Can I be a Christian White Witch?

No one can be prevented from believing that their own beliefs are more true or correct than the beliefs of others!
 
[MENTION=10116]Ghoulia Yelps[/MENTION]
You can be whatever you want. Look at my avatar. Do you know what it is?

Flavus Aquila said:
Isn't witchery a substitute for actually doing something constructive/destructive, based on the superstitious belief that wishing can accomplish, when one is not willing to accomplish?
Click to expand...

Sounds like prayer OH SNAP
 
i don't think it works that way.
 
the said:
i don't think it works that way.
Click to expand...

It's a lot more common than you think. People will say it isn't Christian but the same people tend to say that about everything pretty much.

Besides, if I say you're a llama that doesn't make it true. Who gives a shit what people think.

Edit:
Also people didn't think Joseph Smith was right either, but look how that turned out!
 
invisible said:
logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.

no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting instead? I'm not claiming that my faith would appear logical to someone who doesn't share it. My first three statements (and the 7th as well) are assumptions that I knowingly accept, based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, and my personal faith. I am not asking anyone to accept these assumptions. I'm suggesting that if you do accept them, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If you don't agree with my premises, then nothing I said would hold much weight.

The second part of your statement is certainly true, but I don't see how that conflicts with what I said. :)
 
courteouskitten said:
What are you suggesting instead? I'm not claiming that my faith would appear logical to someone who doesn't share it. My first three statements (and the 7th as well) are assumptions that I knowingly accept, based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, and my personal faith. I am not asking anyone to accept these assumptions. I'm suggesting that if you do accept them, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If you don't agree with my premises, then nothing I said would hold much weight.

The second part of your statement is certainly true, but I don't see how that conflicts with what I said. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting anything instead. I'm not even suggesting that things to do with being a witch would necessarily be supernatural rather than natural - I have no idea how they would be for any particular person choosing to believe one thing or another. All I'm suggesting is that faith is not logical, but a matter of belief and interpretation - so when you say that one belief is incongruent with a "fundamental" form of some other belief, I find the word "fundamental" difficult to really understand - it seems fluid and unstable. But now that you have pointed it out, I can see how these things that I'm thinking are not relevant to what you were saying.

I'm sorry, but I have a background in a discipline of textual scholarship that views the particular holy book we are discussing as a sort of editorial chaos, and I have read hardly any of it myself, so it is really difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. I sort of get it, but I think it's just really difficult for me to think about and discuss due to the prejudices of my background.
 
Magic is just a means to an end anyway. It's like using Google to find something.

People say it isn't Godly just because that's what they've been told, and I don't think they even know why, or what magic really is. They just repeat stuff, often admittedly.
 
invisible said:
I'm not suggesting anything instead. I'm not even suggesting that things to do with being a witch would necessarily be supernatural rather than natural - I have no idea how they would be for any particular person choosing to believe one thing or another. All I'm suggesting is that faith is not logical, but a matter of belief and interpretation - so when you say that one belief is incongruent with a "fundamental" form of some other belief, I find the word "fundamental" difficult to really understand - it seems fluid and unstable. But now that you have pointed it out, I can see how these things that I'm thinking are not relevant to what you were saying.

I'm sorry, but I have a background in a discipline of textual scholarship that views the particular holy book we are discussing as a sort of editorial chaos, and I have read hardly any of it myself, so it is really difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. I sort of get it, but I think it's just really difficult for me to think about and discuss due to the prejudices of my background.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, in the sense that logic does not lead to a particular faith, or even any faith at all. I didn't choose my faith on a basis of what was most logical in an objective sense. I can't prove to you that my faith or philosophy is logically superior to yours. I can attempt to prove that it is internally consistent with itself, and that the world can be logically consistent when viewed through the lens of my worldview. That's as far as I can take it with logic - beyond that, it is faith, belief, interpretation, etc., which is an entirely different topic, and can't be forced upon someone else.

Fair enough, and I can respect that. I'm from a conservative Christian background, and I've studied the Bible extensively, often from a conservative viewpoint, so obviously my view of it would be different than yours.
 
invisible said:
logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.

no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this statement. I believe that for religion to hold truth and be real to an individual it must circumvent rationality.
A creed or a dogma is more apt to hold a rational or logical path and that is what is commonly referred to as "religion"
But "religious" is an experience, highly subjective, and almost ineffable.
Groups will agree on aspects but once it becomes dogmatized it absolutely looses some (if not all ) of its reality.

of course this calls to mind the Freudian axiom that a neurosis is a religion that is followed by one person.
 
Stu said:
I mostly agree with this statement. I believe that for religion to hold truth and be real to an individual it must circumvent rationality.
A creed or a dogma is more apt to hold a rational or logical path and that is what is commonly referred to as "religion"
But "religious" is an experience, highly subjective, and almost ineffable.
Groups will agree on aspects but once it becomes dogmatized it absolutely looses some (if not all ) of its reality.

of course this calls to mind the Freudian axiom that a neurosis is a religion that is followed by one person.
Click to expand...

I agree, I like how you put it about truth and reality as lived experiences. I can't respond to everything you wrote but I do think that things that are called sacred or mystical are too mysterious to be properly understood or explained, they can only be got at imperfectly and incompletely.

I do support people who choose to in following their faith (for better or worse, I suppose).
 
Stu said:
I mostly agree with this statement. I believe that for religion to hold truth and be real to an individual it must circumvent rationality.
A creed or a dogma is more apt to hold a rational or logical path and that is what is commonly referred to as "religion"
But "religious" is an experience, highly subjective, and almost ineffable.
Groups will agree on aspects but once it becomes dogmatized it absolutely looses some (if not all ) of its reality.

of course this calls to mind the Freudian axiom that a neurosis is a religion that is followed by one person.
Click to expand...

Also note that dogma tends to become an end in itself. People fit the rules because they're "supposed to" to make themselves try to be what they label themselves as. They lose sight of utility and practical applications, and in fact may actually take the long way around the problems they face in order to stay within the confines of their dogma. Maybe for some very distant and vague end such as a final judgment or whatever.

Magic however, is geared more towards practicality and purpose. The idea set forth by many chaos magicians is that belief is a tool. Belief helps you prepare, accomplish, achieve gnosis, or open yourself to receive what you need (not always what you want) In a way it is similar to a counselor, or motivational speaker. They don't produce tangible immediate effects but rather they inspire and allow people to move forward.

Think of how healing works. If you can uplift somebody emotionally, they have a much better chance of recovery, or at least finding solace. Belief and intent helps you get better. We can use belief as a tool to uplift someone and the more intent and sincerity you put into it, the better it works. A person just believing they can get better often makes them feel better, and because they feel better they have a chance of being better. Meanwhile people who have no hope just fall into despair.

This is what religion really SHOULD be doing but often doesn't because it is too self aware.
 
sprinkles said:
Sounds like prayer OH SNAP
Click to expand...

Prayer is about disposing oneself to receive the blessing of God; "magic" is about other things. Plus, a big difference is that prayer is directed to God - but magic/witchery is directed to other beings, whose benignity isn't guaranteed.

I'm not just being cantankerous, or objecting for the sake of objecting. If someone believes in this stuff, I don't think it's wrong to caution that they don't inadvertently open themselves up to demonic possession/obsession.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Prayer is about disposing oneself to receive the blessing of God; "magic" is about other things. Plus, a big difference is that prayer is directed to God - but magic/witchery is directed to other beings, whose benignity isn't guaranteed.

I'm not just being cantankerous, or objecting for the sake of objecting. If someone believes in this stuff, I don't think it's wrong to caution that they don't inadvertently open themselves up to demonic possession/obsession.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what you think you're doing now but it really looks like you've totally changed your story.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
How?
Click to expand...

Your very own words is how.

Isn't witchery a substitute for actually doing something constructive/destructive, based on the superstitious belief that wishing can accomplish, when one is not willing to accomplish?
Click to expand...

That comes across as your main concern. Your warning seems just kind of tacked on to that.

It's also the same warning that I've given before and the reason I don't tell people how to do things. The difference is that I don't feel you legitimately know or care about the dangers, I think you're just saying it to spook people.
 
sprinkles said:
Your very own words is how.

That comes across as your main concern. Your warning seems just kind of tacked on to that.

It's also the same warning that I've given before and the reason I don't tell people how to do things. The difference is that I don't feel you legitimately know or care about the dangers, I think you're just saying it to spook people.
Click to expand...

I don't see how I've changed what I'm saying.

Witchery is for people who aren't willing to involve themselves in real change - instead they want to do a bit of hocus-pocus from a back-room. Whether this refrain from actually doing something constructive/helpful themselves is because of laziness, fear of involvement, some sort of smug satisfaction at what is akin to remote manipulation, etc. I don't know.

However, having encountered a small number of people who seem to have been possessed/obsessed, I think it imperative that anyone who considers going in for this bullshit, ought to be familiar with its dangers. If you want to know about the particular individuals I've just referred to, PM me, I won't discuss it in detail on the open forum.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I don't see how I've changed what I'm saying.

Witchery is for people who aren't willing to involve themselves in real change - instead they want to do a bit of hocus-pocus from a back-room. Whether this refrain from actually doing something constructive/helpful themselves is because of laziness, fear of involvement, some sort of smug satisfaction at what is akin to remote manipulation, etc. I don't know.

However, having encountered a small number of people who seem to have been possessed/obsessed, I think it imperative that anyone who considers going in for this bullshit, ought to be familiar with its dangers. If you want to know about the particular individuals I've just referred to, PM me, I won't discuss it in detail on the open forum.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that you don't really know what you're talking about and are just lashing out in ignorance. Ok.
 
sprinkles said:
So you're admitting that you don't really know what you're talking about and are just lashing out in ignorance. Ok.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I don't know what you're taking about - you're probably just trolling me. If you want me to lash out, I'm sorry I'm not biting today.

I'm guessing that you haven't come to terms with the fact that people will have different opinions to yours. When you can deal with that fact, come back and we can have a conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top