Pranic Vampires

[cloudy]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/kendo1111/caturday.jpg

which one's you, and which one's Joe?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Indeed, but faith isn't rational.

Things that aren't rational can, and I think should, still be subject to rational analysis. Its propositions, the relationships between them, coherancy, consistency, correspondance, etc. And, even then, faith employ reason and often enough does.

Regardless, this isn't a subject worth talking about unless we can agree on the possibility of new information being accurate information and not-previously-believed information.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/kendo1111/1208468286829.png

I don't /entirely/ agree with that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm just not up for losing my point to pointlessness.

If there were great reasons, sound reasons, then you shouldn't feel bad about telling me that a belief I have is wrong. The key part there is having sound reasons, sound reasoning. Not all beliefs are correct, and everything is subject to rational scrutiny.

You get busy on that.

I notice that you got pretty condescending and patronising, in the conversation with a vampire as you reported it. Why do you think that is, Joe?

Because you knew from the get-go that no rational argument would influence this person.

Just as I know that you will never agree that Christianity is every bit as laughable, for the very same reasons, as the belief in Vampires.

So, no, I don't think we'll have this conversation.

 

[kendo1]

It's almost Caturday.

I believe in cats.
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/kendo1111/carvrrrm.jpg

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You get busy on that.

I notice that you got pretty condescending and patronising, in the conversation with a vampire as you reported it. Why do you think that is, Joe?

It was intended to be funny. That conversation never actually happened. Some people liked it, anyway--and it wasn't directed at a particular person. There, for me, is a significant difference. Sort of the difference between calling Bush's cabinet a bunch of fuckheads and calling amicus a fuckhead (which I wouldn't do, just on etiquette). I honestly believe them to be significantly different statements, we don't have to necessarily agree on that I guess.

Because you knew from the get-go that no rational argument would influence this person.

There is no "person".

Just as I know that you will never agree that Christianity is every bit as laughable, for the very same reasons, as the belief in Vampires.

I think you're wrong, but then again we may not share that opinion.

So, no, I don't think we'll have this conversation.

I figured that was the safest way to go about it. If we cannot accept that new information might show us how we might be wrong about something we believe, we really shouldn't be wasting out time. I, for one, accept the possibility.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It was intended to be funny. That conversation never actually happened. Some people liked it, anyway--and it wasn't directed at a particular person. There, for me, is a significant difference. Sort of the difference between calling Bush's cabinet a bunch of fuckheads and calling amicus a fuckhead (which I wouldn't do, just on etiquette). I honestly believe them to be significantly different statements, we don't have to necessarily agree on that I guess.

I loved it, and I knew there was no real person, honest. (although I have no compunction against describing Amicus in explicit and unpleasant language-- he's an explicitly unpleasant person.)

But it's fascinating to me that you can't see the parallels, or won't admit that we can see them, perhaps. It seemed to me that you were at least mimicking, in a way that showed how you could comprehend, the frustration of the sceptic confronted with an unshakeable belief.

I think you're wrong, but then again we may not share that opinion.

Hmm, I'm confused; are you saying you think I am wrong in my assumption that you will never agree that Christianity is laughable? I'm basing this judgement on prior experience.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I loved it, and I knew there was no real person, honest. (although I have no compunction against describing Amicus in explicit and unpleasant language-- he's an explicitly unpleasant person.)

But it's fascinating to me that you can't see the parallels, or won't admit that we can see them, perhaps. It seemed to me that you were at least mimicking, in a way that showed how you could comprehend, the frustration of the sceptic confronted with an unshakeable belief.

I entirely see the parallels, yes. I just disagree that that condescention is the same as I was wanting to avoid from you--being directly aimed at people here.

Hmm, I'm confused; are you saying you think I am wrong in my assumption that you will never agree that Christianity is laughable? I'm basing this judgement on prior experience.

I am saying that, yes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I entirely see the parallels, yes. I just disagree that that condescention is the same as I was wanting to avoid from you--being directly aimed at people here.

The condescention you display to a fictional creation of your own, in other words. But it represents the real feelings that you hold for the real people your fiction represents. (curious) If you really did have a convo with someone like that, I take it, you would never say such things in that way?

I am saying that, yes.

As this response illustrates, you tend to remain rather passive in your discussions. This is a big reason why I begin to sound condescending; It's irritating. I do not wish to play twenty questions, or put forth whole paragraphs in order to pull two-word sentences out of you. You act, in the yes of many people here, as if you have deep knowledge which you choose to hide from the lowly herd. Honest! You seem condescending.

So;

In what ways do you feel that Christianity is illogical and irrational, and in what ways do you feel that its rationality is apparent? I have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The condescention you display to a fictional creation of your own, in other words. But it represents the real feelings that you hold for the real people your fiction represents. (curious) If you really did have a convo with someone like that, I take it, you would never say such things in that way?

Nope. I see there being a difference between what I may think and how I may act. I wouldn't say that, anything like that, to a real person--unless both of us knew it was intended as a joke. I can't say much about legislating feelings, but actions--I think those are up for scrutiny.

As this response illustrates, you tend to remain rather passive in your discussions. This is a big reason why I begin to sound condescending; It's irritating. I do not wish to play twenty questions, or put forth whole paragraphs in order to pull two-word sentences out of you. You act, in the yes of many people here, as if you have deep knowledge which you choose to hide from the lowly herd. Honest! You seem condescending.

I don't intend to. But, I do try and answer questions directly, and as simply as possible without too much clutter or topic-drift. I don't intend or desire to be condescending, I find that different than intending to be that way. If I'm asked what I think about something, I'll tell what I think--I'm not usually hesitant about that; but at the same time, I don't see the need to give my life story or an essay justifying it unless asked to.

So;

In what ways do you feel that Christianity is illogical and irrational, and in what ways do you feel that its rationality is apparent? I have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Are you going to be rude, insulting, sarcastic, or condescending about my answer (intentionally so)?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't intend to. But, I do try and answer questions directly, and as simply as possible without too much clutter or topic-drift. I don't intend or desire to be condescending, I find that different than intending to be that way. If I'm asked what I think about something, I'll tell what I think--I'm not usually hesitant about that; but at the same time, I don't see the need to give my life story or an essay justifying it unless asked to.


Are you going to be rude, insulting, sarcastic, or condescending about my answer (intentionally so)?

No, as I said, I get intentionally condescending and insulting when I am faced with balky, minimalist arguers. (Among other reasons, but that's the one that affects my convos with you, usually.)

(ETA: besides, I have a strong suspicion that I'll agree with 99% of what you have to say...)

(ETA 2: I am always more interested in finding areas of agreement than disagreement, as well. )

Your "simple" answers, you see, often read as no answer at all. Especially in the matter of belief-- which sometimes does require clutter and off-topic deviations from the straight line... Belief is all about justifying itself, wouldn't you say?

And in the interests of side issues;

I don't intend or desire to be condescending, I find that different than intending to be that way.

Yes, the intent is different, but the effect, I think, is more pernicious. When I look at the way so many people interface with you, I can see that they react to you in a way that you don't like. And I can see why-- but you, evidently, can't. So my point is that you may wish to look at these mechanisms in that light.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

No, as I said, I get intentionally condescending and insulting when I am faced with balky, minimalist arguers. (Among other reasons, but that's the one that affects my convos with you, usually.)

(ETA: besides, I have a strong suspicion that I'll agree with you 99%...)

Christianity is not irrational, per se. That's too complex a subject. Parts of it are, but as a whole, its too big and diverse to be able to hit it with "its just illogical". Kinda like asking "how is the United States irrational?". Parts are. As a whole? I'm not sure there's any meaning to be had there.

Parts, like, the Trinity and the preservation of monotheism don't actually pan out rationally--despite early Church fathers working hard on it. Or, "creating something from nothing", though not all of Christianity sees it that way, would be an irrationality. There are contradictions in the Bible, mostly due to source bias and whatnot--if one were to try and extract a literal creation from Genesis, you'd have contradicting information. The idea of substance was a problem, too... and whether Son of God is a meaningful possibility.

Now, how logical or rational it is hasn't really much (but not nothing) to do with its historical accuracy. Much of it is unsubstantiated (though not all). It is weakly evidenced, would be the proper way to put it. Not strongly, and not certainly. But, the historical efficacy of the Bible is entirely independant of its point--there's more to what it is than whether Moses wrote Exodus and whether Jesus went to the party at John's house before or after talking with the guy who wanted his daughter brought back to life.

That being said, it is entirely possible--absurdly and more commonly--for Christianity to be wrong. It wouldn't take much, actually--though its pretty hard to disproves things about it. Disproving stereotypical Wiccan staples are easier than stereotypical Christian staples--but the nature of prayer versus magic is like that. Disproving elements of the Bible is not that hard, or evidencing greatly those elements being highly unlikely; but Christianity is certainly more than its Bible (and existed prior to one for a long time).

 

[Guest]

. Disproving stereotypical Wiccan staples are easier than stereotypical Christian staples--but the nature of prayer versus magic is like that.

And actually, neither variety is disproved--you're talking about anecdotal evidence which, by your earlier statement in this thread, is insufficient to constitute proof.

End of hijack. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And actually, neither variety is disproved--you're talking about anecdotal evidence which, by your earlier statement in this thread, is insufficient to constitute proof.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

 

[Guest]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

I think we are. You're talking about isolated instances of someone claiming to be able to achieve a certain result through (let's use a verbal shorthand) supernatural means, whether that's casting a spell or invoking a deity (or diety).

If the spell fails, does that disprove the the validity of the practice everywhere, for everyone, for all time? Of course not. If someone prays for something to happen and it does, does that prove the validity of prayer as a causative agent? Nope.

Metaphysics is also more than the sum of its practices, just as Christianity is, as you say, much more than its Bible.

If your philosophy, as you wrote earlier, "...encompasses the whole of what is possible" then it must also encompass the possibility that "supernatural" occurrences are not susceptible of "rational," "logical" proof.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, as far as I'm concerned. But to say that you disbelieve because something is not proven strikes me as being a strong statement of belief, rather than a logical position. The logical position would be that such things remain unproven.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks!

Okay, I am going to ask some questions and I give you my word that I am only asking for more information. I did bible studies-- twenty five years ago, and I resented doing them since I didn't believe in the thing in the first place. So some of your references don't mean anything to me.
Can you expand on this;

Parts, like, the Trinity and the preservation of monotheism don't actually pan out rationally--despite early Church fathers working hard on it.

I thought that Monotheism was the whole point? There is only one god, right? And when you say Substance, what does that mean?

(of course you know my feeling that even though a historical Jesus may well have existed, he could not be the son of a non-existing being-- my quarrel with Christianity is not its philosophy, but its most fundamental belief system)

Some points-- correct me if I mistook your meaning;

Disproving stereotypical Wiccan staples are easier than stereotypical Christian staples--but the nature of prayer versus magic is like that.

I'm with you there-- I'm pretty sure-- but I have to say that I'm guessing at your meaning just a bit.
When people ask me what Witchcraft and spells are all about, I tell them that spells are the same thing as prayer, except that physical objects are used to focus and act as mnemonics. It's very true that many wiccans will disagree with me, but I say that prayer is a physiological mechanism of the mind only-- and Christians are usually offended by that statement.

Christianity is certainly more than its Bible

Yes to this, as well. My feeling-- my opinion-- is that the most irrational parts of Christian belief come from the Bible; the best parts make up a system of philosophy and ethics, which-- in my opinion-- evolved in spite of the Bible, and will survive belief.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think we are. You're talking about isolated instances of someone claiming to be able to achieve a certain result through (let's use a verbal shorthand) supernatural means, whether that's casting a spell or invoking a deity (or diety).

Here's where we part and aren't talking about the same thing. Prayer, as a willful request of divine intervention, is functionally different than magic, as a willful enacting of supernatural phenomenon.

If the spell fails, does that disprove the the validity of the practice everywhere, for everyone, for all time? Of course not. If someone prays for something to happen and it does, does that prove the validity of prayer as a causative agent? Nope.

There is nothing about prayer that necessitates that anything ever comes out of it. It can occur, and there be no event or happening. It has a sort of built-in seperation from casuality. Thus, if someone prays a thousand times for rain and rain does not come--then they still prayed and rain didn't come. However, if someone casts the same spell a thousand times and rain doesn't come--then they haven't actually cast a spell at all. Rather, at best, they've failed to cast a spell. One has a removed relationship to causality (I put in an order for a cheeseburger, and one didn't come; but I still put in the order) and one has a direct relationship to causality (I make a cheeseburger).

Metaphysics is also more than the sum of its practices, just as Christianity is, as you say, much more than its Bible.

If your philosophy, as you wrote earlier, "...encompasses the whole of what is possible" then it must also encompass the possibility that "supernatural" occurrences are not susceptible of "rational," "logical" proof.

Sure.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying, as far as I'm concerned. But to say that you disbelieve because something is not proven strikes me as being a strong statement of belief, rather than a logical position. The logical position would be that such things remain unproven.

I disbelieve things I have no proof of--my disbelief in a thing has no effect on its being real or not, though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Thanks!

Okay, I am going to ask some questions and I give you my word that I am only asking for more information. I did bible studies-- twenty five years ago, and I resented doing them since I didn't believe in the thing in the first place. So some of your references don't mean anything to me.
Can you expand on this;
I thought that Monotheism was the whole point? There is only one god, right? And when you say Substance, what does that mean?

Well, kiiiiinda. Monotheism is a result, not a point. Christianity was an evolution, not a deus ex machina--its one of the reasons why bottling it up into a convenient label or two is really tough.

Hebraism was henotheistic... there was a sense of other divine creatures, other "gods". Judaism inherited that, and though went more monotheist--still retained some softness around the edges with regard to the existence of other divine beings. Christianity inherited a lot of contradictions. Amongst them was Judaism's "Lord" god, and yet Jesus. A Messiah wasn't so much the problem, but a progeny of God was a hassle. The Trinity was a way of trying to formalize how there can be a Son and Father God that are both divine, seperate, and yet not be polytheistic.

Substance was a part of that. Simply put, the Christological Problem (its based on substance) is that if Jesus was mortal substance then he couldn't have been the progeny of a God (and had no divine authority), and if he was of divine substance then he could not have meaningfully died at all. And other such problems. Substance would prove to be a big problem for the early Church.

(of course you know my feeling that even though a historical Jesus may well have existed, he could not be the son of a non-existing being-- my quarrel with Christianity is not its philosophy, but its most fundamental belief system)

I accept the possibility of the divine. Mostly because I cannot disprove it. Disbelief is sensible, there's not much evidence--but I wouldn't feel intellectually sound basing an argument on asserting something I don't know to be true (and only think or believe true).

Some points-- correct me if I mistook your meaning;
I'm with you there-- I'm pretty sure-- but I have to say that I'm guessing at your meaning just a bit.
When people ask me what Witchcraft and spells are all about, I tell them that spells are the same thing as prayer, except that physical objects are used to focus and act as mnemonics. It's very true that many wiccans will disagree with me, but I say that prayer is a physiological mechanism of the mind only-- and Christians are usually offended by that statement.

I see prayer as the request for divine audience and/or intervention. I see magic as the direct enaction of supernatural phenomenon. I see magic, as defined as "like prayer, but with foci or anima or etc.", as being unmeaningfully different from what prayer is--and often used to just not say "prayer" because of a believed connotation to Christianity. But, when you boil away all predicated that aren't necessary, I think that definition of prayer and magic tend to fit acurately. Demarcating between the two is important, because we're talking about different phenomenon.

Yes to this, as well. My feeling-- my opinion-- is that the most irrational parts of Christian belief come from the Bible; the best parts make up a system of philosophy and ethics, which-- in my opinion-- evolved in spite of the Bible, and will survive belief.

I think the best parts are a catalogue of cultural and historical evolution. I don't think its particularly great ethics, myself.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

There is nothing about prayer that necessitates that anything ever comes out of it. It can occur, and there be no event or happening. It has a sort of built-in seperation from casuality. Thus, if someone prays a thousand times for rain and rain does not come--then they still prayed and rain didn't come. However, if someone casts the same spell a thousand times and rain doesn't come--then they haven't actually cast a spell at all. Rather, at best, they've failed to cast a spell. One has a removed relationship to causality (I put in an order for a cheeseburger, and one didn't come; but I still put in the order) and one has a direct relationship to causality (I make a cheeseburger).

Sorry, I fail to see the difference.

I prayed for rain. God was looking the other way and no rain came.

I cast a spell for rain. The spirits were looking the other way and no rain came.

It's all the same to me. As long as no one tries to give me orders on how I should live my life I'm happy for people to believe what they want.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sorry, I fail to see the difference.

I prayed for rain. God was looking the other way and no rain came.

I cast a spell for rain. The spirits were looking the other way and no rain came.

It's all the same to me. As long as no one tries to give me orders on how I should live my life I'm happy for people to believe what they want.

This is why I said we must not be talking about the same thing earlier, when asked. We weren't actually talking about the same thing.

In your example, magic is a function of non-self-initiated and non-self-enacted causation of supernatural phenomenon... basically, people calling something "magic" are using a different word than "prayer" because they have no functional difference at all. Casting a spell is not actually casting a spell, its just a more complex way of praying for divine intervention

The example I gave, magic is a a function of self-initiated and self-enacted causation of supernatural phenomenon... someone casts a spell and that spell is what causes the rain. Not anything intermediate. Magic, then, isn't not the same as prayer--the words are meaningfully different. And, by incidence, this is not an uncommon or obscure definition for magic.

 

[Guest]

Here's where we part and aren't talking about the same thing. Prayer, as a willful request of divine intervention, is functionally different than magic, as a willful enacting of supernatural phenomenon.

Actually, most magic of the Wiccan variety involves requesting the assistance of one or more deities. There is a significant difference (usually) in the role of the will in spellcasting, compared to prayer, but the fervor behind a prayer fulfills much the same function, in my estimation.

There is nothing about prayer that necessitates that anything ever comes out of it. It can occur, and there be no event or happening. It has a sort of built-in seperation from casuality. Thus, if someone prays a thousand times for rain and rain does not come--then they still prayed and rain didn't come. However, if someone casts the same spell a thousand times and rain doesn't come--then they haven't actually cast a spell at all. Rather, at best, they've failed to cast a spell. One has a removed relationship to causality (I put in an order for a cheeseburger, and one didn't come; but I still put in the order) and one has a direct relationship to causality (I make a cheeseburger).

Or, they've successfully cast the spell but for whatever reason (maybe the deity said "No") it didn't work. Doesn't mean it won't work the next time. The cheeseburger analogy is flawed, I'm afraid; spells typically don't specify the means, just the desired result. Again, I'm speaking from a largely Wiccan framework; other systems do take a more "direct" approach.

I disbelieve things I have no proof of--my disbelief in a thing has no effect on its being real or not, though.

Agreed. Just struck me as an unusual attitude for someone who favors logic and reason as the principal means of investigation. No offense intended.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Actually, most magic of the Wiccan variety involves requesting the assistance of one or more deities. There is a significant difference (usually) in the role of the will in spellcasting, compared to prayer, but the fervor behind a prayer fulfills much the same function, in my estimation.

Or, they've successfully cast the spell but for whatever reason (maybe the deity said "No") it didn't work. Doesn't mean it won't work the next time. The cheeseburger analogy is flawed, I'm afraid; spells typically don't specify the means, just the desired result. Again, I'm speaking from a largely Wiccan framework; other systems do take a more "direct" approach.

See why I said "I don't think we're talking about the same thing"?

Agreed. Just struck me as an unusual attitude for someone who favors logic and reason as the principal means of investigation. No offense intended.

I'm still human. I have opinions and beliefs, much like anyone else--I'm just very clear where they stop talking about what's True and only talk about what's believed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, kiiiiinda. Monotheism is a result, not a point. Christianity was an evolution, not a deus ex machina--its one of the reasons why bottling it up into a convenient label or two is really tough.

Hebraism was henotheistic... there was a sense of other divine creatures, other "gods". Judaism inherited that, and though went more monotheist--still retained some softness around the edges with regard to the existence of other divine beings. Christianity inherited a lot of contradictions. Amongst them was Judaism's "Lord" god, and yet Jesus. A Messiah wasn't so much the problem, but a progeny of God was a hassle. The Trinity was a way of trying to formalize how there can be a Son and Father God that are both divine, seperate, and yet not be polytheistic.

Substance was a part of that. Simply put, the Christological Problem (its based on substance) is that if Jesus was mortal substance then he couldn't have been the progeny of a God (and had no divine authority), and if he was of divine substance then he could not have meaningfully died at all. And other such problems. Substance would prove to be a big problem for the early Church.

Okay, I understand that now, thank you!

I accept the possibility of the divine. Mostly because I cannot disprove it. Disbelief is sensible, there's not much evidence--but I wouldn't feel intellectually sound basing an argument on asserting something I don't know to be true (and only think or believe true).

I guess it's my nature to be sensible rather than intellectually exact, then! I'll accept your statement without any quibble however.

I see prayer as the request for divine audience and/or intervention. I see magic as the direct enaction of supernatural phenomenon. I see magic, as defined as "like prayer, but with foci or anima or etc.", as being unmeaningfully different from what prayer is--and often used to just not say "prayer" because of a believed connotation to Christianity. But, when you boil away all predicated that aren't necessary, I think that definition of prayer and magic tend to fit acurately. Demarcating between the two is important, because we're talking about different phenomenon.

I do not see any difference between "divine intervention" and "supernatural phenomenon." Perhaps the highest thinkers in the monasteries do-- but the common run of individuals don't make any distinction in functionality. Nor do I see any difference between "God doesn't grant every prayer" and "My spell went awry" Just because the Church has, so very cleverly, hedged its bets about prayer, doesn't mean it isn't the same mechanism. Man is a pattern-searching animal, and I've seen the wildest, most convoluted rationalisations in both cases-- "God didn't let my wife live, but He gave me someone new to love," types of things. Likewise, "My love attraction spell didn't get the guy I was pointing it at-- It got me this other guy instead." (or some more powerful witch countered the spell-- that's always a popular one.)

I think the best parts are a catalogue of cultural and historical evolution. I don't think its particularly great ethics, myself.

Huh! But, you know that there would be a history of cultural evolution without Christianity as well-- different, but existing. And as I'm sure you know, this is pretty much the first era in our history that that catalogue has been available to the lay population. It was proscribed information before the mid-1700's to grab a date out of the air.

"love they neighbour as thyself" and all of that- not a great idea?

(added;

See why I said "I don't think we're talking about the same thing"?

Hmm. I don't, indeed, think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about spellcasting as practiced by wiccans

(deleted some words that seemed sarcastic to me)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I do not see any difference between "divine intervention" and "supernatural phenomenon." Perhaps the highest thinkers in the monasteries do-- but the common run of individuals don't make any distinction in functionality. Nor do I see any difference between "God doesn't grant every prayer" and "My spell went awry" Just because the Church has, so very cleverly, hedged its bets about prayer, doesn't mean it isn't the same mechanism. Man is a pattern-searching animal, and I've seen the wildest, most convoluted rationalisations in both cases-- "God didn't let my wife live, but He gave me someone new to love," types of things. Likewise, "My love attraction spell didn't get the guy I was pointing it at-- It got me this other guy instead." (or some more powerful witch countered the spell-- that's always a popular one.)

But do you see a difference between you, yourself, through an act of will causing a supernatural event and you, yourself, asking someone else to cause a supernatural event? If, for instance, someone can make a rabbit disappear... are you "able to do magic" because you have the ability to ask them to make a rabbit disappear? The difference between "divine intervention" and "supernatural phenomenon" isn't the key difference between the two ideas presented. Causation is.

To that end, I don't see the relevance of what the Church hedges or does not, or what someone rationalizes or does not.

Huh! But, you know that there would be a history of cultural evolution without Christianity as well-- different, but existing. And as I'm sure you know, this is pretty much the first era in our history that that catalogue has been available to the lay population. It was proscribed information before the mid-1700's to grab a date out of the air.

Sure. But I thought we were talking about what we thought were the best parts about the Bible.

"love they neighbour as thyself" and all of that- not a great idea?

Its alright I guess.

(added; Hmm. I don't, indeed, think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about spellcasting as practiced by wiccans

Having known some Wiccans, I think there's a fairly broad field of opinion--in the community--about what magic is. Self-directed is a pretty strong habit. All other instances, having to do with a divine request, I simply relegate to the status of a prayer... which is, basically, what it is.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But do you see a difference between you, yourself, through an act of will causing a supernatural event and you, yourself, asking someone else to cause a supernatural event? If, for instance, someone can make a rabbit disappear... are you "able to do magic" because you have the ability to ask them to make a rabbit disappear? The difference between "divine intervention" and "supernatural phenomenon" isn't the key difference between the two ideas presented. Causation is.

To that end, I don't see the relevance of what the Church hedges or does not, or what someone rationalizes or does not.

Actually, as I see it, both acts are rituals that raise seritonin levels in the brain, cause a sense of comfort and renewed optimism in the individual. The specifics are moot to me, because they are rationalisations. The causes -- a need for comfort and/or control-- and effects -- a rise in happy chemicals, a renewed sense of purpose and moral energy-- are identical.

Sure. But I thought we were talking about what we thought were the best parts about the Bible.

Oops, no-- I was talking about Christianity. I meant; the worst parts of Christianity come from the bible, the best parts of Christianity mostly do not come from the bible.

Having known some Wiccans, I think there's a fairly broad field of opinion--in the community--about what magic is. Self-directed is a pretty strong habit. All other instances, having to do with a divine request, I simply relegate to the status of a prayer... which is, basically, what it is.

I could say the same of the Christians I've known-- there is a wide diversity of opinion on many topics. There is enough consensus, however to be able to make some broad generalisations on the subject of Christianity.-- likewise Wicca. In the same way that Christian belief has branched out into different sects, Wicca as originally codified, has become known as "Gardnerian wicca" and many other versions have sprung up.
Self-directed is a main difference, for sure. Christians make much of this, but as I say, I do not.