all you have is... what?
Doc
Agreed
November 2, 2009 - 15:43 ET by scarebear83I won't fuel any more fire here but I will agree with one of your statements... which I would like to ask what is your religion (if any?)
__________
Shazbot!
Sorry to offend anyone,
November 3, 2009 - 14:29 ET by Doc_NavySorry to offend anyone, that is not my intent but, it is a historical FACT that modern Catholicism is what we have left over after Emporer Constantine (Who declared himself a Christian at age 40 but also remained a Sun Worshipper until his death bed baptism into the Catholic Church) made the primal Church of Christ (Known as the Catholic Church from around 100-110AD) the state religion in an empire of mostly Pagan citizens. Constantine called the council of Nicea and it is out of this council that the modern precepts of the Church of Christ (Catholicism), as we know it today, sprung.
For his support of the Church both Constantine and his mother were made Saints, but after the great schism between Rome and Constantinople only the Eastern Orthodox Church retains his sainthood, while the latin church gave him the title of "The Great".
These are all easily verifiable facts. I am not saying that Constantine MADE the Church, nor am I saying he came up with the principles of the Church...
What I am saying is that he had a great deal of influence on the primal church and due to his influence (and for some political reasons) there are aspects of Paganism that were adopted into the Church. Such aspects are:
Sunday worship- Original Christians worshipped on Saturday, Sunday was the worship day of Mithras or Helios, the Sun God of Constantine. Sunday worship was adopted by the Nicean Council in 325AD, and made into Law by the Church of Lacedonia in 364 AD.
Easter- Originally an incredibly popular Pagan Celebration of the Fertility Goddess Eastre or Oester complete with Rabbits and eggs. Along the Medditeranean (and well before the birth of Christ) Easter was personified by the story of Attis. Attis was born to a virgin (sound familiar?). He is the god of Vegetation, the lover of the fertility Goddess, and he dies and is reborn annually at this time (sound familiar?).
This holiday was too popular for early Christians to ban, so over time they simply reassigned meaning to the traditions (in the Council of Nicea) and let their pagan converts continue to celebrate.
Christmas- I love Christmas as much as everyone else, and accept it as a celebration of the Birth of Christ... But as most Chistians know, December 25th is NOT the time of Christs birth. In the old calendar December 25 was the winter solstice, a day to celebrate the returning of the sun. In Rome December 17 was the start of a seven day holiday to celebrate the birth of the god Saturn.
The Iranian sun God Mithra (also linked with Helios) was born of a virgin birth, on December 25, and a feast was held in honor of Mithras known as Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. In many parts of the world the holidays’ original name was Saturnalia. Saturnalia was a celebration that lasted several days and involved feasting and the exchange of gifts. Evergreens, which represented life, were brought into the homes and decorated. Nearly every Christmas tradition, from the wreath to the star, have pagan origins, there are too many to list.
As with Easter the holiday was far too popular, so rather than forbidding newly converted Christians from celebrating it, the Church (by way of the Council of Nicea) adopted the holiday, renamed the day and over time reassigned meanings to the traditions.
Halos- Halos were used on images of Pagan Gods and Goddesses, long before Christianity arose. The halo symbol is a clear reference to the Sun God Helios. Adopted by the Church as a symbolic manefestation of Holiness and power from Pagan converts.
Other things that are common to Chistianity that have Pagan origins are:
-Wedding Rings & why you wear them on your 4th finger.
-Wedding Veils
-White Wedding Dresses
-The "Fish" Symbol (Ichthys)
-Vestments (Robes that Priests wear, although there is also carryover from the robes that Jewish Levites wore in the Temple)
-Elemental symbols of water and fire used in Christianity
-The Triquetra Symbol (Trinity) originally representing the "Three-Part Goddess" Maiden/Mother/Crone.
and finally...
-The Crucifix, originally the symbol of the Sun God Mithras (Helios), and the Babylonian God Tammuz. Adopted by Christians (Catholics) after (Guess who?)... Constantine who was a Sun worshipper (Sol Invictus?) at the time, had a vision of a Cross in front of the Sun.
Prior to 300AD the association of the Cross with Christianity was very rare (but not unheard of), Christians preferred the use of the Fish symbol which is itself a Pre-Christian Pagan symbol.
Again, I am not trying to offend anyone and I apoligize if I do. I am just stating simple facts, sorry if truth stings. Historians from both the Mother Church and Protestant denominations have clearly stated that over time, Pagan traditions have crept into and become recognized practices in modern Christianity.
Don't believe me, look it up.
PS. I've updated this post to include main links to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA to make it easier for you as well as some supplimentary links.
Doc
wrong
November 3, 2009 - 22:10 ET by lotrNot one of these examples of religious practices transforms Catholic or Protestant (for many Protestant sects also adhere to several of these pratices) Christianity into something pagan.
Regarding the last example, I simply respond with the following from the Apostle himself:
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Reading is fundamental
November 3, 2009 - 22:25 ET by Doc_NavyAre you sure you can read?
I never said it transforms it INTO Paganism, I said those aspects of Christianity have THEIR ORIGINS in Paganism and have become commonly accepted practice.
Doc
Are you sure you can scroll up the page to your own post?
November 4, 2009 - 12:29 ET by lotrI quote your original sophism:
This is a far, far cry from what you just stated above. That practices such as Christmas have pagan elements (e.g., the Christmas tree) is also not disputed here. But to extrapolate that to "Catholicims IS a mixture of paganism (Sun worship) [sic]" -- sorry, but this is a falsehood.
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
Look, I'm already getting
November 4, 2009 - 13:22 ET by Doc_NavyLook, I'm already getting tired of this conversation.
My first statment is ENTIRELY in accord with all my other statements. It's not a "Far cry", it's not "different", and it isn't a "change".
The fact that you haven't looked any of this stuff up even though I've provided links is a telling feature to our little diatribe. Fine...
I'm done discussing this matter, and if you want to make that into a "Win" (if that will help your conscience) so be it.
Facts are facts, but I can't hold a discussion with someone who refuses to entertain the notion that the other party MIGHT be right (especially when they provide proof).
Let me just finish with this, and maybe it will help you in your scriptural study (if you actually do any):
The original primal Church as organized by Christ himself and manitained by his Apostles until their death was an ~ENTIRELY~ different animal than the current or even the ancient Catholic Church after the 1st council of Nicea. What were the main changes? Easy,
1. Loss of Authority (through the death of the last Apostle) to speak to the Church in General on behalf of Jesus Christ.
2. Reorganization of the Church away from the original structure that Christ ordained. (IE: Christ had 12 apostles with 1 apostle as head leading his Church. There were no positions of "Pope", "Archbishop", "Cardinal", "Primate", "Prelate", "Abbot", "Prefect", Etc... Bishops fell UNDER the Apostles, they were not the equivilent and did not have the authority to speak for or write the scripture of God as Apostles did.)
3. The adoption of "Cannon" which was then voted on by men for truthfulness (And did not exist in Christ's original Church) vice the continuing use of Apolistic Scripture and prophecy which is the infallible word of God, and doesn't NEED to be voted on for truthfulness.
4. The adoption of Pagan traditions into the Church in an effort to appease the overwhelming number of Pagan converts who otherwise might have resisted conversion.
DO your own study, see if I'm right or wrong. Don't just dismiss it because "It just can't be."
With that, I'm done with this conversation.
God bless,
Doc
same here
November 4, 2009 - 16:38 ET by lotrBut nevertheless, here are some quick responses:
"Loss of Authority." Authority to speak on behalf of Christ comes from the Holy Ghost. If authority has been lost since the death of the last Apostle, then so has Christ's Church. But of course, this is at odds with His assertion "the gates of Hell shall not prevail." We must also then rule out the Gospel of Luke, the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Mark, for the authors were not Apostles. I believe there were also churches overseen by those other than Peter or Paul (e.g., Timothy), yet there wasn't any New Testament Canon yet. How were these churches to be evangelized if those overseeing them did not have authority to preach? Here are the words of the Apostle to Titus, who was not an apostle, nor even a Jew: "These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you." We also have: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. [Traditionally bishops] Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood." (Acts 20:28) Authority to speak to the church in general did not die with the last Apostle.
"Christ had 12 apostles with 1 apostle as head leading his Church." After Christ died, the number of missionaries/teachers/etc. grew like wildfire as the faith spread -- there were far more than 12 individuals who had been conferred with the authority of the 12 (see above). Just what exactly is the Pope, if not a simple term (for it means "Papa") for "1 apostle as head leading his church." "Pope", "Archbishop", "Cardinal", "Primate", "Prelate", "Abbot", "Prefect"-- all fancy names given to individuals with various functions, none of which being in contradiction with Christ.
The adoption of the Canon. Not sure what you are getting at here -- that the Bible (i.e., the Canon) is not the inspired Word of God?
The adoption of pagan traditions. "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." 1 Cor. 9:22
"Steady." -- Keith Olbermann to Chris Matthews
This sounds like you've confused ritual with belief
November 3, 2009 - 22:13 ET by CO2Maker"Although, those of use who know our Theological history, know that Catholicism IS a mixture of Paganism (Sun worship) and the original church of Christ."
Christianity (i.e., Catholicism until the Reformation) has at a number of times in history assimilated some cultural practices into its liturgy, but Christianity has never mixed the two beliefs.
During the first three centuries, especially the second and third, Christians in Rome adopted the iconography of pastoral local art, such as Christ shown as a shepherd in a Roman style (which, of course, perfectly conformed to Christ's own description of himself as the Good Shepherd). During the same time, newly converted Christian artists adapted images of Helios, the sun god, as a model for depicting Christ. Let us not forget that Christians, an unfavored group under threat of persecution (until the Constantinian conversion), did not portray the crucifixion, which could have discouraged the catechumens in the catacombs. They preferred more benign and hopeful depictions.
After Constantine, Christianity began to exhibit a more robust iconography. In the Eastern churches, the Pantocrator (Christ the Judge) was adopted as a popular image, but still, in buildings like St. Apollinaire in Classe, Christ was portrayed as the Good Shepherd with twelve sheep.
Later, as the Church expanded into the farther reaches of the Roman Empire, it encountered and eventually converted many different people, such as the Celts in Britain, and absorbed such things as the term for "Easter" from them. Roman missionaries reported that the local Christians who had been previously evangelized celebrated Easter on a different date from the one established in Rome. See Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the British People for more details about this and other matters.
No, I'm just pointing out
November 3, 2009 - 22:31 ET by Doc_NavyNo, I'm just pointing out common Christian (Catholic) practices that have Pagan origins. There's no shame in it. It happened. Why try to deny it? It is what it is. Doesn't make the gospel of Christ any less true.
Doc
This sounds like you've confused ritual with belief
November 3, 2009 - 22:39 ET by CO2MakerNew and improved post!
"Although, those of use who know our Theological history, know that Catholicism IS a mixture of Paganism (Sun worship) and the original church of Christ."
Christianity (i.e., Catholicism until the Reformation) has at a number of times in history assimilated some cultural practices into its liturgy, but Christianity has never mixed the two beliefs.
During the first three centuries, especially the second and third, Christians in Rome adopted the iconography of pastoral local art, such as Christ shown as a shepherd in a Roman style (which, of course, perfectly conformed to Christ's own description of himself as the Good Shepherd). During the same time, newly converted Christian artists adapted images of Helios, the sun god, as a model for depicting Christ. Let us not forget that Christians, an unfavored group under threat of persecution (until the Constantinian conversion), did not portray the crucifixion, which could have discouraged the catechumens in the catacombs. They preferred more benign and hopeful depictions.
ChristAsSol.jpg 462×494 pixels
Good_shepherd_01_small.jpg 450×436 pixels
earlychris1.jpg 1000×682 pixels
After Constantine, Christianity began to exhibit a more robust iconography. In the Eastern churches, the Pantocrator (Christ the Judge) was adopted as a popular image, but still, in buildings like Sant' Apollinaire in Classe, Christ was portrayed as the Good Shepherd with twelve sheep.
Pendentive_(San_Vitale_in_Ravenna).jpg 1296×972 pixels
Basilica_of_Sant_Apollinare.jpg 800×600 pixels
Later, as the Church expanded into the farther reaches of the Roman Empire, it encountered and eventually converted many different people, such as the Celts in Britain, and absorbed such things as the term for "Easter" from them. Roman missionaries reported that the local Christians who had been previously evangelized celebrated Easter on a different date from the one established in Rome. See Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the British People for more details about this and other matters.
You do realize that
November 4, 2009 - 15:00 ET by Doc_NavyYou do realize that almost everything you have posted SUPPORTS what I've been saying.
For instance, notice that the Crucifix doesn't show up in any Christian art until AFTER Constantine 300AD?
Also, did you notice in the pic from San Vitale in Ravenna, that the depiction of Christ CLEARLY shows him holding a wreath in his right hand? The wreath is completely of Pagan origin, and represents:
-Life, Health (Apollo, Greek paganism)
-Victory (Roman Paganism)
-Immortality (Lucina, Roman Paganism)
Interesting isn't it?
Doc
The Post has no problem
November 2, 2009 - 14:12 ET by HockeyKidThe Post has no problem with a "Christian witch" and lots of similar "meldings". For example, they're perfectly fine with the idea of a foreign-born POTUS, a recordless education, a near-illiterate bestselling author, etc.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Dumb reporters and even dumber people who
November 2, 2009 - 16:22 ET by Ankharanbelieve this junk. I've been a self-declared pagan most of my adult life 45+ years, and raised pagan by pagan parents and grand parents. (Keep in mind that pagan/heathen is anything not of the God of Abraham, that is an important distinction.)
Most people have no idea where their Christian/Catholic/God of Abraham religion comes from and what is more, they do not want to know. That is fine just don't try to insult the intelligence of people who do.
Those people who claim to be "Christian Witches" are pagan in the sense that they are not of the Christian/Catholic/God of Abraham religion(s). To say otherwise is to show ones ignorance. To believe otherwise is to show your ability to look away from the facts and history.
But pagan in the sense that they know what the hel they are talking about is delusional. You cannot be a Christian-Witch. It is NOT possible. You can be a pagan that uses Christian dogma or follows Christian tenets to a degree but you cannot be a Christian Witch. it goes against the tenets of Christianity and the edicts of the God of Abraham. You know... that gos that is supposed to bethe be all end all of that religion. Even the watered down modern version that so many people have a hard time with the abilty to follow but no problems forcing it on other people.
Sad
November 2, 2009 - 17:29 ET by Bull Moose ProgressiveThe state of religious education among news reporters is "pathetic".
In this case they fail not only to know what Christianity is and its rituals, but they seem to fail to understand what paganism is.
I wonder if they'll ever tout Infidel-Muslims?