Spelllllllzzz.

[Joe Wordsworth]

That's based on your definition of "real form" and not mine.

I'm just trying to remain open to the idea that magic is real... but if its only real sometimes, to some people, in some ways, and isn't subject to any kind of objective interaction. Then... it sounds very much like a made-up thing.

Then again I've spent lots and lots of time with people who have differing definitions of magic and talent for it. Experiential is relative. So if you discount everyone else's experience as unverifiable, that makes it fictional.

This is true. If I discount everyone's experience as unverifiable, then it does make it fictional. However, if there isn't any verifiable occurance--one can't really blame me for coming to that conclusion. It's like a kid with an imaginary friend, if the friend can only been seen by the kid, can't be heard or felt or seen, and has no discernable interaction with the world... can't very well blame a parent for referring to it as "imaginary".

Science really can't be applied to everything. You certainly can't apply it to the Christian faith and come to any conclusions there either.

But it can be applied to things that happen and the observation, prediction, or influence of such things. You can apply science to many things in the "Christian faith", and you will get results showing things to be possible, or not possible, or empirically impossible. Many conclusions can be drawn, with a wide range of confirmations or denials of what is given.

However, and this is the important part, Science--regardless of its interaction with Christianity (which had nothing to do with my hopes for its utility with regard to "magic")--measures occurance. If magic occurs, why cannot it be measured with even rudimentary science (i.e. observation and analysis in the form of documentation)? If magical healing is an occurance... if magical tree growing is an occurance... if magical car starting or object making or hand glowing, etc, etc is an occurance, why can it not be observed? And if it can not be observed because its not believed in or because the observers are not part of "that world", then how is it not starting to participate in the "imaginary friend" area of experience?

These are tough ones, I know. But denying them as valid questions is sort of sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring real concerns.

 

[Recidiva]

Okay, I'm sorry, maybe I've misunderstood some of what you've said -in which case I apologise profusely for being thick
But, I thought it'd been said only certain people could feel the magic connection thing, that only some are sensitive too it..I took that ot mean it's not something everyone can do.

Did I understand that wrongly?

(And my understanding of prayer is that people in times of great emotion search for something that's missing -something they need -ie God, but that's just my take on it )

Well, to me there's no difference between asking God to help you heal your sick child, or invoking an element to do the same.

You may call one prayer and one magic, I don't see the distinction.

They may have different doctrines, different paths, different ideals. They still are a way to ask a power greater than yourself, but that you feel connected to, to help you heal from a loss, avoid a loss, or gain a privilege.

It's where people turn when they are grieving or frustrated.

However, unless I'm in horrendous physical or emotional pain or trauma, my prayers begin with "thank you" to whoever is listening, and whoever is responsible, for the gifts I have, and my creed has to do with making the most of those gifts with the time I have here. (In horrendous physical pain is "rant" mode, and I've tried to minimize that, I get migraines. Lots of bargaining has happened.)

I don't believe in enforcing my will on things unless it's clear I have to. Nor do I ask a higher power to intervene. If there is a higher power to talk to, that higher power already knows and can alter things as they see fit, and my input doesn't mean much. I have taken the "free will" tenet to heart and I believe God as well as humans have that going for them. No nagging. No second guessing. This is what it is and it's a big ol' mystery. I'm just here to play.

 

[Recidiva]

These are tough ones, I know. But denying them as valid questions is sort of sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring real concerns.

Again, all these questions are subjective, and I think that's my point. I'm not sure which Christian values you believe are subject to science, but the ones that I know are large tenets of faith...heaven, hell, resurrection, aren't. You take them as allegory or you take them as literal truth, but it's subjective to the individual interpreting them.

What I avoid is absolutes. I enjoy the mystery to things. I don't think I'm capable of knowing absolute answers. I don't think humans are capable through their limited senses and limited mind capacity, to understand everything. I'm a part of a mosaic I can't possibly comprehend.

In the mind of God, I can't possibly know anything. Me thinking so is as arrogant as a bunch of ants in my back yard thinking the bright shiny thing (my car) in the driveway is the key to humanity. Even if they could wrest my car keys from me, where and how would they drive?

There are certain truths completely out of my reach. I am as inclusive as possible to everyone else's shiny things that they think they can drive, though.

 

[Liar]

I agree with Joe on the fact that Mary + saints aren't gods

I think many people pray to saints, and sometimes to relics and other artifacts, as proxies. It's God they pray to, by adressing someone/something they believe to be closer to God than them.

If you want political change, you write your local congressman, not the president, right?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Again, all these questions are subjective, and I think that's my point. I'm not sure which Christian values you believe are subject to science, but the ones that I know are large tenets of faith...heaven, hell, resurrection, aren't. You take them as allegory or you take them as literal truth, but it's subjective to the individual interpreting them.

The order of creation, the events of the Bible with regard to geography and political climate, faith healing, bleeding statues, etc. Very many things in Christianity are subjectable to sciences. I'm not talking about using science to prove "values", I'm talking about using basic sciences (observation and documentation and analysis) to prove "existence"... which is far easier.

What I avoid is absolutes. I enjoy the mystery to things. I don't think I'm capable of knowing absolute answers. I don't think humans are capable through their limited senses and limited mind capacity, to understand everything. I'm a part of a mosaic I can't possibly comprehend.

I like mysteries, too. But if I'm going to believe that the cookies are fat free, I might need to see the ingredients on the box before I really buy into it. Similarly, if I'm going to believe someone can perform acts of magic, I'll need to see some kind of reliable documentation to that effect. We may, as people, be able to comprehend everything, we may not be able to... but that has little to do with whether or not we have the ability to comprehend whether something really does or really doesn't happen.

In the mind of God, I can't possibly know anything. Me thinking so is as arrogant as a bunch of ants in my back yard thinking the bright shiny thing (my car) in the driveway is the key to humanity. Even if they could wrest my car keys from me, where and how would they drive?

But, we're not trying to know the mind of God. We're trying to know whether brooms can fly... whether animals can talk... whether "laying on hands" actually works... etc. Things that aren't so far beyond observation as Man is to Ants.

There are certain truths completely out of my reach. I am as inclusive as possible to everyone else's shiny things that they think they can drive, though.

I maintain that if someone is saying they can do X, then X is under the purvey of doubt and proof. I would think this, regardless the endeavor. If someone says they can bake a pie, then proof of pie-baking success is required--though many of us may just take it for granted as pie-baking isn't that spectacularly rare. However, someone says they can do the New York Times crossword in Ink? Benchpress a car? Magically do anything?
Then those are all observable events, confirmation isn't hard... and if they're not observable events and confirmation isn't possible? Then, how can it be said to be so?

 

[Recidiva]

The order of creation, the events of the Bible with regard to geography and political climate, faith healing, bleeding statues, etc. Very many things in Christianity are subjectable to sciences. I'm not talking about using science to prove "values", I'm talking about using basic sciences (observation and documentation and analysis) to prove "existence"... which is far easier.

I like mysteries, too. But if I'm going to believe that the cookies are fat free, I might need to see the ingredients on the box before I really buy into it. Similarly, if I'm going to believe someone can perform acts of magic, I'll need to see some kind of reliable documentation to that effect. We may, as people, be able to comprehend everything, we may not be able to... but that has little to do with whether or not we have the ability to comprehend whether something really does or really doesn't happen.

But, we're not trying to know the mind of God. We're trying to know whether brooms can fly... whether animals can talk... whether "laying on hands" actually works... etc. Things that aren't so far beyond observation as Man is to Ants.

I maintain that if someone is saying they can do X, then X is under the purvey of doubt and proof. I would think this, regardless the endeavor. If someone says they can bake a pie, then proof of pie-baking success is required--though many of us may just take it for granted as pie-baking isn't that spectacularly rare. However, someone says they can do the New York Times crossword in Ink? Benchpress a car? Magically do anything?
Then those are all observable events, confirmation isn't hard... and if they're not observable events and confirmation isn't possible? Then, how can it be said to be so?

I'm not claiming brooms can fly. I don't think your friend who cursed you claimed brooms can fly. They cursed you. It's the opposite of a beneficial prayer, it's a curse. The basics of prayers and curses are in the Bible.

There's a thought curse and a physical curse...(poison in your breakfast)

The Church asks for positive thought, positive prayer. Surely negative thought, negative prayer, has power on that basis. If you believe in the power of positive thought, surely there's an alternative for belief in negative thought. Mood and thought affect your nervous system, affect your immune system. That's demonstrable. Stress (or causing it) is a chink in the armor toward illness. So to believe you're under some sort of curse with someone who you believe to have some sort of power, will certainly act on the thought system, stress reaction and immune system of those who believe. Historically those who want to prove some sort of power play will use sleight of hand to back it up. A real poison to back up an imagined curse. Senna used often to create intestinal "curse."

It can alter mood, alter thought, and alter your immunity to thought patterns.

So whether or not it affects you, as I'd said earlier, if you're immune to, either because you have no framework for the idea, or because your faith precludes you from being open to it at all other than condemning and demonizing it, there's not much I can say.

But you do appear to not consider my definitions or experience as valid. Which is, unfortunately...my experience. With those of any faith. Faith precludes, often, learning in the area of discussion. You already know and you believe yourself to be right. Why make it any shade of gray? Especially when every other avenue is considered to be off the true path.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm not claiming brooms can fly. I don't think your friend who cursed you claimed brooms can fly. They cursed you. It's the opposite of a beneficial prayer, it's a curse. The basics of prayers and curses are in the Bible.

I, regrettably, maintain that the basics of prayers and curses are not in the Bible. And I'm going a bit beyond the "cursing" part and touching base on other acts of claimed magic. She also once said she could change stoplight colors.

There's a thought curse and a physical curse...(poison in your breakfast)

So, we're expanding the concept of "curse" to include just anything intentional and bad? Doesn't that dillute the term? Wouldn't, then, Hiroshima be a "curse"? Or me kicking someone in the balls?

The Church asks for positive thought, positive prayer. Surely negative thought, negative prayer, has power on that basis.

Not necessarily. The Church promotes the idea of prayer--and while people may ask for positive ones, they're not a categorical type, religiously speaking.

If you believe in the power of positive thought, surely there's an alternative for belief in negative thought. Mood and thought affect your nervous system, affect your immune system. That's demonstrable. Stress (or causing it) is a chink in the armor toward illness. So to believe you're under some sort of curse with someone who you believe to have some sort of power, will certainly act on the thought system, stress reaction and immune system of those who believe. Historically those who want to prove some sort of power play will use sleight of hand to back it up. A real poison to back up an imagined curse. Senna used often to create intestinal "curse."

So... "curses" are basically psychosomatic, and not magic at all? Or if they're caused, they're not caused by magic, so much as something physically being done. Or, at least, some are this way and others are "magical" in nature?

So whether or not it affects you, as I'd said earlier, if you're immune to, either because you have no framework for the idea, or because your faith precludes you from being open to it at all other than condemning and demonizing it, there's not much I can say.

Oh, I'd say I'm perfectly open... just skeptical. I have much in the way of framework, and am working to build a yet more accurate one. My skepticism, it should be noted, has fairly nothing to do with me being Christian. I have approached my apprehensions from a very secular point of view. I demonize, it should be noted, absolultely nothing and have yet to condemn anything.

But you do appear to not consider my definitions or experience as valid. Which is, unfortunately...my experience. With those of any faith. Faith precludes, often, learning in the area of discussion. You already know and you believe yourself to be right. Why make it any shade of gray? Especially when every other avenue is considered to be off the true path.

Your definitions are confusing--they don't have a lot of backing or relative explanation. Your experiences are, well... just that. They're anecdotal evidence of the unlikely. I belive myself not to be "right", but rather "in attempt to get to the bottom of the issue". Being religious has nothing to do with the points I'm making. I could just as well be areligious and make the exact same points and have the exact same questions. I have no idea what you mean by gray or true paths, though.

 

[FallingToFly]

I think, Joe, that the point is trying be made that- faith is faith. If she believes she cursed you, well, that's what she believes.

I've stayed well out of this for a while, readign through the bantering and watching. There's a lot of different takes on witchcraft in any form, throughout society. You have, in essence, doen what a lot of people choose to do- ridicule it and mock. "Oh, well, prove it!"

Would you ask a Christian to produce a burning bush, a halo and wings, or turn water to wine? A Muslim to show you their deed to their virgins? Would you ask a Hindu to prove to you their reincarnations?

You're not meaning to, but you're coming across as a religious bigot, at least IMVHO. This is FAITH- not science. It the equivalent of saying: "When you can prove, physically, to me, the existence of Love, then I'll belive in it." Like faith, love is something you feel, and show through your own actions.

I don't see many people going around asking for empirical proof of that. Do you?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think, Joe, that the point is trying be made that- faith is faith. If she believes she cursed you, well, that's what she believes.

\
But, while that point may be made--and I have nothing really to say about that point--the questions about how and why remain.

I've stayed well out of this for a while, readign through the bantering and watching. There's a lot of different takes on witchcraft in any form, throughout society. You have, in essence, doen what a lot of people choose to do- ridicule it and mock. "Oh, well, prove it!"

If requests for clarification and analogies for relational frame building are ridicule... then, what a ridiculous enterprise any seeking of explanation about any topic is. Asking "How is it that X?" or stating "So, if I have this right then Y" is not ridicule or mockery any more than finding out how an internal combustion engine works through mining analogies is belittling of cars.

Would you ask a Christian to produce a burning bush, a halo and wings, or turn water to wine? A Muslim to show you their deed to their virgins? Would you ask a Hindu to prove to you their reincarnations?

If a Christian said that they could perform "faith healing" through touch and remove cancer? Yes, I would ask for some kind of objective documentation and "proof". If a Muslim said he could produce heat in a knife to the point of melting by holding it or claimed he could curse you to sterility, then I'd really want to know how that's possible or even if it's accurate. I would, similarly, ask a Hindu to demonstrate any self-enacted bouts of actual metaphysical alteration--be it levitation or the "putting to sleep of beasts". My inquiry isn't religiously biased, I really don't know where you're getting that it is.

You're not meaning to, but you're coming across as a religious bigot, at least IMVHO. This is FAITH- not science. It the equivalent of saying: "When you can prove, physically, to me, the existence of Love, then I'll belive in it." Like faith, love is something you feel, and show through your own actions.

No... it's more like "when you can prove the existence of psychich powers, then I'll believe in it... until then, I don't believe psychic powers are real". People who claim to be able to do magic and make actual supernatural things happen are as subject to simple doubt and scrutiny as anyone else. No special dispensation because they're "magical".

I don't see many people going around asking for empirical proof of that. Do you?

That's a fallacious comparison. Like saying "You want proof that plastic melts, but that's like asking for proof of a mother's love"... we're not really comparing the same things. Is a magic effect possible? If so, can it be observed? If so, can it be documented? Not difficult, not like searching for proof of love at all.

 

[FallingToFly]

Keep in mind, these are just my thoughts on this subject, Joe, and only my personal opinions. I'm not attempting to attack, just explain a seperate viewpoint from yours.

There have actually been documented faith healings, fire-walking, curses, etc. The scientific community at large, when failing to be able to explain them, dismissed them as "coincidental" or mind over matter.

Christians pray for help, and if help is recieved, it's an act of God. If not, it's "God's Will."

Not every prayer is answered, not every spell is successful. Just because one failed, doesn't mean they all do. However, I imagine if you're on your way to work this week, and you take a tumble down the stairs that leaves you paralyzed, or inadvertantly do something incredibly out of character like wolf whistle at the beautiful girl walking past- who happens to be your boss' daughter, thereby sabotaging your career- that it can be explained away as coincidence as well.

A well-crafted spell works like- well, magic. All that it does is give you that little push you need that turns what could have been just fine into a disaster. It's subtle, quiet, and there's nothing flashy about it- perhaps your shoe needed resoling, and rather than replacing them or having them repaired, you just felt like you couldn't be arsed- a sort of "Oh, what could happen?" But that damaged sole is the reason you lose your balance on the stairs and fall. Or that beautiful girl, even... on second glance, she wasn't so stunning, and not even really what you look for in a woman. Maybe she was a dark-haired girl and you have a passion for blondes. But in that moment, you just -had- to express a sexual opinion of her. In hindsight, you don't know why, and now it's jeopardized your future.

It could happen to anyone, but why you, and why then? You saw that the shoe needed fixing, and just couldn't be bothered, as though there was some sort of reluctance that just pulled you away from the idea. Why that woman, in that moment? Was it the way the light fell, were you just thinking with the wrong brain, what? And you get to spend the rest of your life saying: "If only..." Well, that if only is the best revenge for whoever cast the curse.

They've documented voodoo in several ways, from the traditional voodoo dolls to mamloas cursing cheating husbands or driving out sickness from a child. They've studied those healed by faith, and they've done scientific studies on Hindu fakirs, trying to find out how they do their "tricks." They (the skeptics and scientifics) have a lot of theories, but they usually fall back on the "Well, it was a coincidence" or "If a human being, who only uses about a tenth of their brain, is truly convinced that they are healed- their body heals itself." (The mind-over-matter theory) For those whose acts can't be explained and refuse to allow people to poke and prod at them, or "capture" proof of their abilities, they are dismissed as frauds. ("Well, they must be, or else they'd have nothing to hide." theory)

Magic isn't a sideshow, to be "proven" to anyone. It's a faith, and a religion, to those who practice. Why would any religious practioner, of any faith, allow someone to hook them up to electrodes and video/photograph them as they worship? I don't even allow my husband, who is indeed a skeptic, join me for workings, even as an observer. It is a private and personal practice- I would be damned before I allowed a scientist or observer take photgraphs or readings while I worked a spell.

I've already expressed my personal opinions on the particular cursing that started this thread. If you had to be told by the caster, chances are, it was a failed casting. Then again, that opinion may be colored by my own preferences, if I'm doig something as personal and potentially devastating for my own life as revenge- I wouldn't tell anyone. I prefer subtlety. This is just my opinions on magic and witchcraft as a whole, which it seems that this conversation has become.

I will say that there are covens and solitary practioners out there who encourage skeptics to join and observe. They will welcome you in the name of enlightening and educating you, and allow you to see what they do. If you really want to see what they are about, I'm sure some asking around and research will help you find a way to do that.

I hope this clarified my last post, and helped you see whre my opinions were coming from (although admittedly, I typed them out before thinking about how to word them properly. My apologies.)

 

[English Lady]

I think many people pray to saints, and sometimes to relics and other artifacts, as proxies. It's God they pray to, by adressing someone/something they believe to be closer to God than them.

If you want political change, you write your local congressman, not the president, right?

I can see what you mean - but I'll nver be entirely comfortable with it -though i can kinda understand why people would do it