Huh, I thought I had replied to this, but it's not here. Well, I'll try again and see what happens. I had been mostly speaking of New Age, but yes, any spirituality is concerned with the here-and-now, and so is Christianity, though many priests would have you believe otherwise. Many priests would have you think that you need to work hard so that you can get into Heaven in the future, after death. But there is no such thing as the future (and ultimately no such thing as death since we are all immortal souls). There is only the here-and-now, and the present moment is the only window through which we may enter into Heaven, or Hell, the Apocalypse, etc. All thoughts of the future are only electric signals in your brain; the future does not exist- only the electric signals, which occur Now. As Christ said, the Kingdom is among us. Not in the future. Why wait? Be in Heaven (or whatever term pleases you depending upon your cult of choice) Now.

"features that distinguish it from New Age spiritualities, Pitzl-Waters said. One example: “Paganism is very much a here-and-now theology,”"

Was that paraphrased too? Because it made me lol. All spiritualities are concerned with the here-and-now, as that is the only Truth there is. It is all that exists. Is not one of the best-selling books in the New Age section The Power of Now? =)

One, Christianity is indeed a death cult, but that is a simplification. It is a life/death/rebirth cult, just like many pagan cults, such as Dionysos' et al. That, too, is a simplification, though it is a very important part of our cult. I am not sure why you bring this up except that I think you might be connecting it with the idea that a religion, because it is concerned with death, would automatically make its adherents murderous, which is purely fallacious. Were Hades' adherents murderous? (Probably a few but not by default.) These are simply mentally ill individuals, to be found in any religion's population.

Two, I have absolutely no idea why you would interpret this symbol to mean that child abuse is held in esteem. Every single Christian I know abhors it. Christianity's Law, the Law of the universe, is Love. Child abuse is not Love. All those who commit this atrocity are breaking this Law, and are, again, mentally ill, and child abusers are, again, found in any population. Again, I am speculating, but I am supposing you suppose this is so because the Father's son died. Do you really want to go there? Hera and Dionysos, Zeus and Sarpedon, anyone? I mean, I don't know your religion. But any religion acknowledges that the children of gods die, and the gods allow it.

Three, our Bible does instruct us to have only one commandment above all others: Love. It overrides all other laws if, in practicing them, such would not be loving. This is perfectly clear though many people have problems with it; I know many Christians who are practicing witches, Joseph in the Bible practiced dream magic and divination and had a magic cup, Jesus was often depicted with a magic wand, and so on. Most any sane Christian would not pay attention to those silly old Mosaic laws unless they're buttass stupid.

You don't have to accept the "modern" definition- it is only the definition of some cranky old men. I could find numerous examples of Christians who have used it as well- but see, I'm tired of people generalizing Christians, or Pagans, or Jews, or anyone. Not all Christians are violent evil people who think demons and gods and magic are evil. I think you might be surprised at the amount of Christians who think as I do. Why, even my own priest does not think Satan himself is evil, but rather, an intrinsic part of ourselves which we must take care not to let treat others in an unloving fashion. I am just tired of generalizations, and so I call them out when I see them. I just ask that people try not to use them. Just because people like Fred Phelps are vocal does not mean they represent Christendom, for instance. There are far more like me than one might guess.

And yes, I know conversion was often not peaceful. I am aware that the dark ages and the inquisition could be horrible. And that is not just for those poor women who thought they'd fancy a walk in the woods to gather some flowers and thus be labeled a witch- it was even self-destructive, that is to say, good Christians were persecuted by other "Christians". A monk named Bruno was killed for having dared to believe things like that the Sun is a star and that other stars might have solar systems and that the universe is infinite. To be frank I do not think any Christian who is violent is a real Christ-ian, even if they call themselves as much, but I know that those who have labeled themselves Christian have often been violent. I also know that those who have labeled themselves Jews or, say, followers of Jupiter have been violent- just look at Herod's violent politics or all the crucifixions that took place during the Roman Republic and Empire. I prefer to look at it as that humanity itself has been violent, not any one group. If I label a group instead of individuals, that keeps us divided. There is no need to blame a religion itself. I do not burn witches, nor do I perform violent abusive exorcisms. You, I assume, do not crucify other human beings or set lions upon them. I use demon in just the same fashion as Socrates, Solomon, Aleister Crowley, Jung, Joseph Campbell, and so on- you know, the real ones. And I am a Catholic.

I, too, oppose these modern shams of exorcisms. I oppose abuse in every form. Love is the law, love under will.

You're the only one imposing this "Christian" definition that you've got going on in your head, boxing in the definition of demon, when this idea you've got is nothing more than the idea of SOME Christian weirdos. Not that labels mean anything, but I do like language, and am a student of Greek- the definition of demon is not anti-divine. I am surprised you speak of the root and yet not correctly- *whips out her Autenrieth* "δαίμων , ονος. divinity, divine power; sometimes equivalent to θεός, but esp. of the gods in their dealings with men, Il. 3.420 ; σὺν δαίμονι, ‘with the help of God,’"

If you would prefer the opinions of a few slightly more in-the-know men, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle did not think demons were scary tales to frighten children, nor did they think they were evil, but rather, benevolent. Aristotle even uses eudaimonia to mean happiness. Of course, this is all imposing value judgments- having been a longtime practitioner of Goetia as well, I know that imposing value judgments is besides the point in the highest dealings of spirituality. Why would I want to box in any demon as "good" or "bad"? For nothing is good or bad but only thinking makes it so.

But I don't really feel like getting into any big philosophical debate here with you. I only wanted to correct you in case anyone else thought you spoke the only truth. Also, I want to make you aware that you are employing fallacious generalization- "the Christians sell" and "the Christians thought THEIR violent conquest"- LOLOLOL I've never conquered a pagan in my life. That's like blaming the Jews and Italians for killing Jesus, or the Germans for killing Jews, when it was only certain individual human beings.

Heh, that's kinda like saying, I don't believe in abodes; they are more often than not dwellings. You say gulf, I say chasm.

I agree completely. The exorcisms these men offer are not necessary. Demons can be dealt with in different ways. I will say from personal experience that I would not trade my ecstatic experiences for anything- connection with God is priceless- but I would rather that none of it had been induced through abuse. I would rather it had been bookended with a loving approach. The actual ecstasy was good, but the human behavior not so much. A decent exorcism would be incredibly rare- these men are obviously the ones perpetrating the only horrific, Satanic activity here.

These guys are clueless. A lot of priests are. A lot of priests aren't. Just like with any religion, I suppose. Yet the clueless ones (who obviously have never even researched the occult much less read a Harry Potter book) sure like to talk and get other people to hear them as though they spoke for God Himself. Yes, demons are real, and yes, exorcism is real, but men like this make a mockery of the good work Christ encouraged and performed. It's like the article I was reading on an evangelical church doing gay exorcisms. Yes, the exorcism will bring you into a divine ecstatic state. Will it get the gay out? Absolutely not. Are exorcisms required because of interest in the occult? Absolutely not. It is because we are human. We all have our demons.

I am a little sad people like this have such influence and also fool so many others into thinking this is what Catholicism is about and that we must all be therefore worthy of dismissal. Yet I do not feel the need to cling to Catholics the way such priests as these would- if someone wants to leave the faith, let them go. It wasn't meant to be.

What are you trying to say? That there is no such thing as evil? =) You're on the right track; and Taoism agrees, too. It is ultimately an illusion.

Unless you're not saying that, and you still identify with ideas of good vs. bad, and think that Satan is evil-and-exempt-from-good, which might be implied here- though you didn't expressly say so- in which case, whatever made you think that created beings are separate from an OMNIpresent creator in Whom all things are One? Remember your etymology.

How could Satan possibly, possibly be separate from God, if God is real? =)

Or maybe you mean some third thing... why don't I just let you explain :D

If God is the beginning and the end Alpha and Omega, Am That Am, omnipresent, then he is Satan too, so Satan loves me =)