Can I be a Christian White Witch?
- Thread starter Ghoulia Yelps
- Start date
[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]
I consider magic to be multifaceted and transcendent. A given act can have a mundane component and an esoteric component at the same time. I believe multiple intents can be stacked onto a single element so that multiple viewpoints see what is useful to them within their own personal dimension.
A parallel could be giving someone a practical gift, such as a pair of shoes when they need a pair of shoes. There can be many symbolic layers attached to this act that go well beyond just giving someone something.
I consider magic to be multifaceted and transcendent. A given act can have a mundane component and an esoteric component at the same time. I believe multiple intents can be stacked onto a single element so that multiple viewpoints see what is useful to them within their own personal dimension.
A parallel could be giving someone a practical gift, such as a pair of shoes when they need a pair of shoes. There can be many symbolic layers attached to this act that go well beyond just giving someone something.
True. It was quite difficult to be as concise as I could be, but I do mean to imply that this relationship is entirely dynamic. Remember, the relationship (ratio) of a circle's diameter to its circumference is an irrational, transcendental number. Also, I thought about editing and expanding on what I mean when I say 'environment.' That one's mythos is akin to their worldview. Their internal representation of their universe throughout time and beyond (alternate dimensions/afterlife/etc.)
Yeah. I'm just speaking from the perspective of a chaos magician which is all about adaptation and shifting paradigms to what is useful. We make our own systems.
Nothing says that we cannot magically bake pies or something while involving a ritualistic element. I actually do have the idea of practical magic. It could be similar to steganography or anything else.
There's no rule that says magic rituals must not also create a mundane product at the same time.
I know and I agree. I was just pointing out that distinction isn't necessarily as applicable as some like to believe it is. Me, personally, I find scientific methods and probability theory to be forms of divination and mythmaking despite divination typically being defined in 'supernatural' terms making a distinction between natural and supernatural methods of apprehending future events.
Laypeople tend to believe myths to be synonymous with sacred, yet fictional stories which is not the academic definition. Myths are those stories that any particular society believes to be true and sacred. The big bang theory is thusly also a myth which holds explanatory power.
I think for practical purposes, the kinds of rules studied by the physical sciences, the "laws of nature/physics" should be excluded from the description of witchcraft and left simply as science, or superstition: televisions and other technology, as well as certain natural phenomena may seem magical in certain cultures, but this is from an attempt to integrate what has not yet been described/understood. This is not to deny that there is something "magical" about many things, but this arises from a lack of scientific knowledge, rather than the possession of some actual knowledge. The "hidden knowledge" trait of witchcraft, could be applied to any western visitor making first contact with an isolated tribe, giving rise to superstitious beliefs about the technology/knowledge that individual possesses. I'm going to run with the assumption that meaning emerges from knowledge, so that the meaning a tourist gives to a smartphone is very different from what a tribesman would, on account of different knowledge.
I think witchcraft as a subject, should be limited to "knowledge" outside what is knowable by the physical sciences. In order to deal with "real magic/witchcraft" the claim of esoteric knowledge (outside the sciences) is a prerequisite.
Even such esoteric/hidden knowledge needs to be distinguished according to source claims. The original question was about Christian/witch possibilities. Christians claim hidden knowledge revealed by God (the Trinity, etc.) as well as a lot of knowledge from God, which would have been knowable anyway (morals, etc.). What is the knowledge source claim of witches?
Cursed/blessed/spell objects. Is an aspect of witchcraft about attaching meaning to objects, by associating them with a claim of esoteric knowledge? That a pair of shoes, an ordinary understandable object, has an element of un-understandable introduced to it in a way that cannot be verified, thus making the receiver attach a significantly sense of meaning/value to the otherwise run-of-the-mill object? A kind of ancient branding (before nike made plastic shoes more special)?
Pray tell which category do your Catholic beliefs fall under? Science or superstition?
Neither. Superstition is about trying to make attributions about the causes of inexplicable events, which eventually are shown to be unrelated. Science is about explaining events based on evidence, or principles derived from evidence.
Catholic beliefs are not about the cause of events, but about the cause of existence.
Nobody holds their own true beliefs to be superstition nor do they not believe in evidence. What constitutes acceptable evidence is subjective. You, for example, believe in the true account of the Bible and its passages to be evidence of said truth. The cause of existence is still a causal event. Whether it be the big bang theory or a creator deity and how each validates those views with what they accept as evidence is not much of a distinction.
First of all, I'm Catholic, not protestant, so the Bible is considered a record of revelation, not the sole source thereof. Things like evolution, or any other scientific theory are acceptable. So any and every valid scientific conclusion is acceptable and integrates - there's no substituting Bible passages for scientific facts going on here. Scientific evidence is a must for any observable phenomena. That does not preclude the possibility of observable phenomena, which has no physical cause - but such things are treated with skepticism, and on very rare occasions conceded to be miracles.
Ultimately the attribution of the cause of existence is always a belief. Science only deals with physical causes, but obviously physical causes cannot generate new matter/energy/forces, but can only modify/influence them. The best science can give us is what kind of pre-existing existence could give rise to the type of existence we see in the physical universe. There are a plethora of theories about the origins of the the big-bang, but these are speculative - and even then, the origin of the big-bang's existence could never be verified, let alone observed/measured/etc. When it comes to existence (and I am not limiting it to the existence of this universe, for there may be many quite unlike our own), one either believes such existence is eternal, or caused by some other eternal existence. Believing one theory, or another is simply a matter of choice, because there is no actual observable evidence, other than the universe itself.
Catholics believe (in the correct sense of believe - ie. without irrefutable evidence) that our existence was caused by a non-physical, eternal, conscious existence - ie. by God.
I know you're Catholic. I didn't mean to imply that the two were mutually exclusive. I've actually been having this extended discussion with you in order for you to, hopefully, see that there is a great deal of overlap between different cultural and ideological traditions.
Of course there is overlap. Whether one can be a witch and a christian isn't a matter of similarities, but whether differences make the two mutually, or unilaterally exclusive.
I like this. Not sure about any differences between witchcraft, magic, or alchemy. Intent is a biggie, if I don't miss my guess. Also what is important. (after a lot of the dross falls away at least)
All Traditions have their Mystical Pathways. People should not look down on the Mystical Pathways of Traditions that are unfamiliar to them.
You can be a person who follows the Bible. I am not a student of the Bible, but I know that there are parts of the Bible that provide instructions on behaviours that are unacceptable according to God; or at least, instructions of degrees of acceptability on aspects of life that have been Handed to Prophets who Transcribed the Bible from God. Ask yourself, are you following these expectations that are provided in the Bible to the letter? When preparing to judge others who follow the Bible to the best of their own intentions and abilities, within the callings of various Traditions that they belong to, are you certain that you are personally following the Bible to every expectation that It provides?
If not, you are not complying with the Bible, you are interpreting the Bible. You are selecting parts that are relevant to you and following those parts, and that is not observation, it is interpretation. Others aren't Perfect and neither are you. Only God is Perfect. Hir Book is Received through human hands, and human hands are flawed. Are you judging others according to their compliance with the Bible? You can look at others, but you should look at your self first.
You can be a person who follows the Bible. I am not a student of the Bible, but I know that there are parts of the Bible that provide instructions on behaviours that are unacceptable according to God; or at least, instructions of degrees of acceptability on aspects of life that have been Handed to Prophets who Transcribed the Bible from God. Ask yourself, are you following these expectations that are provided in the Bible to the letter? When preparing to judge others who follow the Bible to the best of their own intentions and abilities, within the callings of various Traditions that they belong to, are you certain that you are personally following the Bible to every expectation that It provides?
If not, you are not complying with the Bible, you are interpreting the Bible. You are selecting parts that are relevant to you and following those parts, and that is not observation, it is interpretation. Others aren't Perfect and neither are you. Only God is Perfect. Hir Book is Received through human hands, and human hands are flawed. Are you judging others according to their compliance with the Bible? You can look at others, but you should look at your self first.
Last edited:
What a weird thread to dig up, with an even weirder reply to it.