How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Sorcerors.... UNITE!!!!!
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Sorcerors.... UNITE!!!!!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


0 posted 08-25-2006 05:43 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion


Sorry about the topic title... had to get some attention here .

"In the name of the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit... I CAST YOU OUT DEMONS!"

This is the most common phrase that everyone knows (Tanks to the movie "The Exorcist") and relates to exorcism, but it also relates to the summoning of celestial or demonic beings. Yes, yes I realise that everyone will scream and shout at this, but it's true. I know from personal experience that it is effective for doing almost anything.

Now I know that the common Christian will say that it is only in Christs blood that people exorcise, but this is also used in sorcery... come to think of it, Christs blood and the ransom sacrifce rates up there with the use of the trinitarian saying...


Any thoughts?

P.S Yes I am A high Sorceror... D.S

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 08-02-99
Posts 9130
Purgatorial Incarceration


1 posted 08-25-2006 11:28 AM       View Profile for Christopher   Email Christopher   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Christopher

I've found it very useful as a joke.

Not to demean any of your beliefs, but I tend to the concept that the power of words are only as strong as the belief in them. I am minded of some novels by Piers Anthony (not great prose, but some pretty fun stories) wherin a sorceror has to learn a spell to destroy demons. After many troubles to find the spell, he comes to find that there is no spell and never has been; it is the demons' belief in [his] ownership of the spell that causes them to destroy themselves, believing in his power to do so.

I know this barely relates to the real world on a literal level, but I believe it does so on a practical level. If you take a look at much of our various societies and the power of leadership, you can probably break it down to the power of belief. No real magic involved, just belief.

... but then again, I've never believed in possesion either.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


2 posted 08-25-2006 12:46 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Depends only on the flavor of whichever faith.  My Dad is an agnostic, though with a very anti-Christian bias which would make most Aetheists* green with envy, who I believe is a High Priest of a local coven.  He's Wiccan of the Druidic flavor, though not Old School.  He don't hold well with animal sacrifice unless you plan on eating the critter, lives the Wiccan Rede and is more into natural remedies, cures and herbology.  Come to think of it, he's never uttered that phrase, though has used similar when uttering oaths of consternation.

* Variant spelling of Atheist from my early love of Graecian mythology and stories.  The ae forms the 'long a' with a slight aspiration.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


3 posted 08-25-2006 01:24 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

I reunited with my childhood best friend a few years back. She informed me, with a straight face, that faeries (yes, spelled that way and all) were the cause of misplaced belongings, that they were there with us at that very moment, but it is only our closed-mindedness that prevents us from seeing them.

Me, I'm a pragmatist. I figure the monster under the bed ate those things I'll never find again.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


4 posted 08-25-2006 06:54 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

All I can get from this is "sorcerors" and "excorism" and something about Christians or Christianity  Not sure what you are trying to say or ask about these things.  Can you explain further?  
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


5 posted 08-25-2006 07:53 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox



If the human mind when controlled by the will can be used as a lens selectively to focus for a chosen purpose the energy that animates the soul, then the theology of the individual's beliefs is not relevant outside that individual's sphere of taste and preferences.


Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


6 posted 08-30-2006 06:57 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Yeah, I agree with you all, except for the fcat that I do believe that the words themselves have power as well as the focusing of engery/will for whatever your wishes are. I must say I wasn't even expecting a reply as I didn't mean to be anti-christain but I thought that it would be that way (or at least that the people I mean would try to shut down the thread!)

To essorant:
What I am trying to imply is that Christians in general think that Sorcery is the works of the devil ect... but actually sorcery itself is greatly linked to the christian belief system.

Yeah! Faeries!!! Woo Hoo

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


7 posted 08-30-2006 09:17 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Actually that's a misrepresentation of Christian belief.  Relying upon God, spiritual power has been demonstrated (in Casting out demons, healings, etc ...  But sorcery is defined as any attempt to "control" the spiritual world without God's influence.  

You'll probably say that there's no essential difference between these two approaches.  But that's only by denying the Christian position, and placing it in your own framework; by saying that it's examples are really just another form of "Magik".  

Christians believing that "sorcery" is a work of the devil, has nothing to do with its claims or its spiritual nature.  Rather they think it is a work of the Devil, because of the disobedience inherent in it.  It encourages people to venture into a potentially dangerous spiritual arena, without the Guidance and blessing of God.  That's why, I think, that divination and "sorcery" is biblically forbidden.  Evidence to me is the fact that most examples of Magic arts, only stay seemingly benevolent for a time, turning darker and more sinister with time and practice.  


Stephen.
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


8 posted 08-30-2006 11:37 AM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox


"Evidence to me is the fact that most examples of Magic arts, only stay seemingly benevolent for a time, turning darker and more sinister with time and practice."

...now THAT is funny!  Thanks for the laugh.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


9 posted 08-30-2006 11:57 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

grinnin' with icey here...

'cause in my experience, it's quite the contrary.

I will never fuss with the weather again.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


10 posted 08-30-2006 12:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
...now THAT is funny!  Thanks for the laugh.


I've read enough of the pioneers of more contemporary Magic.  Crowley and the rest.  I've also read much about ancient paganism.  Do you deny that a dark strain exists?  I'm not making any judgements about individuals in local settings ... though I think such things are dangerous, and Biblically forbidden for a reason.  


quote:
when we come to the world of superstition, in a more subtle sense, there is a shade of difference; a deepening and a darkening shade. Doubtless most popular superstition is as frivolous as any popular mythology ...  a sort of airy agnosticism about the possibilities of so strange a world. But there is another sort of superstition that does definitely look for results; what might be called a realistic superstition. And with that the question of whether spirits do answer or do appear becomes much more serious. As I have said, it seems to me pretty certain that they sometimes do; but about that there is a distinction that has been the beginning of much evil in the world. Whether it be because the Fall has really brought men nearer to less desirable neighbours in the spiritual world, or whether it is merely that the mood of men eager or greedy finds it easier to imagine evil, I believe that the black magic of witchcraft has been much more practical and much less poetical than the white magic of mythology.

I fancy the garden of the witch has been kept much more carefully than the woodland of the nymph. I fancy the evil field has even been more fruitful than the good. To start with, some impulse, perhaps a sort of desperate impulse, drove men to the darker powers when dealing with practical problems. There was a sort of secret and perverse feeling that the darker powers would really do things; that they had no nonsense about them. And indeed that popular phase exactly expresses the point. The gods of mere mythology had a great deal of nonsense about them. They had a great deal of good nonsense about them; in the happy and hilarious sense in which we talk of the nonsense of Jabberwocky or the Land where Jumblies live. But the man consulting a demon felt as many a man has felt in consulting a detective, especially a private detective; that it was dirty work but the work would really be done. A man did not exactly go into the wood to meet a nymph; he rather went with the hope of meeting a nymph. It was an adventure rather than an assignation. But the devil really kept his appointments and even in one sense kept his promises; even if a man sometimes wished afterwards, like Macbeth, that he had broken them ...

In the accounts given us of many rude or savage races we gather that the cult of demons often came after the cult of deities, and even after the cult of one single and supreme deity. It may be suspected that in almost all such places the higher deity is felt to be too far off for appeal in certain petty matters, and men invoke the spirits because they are in a more literal sense familiar spirits. But with the idea of employing the demons who get things done, a new idea appears more worthy of the demons. It may indeed be truly described as the idea of being worthy of the demons; of making oneself fit for their fastidious and exacting society. Superstition of the lighter sort toys with the idea that some trifle, some small gesture such as throwing the salt, may touch the hidden spring that works the mysterious machinery of the world. And there is after all something in the idea of such an Open Sesame. But with the appeal to lower spirits comes the horrible notion that the gesture must not only be very small but very low; that it must be a monkey trick of an utterly ugly and unworthy sort. Sooner or later a man deliberately sets himself to do the most disgusting thing he can think of. It is felt that the extreme of evil will extort a sort of attention or answer from the evil powers under the surface of the world. This is the meaning of most of the cannibalism in the world. For most cannibalism is not a primitive or even a bestial habit. It is artificial and even artistic, a sort of art for art's sake. Men do not do it because they do not think it horrible; but, on the contrary, because they do think it horrible. They wish, in the most literal sense, to sup on horrors.

G.K. Chesterton from "The Everlasting Man"

icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


11 posted 08-30-2006 12:50 PM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox



…a rose is a rose is a rose…

Bigotry always is its own defense.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 08-30-2006 06:02 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Bigotry always is its own defense.

Which means exactly what? That you are unwilling to add anything to a discussion except one-liners? That might be fine in some forums, but this one is more about actually mounting such a defense instead of simply trying to infer it. It takes a bit more effort than what otherwise amount to drive-by shootings, but can also be correspondingly rewarding for some. You might like to try it?
icebox
Member Elite
since 05-03-2003
Posts 4246
in the shadows


13 posted 08-31-2006 12:44 AM       View Profile for icebox   Email icebox   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for icebox


Funny, I thought the purpose of this particular forum was what the label for it said:

"What is life? What is poetry? Is structure better than free verse? Explore, with us, the secrets of the poetic Universe..."

When above in this thread I wrote: " If the human mind when controlled by the will can be used as a lens selectively to focus for a chosen purpose the energy that animates the soul, then the theology of the individual's beliefs is not relevant outside that individual's sphere of taste and preferences."  Did I not try to state a "secret" of the poetic Universe?  Did I not use enough words for you?  Did I really have to explain that prayer meets all the traditional criteria of a magical incantation?  Or, should I have broken the explanation into smaller sentences?  I really do not know the answers to those questions.  I have not found any public guidelines for this.

Ron, you accuse me, with implied sarcasm, of intellectual laziness?  I did not think personal attacks were appropriate here, or should I just accept what would appear to be the obvious, that rules here sometimes are applied differentially among the members and  that your own rules not apply to you?  Am I now to disappear in the same manner in which others who have disagreed with you have seemed to vanish from this site?

Chesterton was a bigot, and apparently comfortable about it in that he believed in the clarity of his awareness, his view of reality; that is to say, if he saw something clearly enough in his own mind, then it could not be bigotry.  His bigoted beliefs were their own defense.  For reference, one could read his comments on what he called "the Jewish problem in Europe" or his extensive comments in THE NEW JERUSALEM, and draw one's own conclusions.

I did not raise Chesterton as an example of anything, I reacted to it, but given his love of reactive brevity in one line responses, I still am comfortable that my response was soundly placed on Chesterton's path.

Perhaps I should have introduced another thread direction.  I could have put on the table the thoughts of Julian Jaynes on poetry and religion, his concepts that both evolved with human consciousness, have no validity in reality outside the human mind, and at best serve as havens for the troubled mind in times of great stress, that schizophrenia is the state of waiting for god in a godless world.  

Or, I could have expanded the thread with Chesterton's criticisms of Nietzsche (among other criticisms) for claiming the judeo-christian tradition turned the will in on itself thereby developing a slave morality, forcing humans to create the concept of soul as a complex and intelligent entity.

However, since I was not the originator of this thread, I chose to stay with Chesterton in brevity and manner as he was introduced by someone else.

My own favorite example of Chesterton's penchant for one line responses is his often cited answer to a newspaper's request that he, along with other prominent writers of his day write an extensive essay answering the question:  "What's Wrong with the World?"

His response was:

Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton

Personally, I have found his one line responses to be the most interesting; for example his position on the futility of exploring the relative degrees of people's misery or happiness "It would be like discussing whether Milton was more puritanical than a pig is fat.

True, though, that I shaded my unacceptable (to you) response a bit with Gertrude Stein for what I thought were obvious reasons, primarily the idea that the entire universe is ruled,  controlled, overseen, dependent upon and obligated to an anthropomorphic (and male) god whose existence is physically mirrored in the human male form indigenous only to this minor planet, a god whose supreme reality for many christians must be accepted as a baseline before there can be any discussion of religion or magic.  Perhaps I should have said, an anthropomorphic christian god is an anthropomorphic christian god is an anthropomorphic christian god.

Perhaps also, I should have referenced Chesterton's own position that, "You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought."  Or, his opinion that his religious beliefs did not have to be explained because they are true.  Those two positions could be seen as paradox, but then Chesterton loved paradox.

Or, perhaps I should have given as an example of Chesterton's narrow mindedness his views on evolution, simply that the theory is so flawed it destroys itself by its own argument and does not merit discussion.  Again, a truth in his view that had to be accepted.

Should I have pointed out his belief that, "Thinking means connecting things, and stops if they cannot be connected.  It need hardly be said that this scepticism forbidding thought necessarily forbids speech...."  Given my impression of some things you, Ron, have written, I would "think" you would support Chesterton's position, but I feel no compulsion to explain the connection.  I do not even disagree with Chesterton's thought.

Or, perhaps since this is supposedly a site for creative, poetic people, artists if you will, I could have dropped Chesterton's one line reaction that, "Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame."  I would think, though a one line response, I still would have been on safe ground since it appears you are more interested in how a thought is framed than in the substance of the thought itself.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


14 posted 08-31-2006 01:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ice,


A "bigot" is defined as a person who can tolerate no other creeds.  That was definitely not Chesterton, for though he disagreed with many, even his famed ideological opponents (such as Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells) called him "friend".  Also not many people (especially in Christendom) praise the lighthearted side of Paganism as Chesterton does.  I'm at a loss to your reaction.  


I think you're throwing around the term "bigot" a bit too freely.  As G.K. is a beloved author and thinker to me, I would appreciate it if you didn't resort to insult.  Calling someone a "bigot" is hardly meaningfully descriptive anymore.  It is a derogatory term.


Besides that, In about every instance it seems you might have plucked Chesterton's "one liners" quite out of their context to make your points.  Having read a good deal of him, his use of pithy remarks were not separated from sufficient explanation, and not used as a substitute for good thinking.  Like the tip of an arrow, they usually served to  "bring home the point" after the string was already pulled.


If you've exonerated yourself in that regard, at least give ol' Gilbert the same, I would say.    


Now, you were going to explain why you think Chesterton is wrong in his appraisal of Magic and Paganism in general?


Stephen.  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


15 posted 08-31-2006 03:14 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
When above in this thread I wrote: " If the human mind when controlled by the will can be used as a lens selectively to focus for a chosen purpose the energy that animates the soul, then the theology of the individual's beliefs is not relevant outside that individual's sphere of taste and preferences." Did I not try to state a "secret" of the poetic Universe? Did I not use enough words for you? Did I really have to explain that prayer meets all the traditional criteria of a magical incantation?

While I don't agree with that statement, icebox, I found no fault with your expression of it. It was the two posts following that one that I personally found lacking.

quote:
Ron, you accuse me, with implied sarcasm, of intellectual laziness? I did not think personal attacks were appropriate here, or should I just accept what would appear to be the obvious, that rules here sometimes are applied differentially among the members and that your own rules not apply to you.

Like many before you, icebox, you fail (or refuse?) to understand the difference between an attack directed at a person and an attack directed at an idea. To accuse you of intellectual laziness would necessarily require an indictment of all that you've posted and, quite frankly, could never be justified. You've frequently demonstrated, I think, significant insight and a willingness to communicate that insight, the antithesis to intellectual laziness.

Which only serves to make your last few posts in this thread all the more disappointing.

That you found occasion to laugh is, at best, off-topic and, at worst, meaningless prattle. No one is likely to care unless you're willing to share the joke. Similarly, Zen-like one-liners that are seemingly out of context add nothing useful to the discussion.

Were I to accuse you of anything, icebox, it wouldn't be intellectual laziness so much as intellectual snobbery. The impression your last few posts leave, at least to me, is that perhaps you feel we're not really worth more than the few seconds it takes to whip out a quick pot-shot, the philosophical equivalent of a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. So, tell me I'm wrong?

quote:
I did not raise Chesterton as an example of anything, I reacted to it, but given his love of reactive brevity in one line responses, I still am comfortable that my response was soundly placed on Chesterton's path.

I would be more inclined to find that satisfying if you were reacting to a quotation that demonstrated said brevity, rather than one that was several paragraphs long, but even that falls wide of the issue. Until and unless he decides to join one of our little discussions, Chesterton's path is irrelevant to me.

quote:
Or, perhaps since this is supposedly a site for creative, poetic people, artists if you will, I could have dropped Chesterton's one line reaction that, "Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame." I would think, though a one line response, I still would have been on safe ground since it appears you are more interested in how a thought is framed than in the substance of the thought itself.

Do you really think you can so easily separate the two?

I think art in general, and certainly this site in particular, centers foremost around communication, or, in other words, the precise point at which framing most closely meets substance. One without the other would be meaningless, if not impossible.

Please don't misunderstand. I honestly don't have a problem with cryptic one-liners, either from you or Chesterton, in the proper context. While I generally value clarity, I also value anything that makes people think more deeply. I just don't think your earlier posts qualified as profound, nor did I feel you ever intended them to be. If there was a substance there beyond an obvious expression of disdain, I'm afraid you failed to communicate that substance to me. All I could see was the disdain.

Disdain is cool, too. However, my whole point was, and remains, that if your only intent is to express disdain, you should probably do it in the Alley or perhaps even Feelings. In this forum, we're less interested in what you feel than in why you feel it. When you soliloquize without offering justification, you can probably expect to be called on it. That's not an attack, either. It's a discussion.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


16 posted 08-31-2006 11:29 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Which human under the heavens doesn't use supernatural power to some extant?  
Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


17 posted 09-18-2006 03:29 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Haha, this is really interseting. Stephanos, just a question for you, if sorcery is defined as trying to control the supernatural withjout God's help, pray tell why then do we as sorcerors use it rather continually...

Just a quasetion

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


18 posted 09-18-2006 03:39 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Serenity Blaze...
Yeah that's the general response by people that try and control the weather. Haha, I have all those stories myself, and believe me that it get's worse when two people do it at the same time, and wish for the same thing... that was a really really really bad week for the weather. Let's just say that 2 week of solid sleeting rain in the middle of summer kinda gets you the attention of people who shoudn't know what you've been doing

But still, if you are still in the craft, please E-Mail me at perrins_donovan@yahoo.com...

Blessed Be

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Kitherion will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Sorcerors.... UNITE!!!!! Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors