»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Sorcerors.... UNITE!!!!!
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Sorcerors.... UNITE!!!!! |
|
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
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. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Donovan - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
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 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
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 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
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 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
"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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
grinnin' with icey here... 'cause in my experience, it's quite the contrary. I will never fuss with the weather again.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: 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: |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
…a rose is a rose is a rose… Bigotry always is its own defense. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: 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: 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 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: 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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Which human under the heavens doesn't use supernatural power to some extant? |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
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 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
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. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
