Can I be a Christian White Witch?

[sprinkles]

I'd rather say an ideology and the way it is used/practiced is bullshit, than say that it's adherents are prejudiced and ignorant. You can't insult an ideology/system, only persons.

You specifically addressed the type of persons that subscribe to the idea in question, and directly criticized their motivations and character. Nice try but you fail.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You specifically addressed the type of persons that subscribe to the idea in question, and directly criticized their motivations and character. Nice try but you fail.

Saying that welfare makes people lazy and irresponsible for their own lives is a critique of welfare. And saying that witchcraft is a substitute for realistic/responsible action, which encourages a weak will is a critique of witchcraft.

As for persons who are "fail", I'll let you have the monopoly on making those pronouncements.

 

[sprinkles]

Saying that welfare makes people lazy and irresponsible for their own lives is a critique of welfare. And saying that witchcraft is a substitute for realistic/responsible action, which encourages a weak will is a critique of witchcraft.

As for persons who are "fail", I'll let you have the monopoly on making those pronouncements.

You spoke a lot about what people are willing to do and what they want to do, and why they want it. Moreover you make pretty gross assumptions about HOW things are done which are likely misinformed.

Not only that but you refused to listen to any defense otherwise.

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.

Just admit that you've been caught red handed.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You spoke a lot about what people are willing to do and what they want to do, and why they want it. Moreover you make pretty gross assumptions about HOW things are done which are likely misinformed.

Not only that but you refused to listen to any defense otherwise.

Just admit that you've been caught red handed.

I'll admit it, witchery attracts people who don't want to become involved in actually helping, who would rather do some hocus-pocus from a back-room. Witchery appeals to the lazy/indifferent side present in every human nature, by trying to sooth guilt feelings about laziness/indifference through the illusion that one can achieve something without actually doing something about it, other than putting a few thyme sprigs and bells on top of wishes/fantasies.

Witchery stinks because appeals to and cultivates delusional inaction. I'll stand by that red handed, or otherwise.

As for listening to any defense, it has been impossible, because there hasn't been any on this thread. There's been some comment on witchcraft's prevalence in various cultures, and a lot of "you're wrong to reject it", and even a couple of anecdotes about how some witches are actually nice people. But if someone, you perhaps, want to actually write something about the benefits/reality/etc. of witchery, I'll read it. Perhaps I'll agree, but if I don't I'll say why I don't. If I agree I'll say why I agree.

 

[invisible]

I'd rather say an ideology and the way it is used/practiced is bullshit, than say that it's adherents are prejudiced and ignorant. You can't insult an ideology/system, only persons.

Some time in the past I previously thought it was respectful to describe the beliefs and practices of others as bullshit, but I read a lot more about some of those things and I tried harder to see them from the perspectives of others, what works for them and what does not, and I really changed my mind about the idea that it is respectful to approach these issues that way. Although I struggle, I try a lot harder to approach the beliefs of others with a more open-minded kind of respect that I can now find meaningful. I sometimes think it would be better if people would change their minds about this the way I did, but maybe it serves a worthwhile purpose for some people to approach beliefs belonging to others aggressively and with name calling - I've thought about it a lot, but I'm still not really sure. I do think that we all have to do what we believe is right, and I know now that calling the beliefs of others bullshit is not the right thing for me. But, I can understand that it may be the right thing for you.

 

[sprinkles]

I'll admit it, witchery attracts people who don't want to become involved in actually helping, who would rather do some hocus-pocus from a back-room. Witchery appeals to the lazy/indifferent side present in every human nature, by trying to sooth guilt feelings about laziness/indifference through the illusion that one can achieve something without actually doing something about it, other than putting a few thyme sprigs and bells on top of wishes/fantasies.

Witchery stinks because appeals to and cultivates delusional inaction. I'll stand by that red handed, or otherwise.

As for listening to any defense, it has been impossible, because there hasn't been any on this thread. There's been some comment on witchcraft's prevalence in various cultures, and a lot of "you're wrong to reject it", and even a couple of anecdotes about how some witches are actually nice people. But if someone, you perhaps, want to actually write something about the benefits/reality/etc. of witchery, I'll read it. Perhaps I'll agree, but if I don't I'll say why I don't. If I agree I'll say why I agree.

I'm reluctant to try because I fear it would be a complete waste of my time. However I will hazard to get you on one point, which is this:

Even when rituals are performed in back rooms - not all of them are but some are - even WHEN they are that is no less productive than a church sermon or a mass. Do you think it is fair to base the entirety of the Christian church on the concept of having a mass? I mean to be fair all that is doing is sitting in a building and chanting and having communion isn't it? What does that do for the world??

That's a fair question don't you think?

Saying that being a witch is all about back room rituals is JUST like saying being a Catholic is only about mass. But you and I know there is more to being Christian than going to mass or church on Sunday. Doing magic and being involved in the world are not mutually exclusive and to suggest such is very much a strawman.

Not to mention that not all magic is done in back rooms. Some of it is done out in nature, some is done on site, and I've known many chaotes who do sigil magic to carry the materials with them to make sigils on the spot. Carrying a notebook or sticky notes to make a quick sigil or talisman right then and there is not unheard of.

 

[Matt3737]

I'll admit it, witchery attracts people who don't want to become involved in actually helping, who would rather do some hocus-pocus from a back-room. Witchery appeals to the lazy/indifferent side present in every human nature, by trying to sooth guilt feelings about laziness/indifference through the illusion that one can achieve something without actually doing something about it, other than putting a few thyme sprigs and bells on top of wishes/fantasies.

Witchery stinks because appeals to and cultivates delusional inaction. I'll stand by that red handed, or otherwise.

As for listening to any defense, it has been impossible, because there hasn't been any on this thread. There's been some comment on witchcraft's prevalence in various cultures, and a lot of "you're wrong to reject it", and even a couple of anecdotes about how some witches are actually nice people. But if someone, you perhaps, want to actually write something about the benefits/reality/etc. of witchery, I'll read it. Perhaps I'll agree, but if I don't I'll say why I don't. If I agree I'll say why I agree.

You're wrong because you are still straw-manning what you "think" magic to be about. Magic can be about psychosomatically coming to terms with inevitability or things outside of one's control, for instance. That produces an internal change rather than an external change, but still affects a change.

I don't think (I may have to re-read to be sure) that anybody is telling you that you are wrong to not accept witchcraft, but that they disagree with what you believe to be the defining characteristics of witchcraft.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Some time in the past I previously thought it was respectful to describe the beliefs and practices of others as bullshit, but I read a lot more about some of those things and I tried harder to see them from the perspectives of others, what works for them and what does not, and I really changed my mind about the idea that it is respectful to approach these issues that way. Although I struggle, I try a lot harder to approach the beliefs of others with a more open-minded kind of respect that I can now find meaningful. I sometimes think it would be better if people would change their minds about this the way I did, but maybe it serves a worthwhile purpose for some people to approach beliefs belonging to others aggressively and with name calling - I've thought about it a lot, but I'm still not really sure. I do think that we all have to do what we believe is right, and I know now that calling the beliefs of others bullshit is not the right thing for me. But, I can understand that it may be the right thing for you.

It's a difficult call. Even if one accepts a philosophically tolerant outlook, or pluralistic outlook, there will be views that reject that outlook. How one can deal with such opposing outlooks implicitly negates their validity, contradicting one's position; opposes/argues against them, which again is contradictory; resigns with indifference, which negates one's belief that one's chosen position is a better choice than intolerance; etc.

I think your position is both admirable, but probably ultimately untenable - which isn't to say it isn't worth trying to hold it. I think that I used to try to hold such a position: it was more implicit than explicit - but when it became explicit, it basically only served in my case to withdraw me from engaging any subject.

As pessimistic as it is, I don't believe there is any uber-viewpoint which can build consensus, while respecting various viewpoints/ideologies. I don't think the peace of perfect concord can be achieved through some philosophy, which holds other philosophies together. What's left? To choose among the various philosophies, or make one's own and deal with the fact that it will be in contradiction to other viewpoints. If one wants to dialogue about anything more substantial than the weather, there will be contradiction and one will contradict. Perhaps the level of enthusiasm one employs is debatable, and down to personal traits, but so long as the substance is in terms of reasons for how one navigates various viewpoints, I think it will either strengthen, or change one's own.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You're wrong because you are still straw-manning what you "think" magic to be about. Magic can be about psychosomatically coming to terms with inevitability or things outside of one's control, for instance. That produces an internal change rather than an external change, but still affects a change.

I don't think (I may have to re-read to be sure) that anybody is telling you that you are wrong to not accept witchcraft, but that they disagree with what you believe to be the defining characteristics of witchcraft.

You said I'm wrong. Now that it's off your chest.

What you describe as magic is philosophical/meditative resignation to determinism. Obviously not all philosophical determinists are witches, but neither (it would seem to me) are all witches determinists. Ie. It is only a coincidence if a witch is also a determinist. The existence of practical witchery - ie. rites/rituals/invocations attempting to effect practical/tangible interventions, outside the normal course of events/fate/etc. Negates the view that witchery is intrinsically passive/internal. It is not a "doctrine", so much as a craft.


@matt373 What do you think are the defining characteristics of witchcraft?

I'm reluctant to try because I fear it would be a complete waste of my time. However I will hazard to get you on one point, which is this:

Even when rituals are performed in back rooms - not all of them are but some are - even WHEN they are that is no less productive than a church sermon or a mass. Do you think it is fair to base the entirety of the Christian church on the concept of having a mass? I mean to be fair all that is doing is sitting in a building and chanting and having communion isn't it? What does that do for the world??

That's a fair question don't you think?

Saying that being a witch is all about back room rituals is JUST like saying being a Catholic is only about mass. But you and I know there is more to being Christian than going to mass or church on Sunday. Doing magic and being involved in the world are not mutually exclusive and to suggest such is very much a strawman.

Not to mention that not all magic is done in back rooms. Some of it is done out in nature, some is done on site, and I've known many chaotes who do sigil magic to carry the materials with them to make sigils on the spot. Carrying a notebook or sticky notes to make a quick sigil or talisman right then and there is not unheard of.

You don't have to try go "get me on a point" - the point you make is good.
The Mass in a Church isn't about doing good things for the world. It is about acknowledging/honoring/worshiping/etc. the greatest good (which is both outside the world and all through it). The Mass is not practical at all - it is ultimately contemplative and it's benefits are principally immaterial.
A good Christian cannot simply go to Mass, but treasuring the ultimate good is necessary to be a good Christian. Despite so much protestant/reformation doctrine against the importance of what they term "works", the ancient Christian model is that to be a good Christian requires active personal engagement with whoever will/can benefit from it. Particular responsibility is to those in whatsoever need (physical/monetary/emotional/etc.).

Handing out/making "sigils" is as repulsive to me, as handing someone in need a "holy card", Bible, or saying a little prayer for them. It isn't even a partial substitute for assistance. Such activities seem to serve to make one feel as though one has done something good, and has done it easily. Real action requires real action - and fantasy actions can only serve fantasies. Perhaps fantasies have a place in life - a tropical island postcard might help people escape drudgery, by imagining a better life/state for themselves, because they need to imagine that their routine won't be their only lot in life. But to imagine that one is doing good, without actually doing anything, except feeding one's own sense of good-doing seems yucky.

 

[Matt3737]

You said I'm wrong. Now that it's off your chest.

What you describe as magic is philosophical/meditative resignation to determinism. Obviously not all philosophical determinists are witches, but neither (it would seem to me) are all witches determinists. Ie. It is only a coincidence if a witch is also a determinist. The existence of practical witchery - ie. rites/rituals/invocations attempting to effect practical/tangible interventions, outside the normal course of events/fate/etc. Negates the view that witchery is intrinsically passive/internal. It is not a "doctrine", so much as a craft.

Something being determined, such as one's death, does not make one a determinist nor imply that one subscribes to that particular philosophy (that all events are inherently determined without the existence of random chance). You seem hell-bent on straw-manning everyone's points to fit your worldview.

 

[invisible]

It's a difficult call. Even if one accepts a philosophically tolerant outlook, or pluralistic outlook, there will be views that reject that outlook. How one can deal with such opposing outlooks implicitly negates their validity, contradicting one's position; opposes/argues against them, which again is contradictory; resigns with indifference, which negates one's belief that one's chosen position is a better choice than intolerance; etc.

I think your position is both admirable, but probably ultimately untenable - which isn't to say it isn't worth trying to hold it. I think that I used to try to hold such a position: it was more implicit than explicit - but when it became explicit, it basically only served in my case to withdraw me from engaging any subject.

As pessimistic as it is, I don't believe there is any uber-viewpoint which can build consensus, while respecting various viewpoints/ideologies. I don't think the peace of perfect concord can be achieved through some philosophy, which holds other philosophies together. What's left? To choose among the various philosophies, or make one's own and deal with the fact that it will be in contradiction to other viewpoints. If one wants to dialogue about anything more substantial than the weather, there will be contradiction and one will contradict. Perhaps the level of enthusiasm one employs is debatable, and down to personal traits, but so long as the substance is in terms of reasons for how one navigates various viewpoints, I think it will either strengthen, or change one's own.

I don't see truth or the world as a set of binary contradiction propositions, and I don't think that it is necessary to formulate human exchange in those terms. I was not writing about building consensus, I was writing about my approaches to treating the beliefs and practices of others with respect. I find my position to be perfectly tenable.

 

[sprinkles]

You don't have to try go "get me on a point" - the point you make is good.
The Mass in a Church isn't about doing good things for the world. It is about acknowledging/honoring/worshiping/etc. the greatest good (which is both outside the world and all through it). The Mass is not practical at all - it is ultimately contemplative and it's benefits are principally immaterial.
A good Christian cannot simply go to Mass, but treasuring the ultimate good is necessary to be a good Christian. Despite so much protestant/reformation doctrine against the importance of what they term "works", the ancient Christian model is that to be a good Christian requires active personal engagement with whoever will/can benefit from it. Particular responsibility is to those in whatsoever need (physical/monetary/emotional/etc.).

Handing out/making "sigils" is as repulsive to me, as handing someone in need a "holy card", Bible, or saying a little prayer for them. It isn't even a partial substitute for assistance. Such activities seem to serve to make one feel as though one has done something good, and has done it easily. Real action requires real action - and fantasy actions can only serve fantasies. Perhaps fantasies have a place in life - a tropical island postcard might help people escape drudgery, by imagining a better life/state for themselves, because they need to imagine that their routine won't be their only lot in life. But to imagine that one is doing good, without actually doing anything, except feeding one's own sense of good-doing seems yucky.

I already talked about the benefits of what you call supposedly useless actions. What you're repulsed by is your business. I don't really care.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Something being determined, such as one's death, does not make one a determinist nor imply that one subscribes to that particular philosophy (that all events are inherently determined without the existence of random chance). You seem hell-bent on straw-manning everyone's points to fit your worldview.

On the contrary, I think I thoroughly rejected the possible straw-man view that witchcraft is entirely a version of philosophical determinism.

I am open to expanding/changing my definition of witchcraft. What do you think the defining characteristics of witchcraft are?

 

[sprinkles]

On the contrary, I think I thoroughly rejected the possible straw-man view that witchcraft is entirely a version of philosophical determinism.

I am open to expanding/changing my definition of witchcraft. What do you think the defining characteristics of witchcraft are?

Why do you think anyone wants you to change anything?

I'm confident that I've made my point well enough that it stands on its own without you. You don't need to change anything.

Your understanding or agreement is not required.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't see truth or the world as a set of binary contradiction propositions, and I don't think that it is necessary to formulate human exchange in those terms. I was not writing about building consensus, I was writing about my approaches to treating the beliefs and practices of others with respect. I find my position to be perfectly tenable.

Nor do I see it as a binary set of contradicting views. I see it more like a taxonomic structure. Some specific views only contradict because of the genus they fall under, because of a broader context. For example, two people can come to the same conclusion, but completely disagree. For example, some people object to space missions on account of their views about government spending in respect of welfare needs; other people object to space missions on account of it coming from taxation revenues instead of private investment - and that taxes should be less. Ultimately, contradictory view can be resolved to an agreeing genus, or agreeing outlook - such as "seek happiness", which everyone can agree to. But, such generic views cannot both deal with complexity and maintain consensus.

While you think that your position is tenable, and I agree that it is in itself tenable; it is also untenable insofar as given the almost infinitely complex thought structures people have, it will cause offense for trying not to cause offense, contradict while trying not to contradict, disrespect for trying to respect, etc. etc.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Why do you think anyone wants you to change anything?

I'm confident that I've made my point well enough that it stands on its own without you. You don't need to change anything.

Your understanding or agreement is not required.

It is immaterial whether someone wants, or doesn't want, or is indifferent to whether I change my mind on a particular topic. @Matt3737 has thought out something of the nature of witchcraft - I am interested in the subject itself, as it seems so is he. If you simply wish to state your points, who can deny the legitimacy of that?

However, whether one can be both a Christian and a "white witch" seems snagged in terms of both essential outlook, and mode of action, even if at times similar goals might be shared. If there is a possible way that someone could be both a witch and a christian, it would probably have to be a far more nuanced and defined form of witchcraft and/or christianity than have been illustrated in the "points" so far.

 

[sprinkles]

It is immaterial whether someone wants, or doesn't want, or is indifferent to whether I change my mind on a particular topic. [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION] has thought out something of the nature of witchcraft - I am interested in the subject itself, as it seems so is he. If you simply wish to state your points, who can deny the legitimacy of that?

Well you seemed to have the impression that I wanted you in particular to agree with me. I'm just letting you know that isn't the case.

 

[invisible]

Nor do I see it as a binary set of contradicting views. I see it more like a taxonomic structure. Some specific views only contradict because of the genus they fall under, because of a broader context. For example, two people can come to the same conclusion, but completely disagree. For example, some people object to space missions on account of their views about government spending in respect of welfare needs; other people object to space missions on account of it coming from taxation revenues instead of private investment - and that taxes should be less. Ultimately, contradictory view can be resolved to an agreeing genus, or agreeing outlook - such as "seek happiness", which everyone can agree to. But, such generic views cannot both deal with complexity and maintain consensus.

While you think that your position is tenable, and I agree that it is in itself tenable; it is also untenable insofar as given the almost infinitely complex thought structures people have, it will cause offense for trying not to cause offense, contradict while trying not to contradict, disrespect for trying to respect, etc. etc.

I'm sorry but I don't know how to talk to you any more, because when I talk to you I seem to be unable to make myself "heard".

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Well you seemed to have the impression that I wanted you in particular to agree with me. I'm just letting you know that isn't the case.

I never got the impression that you wanted me to agree with you. I got the impression that you were simply lashing out whenever I disagreed with a point you had posted.

Anyhow, perhaps whether one can be both a Christian and a "white witch" needs more definition about what can be called witch and what can be called Christian.

I'm sorry but I don't know how to talk to you any more, because when I talk to you I seem to be unable to make myself "heard".

Sorry you didn't feel heard. There's some irony there given your username, but not funny irony. I respect that you don't want to call bullshit on views you don't agree with, or that don't agree with yours. As I said earlier, I used to hold that (or similar) position, but found it only led to either self-contradiction, or withdrawal from conversation. If you need to withdraw, I admire its consistency/integrity, even if in the same situation, I'd call bullshit.

 

[Matt3737]

On the contrary, I think I thoroughly rejected the possible straw-man view that witchcraft is entirely a version of philosophical determinism.

I am open to expanding/changing my definition of witchcraft. What do you think the defining characteristics of witchcraft are?

I didn't say it was or imply that it was. You did. That is a straw man argument.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

I was not associating witchcraft with a philosophical school of thought. You did that and then went about refuting that position.

As to the defining characteristics, I tend towards more broad and universal defining traits where I am more likely to gloss over (though I don't deny them) distinctions. All people engage in magical thinking and ritualized behavior. Magic is typically only used for esoteric activities, but I typically define it more broadly whereby it includes more mundane and normal activities that most wouldn't describe as magical.

Witchcraft (also called witchery or spellcraft) broadly means the practice of, and belief in, magical skills and abilities that are able to be exercised individually, by designated social groups, or by persons with the necessary esoteric secret knowledge. Witchcraft is a complex concept that varies culturally and societally, therefore it is difficult to define with precision and cross-cultural assumptions about the meaning or significance of the term should be applied with caution. Witchcraft often occupies a religious, divinatory, or medicinal role, and is often present within societies and groups whose cultural framework includes a magical world view. Although witchcraft can often share common ground with related concepts such as sorcery, the paranormal, magic, superstition, necromancy, possession, shamanism, healing, spiritualism, nature worship, and the occult, it is usually seen as distinct from these when examined by sociologists and anthropologists.

Magic is a set of any individual's or group's semi-congruent beliefs between their particular mythos and rituals (typically seen as extraordinary, but depends upon particular viewpoints). There is an interactive relationship between any agent and their environment governed by rules. One's ability to "interact" with the rules may be seen to be magical by either a congruent or an incongruent perception.