Belief of Magic, Magik, Majic, Majik?

Post Reply New Topic

So if the Bible is approximately correct but not literally so, then we can read passages about 'demons' to mean problems, no need to literally believe in ghosts that attach to someone to cause physical and mental disease? And we can read the '7 days' in Genesis to refer to seven stages or epochs, which could have taken billions of years (during which time evolution could have been a mechanism by which part of creation occurred)?

Last edited by monty on 28 Jul 2008, 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think this is what paranormal advocates have the greatest difficulty accepting. I remember seeing a clip on Youtube about James Randi, who was about to investigate some guy in Australia who claimed to control the weather, being interviewed by a reporter.

The reporter asked Randi whether he would feel all his previous work was a waste if the claimant did turn out to have paranormal abilities.

Randi replied that no, while he doubted it would happen (based on experience), he would be delighted to find a real example of paranormal abilities that could be studied. His history of weeding out the fakes would only improve the credibility of a claimant who managed to convince him.

The reporter looked quite disappointed. News is not based on facts - it's based on stories. Good stories revolve around conflict. And there was Randi, diluting the conflict by being polite and reasonable

That is what separates the Skeptics from the Cynics. A Skeptic would be delighted to be proven wrong; while a Cynic, if proven wrong, would still find somethng to discredit in order to maintain support for his opinions.

Much of the secular events in the Old Testament have been shown to have happened, or at least be reference to several likely events. The proof that these writings took place PRIOR to the events, and are not just mythological means of explaining natural events has yet to surface.

The bible has two different creation stories for crying out loud. Further, technically it is sin to go to the bathroom.

Feel free to have your own faith, but don't tell us we can't believe the bible is a lie.

"The good of Humanity" is their highest object of devotion. Their moral code is whatever furthers Humanity. Atheism is usually included because the concept of God competes with Humanity for highest position. To give Atheism a rational basis, they promote evolution as an atheist form of genesis. Since it really doesn't, they promote themselves as "scientific" to gloss over the flaws in their genesis evolution theory. Rather than defend the indefensible, they attack anyone who might disagree.

The moral code is vague enough to cause major problems. Both Hitler and Stalin thought what they were doing was for the good of Humanity. Ethnic cleansing and inclusiveness are both considered the good of humanity by some people.

In some of these Humanist causes, the individual aren't worth zip. Bill Clinton sincerely promoted feminist causes and raped women. The communists did too.

The hope that drives them is the thought that they will "live on in history" by their contribution. They forget that Hollywood jerks around the historical record of people until they are mostly unrecognizable. At that point their memory is dead, too. Any impact they make will be quickly swamped out by everyone else trying to leave an impact, no matter how lame.

That's what I saw when I objectively looked at it. I gave up on Humanism even though I didn't have anything better to replace it with. I drank a lot.

More assumptions and lies from the Apostle TimT.

Actually, my universal view does have room for such realms and beings, although neither of them have been demonstrated to actually exist.

Are you a typical Christian? I hope not. I'd be very disappointed to find out that every light and salt of the Earth is nothing more than a presumptuous, self-righteous, character assassin who has nothing better to do than bear false witness against others while wearing a shining raiment that resembles most closely the whitening of a sepulcher.

It's good to see Fnord agrees with the rest of my post.

Actually, that reminds me of the Bible passage: by their fruits shall ye know them. What good is any movement if it doesn't improve the condition of humanity? If a group does good, it is good.



Yes, Bill Clinton falls short of perfect (although affairs between consenting adults is not the same thing as rape). A long list of preachers also fall far short of perfect - shall we use that to judge Christianity? Claiming 'proof of the Holy Spirit' doesn't prove anything - any person is a potential fraud who can act out of personal interest while pretending to be noble.

Why do you constantly dismiss what you don't understand? Let those that can see it, see it and those who can hear it, hear it. I'll wager I am not the first person that has chuckled over your adventures in futility.

Merle

I actually Do understand it, but I honestly regard it as sophistry. But you're right, thats beside the point.
Im rather curious to know WHY you used that quote earlier in this thread when I pointed out that Magick is NOT like chemistry? (because chemistry produces results that can be reproduced and magick does NOT) IF magick has a basis in reality, I dont understand why those who claim to practice it cant be bothered to demonstrate to skeptics what magick can really do. *sigh*

because when it is used for ego gratification, it doesn't work. *sheesh*

Merle

I wanted to give you a fair and considered answer, so I gave this several days of thinking before I sent this. I see you've been busy with other posts. Glad you haven't been waiting with bated breath for my response!

"The good of Humanity" is their highest object of devotion. Their moral code is whatever furthers Humanity. Atheism is usually included because the concept of God competes with Humanity for highest position. To give Atheism a rational basis, they promote evolution as an atheist form of genesis. Since it really doesn't, they promote themselves as "scientific" to gloss over the flaws in their genesis evolution theory. Rather than defend the indefensible, they attack anyone who might disagree.

OK, so your first assumption is that their "god" is the "good of humanity." Your second assumption is that their moral code is based upon the first assumption. Your third assumption is that they are atheists, which contradicts your first assumption. Your fourth assumption is that they are all evolutionists. And your fifth assumption is that they are all always actively on the defensive against other people.

I have a couple of questions here. Do you also believe that one can accept the Theory of Evolution and not be an athiest or an agnostic? How do you define "genesis evolution theory?" And if this extreme left is displeasing to God, then wouldn't the extreme right be just as unacceptable?

The moral code is vague enough to cause major problems. Both Hitler and Stalin thought what they were doing was for the good of Humanity. Ethnic cleansing and inclusiveness are both considered the good of humanity by some people.

Vague moral code: That generally means seeing that the world has moral grey areas, rather than seeing everything in just black and white. OK. Let's consider that with a personal viewpoint. I do not believe we should legislate the pro-life agenda. Instead, I believe that we should educate fully about the pros and cons of all the birth control methods, sterilization methods, and abortion methods in our sex ed classes in high school. All the dangers. All the side effects. Legislatively, I am pro-choice. Personally, I am pro-life. I believe that having an abortion would be wrong, but I can understand and willingly comfort someone who has had to make the hard choice to have one. I am a Christian who acknowledges that the world can sometimes be grey. There are times when it is morally defensible -- cases of incest or rape, the fetus is so ill or malformed that it cannot live, or the mother's life would be seriously at risk. Keep in mind that, with my current stated point, I just gave my mother permission to have had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, because she had been raped, so I realize the possible implications of what I'm saying.

Now, let's look at the black and white version. Abortion would be wrong in any situation. Period. Do you have daughters? What if one were raped and then found herself pregnant? Is the black and white moral code still so perfect?

Let's also consider what I believe to be the most ridiculous conundrum in the pro-life movement. Virtually all pro-lifers are also virulently in favor of capital punishment. Does it make sense to anyone else that one life can be sacred when another life, supposedly equally loved by God, can be considered worthless? And whatever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?" It's just plain contradictory. That seems a lot more vague to me than what many right-wing Christian groups lable "secular Humanist."

I have to argue with you about Hitler and Stalin. Hitler did not believe he was doing his best for the human race. He was a megalomaniac who had dreams of ruling an empire inhabited by tall, blond, blue-eyed, "Aryan" robots catering to his every whim. He had his own good in mind. If he had even had the good of Germany in mind, he would not have bankrupted the country and decimated its population with his insane tactics. Hitler had his own good in mind, not anyone else's. Stalin was much the same. He was poorly educated and extremely insecure when he came into power in a huge empire he had no idea how to run. His plan? Kill everyone he even THOUGHT might oppose him. He didn't have the good of the USSR in mind, just the consolidation of power under HIM.

Ethnic cleansing is never considered to be about the "good of humanity." It is always about the "good of our people." I grew up in a clannish region of the US, and I understand the concept of "our people," but I strongly disapprove of it. Christ didn't come to save the white people, the black people, the oriental people, the red people, the Smiths, the Joneses, the Al-Imans, or any other "our people" group. He came to save the WHOLE world, which sounds a LOT more like humanism than either Stalin or Hitler to me.

In some of these Humanist causes, the individual aren't worth zip. Bill Clinton sincerely promoted feminist causes and raped women. The communists did too.

In some Christian churches they aren't, either. Consider the megachurches, with memberships in the tens of thousands. How in the world can any minister even begin to shepherd a flock that size? There is just NO WAY. But I bet you'd consider those to be just fine. Myself, I'd say they weren't worth zip any more than any other organization or cause that didn't value the human being. After all, aren't we created in the image of God?

As for Bill Clinton, yes, he promoted feminist causes. But consensual sex is not rape, last time I checked. When did he ever get convicted of rape? I know he's been convicted of adultery more than once. Not the best of recommendations, but definitely not the same category as rape. None of us are perfect. My vice? How about vices? I stash WAY more yarn and fabric than I could ever use. I tend to put less necessary projects ahead of the housework. (They're more interesting.) I go from one focus project to another (bipolar obsessions). I can be pushy and opinionated. Ask my husband if you need more... I'm certain he can tell you! I won't tell any of his. It wouldn't be loyal. I joke about it being a good thing he's a woodcarver. That way, it's not a bad thing to go into the basement and find all his vices.

The hope that drives them is the thought that they will "live on in history" by their contribution. They forget that Hollywood jerks around the historical record of people until they are mostly unrecognizable. At that point their memory is dead, too. Any impact they make will be quickly swamped out by everyone else trying to leave an impact, no matter how lame.

Laughably, that seems to be the goal of most of the human race!

That's what I saw when I objectively looked at it. I gave up on Humanism even though I didn't have anything better to replace it with. I drank a lot.

My ASH has pretty much given up on religion entirely. He doesn't "sense" anything outside himself, so it seems pretty pointless to him. What did you drink? I brew mead, but don't drink much. My biological father is a recovering alcoholic, so I don't want to encourage the risk factors. Most of the mead gets given as gifts.

Judith,

I bow to your superior wisdom. - - We are unworthy.

-Fnord

ROFLMAO!! !! !

That's it? That's all you can do to acknowledge your adoring fans? Roll around on the floor laughing until your arse ... OOPS! There it goes!

gawd, Judith, you pwnd the whole thread!

Merle