Is Magic OK For Christians?
- Thread starter Radrook
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christians magic
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
Wait. Are these cud-chewing rabbits we're talking about?
Z
Variable Constant
Assuming magic to be real:
The Christian (Judaic, Muslim) God says magic is OK, IF He is the Source of the Magic. Otherwise, it is wrong.
This implies that magic can come from other sources. If so, what sources are these?
The Christian and Muslim implies that the alternate source of magic is the Devil - thus, not OK.
The earliest Judaic view was that power could come from other Gods in God's pantheon. Since the Jewish God is notoriously jealous, this is not OK.
However, since the majority of non-Abrahamist faiths either claim there are a) multiple gods, b) one God with many, many faces, or c) no gods at all, then this relegates the argument into a different slant.
To those believing in multiple Gods, it is OK for a follower of the Christian God to do magic if the Christian God tells them to, but not OK if they do it on their own- after all, they would then be required to draw power from a different God. However, the same view is then held by each group based instead on their own God. A strict Zeusian would believe he could only perform magic using Zeus' power, but would be wrong to draw on YHWH as a source.
To those who believes God is one God with many faces, the argument is silly, as all Magic stems from the power of God - unless we suggest that power can stem from an individual's own power, in which case we have to wonder why we would have the power to do magic if it were against God's driect will. But, even in this case, the argument could stand, since God is saying, "Use your power if I direct, otherwise you're wrong."
To those who do not believe in God, the argument is moot, since no God exists to make such an edict.
For the modern Wiccan, numerous views as to the nature of Deity (Deities) exist. My own path, the Correllian Nativist Tradition, holds that there is only one Deity, but that this Deity is revealed through many faces, like facets of a diamond. Thus, when a Wiccan calls upon Diana in one ritual, and Il in another, and Jupiter in a third, she is still calling upon the same Deity. She sees no problem with Christians performing magic, or anyone else for that matter. The argument from the Bible becomes moot, because all magic comes from Deity. (And, the Devil doesn't exist, to most forms of Wicca - thus, he cannot be a source of power.)
Therefore, the argument from the Christian (Jewish, Muslim) standpoint involves a denial for the follower from practicing unauthorized magic, but really makes no notes against those who do not follow God and their behaviour, since one expects that the person who does not follow God is also not likely to follow God's specific instructions. To then persecute those who do not follow God's instructions, who are also not followers of God, denotes a specific form of bigotry, and is a means of hate propogation.
This then brings in the ethics of forcing others to follow your own faith. What does the Bible say about forcing other people to become Christians, Rad? This becomes the pivotal point in this argument, after all else is considered.
The Christian (Judaic, Muslim) God says magic is OK, IF He is the Source of the Magic. Otherwise, it is wrong.
This implies that magic can come from other sources. If so, what sources are these?
The Christian and Muslim implies that the alternate source of magic is the Devil - thus, not OK.
The earliest Judaic view was that power could come from other Gods in God's pantheon. Since the Jewish God is notoriously jealous, this is not OK.
However, since the majority of non-Abrahamist faiths either claim there are a) multiple gods, b) one God with many, many faces, or c) no gods at all, then this relegates the argument into a different slant.
To those believing in multiple Gods, it is OK for a follower of the Christian God to do magic if the Christian God tells them to, but not OK if they do it on their own- after all, they would then be required to draw power from a different God. However, the same view is then held by each group based instead on their own God. A strict Zeusian would believe he could only perform magic using Zeus' power, but would be wrong to draw on YHWH as a source.
To those who believes God is one God with many faces, the argument is silly, as all Magic stems from the power of God - unless we suggest that power can stem from an individual's own power, in which case we have to wonder why we would have the power to do magic if it were against God's driect will. But, even in this case, the argument could stand, since God is saying, "Use your power if I direct, otherwise you're wrong."
To those who do not believe in God, the argument is moot, since no God exists to make such an edict.
For the modern Wiccan, numerous views as to the nature of Deity (Deities) exist. My own path, the Correllian Nativist Tradition, holds that there is only one Deity, but that this Deity is revealed through many faces, like facets of a diamond. Thus, when a Wiccan calls upon Diana in one ritual, and Il in another, and Jupiter in a third, she is still calling upon the same Deity. She sees no problem with Christians performing magic, or anyone else for that matter. The argument from the Bible becomes moot, because all magic comes from Deity. (And, the Devil doesn't exist, to most forms of Wicca - thus, he cannot be a source of power.)
Therefore, the argument from the Christian (Jewish, Muslim) standpoint involves a denial for the follower from practicing unauthorized magic, but really makes no notes against those who do not follow God and their behaviour, since one expects that the person who does not follow God is also not likely to follow God's specific instructions. To then persecute those who do not follow God's instructions, who are also not followers of God, denotes a specific form of bigotry, and is a means of hate propogation.
This then brings in the ethics of forcing others to follow your own faith. What does the Bible say about forcing other people to become Christians, Rad? This becomes the pivotal point in this argument, after all else is considered.
Dancing David said:
I was expressing the Christian viewpoint.
I never denied the existence of other viewpoints.
Neither was I trying to sway you to abandon yours and adopt mine. Why do you folks interprete every statement as a challenge to your world views?
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
Kitty Chan said:OK question I remember way back maybe 70ish the the Magicians union or whatever they are called officially announced that they are removing themselves from the "black arts" or witchcraft or ? and that they were just entertainers.
I did think that did make sense as David Blaine, John Edwards, Ole Sylvia, Penn and Teller all there stuff is simply tricks it is not actual magic.
Does anybody remember this announcement or whatever it was called?
I remember when David Blaine was doing his stuff and everybody was ooooo hes got the devils powers, nah hes just a really good showman that hasnothing up his sleeve.
But Radrook is expressing the difference between a christian and a for instance wicca view. Perhaps one day there will be actual events that are not staged. But I expect and hope JREF will be right in there to determine if its "real" and if true then they will be out that million.
Battle of the ages stuff
Im gonna quote me again
doesnt anyone know the answer to this or do I need to look in Virginia?? Im gonna go pout and post this in the magicians threads . . . .
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
You started a new thread in a forum devoted to discussing religion and philosophy from a skeptical point of view. You have participated in this forum long enough to know that all posters are challenged to provide evidence for their viewpoints. When asked to do things like clarify your position (Radrook: what do you think of the efficacy of magic?) you either ignore the question or claim we are misinterpreting your position as a challenge.
I have been a member since late 2001 and you, Radrook, are the very first poster to make my ignore list. Have fun with your Christianity and buh-bye. If I ever respond to one of your posts again, I will invite everyone on the board to address me as "Mr. Poopyhead" for one year.
Radrook said:
You assume that you speak for all Christians when I suspect many would be mortified by many of your posts.
And this thread is a clear response to assertions that Christians attempt to use magic when they pray.
I'll ask you directly, Rad. When Christians say that they are going to pray so God will change my mind about my atheism are they attempting to subvert my free will with divine magic?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,575
Radrook said:
Is there anything more to add? Magic and gods don't exist, what's the point in arguing if a god likes or dislikes magic? Are you trying to figure out how a god would act in your roleplaying game or something?
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
dmarker said:
If ya want I will answer but I can wait for Rad, curious myself
Originally posted by dmarker
You assume that you speak for all Christians when I suspect many would be mortified by many of your posts.
And this thread is a clear response to assertions that Christians attempt to use magic when they pray.
I'll ask you directly, Rad. When Christians say that they are going to pray so God will change my mind about my atheism are they attempting to subvert my free will with divine magic?
You'd better answer for him, for Rad cannot answer.
You assume that you speak for all Christians when I suspect many would be mortified by many of your posts.
And this thread is a clear response to assertions that Christians attempt to use magic when they pray.
I'll ask you directly, Rad. When Christians say that they are going to pray so God will change my mind about my atheism are they attempting to subvert my free will with divine magic?
Kitty Chan said:
You'd better answer for him, for Rad cannot answer.
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
dmarker said:
Im trying to get some paperwork done today too but I will answer quick, ya got me tied up on the other thread
There is no magic mind control if I pray for you, especially on my part. I could ask God to speak to you about being a atheist and that is probably something He would want me to do so therefore in His will but there is the other side of how He would talk to you and show you something.
What would that be ?dont know, maybe a sunset would get to you, maybe the old guy on the bus may something to give you pause. But what would happen . . . .say the old guy says something and gets you to thinking about a possibility that maybe there is something to God not the junk yapped at you by tv preachers but something that is a actual consideration of a thought, then God has spoken to you.
Then you are gonna chew it over in your head and decide if you like the idea or whatever it is and decide one way or another about it.
No mind control because the ultimate decision on any idea is yours.
Everybody gets God mixed up in magic and Hes not otherwise He would just go ping and you would be a yes man. He dont want yes men He wants a guy that chews it over and struggles with the thought and decides finally to follow what God wrote in the scriptures.
From what was said in Matthew in the other thread if one believes in Christ its not sunshine and lollypops from the rest of the world, even your own spouse could hate you. I know a muslim woman who hides her christian beliefs as she is afraid of her husband.
You don't have to answer this one quickly for I'm going away soon and it will be a day or two before I can read your response so take some time to ponder your words.
You are asking God to speak to me?
The thing is that you're asking god to alter my mind so I would see a sunset or hear an old guy's words differently.
And if I get to decide, then why pray? I've been an atheist for two thirds of my life and I doubt that a sunset would make me change my mind.
For the apostles, yes, but what do you have to fear now that most of North America is Christian?
It's the atheists that are being told to sit down and shut up.
You are asking God to speak to me?
The thing is that you're asking god to alter my mind so I would see a sunset or hear an old guy's words differently.
And if I get to decide, then why pray? I've been an atheist for two thirds of my life and I doubt that a sunset would make me change my mind.
For the apostles, yes, but what do you have to fear now that most of North America is Christian?
It's the atheists that are being told to sit down and shut up.
Kitty Chan said:Im trying to get some paperwork done today too but I will answer quick, ya got me tied up on the other thread
There is no magic mind control if I pray for you, especially on my part. I could ask God to speak to you about being a atheist and that is probably something He would want me to do so therefore in His will but there is the other side of how He would talk to you and show you something.
What would that be ?dont know, maybe a sunset would get to you, maybe the old guy on the bus may something to give you pause. But what would happen . . . .say the old guy says something and gets you to thinking about a possibility that maybe there is something to God not the junk yapped at you by tv preachers but something that is a actual consideration of a thought, then God has spoken to you.
Then you are gonna chew it over in your head and decide if you like the idea or whatever it is and decide one way or another about it.
No mind control because the ultimate decision on any idea is yours.
Everybody gets God mixed up in magic and Hes not otherwise He would just go ping and you would be a yes man. He dont want yes men He wants a guy that chews it over and struggles with the thought and decides finally to follow what God wrote in the scriptures.
From what was said in Matthew in the other thread if one believes in Christ its not sunshine and lollypops from the rest of the world, even your own spouse could hate you. I know a muslim woman who hides her christian beliefs as she is afraid of her husband.
Re: Re: Is Magic OK For Christians?
Radrook, I'm still interested in hearing an answer to this question. Please feel free to let me know your position on this issue! Also, what are those "good reasons" that supports god's dim view of magic you mentioned earlier?Brahe said:
Kitty Chan
Muse
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 826
If I Was to pray it would be that the Lord would speak to you and show you Himself that the possibility exists that He is there.
Sure He could go ahead and do it without my asking.
But thats not His point with me, He wants me to be concerned about you not myself. So thats why He would want me to ask Him.
I ask but I have no idea how He will speak to you, a easy one is something dramatic happens in your life. And you think there should be something else to it.
Or possibly something as simple as the old guy on the bus talks to you and something about what he says gets you to thinking about the possibility of maybe God is there.
But even if you do really deeply consider the possibility (then God has spoken to you) then its what you do with it is your decsion.
These are all possibilities that I can think of how a prayer would work. There is no mind control because the ultimate decision is yours.
maybe that is clearer I think perhaps Im too abstract sometimes.
Sure He could go ahead and do it without my asking.
But thats not His point with me, He wants me to be concerned about you not myself. So thats why He would want me to ask Him.
I ask but I have no idea how He will speak to you, a easy one is something dramatic happens in your life. And you think there should be something else to it.
Or possibly something as simple as the old guy on the bus talks to you and something about what he says gets you to thinking about the possibility of maybe God is there.
But even if you do really deeply consider the possibility (then God has spoken to you) then its what you do with it is your decsion.
These are all possibilities that I can think of how a prayer would work. There is no mind control because the ultimate decision is yours.
maybe that is clearer I think perhaps Im too abstract sometimes.
Regarding the prayer discussion, I would argue the following:
Prayer does not change God's will, but rather fulfills it. It is not that God had decided to do A and, when you brought it up, decided instead to do B (very anthropomorphic), but rather that God wills to do B and wills that someone's intercessory prayer should be part of the process. In truth, while intercessory prayer can be difficult to rationally accept, it is really no worse than action. There is no good reason that, if God wishes the hungry to be fed, he should need my help.
I think the question of whether praying for a conversion for someone else is a prayer for the altering of someone's mind misses a key destinction. Not every influence is a subversion of free will. I am a graduate student (just starting). I expect to learn a great deal in the next few years. Each of my professors will lead me to see things differently, to understand things differently, and to think different thoughts. They are not, however, subverting my free will. They are educating me. I think the difference to be a very important one. I believe Kitty Chan is asking God to do something far more similar to education than to mind control.
As for magic, I think that the problem from a Christian perspective would be something like this:
Every interaction can be seen as a circle. The interaction can be a sacrament, a circle that begins with God, passes through the thing interacted with (lunch, a person on the street, whatever), to oneself, and returns to God. In this the thing is appreciated first for God's sake, second for its own sake, and lastly for one's own sake.
The second option I would term idolatry. In it, the circle begins with oneself, passes through the object, and returns to oneself. In this interaction, the thing is valued primarilly for ones own sake. This path is, seen next to the other, autotheism.
Magic as Wiccans practice it (as a understand Wicca, which isn't well), really is far more sacramental than idolatrous. I would argue that magic would be wrong from a Christian perspective when it becomes idolatrous: when it ceases to reverence the transcendent and instead sees the only value of things in their usefullness.
Prayer does not change God's will, but rather fulfills it. It is not that God had decided to do A and, when you brought it up, decided instead to do B (very anthropomorphic), but rather that God wills to do B and wills that someone's intercessory prayer should be part of the process. In truth, while intercessory prayer can be difficult to rationally accept, it is really no worse than action. There is no good reason that, if God wishes the hungry to be fed, he should need my help.
I think the question of whether praying for a conversion for someone else is a prayer for the altering of someone's mind misses a key destinction. Not every influence is a subversion of free will. I am a graduate student (just starting). I expect to learn a great deal in the next few years. Each of my professors will lead me to see things differently, to understand things differently, and to think different thoughts. They are not, however, subverting my free will. They are educating me. I think the difference to be a very important one. I believe Kitty Chan is asking God to do something far more similar to education than to mind control.
As for magic, I think that the problem from a Christian perspective would be something like this:
Every interaction can be seen as a circle. The interaction can be a sacrament, a circle that begins with God, passes through the thing interacted with (lunch, a person on the street, whatever), to oneself, and returns to God. In this the thing is appreciated first for God's sake, second for its own sake, and lastly for one's own sake.
The second option I would term idolatry. In it, the circle begins with oneself, passes through the object, and returns to oneself. In this interaction, the thing is valued primarilly for ones own sake. This path is, seen next to the other, autotheism.
Magic as Wiccans practice it (as a understand Wicca, which isn't well), really is far more sacramental than idolatrous. I would argue that magic would be wrong from a Christian perspective when it becomes idolatrous: when it ceases to reverence the transcendent and instead sees the only value of things in their usefullness.
Bubbles, and kittychan,
Very insightful. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to think on that circle of sacrament. I find that very poetic.
I think that my questions that would follow Bubbles' comments would be off-topic in a way. But since this is the first salient point I've seen in this thread, I guess I'm not really trashing it.
The default Skeptical question at this point would be, Bubbles, do you believe magic to exist, and can you show it to actually exist? After all, why argue the properties, causes and effects of a force which doesn't exist? You might as well argue about the mating habits of unicorns.
But besides the default Skeptic question, as I understand idolatry, it's not that people who follow idols have no sense of what you call "the transcendent". The problem with it, as far as JudeoChristianity holds, is that it allows for the adherant to fashion gods at will, from wood or stone or gold. It is a polytheism borne of the power that a carved image holds over us. It asserts that objects are magical, and interact with the supernatural world.
I would not say an idolater is someone who is more concerned with the value of things for their own sake than their transcendent nature. I think someone who carves a Tiki or a fetish or whatever is fashioning a physical form for their God out of a need for physical nearness and attachment. This is a spiritual quest, to be sure.
As a skeptic and atheist, I can equally claim that theists fashion gods all the time, but usually out of words and legends rather than stone.
Perhaps you are using a modern version of the term idolater to refer to people who "worship" money or luxury items. I would say that the word "worship" is applied unfairly by the labeler in order to prove his chosen point.
My interaction with inanimate objects is extremely secular. I don't praise and give thanks to a god when I operate a computer, nor do I beseach his mercy and guidance and thank him after I operate my motor vehicle. The object is inanimate, and does not require me to invoke heavenly authority in its operation. In this interaction, the value of the thing is in its usefulness.
I obviously do not worship my car, as I do not pray to it, nor do I interact with it in any spiritual way. I do not have any evidence my car has any interaction whatsoever with the supernatural, and so operating it requires none from me.
I contend that envisioning my car as part of a circle from god to me and back to god as attempting to imbue a supernatural quality to my car. It's "puttin a little god in the car", if you will. Whether by putting a plastic saint on the dashboard or just saying a little prayer inside.
Objects are inanimate. Envisioning them as part of a supernatural food-chain IS fashioning an idol out of them, in some sense... yes?
Or does it not count as idolotry if you say that all the tiki's you are creating are from the "real" "one and only" god?
Very insightful. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to think on that circle of sacrament. I find that very poetic.
I think that my questions that would follow Bubbles' comments would be off-topic in a way. But since this is the first salient point I've seen in this thread, I guess I'm not really trashing it.
The default Skeptical question at this point would be, Bubbles, do you believe magic to exist, and can you show it to actually exist? After all, why argue the properties, causes and effects of a force which doesn't exist? You might as well argue about the mating habits of unicorns.
But besides the default Skeptic question, as I understand idolatry, it's not that people who follow idols have no sense of what you call "the transcendent". The problem with it, as far as JudeoChristianity holds, is that it allows for the adherant to fashion gods at will, from wood or stone or gold. It is a polytheism borne of the power that a carved image holds over us. It asserts that objects are magical, and interact with the supernatural world.
I would not say an idolater is someone who is more concerned with the value of things for their own sake than their transcendent nature. I think someone who carves a Tiki or a fetish or whatever is fashioning a physical form for their God out of a need for physical nearness and attachment. This is a spiritual quest, to be sure.
As a skeptic and atheist, I can equally claim that theists fashion gods all the time, but usually out of words and legends rather than stone.
Perhaps you are using a modern version of the term idolater to refer to people who "worship" money or luxury items. I would say that the word "worship" is applied unfairly by the labeler in order to prove his chosen point.
My interaction with inanimate objects is extremely secular. I don't praise and give thanks to a god when I operate a computer, nor do I beseach his mercy and guidance and thank him after I operate my motor vehicle. The object is inanimate, and does not require me to invoke heavenly authority in its operation. In this interaction, the value of the thing is in its usefulness.
I obviously do not worship my car, as I do not pray to it, nor do I interact with it in any spiritual way. I do not have any evidence my car has any interaction whatsoever with the supernatural, and so operating it requires none from me.
I contend that envisioning my car as part of a circle from god to me and back to god as attempting to imbue a supernatural quality to my car. It's "puttin a little god in the car", if you will. Whether by putting a plastic saint on the dashboard or just saying a little prayer inside.
Objects are inanimate. Envisioning them as part of a supernatural food-chain IS fashioning an idol out of them, in some sense... yes?
Or does it not count as idolotry if you say that all the tiki's you are creating are from the "real" "one and only" god?