Then I guess I am unfamiliar with the definition of “magick”. My mistake.
Hmmm, no definition listed for that one. Closest match I’ve found is
MAGIK
MAGIK: in Acronym Finder
Probably not what “they” are referring to either. Anyone want to help out?
I know, I’m not Polycarp. But I think his explanation in his last paragraph was positively excellent. If you believe in magick or the divine, you’ll see it. If you don’t, you won’t. And as you said, that does not make your life meaningless. We just all see things differently.
Sorry for length, but I’ve gotta finish painting my bathroom, and didn’t want to leave w/o addressing a few of these excellent points.
JDeMobray said “Words have meaning…Other definitions or interpretations of the word, used within the framework of a conversation in
English, only confuse the issue.”
This is an excellent point, and I apologize for my use of the words magick, miraculous, etc. in a sense which is somewhat outside of the traditional meaning. In my defense, I would like to point out that language usage is fairly fluid (think of words whose current, popular meanings have changed over years, such as “cool”, “gay”, or “liberal”). Furthermore, my use of the word miraculous is an attempt to retain a sense of wonder and reverence while accepting concepts such as science and natural laws. However, a debate may not be the best place to use a term outside of its standard, recognized meaning, so forgive me for that. Actually, I rather like Lemur’s word, wakalixies.
Lemur said, "‘Everything is divine and everything is magickal’
See, that's what I can't understand. How is it helpful to say this?"
I tried to answer that in my previous post, as I believe Sqrl and Polycarp also did. It is helpful to me to remind me of the essential coolness of the universe. But, as JDM pointed out, that’s maybe not so helpful in a debate.
Lemur: “I hold that there is nothing magickal about life, it is
made of ordinary matter arranged in extraordinary ways.” By your own argument, extraordinary appears to be equally meaningless a term. What could be extra-ordinary within a perfectly ordered and lawful universe? However, to nitpick at your choice of words is to rob your statement of its wonderful impact. The clever juxaposition of ordinary and extraordinary convey your meaning in a consise and mermorable way. I’m hoping to be consise when I grow up. 
Polycarp, thank you. The chief miracle in my life is our daughter, and I fully intend to continue to use that word to describe her. I know babies don’t come from the cabbage patch or the stork, but I think they are pretty amazing nonetheless. 
I am also hoping to be able to spell concise when I grow up. I am not posting anything else until I figure out the quote button and how to edit my posts. Promise.
Don’t worry too much about spelling. I think most everybody makes tipos from time to tyme. 
Anyway, I apologize also if I came off sounding too harsh in either of my posts. My point is simply that to most people the term “magic”, regardless of spelling, implies the existence of forces or energies not bound by natural law.
I have absolutely no problem recognizing how someone could find the existence of life, the birth of their children, or something as mundane as a smooth rock to be wonderous. I simply think that to use the term “magic” with reference to amazingly simple, yet complex, natural phenomena is a gross misstatement.
First off, the definitions. If I use the definitions supplied for “magic” with the term “magick” I would equate them mostly with the following definitions: N. 4.A mysterious quality of enchantment. and ADJ. 2.Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
I would have to say that the noun definition is closer to what I have been talking about and the adjective definition is too constrictive. Also, the enchantment described in the noun description would better fit with the word “wonderment” as enchantment implies a non-natural phenomena that I find more akin to cinematic magic.
A very quick comparison of science and magick shows that they are compatible in my beliefs. Science is the way we explain the natural forces in nature and magick is the wonderment we express in regards to those forces. There is a major difference in the two and they don’t contradict eachother in anyway that I am aware of.
Lemur said, “We take in dead carbon atoms every day, they become part of our bodies, we excrete them. They were not transformed by being part of our bodies, there is no vital essence. That does not mean that life does not exist, it means that life is a natural process, not a supernatural one.”
And you don’t find it magickal that dead carbon atoms becoming part of ourselves is magickal? It is a natural process of life as you state earlier but the process on the whole is wonderfully full of excitement and awe. I mean life as a whole being able to simply exist out of a bunch of inanimate atoms that somehow formed together and became self sufficient is miraculous to me in itself. Now that to me, my friend, seems like divinity.
Sure, it can be explained scientifically, I know, but if I ever lose that sense of wonder about life then I know that my time here would lose its meaning. The universe is wonderfully complex and self sufficient. I also find that magickal which brings me into when you said, “By defintion I exclude supernatural phenomena from the universe. If they are part of the universe, they are natural. We may not understand the universe, but I believe it is knowable. Why? Because we animals already understand enough about the universe to stay alive. If the universe really were unknowable, how could we decide what we needed to do to stay alive? We couldn’t tell if we should eat food or rocks, if we should touch the hot stove or not. So we are inescabably lead to the conclusion that the universe is at least partially knowable. So when you have a phenomena that you say is supernatural, I disagree, it is either natural or illusionary.”
Personally, I believe only in the natural. The supernatural as the common definition for that word is laid out is simply a set of natural occurences that occur alone or together for various predicted or unpredicted consequences. I never said that the universe is unknowable I said that the universe is magickal. The universe produces awe and reverence in myself but can be entirely knowable if only as we can collectively know it. (I don’t believe one person can simply know everything, that is omnipotence and even the gods I worship are not omnipotent.) I don’t really know where you got into a supernatural discussion because magick in my eyes is not supernatural, it just is and doesn’t refer to anything that you would term supernatural. I suppose awe and wonderment would fit the definition well enough. I have found the definition of magical thanks to dictionary.com as the following:
mag·i·cal (mj-kl)
adj.
1.Of, relating to, or produced by magic.
2. Enchanting; bewitching: a magical performance of the ballet.
and now for enchanting
en·chant (n-chnt)
v. tr. en·chant·ed, en·chant·ing, en·chants.
Now, the second definition is the most accurate to what I refer to. Where enchanting and bewitching both follow the second definition of enchant. You see, I see the universe as wholly fulfilling. It captures my attention and screams out to me to exist and observe it. Now, that seems to even follow the traditional terms of “magic” and “enchanting” without a mention of the word supernatural. So in the future, please don’t try to put words into my mouth or the other posters here who seem to be stating things pretty simply.
Lemur said, “If you want to say that you have awe and humility in the face of the immensity and complexity of the universe, why not say that?”
Because one word suffices for all that. Why would you rather type 16 extra words when one will do? When I was studying writing every teacher I had ever had said that the simplest way of saying anything is always the best assuming you are working from a common set of vocabulary. We have pretty much explained the definition to follow and showed the applications of that definition, yet you seem to not actually read that far. Can we explain it any clearer for you as it seems to be just you that has misinterpretted and misunderstood them? I will be happy to explain them further to you if you wish.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Beautiful, Sqrl. And I tend to agree, in particular as regards “the supernatural” – which in essence is why I posted Clarke’s Third Law to this thread. My only comment is that we do differ on whether there is one omnipotent/omniscient Being, but oh, well…
Lemur, I was stating extremes, not alleging that “anyone who doesn’t ‘believe’ in some ‘supernatural’ metaphysic is coldly mechanical” – you, slythe, and others see a universe that operates according to physical law with no superadded spirit, and can live a quite happy and fulfilled life doing so. I have mechanical equipment which works quite well, and does precisely what I command it to do, using the appropriate tools. My CD player, my car, my computer… But I would suggest that you, Sqrl, LaMaxwell, and others operate on a heuristic system that is not purely mechanical, that I can use “fuzzy” instructions to Sqrl, for example, and he will comprehend them, as my machinery will not. And I see something more to the universe as a whole. To continue the computer metaphor, we can both run the same applications, but the pagans and the theists see additional aspects of the Operating System that the “mechanists” do not.
Two puns to close this out on a light note:
LaMaxwell commented on “the essential coolness of the universe” – yeah, 2.7 K IIRC, definitely very cool!
And when discussing the idea of ceremonial Magick with friends, one of them broke into “The old grimoire, it ain’t what it used to be!”
I’ve got to disagree with this notion that you can only see things in a theistic/magickal way if you already see things in a theistic/magickal way.
If you think that then you acknowledge that I can never experience what you consider to be the most important fact about the universe…that god/YHVH/magick exists. This is like saying that I will never believe in the laws of gravity unless I already believe in the laws of gravity. I’ll only believe OJ is 100% not guilty if I already believe that OJ is 100% not guilty. I’ll only believe in leprechauns if I approach the universe leprechaunistically. No. I submit that if god really exists, it is possible for me to come to that realization even though I approach the universe naturalistically. I do not believe that I will come to the realization that god exists, but it is a logical possiblity. This idea in effect accuses me of intellectual dishonesty…that I would be unable to recognize the truth when it is presented to me. I believe I am not intellectually dishonest. If you think otherwise, please feel free to explain why.
And Sqrl’s idea that the concept of magick is a more concise/precise way of expressing yourself. No, it is not. It is shorter but it is not more precise, since it took you several paragraphs over several days to explain that you really did mean: “A sense of awe and humility in the face of the immensity and complexity of the universe”, rather than the idea that you can manipulate the universe through certain rituals, or that the universe has a personality, or that sticking pins in a doll representing a person will cause that person harm, or that there is an extra-material component to human consciousness. I still don’t understand what you mean by magick, since you say that you believe in “gods”, and I am unable to reconcile that with our observations of the universe. Oh, I won’t believe in gods unless I already believe in gods? Ummm…I don’t think so. At least I have some idea of what Polycarp is talking about when he talks about “God”, since he seems to be using a pretty common definition of the word, albeit subtly different than, say, FoG’s definition. But because animism/pantheism isn’t worked out, there are no “schools of thought”, there really is no way you can describe what you mean in one or two words.
The goal of using words is to communicate ideas, right? I contend that using a poorly defined, connotation-laden word like “magic” or “magick” is a recipe for confounded communication. And even if we agree to define the word in the way you do, I still disagree, since I don’t feel that the universe acts that way. And I think that this view of the universe is also pernicious, it is harmful, it is shallow, it reduces the universe to human dimensions.
Can you try to understand for a minute why I used the term blasphemy? I was trying to explain why this view of the universe was so wrong, why I would fight so hard against it. Not just that it is wrong, but that…well, that it is spiritually impoverishing. It is an attempt to pretend in a safe, comfortable, human-scale universe, when we can see that the universe is both temporally and spatially immense, that it operates by rules that are completely unfamiliar on our human scale. I would hold that a magickal view of the universe is so limiting, so small, so petty compared to what the scientific view of the universe has revealed.
Can you understand why I would think that? I’m willing to keep going…
Sorry to jump in so late, and with a nitpick to boot, but I have a minor correction for DanielITWD. You said:
Not according to my copy of the ol’ Oxford English Dictionary. There’s a reference to “witch” (actually “wiccan,” pronounced “wee-chahn” or “wee-choon”) as early as 890 AD.
Wow this thread has sure mutated. Maybe we should all take it outside? (i.e. to a different thread with a more appropriate topic).
Anyway, to Sqrl and Poly, I have absolutely no problem finding awe and majesty in the universe. The human eye is one of the single most beautiful and wonderous examples of the way that the universe has happened to work itself out.
However, I would still hesitate to use the word “magick” to describe my feelings. It seems (given that it happened to me and to Lemur) that “magic” or any variation on the word carries certain connotations (like the 1N definition) and linguistic baggage that might confuse or mislead some (admittedly not to bright) people
I apologize again if I seemed to be trying to put words in your mouth, more like I was just putting the wrong words in my own ears.
'Did he just say he could heal my wounds by sticking pins in a doll on midninght of midsummers eve? Loony! >:( ’
If you read the rest of the entry, it goes on to say the actual word “witch” came into use about 1500. True, the oldenglish word “wicce/wiccan” is a root word of “witch”, but the two have somwhat different meanings. If you saw my earlier posts on this, I have mentioned this before.
Lemur, “And Sqrl’s idea that the concept of magick is a more concise/precise way of expressing yourself. No, it is not. It is shorter but it is not more precise, since it took you several paragraphs over several days to explain that you really did mean:…”
Actually it is exactly precise. The fact that you are not involved in my faith and prefer to be deliberately obtuse about it made it take several postings and explanations to no end. Actually, if you don’t understand it by now I have doubts that you ever will. Even the normal definitions of magic include synonyms to words basically meaning fascinating and since that is the common definitions you must believe only one definition for any given word is not only the norm but the only way a word can be defined. I say deliberately obtuse. I believe every other person who has read this thread has been able to follow my defining of the word magick and how I see it in the universe except you, even JDeMobray and Ptahlis. JD and Ptahlis may not agree with it, nor would I care if he did, but at least they are able to understand the way I have defined it. In a Coven or Grove (or any various Pagan group) calling it magick may have many different meanings; however, this one aspect of magick that I have defined seems to have the universal connotations I described. I can say magick and everyone in the Pagan group I am with will know precisely what I mean. I don’t have to jump around semantically like I do with you and thus it is more precise.
“A sense of awe and humility in the face of the immensity and complexity of the universe”, rather than the idea that you can manipulate the universe through certain rituals,…"
Actually that is spellwork. Although I believe in spellwork too, it still doesn’t work like you are purporting. Spellwork is also magickal but it is quite natural and is more akin to praying. I have explained this before too but again you remain deliberately obtuse. A spell is simply a declaration of intent or want with an intent to follow through with the intention or want. There is nothing else involved in it. Very simple and straightforward. There is no supernatural effect in it according to your definition. No shooting fireballs or turning people into toads. That is cinematic magick and I don’t believe in that. I don’t know how many times I have to explain that difference to you but you should read my earlier post where I describe the three types of magic(k) that are commonly around. It would be enlightening and even MAGICKAL if you could comprehend what was said. At this point, I doubt it though.
“…or that the universe has a personality, or that sticking pins in a doll representing a person will cause that person harm, or that there is an extra-material component to human consciousness…”
Actually voodoo dolls were an invention of the movies. We discussed this somewhere else here when the Voudoun faith came up. Voudoun from my reading does have dolls but they don’t believe that you can affect another person with them unless that person practicing Voudoun believes what the movies tell them rather than what the faith actually dictates. In Africa, “Voodoo Dolls” simply represent family members or children that the person has lost. They treat them like… get this… dolls. I can’t vouch for their internal beliefs as I have only ever met a few Voudoun practitioners. Of the ones I have met they have universally said that Voodoo dolls in the cinematic sense don’t exist. They continue to make them though for the Rubes out there who believe that their purpose is to affect the lives of others as the cinematic “Voodoo magic” would have the Rubes believe. The dolls sell well to the Rubes, thus they are still made.
“I still don’t understand what you mean by magick, since you say that you believe in “gods”, and I am unable to reconcile that with our observations of the universe…”
Another deliberately obtuse statement. I am not surprised by this point. My faith in the simplest terms is nature. Aspects of nature are given human characteristics but in the simplest form they don’t need to have them. My gods are trees, dirt, water, fire, various emotions, archetypical acts, etc. They are not all knowing. They only effect life in the way they always do. Most people don’t even consider them gods but it doesn’t matter. My belief in gods and magick are not necessarily synonomous as I know many pagans who don’t believe in gods but practice magick or those who don’t believe in magick yet worship gods. The gods are like spellwork. They help to personalize the spell. In other words when a pagan sets out his/her intent or want it is easier to say what you want to a name rather than saying “I am going to do well on my exam today” we would say, “Mom, I am going to do well on my exam today.” This would mean that we would have to study as spells require work on our part since they don’t contain any supernatural influences as you insist that we believe. Do you see the difference? Personalizing it with a god-archetype gives it more meaning. In the example above it is the difference between wanting to do something and telling someone you are going to do it. If you don’t follow through with it, the only person you are lying to is yourself in both cases; however, in the second case it has the feeling (you know, those intangible things that happen when good or bad things happen to you… you probably don’t since you don’t believe in things that are intangible) that you are letting down more than one person so following through is more important.
“Oh, I won’t believe in gods unless I already believe in gods? Ummm…I don’t think so. At least I have some idea of what Polycarp is talking about when he talks about “God”, since he seems to be using a pretty common definition of the word, albeit subtly different than, say, FoG’s definition.”
That is because you were brought up in a Christian society. Pagans have many different beliefs but for the most part gods work similar to how I stated in the previous paragraph that I wrote.
“…But because animism/pantheism isn’t worked out, there are no “schools of thought”, there really is no way you can describe what you mean in one or two words.”
That is because, again, you are deliberately obtuse. Paganism/animism/pantheism is worked out perfectly enough for our own use and has a common set of definitions as any school of thought does. I have only ever had a problem explaining my faith to hardcore fundamentalists who believe I worship the devil and you. Magick is always understood as magick with my pagan friends. Most of my athiest and even Christian friends no exactly what I mean as well. If they don’t they are able to listen and comprehend my explanations of what they are and don’t ignore what I say nor do they put words in my mouth. For you, I have described the common set of vocabulary used amongst pagans with a common set of definitions. It doesn’t matter if you believe them or not. I would rather you leave understanding the thought process involved and knowing a little about the world but if you don’t bother trying to comprehend there really is no point. I may as well talk to the wall for all the comprehension that is there.
“The goal of using words is to communicate ideas, right? I contend that using a poorly defined, connotation-laden word like “magic” or “magick” is a recipe for confounded communication.”
It is only a weighted word to those who don’t care to learn about it. As stated numerous times before, in Pagan groups, the definition is pretty well defined and we know what we mean when we talk about magick. The confounded communication that you speak of is only present in those that don’t or won’t learn the simple definitions that are common in the everyday usage as the dictionary was so kind to point out they don’t really even change meaning when used in the Pagan sense of the words. Tough concept, huh? You seem to be the only person really confused about this topic. Again, you have to read and COMPREHEND what you read.
“…And even if we agree to define the word in the way you do…”
It is defined by the dictionary not me. I just tried to give you more insight.
“…I still disagree, since I don’t feel that the universe acts that way…”
Wow, you don’t believe the universe works on natural methods. You don’t think nature takes care of itself. That plants grow and feed themselves through chlorophyll? You don’t believe that we have to eat to survive? You don’t believe that procreation propogates the species? That is pretty much the animistic belief. We see those acts as natural. We see that is how the universe acts.
“…And I think that this view of the universe is also pernicious, it is harmful, it is shallow, it reduces the universe to human dimensions.”
And you contradict yourself. I believe it was you who said that the universe is knowable. I believe that you were referring to humans when you said that too. If the universe wasn’t knowable than it wouldn’t be reduced to the human dimension.
“Can you try to understand for a minute why I used the term blasphemy? I was trying to explain why this view of the universe was so wrong, why I would fight so hard against it. Not just that it is wrong, but that…well, that it is spiritually impoverishing.”
Wow, how incredibly offensive. You said I don’t agree with your ideas so I will work to destroy them because they are evil. Spiritually impoverishing sure sounds like a synonym for sinning (evil) to me. It looks like your Christian (no offense to those Christians who are not Fire and Brimstone Christians) roots are showing.
“…It is an attempt to pretend in a safe, comfortable, human-scale universe, when we can see that the universe is both temporally and spatially immense, that it operates by rules that are completely unfamiliar on our human scale.”
Actually, it doesn’t put the universe on the human scale. You just put those words into my mouth. It doesn’t even put the universe on a universal scale. It simply puts ourselves into a seat of responsibility. We are responsible for our actions and since we can really on affect situations with ourselves then that is what we should do to make life better for the living things that we are involved with (currently on our planet… in the future it may spread to others…but that is speculation). It does not mean we don’t think universally. You put words into my mouth yet again. Read and comprehend…read and comprehend.
“I would hold that a magickal view of the universe is so limiting, so small, so petty compared to what the scientific view of the universe has revealed.”
Again you don’t understand the magickal view of the universe. Magick encompasses science. I believe in science and magick and science can work together. Read and comprehend and you would know that. Magick is finding the world enchanting and science is defining the world. Magick doesn’t attempt to define it is just the fascination with the world. Following all my defining for you, one would think I would be a great scientist with a very poor student. Anyway, with my definitions a scienteist would see the world as magickal and would then try to define the world with some basic principles. It is not limiting at all, you just choose to see it that way.
“Can you understand why I would think that? I’m willing to keep going…”
I can see why you think that, but only because I see that you don’t choose to read and comprehend simple concepts. If you read anything above ever (which is doubtful that you did since the basics of understanding have not been there when they were pretty evident to everyone else), you would be able to see an encompassing view of the world and the universe without leaving out the process of science or individual responsibility. Then we choose to focus on the responsibility in order to make the world a better place for life in general (includes ourselves and nature). If you don’t like the concept of people taking an active role in making life better for everyone then be my guest. It is a differing philosophical standpoint but nonetheless valid.
JDMobray said, “…However, I would still hesitate to use the word “magick” to describe my feelings. It seems (given that it happened to me and to Lemur) that “magic” or any variation on the word carries certain connotations (like the 1N definition) and linguistic baggage that might confuse or mislead some (admittedly not to bright) people…”
Finally, one who reads and comprehends. You may not choose to describe things that way but you can see the process and ideas behind it. The confusion is not evident in a group of Pagans just so you know. It is part of our common vocabulary. The problems come up, as is evident, when we have to describe what we think with our common vocabulary and the other person (or people) insist on using their definitions rather than the ones we supply. I suppose that it is a form of pagan lingo. Specific definitions for words are different for various people. Change the TCP/IP setting makes sense if you are computer savvy. Tricking means a different thing to a gay person than it does to a prostitute. Along that line fag means a different thing when said by a gay person to another gay person than when a straight person says it to a gay person or another straight person. The definitions are bound to change. That is one reason why pagans started including the K at the end of the word magick to help dispell some of those wrong connotations.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Professor McGonagall and Hermione Granger, both witches in the estimable Harry Potter novels by J.K. Rowling, are both models of nobility and rectitude.
Isn’t anyone going to bring up Simon Magi, from Acts?
Is anyone going to tell me why I think his last name is Magi even though that isn’t in the text?
Sqrl, to be totally fair, I don’t think Lemur is being deliberately obtuse. You are investing a series of terms with particular meanings based on a worldview and mindset you share with your co-religionists. (That those meanings are legitimate dictionary definitions doesn’t matter; one is not necessarily sure which definition you are using for each until it is spelled out.) To be totally honest with you, I was at first under the impression that you believed in ceremonial magic(k?) rather than spiritistic naturism with spelling. (Question: Under your worldview does any result occur from your addressing your spelling to a particular entity rather than abstractly or to a person? I.e., in more simplistic terms, does “the tree god grant your will?” (You know I’m not belittling your faith by Disneyifying it in those terms, but I’m having trouble phrasing that in other than your or cinematic-magic language.)
Lemur, would it make more sense if I were to say that you usually find what you look for? God might surprise you and turn up when you expected a physical reaction, but you’re more likely to see the reaction with no sign of Him. On the other hand, I’ll see the reaction, and His hand at work through it. Sqrl would see the reaction, and see it as magical. (In the classic analogy, we all agree on what makes a rainbow happen; we disagree on why – and I of course don’t mean what the proximate causes are!)
Joel, to answer your questions: Except you, no. And I think we’re in agreement that you know better why you think something than anybody else does. Now tell me, what does either simony or pseudo-Mazdean ceremonial magic, whether believed in or faked by the performer thereof, have to do with the topic at hand?
Polycarp, “…(That those meanings are legitimate dictionary definitions doesn’t matter; one is not necessarily sure which definition you are using for each until it is spelled out.)”
Actually I spelled it out several times. That is why I think he was being obtuse.
“To be totally honest with you, I was at first under the impression that you believed in ceremonial magic(k?) rather than spiritistic naturism with spelling…the tree god grant your will?..”
I do believe in ceremonial magick. It just doesn’t work like cinematic magick. I thought I explained it above with my spellwork synopsis. The invoked entity does not grant any powers. It is just like a being that I feel responsible towards in order to complete my will. In my example, it is like telling someone you trust that you will do something rather than just yourself thus givng you more responsibility to follow through. I wouldn’t tell my mother something I didn’t mean nor would I tell my gods something I don’t mean. In a humanistic sense, I find that the gods are in a large part of myself but on an archetypical level. They are parts of myself that I wouldn’t lie to thus in spellwork invoking them puts a higher priority on completion of said wants or needs.
HUGS!
Sqrl
I think the topic is:
Why Christians think non-Christian magic doers are evil?
Simon what’s-his-last-name would seem to be an example which dates much further back than 15th century for the word ‘witch’ to come into being. There is also the burning of books on magic in Acts 19.
Well, follow your bliss, Sqrl!
Or to put it in other terms:
Okay Sqrl, I have read your discourses on magick, and I think I have a feel for what you mean by it. There are things I am still wondering about paganism though if you would be so good as to explain them to me. What are the main beliefs regarding the afterlife, if there is one, among pagans? If spells are personal calls to action rather than a supplication of external power, is paganism more a philosophical outlook than a religion? What I mean is, how are the pagans’ spells different from, say, affirmation and action ideas found in positive thinking type self-help books? I guess the question at the foundation of what I am trying to get at is: Where is the supernatural in paganism? “Magick” seemed to be the answer before, but it certainly isn’t by the definitions you supplied. So now I’m left looking at what seems to be a religion that doesn’t look beyond the bounds of materialism.
I realize you cannot be the Official Pagan Spokesman, and I realize that there are probably many who fervently believe in cinematic type spells, at least as far as curses and charms and divination go. But in your particular version, what is the extra added into your worldview that an atheist, such as I, would generally find unacceptable?
IMHO, most Christians think magic use is inherently evil becuase they have been told to interpret the Bible that way. However, the verse in the old testament about not suffering a witch to live has been explained already in this thread, I believe. On the subject of Simon, the Apostles told him off because he assumed that they were using somekind of magical technique that he could buy off him, rather than a power beyond themselves.
As far as I can tell, from a Christian perspective, before the fall of man, magic was how Adam did everything. Magic is the natural result when a being has both a physical and spiritual self. However, when man decided to go his own way, his soul was ruled by the body, rather than the spirit. Therefore, if magic requires force of will, and the will is blown all over the place by appetites and emotions, rather than controlling those things, than we have a sverly deminished ability to perform magic. Thus after the fall, everything had to be done by the sweat of the brow.
As far as I am aware, the Jewish people actually had a very powerful magic system, called the Caballa, or something. Again, however, a lot of effort had to be undertaken in the form of rituals and medidation, in order to acheive anything by force of will i.e. magic.
What is ironic, in my veiw, is that the church as a whole has been so careful not to learn anything that had the appearence of magic, that now it is used routinely in a number of churches, but no-one realises they’re doing it.
Any clued up Wiccan could probably pick out how this is happening in any fundy type service. Especially the worship time.
Nevertheless, I would maintain that there is a strong difference between human magic, and the move of the holy spirit, even if they are both happening at the same time.
The main difference being the order of magnitude of power involved.