PART 2:

THOUGHT PROVOKING QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED; WITH OUR RESPONSES

Sponsored link.

Interesting Emails discussed in this essay:

Should this site ban ads related to Wicca and the casting of spells?

Our response: It is customary to capitalize the names of religions and the word "Bible." So we have altered the incoming Email which left both words in lower case.

To answer your first question: Creation science beliefs are typically held by conservative Christians. There is a wide range of beliefs among Fundamentalist and other Evangeical Christians about Wiccans:

But there is also a strong tradition within all wings Christianity in favor of religious freedom and religious tolerance. Both involve letting others follow the spiritual and religious path of their own choosing, without discrimination and oppression -- even though you disagree with their beliefs. As far as spell casting is concerned, this can be viewed as a form of prayer. A person casting a spell to influence the weather and a Christian praying for rain are performing essentially the same function. So, I would suggest that most American Christians, including those who believe in creation science, support the U.S. Bill of Rights, including the freedom of religion, speech and assembly. They would support the right of Wiccans and spell casters to follow their religious and magickal beliefs, even though they disagree with them theologically.

I assume that you are objecting to the Wiccan and spell casting advertisements which are part of the Sprinks network, and which sometimes appear next to our Creation Science and other essays. These ads are placed by Sprinks and are outside of our control. To remove ads that people want to place would be censorship. Our group supports freedom of speech.

Your second question asked whether Wicca and occult practices are supported by the Bible. The answer is both yes and no. There are quite a few instances of black magic, divination and occultic activities described in the Bible in a positive or neutral light. They involved some of the great leaders of the ancient Hebrews: Joseph, the high priests, Elisha, and Daniel. In the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) Paul and Peter are mentioned.  However, certain occult practices are specifically forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These include: making contact with spirits (not of God); making contact with the dead; foretelling the future by using lots or interpreting signs in nature; snake charming, magical knot tying, and spells which harm other people. These categories do not include the type of spell casting performed by the people who advertise via Sprinks. They would probably refuse to do spells that harm others.

There are many themes which run through the Bible. One is intolerance of other religions. The book of Joshua describes religiously-motivated genocide and many instances of mass murder of people who were part of a culture that worshiped other Gods, including helpless newborns, infants, children, men, women and old folks. On the other hand, the Bible also extensively promotes justice. In modern times, justice is generally linked to fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion, assembly and speech. So I feel that a case can be made that the Bible both supports and prohibits religious freedom.

Why people reject absolute truth:

Incoming Email: Many people reject absolute truth because they do not like the fact that some day they might have to answer to a higher power -- God -- who has absolute standards. To placate their consciences, they believe that only relative truth exists. Therefore they think that they are not accountable to a higher power.

Our response: This is a very common belief system. It agrees what psychologists know is the almost infinite ability for humans to delude themselves. We hear it mentioned a great deal by conservative Christians on the web sites and radio programs that we have monitored. But it is deeply offensive to Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, and other non-theists. They have no belief in God, for the simple reason that they see no evidence for the existence of a deity. Most view the great world religions as having been created by very human people, as their best attempts to understand deity, humanity and the rest of the universe. Because these are all purely human creations, their visions all differ.

If non-theists found proof that God exists, then they would willingly accept God's existence. But they can find no evidence of this, at least until now. So they develop their own ethical rules for behavior, independently of religious belief.

They are not trying to avoid consequences. After all, if they accept the teachings of conservative Christians and if it turns out that the only true religion is Islam, then they might well be destined to eternal torture in the Islamic Hell. If they accept Islam, and it turns out that the only true religion is conservative Christiantiy, then they might well end up forever in the conservative Christian Hell. So, there is no foolproof way of avoiding someone's Hell.

Humanists and other non-theists will probably continue in their beliefs and base their moral code on secular principles, unless God decides to reveal himself in some unmistakable way. Judging on past performance, this is unlikely to happen during their lifetime.

Is it OK for a newspaper to show a picture of two lesbians?

This was not a question raised by one of our site's visitors. Rather it is a question raised by the webmaster. It was triggered by a column of the ombudsman of the Toronto Star on the editorial page of that newspaper for 2002-JUL-27.

The ombudsman asked whether it was ethical for The Star, one of Toronto's leading newspapers, to publish a certain photograph of two women without their consent. I recall seeing the picture when it was published. It showed two young women who were obviously lesbians, deeply in love with each other, and oblivious to their surroundings. They were attending the Gay Pride parade in Toronto. The Star published their photograph even though the photographer did not get their names.

The ombudsman defended the publishing of the photograph because it was taken in a public place. They had every legal right to do so. But I wonder if it was an ethical decision. Consider one scenario: The two women appeared to be of college / university age and may well have been students who were dependent on their parents for accommodation and/or financial support. If they were in the closet, and were "outed" by the photograph, the repercussions on their life/lives could have been quite severe. Their parents could have disowned them, thrown them out of the house and/or terminated their financial support.

My feeling is that The Star had every legal right to publish the photo. But, with the prevalence of homophobia in North American society, the impact of this could have been severely negative to one or both women involved. As it happens, one of the women had been "in the closet" and was "outed" by the photo.

Was Irenaeus correct? Will God refuse to forgive a sin after one is saved?

Incoming Email: A young person, who was apparently "saved" earlier in their life, has recently committed a sin. They are worried that they are "doomed to Hell because God won't forgive...[the] post-conversion sin. Please help me interpret this quote by Irenaeus, it makes me feel such great despair."

"Christ will not die again on behalf of those who now commit sin because death shall no more have dominion over Him...we should beware, lest somehow, after [we have attained] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we [will] obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but rather be shut out from His kingdom." Against Heresies," Book 4, Chapter 27, Section 2:

Our response: There were literally dozens of conflicting beliefs circulating around the early Christian movement at the time of Irenaeus. In fact, there were three different "denominations" within primitive Christianity:

But even within Pauline Christianity, there were lots of conflicting views expressed. Back in those days many people agreed with Irenaeus that the act of being baptized wiped away one's sins. Thus, a lot of people put off baptism until the last moment, when they were dying. Constantine was one of these. There were more conflicting beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit than one can count on the fingers and toes. Gradually, over the first few centuries of the church's history, these different beliefs got straightened out at a series of church councils. In each case, one official position was chosen by majority vote, or by political pressure, and the others were declared heretical. One of the heresies was this belief by Irenaeus. The church rejected his teaching on this matter.

Within the Roman Catholic Church, baptized members who commit a sin can have them forgiven through a church sacrament of confession. Within Protestant churches, saved individuals can have their sin forgiven by sincerely confessing it to God.  Even actions which one's denomination may consider great sins can be forgiven this way. Of course, if murder, assault or some other crime is involved, there are often additional legal consequences with secular authorities.
 
We can approach your concern in another way. If you have been saved, then you are a child of God. God has some of the same feelings towards you as you have (or may have in the future) towards your children. If you are a conservative Christian, then you probably believe that there are only two destinations after death: Heaven and Hell. Now: could you imagine your child doing something so bad that you would send him or her to be eternally tortured in some kind of prison? I am certain that you will feel that there is no crime so terrible that you would abandon your own child in this way. By the same logic, could you imagine a kind, loving God who would abandon you -- one of his own children -- for doing something wrong?

Will Africans form the bulk of the deaths during the end times?

Incoming Email: The Bible states that during the end times, about one third of the world's population will die. Do you think this will mainly involve the citizens of Africa?

Our response: Almost all of the end time prophecy in the Bible is derived from two books: Daniel and Revelation.

Christianity is a divided religion. There are over 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America alone. They may be roughly divided into two groups: conservative and liberal believers.

According to liberal theologians:

According to conservative theologians:

Satanic Ritual Abuse happens a lot.

Incoming Email: There is an error on your web site. Incidences of Satanic Ritual Abuse have been documented throughout history. Almost everyone knows this is true. Why do you insist that this form of abuse does not exist. It seems to be part of the hoax which maintains that sexual abuse of children is non-existent. Why you are spending so much time discrediting survivors? You are aiding the perpetrators by taking this stance. If you want to stop the suffering of children, open your minds to the reality of Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Our response: First of all, we do not deny that Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) exists. We do say that it is extremely rare and may even be non-existent. Recall that we have a very restrictive definition of SRA: it must be abuse motivated by a desire to worship Satan. Other groups have a much wider definition of SRA.

Events that some people include within their definition of SRA have definitely happened:

Depending on one's precise definition of SRA, there certainly have been some proven cases in the world. But none, to our knowledge, meet our definition. None were actual physical or sexual abuse motivated primarily by worship of Satan. All were either motivated by mental illness, a sexual interest in children, or financial gain.

Some people do indeed "know" that SRA is widespread. But we feel they are basing their knowledge on faulty data. To our knowledge, there has never been a real case of Satan worshiper(s) sexually or physically abusing children in a valid Satanic ritual in North America during the past century.

Most investigators have found that the accusations of SRA are without grounding in reality. They are based on false memories created during therapy or presence in a mutual support group, or (rarely) by an individual following procedures in a book such as the Courage to Heal. They also note that most clients who go to therapists who use Recovered Memory Therapy (RMT), where those therapists:

There is even a case of a therapist who believes that emotional problems in adults are caused by abuse events that have not happened yet. She finds that most of her clients develop memories of future abuse.

There are lots of people who discount the validity of SRA but who also believe that sexual abuse of children is a widespread problem. They are motivated by a desire to stop the suffering of people with false memories of SRA, and their estranged families of origin. I have never come across a person who discounts the validity of SRA and who also believes that child molestation is nonexistent. Trust me, people can believe that SRA is non-existent (or at least extremely rare) and still believe that abusive pedophiles and hebephiles are a real problem -- perhaps our main social problem.

Please consider the possibility that tens of thousands of individuals are having their emotional health destroyed by false memories of SRA. That is, they have are real-feeling memories of events that never happened. This, I feel, is the real SRA problem. Many of these victims of RMT are severely disturbed, have suicidal ideation, are slashers, etc. They need help to realize that their memories are unrelated to real events. Only by that route will they be healed.

We do see an incredible amount of suffering by people who have SRA memories created during therapy. But we feel confident that these memories are false. The way to healing is for the alleged victims-survivors to realize that they were never abused, but that their memories are an unintended, accidental result of an experimental, unreliable and dangerous therapy whose efficacy and safety had never been studied.

If we uncover a real case of SRA in which victims were physically and/or sexually abused and in which the prime motivation on the part of the perpetrator(s) was to worship Satan, we would be among the first to report the details.

Copyright © 2000 to 2002 incl., by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-SEP-23
Latest update: 2002-OCT-10
Author: B.A. Robinson