Talk:New age movement

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Should this article point out why New Ager's are dopey? Everwill 06:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Not in so many words. It would be better to take a 'both sides' approach, as Wikipedia says (but often does not do). --Ed Poor 07:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Everwill, do you mean because they are choosing paths other than Christ and therefore inviting a doomed afterlife? I think making a distinction and pointing a few things out might be a good idea. Of course we should avoid predicting who will be saved and who won't. Miles 16:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I just made some edits that I think better describes the subject without making new agers look "dopey" :-) Miles 16:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
This is Conservapedia. If we took 'both sides' we would be just like wikipedia, afraid to point to spiritual corruption for fear of being 'insensetive'. I visit a new age shop on a regular basis in search of collectables, and it's a real pick-and-mix - they have fairys by the door, wiccan to the right, egyptian symbols next to that. On the left are the guardian angels, healing crystals and incense in the middle, and hanging from the ceiling wind chimes and dreamcatchers. Moving further in comes to the spellbooks (Yes, actual, literal books full of spells - those things should be banned somehow), then the celtic, books on astral projection, astrology, psychic healing and dream interpretation, the empty space where they used to sell replica weapons (Some type of change in the law, they can't do that now), and finally the actual fantasy where there are various figures from famous books (Lord of the Rings, mostly) and another shelf full of magic crystal wants and ornate goblets. - NewCrusader
Personal tools