logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.
no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
You make a good point.
logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.
no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
Isn't witchery a substitute for actually doing something constructive/destructive, based on the superstitious belief that wishing can accomplish, when one is not willing to accomplish?
i don't think it works that way.
logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.
no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
What are you suggesting instead? I'm not claiming that my faith would appear logical to someone who doesn't share it. My first three statements (and the 7th as well) are assumptions that I knowingly accept, based on a particular interpretation of the Bible, and my personal faith. I am not asking anyone to accept these assumptions. I'm suggesting that if you do accept them, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If you don't agree with my premises, then nothing I said would hold much weight.
The second part of your statement is certainly true, but I don't see how that conflicts with what I said.
I'm not suggesting anything instead. I'm not even suggesting that things to do with being a witch would necessarily be supernatural rather than natural - I have no idea how they would be for any particular person choosing to believe one thing or another. All I'm suggesting is that faith is not logical, but a matter of belief and interpretation - so when you say that one belief is incongruent with a "fundamental" form of some other belief, I find the word "fundamental" difficult to really understand - it seems fluid and unstable. But now that you have pointed it out, I can see how these things that I'm thinking are not relevant to what you were saying.
I'm sorry, but I have a background in a discipline of textual scholarship that views the particular holy book we are discussing as a sort of editorial chaos, and I have read hardly any of it myself, so it is really difficult for me to understand where you're coming from. I sort of get it, but I think it's just really difficult for me to think about and discuss due to the prejudices of my background.
logic is probably not the most appropriate means of measuring articles of faith.
no religious person observes what their chosen holy book says, they observe their interpretations of what it says.
I mostly agree with this statement. I believe that for religion to hold truth and be real to an individual it must circumvent rationality.
A creed or a dogma is more apt to hold a rational or logical path and that is what is commonly referred to as "religion"
But "religious" is an experience, highly subjective, and almost ineffable.
Groups will agree on aspects but once it becomes dogmatized it absolutely looses some (if not all ) of its reality.
of course this calls to mind the Freudian axiom that a neurosis is a religion that is followed by one person.
I mostly agree with this statement. I believe that for religion to hold truth and be real to an individual it must circumvent rationality.
A creed or a dogma is more apt to hold a rational or logical path and that is what is commonly referred to as "religion"
But "religious" is an experience, highly subjective, and almost ineffable.
Groups will agree on aspects but once it becomes dogmatized it absolutely looses some (if not all ) of its reality.
of course this calls to mind the Freudian axiom that a neurosis is a religion that is followed by one person.
Sounds like prayer OH SNAP
Prayer is about disposing oneself to receive the blessing of God; "magic" is about other things. Plus, a big difference is that prayer is directed to God - but magic/witchery is directed to other beings, whose benignity isn't guaranteed.
I'm not just being cantankerous, or objecting for the sake of objecting. If someone believes in this stuff, I don't think it's wrong to caution that they don't inadvertently open themselves up to demonic possession/obsession.
Maybe that's what you think you're doing now but it really looks like you've totally changed your story.
How?
Isn't witchery a substitute for actually doing something constructive/destructive, based on the superstitious belief that wishing can accomplish, when one is not willing to accomplish?
Your very own words is how.
That comes across as your main concern. Your warning seems just kind of tacked on to that.
It's also the same warning that I've given before and the reason I don't tell people how to do things. The difference is that I don't feel you legitimately know or care about the dangers, I think you're just saying it to spook people.
I don't see how I've changed what I'm saying.
Witchery is for people who aren't willing to involve themselves in real change - instead they want to do a bit of hocus-pocus from a back-room. Whether this refrain from actually doing something constructive/helpful themselves is because of laziness, fear of involvement, some sort of smug satisfaction at what is akin to remote manipulation, etc. I don't know.
However, having encountered a small number of people who seem to have been possessed/obsessed, I think it imperative that anyone who considers going in for this bullshit, ought to be familiar with its dangers. If you want to know about the particular individuals I've just referred to, PM me, I won't discuss it in detail on the open forum.
So you're admitting that you don't really know what you're talking about and are just lashing out in ignorance. Ok.