What is the occult?

tosca1 · Jul 11, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Well, various magical practices are described in the Bible, but with mixed moral valences attached. For example, the prophet Samuel used the Urim and Thumim as a means of divination. Similarly, the High Priest of Israel would cast lots to determine which of two goats was to be sent into the wilderness to Azazel, and which was to be kept as a sacrifice to YHVH. Even Jesus used a magical ritual to heal a blind man, when he mixed his saliva with the dust from a river bed--a formula for curing blindness which appears in the Greek Magical Papyri.

Those were not forbidden by the fact that they were done by people with authority or sanctions from God.

Don't forget the reason why those practices are forbidden - they invoke other powers not by our God, and/or seeking out other deities.

They are Satan-inspired.

tosca1 · Jul 11, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
There is no equivalent term in either Greek or Hebrew for our term "sorcery." The terms which appear, for instance, in Deuteronomy 18 all have very specific meanings:

Qasim Qusim: One who divines. This is not uniformly condemned, however--see, for instance, Proverbs 16:10, as well as preceding remarks.

Mo'un: One who divines by watching clouds--it's unclear, but it may be that this term and the next is meant to clarify the previous term.

Menchesh: One who divines by examining the entrails of animal sacrifices.

Mekshaph: One who writes down a magical name or formula

Chebar: One who practices fascinations

Baal Aub: One who steals the souls of the dead

Udrash al'Hemethim: One who inquires of the dead

The point is twofold. First, the Bible employs terms which have no equivalent in western languages, with the result that serious mistranslations ensue. None of the above are accurately translated as "witch," "sorcerer," or "wizard." Second, the Bible is not uniformly condemnatory of the practices under discussion.

I just gave you Strong's Concordance.

pharmakeia: the use of medicine, drugs or spells
Original Word: φαρμακεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pharmakeia
Phonetic Spelling: (far-mak-i'-ah)
Short Definition: magic, sorcery, enchantment
Definition: magic, sorcery, enchantment.

And I've already explained the usage of hallucinatory drugs in those practices!

What is Strong's Concordance?

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (1822–1894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text.

Unlike other Biblical reference books, the purpose of Strong's Concordance is not to provide content or commentary about the Bible, but to provide an index to the Bible. This allows the reader to find words where they appear in the Bible. This index allows a student of the Bible to re-find a phrase or passage previously studied. It also lets the reader directly compare how the same word may be used elsewhere in the Bible. In this way Strong's Notes provides an independent check against translations, and offers an opportunity for greater, and more technically accurate understanding of text.

Strong's Concordance includes:

The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: Hebrew word #582 in Strong's Concordance)
The 5624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's)

James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.

Many scholarly Greek and Hebrew Lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Dictionary, and Vine's Bible Dictionary) also use Strong's numbers for cross-referencing, encouraging hermeneutical approaches to study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_Concordance

I'm well aware of drug use in ancient cultures. But your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The verse condemns the drug use, not the entire culture of which it is a part. Drug use can be separated from (for instance) ritual.

No, the term "sorcery" is not in the Bible. The Bible was not written in English. Nor are the articles really explanations; they are arguments for a particular (rather dubious) position disguised as explanations.

Sorry, but I'd have to say you're wrong....unless you can back that up with something credible. I've got my credible references.
Personal opinions aren't worth anything in a serious discussion unless you've got something to support it, when challenged.

ashurbanipal · Jul 11, 2015

tosca1 said:
Yes, it appeared as "sorcery" and "witchcraft." I'm referring to the term, "pharmakeia."

Have you ever seen that exact term used in the Bible? Correct me if I'm wrong....but I don't think so.

Yes, it's in Galatians 5:20. Here's the verse in transliterated Greek:

Eidololatreia pharmakeia echthrai ereis zeloi thumoi eritheiai dichostasiai haireseis.

It appears also in Revelations 9 and 18.

tosca1 said:
Those were not forbidden by the fact that they were done by people with authority or sanctions from God.

Don't forget the reason why those practices are forbidden - they invoke other powers not by our God, and/or seeking out other deities.

They are Satan-inspired.

I think the reality is much more complex. For one thing, how to know who actually has saction from God? More importantly, one cannot refer to those verses as a rule when there are such obvious exceptions. The old saying "the exception that proves the rule" is nonsense--rules don't have exceptions. More importantly still is this: where in the Bible does it say that any of those things are necessarily inspired by Satan? If the prophets and priests used magical techniques, there's clearly a way to use them that isn't inspired by Satan...or, alternately, perhaps even those uses are inspired by Satan, and...well, what then?

tosca1 · Jul 11, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Yes, it's in Galatians 5:20. Here's the verse in transliterated Greek:

Eidololatreia pharmakeia echthrai ereis zeloi thumoi eritheiai dichostasiai haireseis.

It appears also in Revelations 9 and 18.

I'm using the English translation.

No wonder I didn't see "pharmakeia."

tosca1 · Jul 11, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
I think the reality is much more complex.

"I think.....," is an assumption.

For one thing, how to know who actually has saction from God?

You asked what is the occult. I gave you what the occult is - FROM THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE.

Whether you agree or not with the Biblical definition of the occult, is irrelevant.

CrabCake · Jul 11, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
As I recall, there were religious objections to medical procedures and treatments developed in the early 20th century on the grounds that they were "unnatural." Treating diabetes with insulin required, at that time, insulin be harvested from the innards of pigs, and it was considered to be almost a kind of dirty sorcery to take something from a non-human and inject it into a human in order to keep a lethal hereditary disease under control. But now, aside from a few very fringe sects, religious people accept this sort of thing without batting an eye.

Although within the realm of possibility, that smells a lot like an old urban legend or modern myth. Do you have any evidence that this is historically accurate? Otherwise I think I'm going to file this one under the "probably a myth" category.

ashurbanipal said:
Similarly, when violins were invented, the western church (this was before Protestantism) banned them, because it was thought a demon must live inside the bow of the violin to cause it to make such a sound. But the reason for the sound was discovered in the 16th century, and the status of violins restored.

This one is almost certainly a myth. Do you have any evidence to back up this anecdote?

ashurbanipal said:
What I think is really at the heart of what most people have in mind when they use the term "supernatural" is a direct or semi-direct causal pathway from the internal to the external worlds. For example, normally, if I want to get a book off my shelf, I get up, walk over to it, extend my arm, and grasp it. I take physical actions. But doing it the "magical" way, I would just think about it, and some invisible force would float the book over to my desk. Well, this sort of thing is possible, but usually not worth the effort.

No, it's not possible. If it were possible, it would almost certainly be well worth it because the JREF would give you $1,000,000 if you demonstrated this ability The Million Dollar Challenge - JREF.

ashurbanipal said:
But most often, magic isn't done this way. Here's an example:

Crowley, we now know, was working for British Intelligence during World War I. The reason he came to America during that period was because he claimed to be able to get America to enter the war on the side of the British--which at that time was not a foregone conclusion. Plenty of powerful people in the U.S. wanted to join the war on the side of Germany. Crowley set up shop in New York City, and published pamphlets, under the name of a front organization called something like "Germany First!" (I don't recall the exact name). Those pamphlets contained propaganda calling for the German navy to start shelling American trade convoys in the Atlantic. These pamphlets were actually brought to the floor of Congress and read during the proceedings in which we voted, finally, to enter the war on the side of Britain, on the grounds that Germany was becoming hostile to the U.S. Now, it's true that there were other pro-Britain forces at play. But Crowley recognized the proper moment, when the forces were in near-perfect balance, and employed his pamphlets to push things over the edge in favor of Britain and not Germany. So, from one perspective, Crowley spent a few dollars and used nothing more substantial than some ink and a few sheets of paper to alter the course of history. Magic, indeed.

Most people wouldn't call that magic, they would call it propaganda. There's no real reason to re-name it magic.

nota bene · Jul 13, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
That is, roughly speaking, part of my point--though I think at least some occultists would quibble with this notion of the supernatural. In fact I might be one of them.

As I recall, there were religious objections to medical procedures and treatments developed in the early 20th century on the grounds that they were "unnatural." Treating diabetes with insulin required, at that time, insulin be harvested from the innards of pigs, and it was considered to be almost a kind of dirty sorcery to take something from a non-human and inject it into a human in order to keep a lethal hereditary disease under control. But now, aside from a few very fringe sects, religious people accept this sort of thing without batting an eye. Similarly, when violins were invented, the western church (this was before Protestantism) banned them, because it was thought a demon must live inside the bow of the violin to cause it to make such a sound. But the reason for the sound was discovered in the 16th century, and the status of violins restored.

What we accept as natural changes over time. Many occultists think of themselves as doing nothing unnatural, and therefore nothing supernatural.

On the other hand, there might be room for this kind of concept: suppose you think of nature as deterministic (I don't think nature is deterministic, but many people do). An occultist is one who wants to change the predetermined outcome of events, and so in that sense, the occult is supernatural. I suppose the reply is obvious: anyone who takes any action at all is trying to change the outcome of events. A determinist would reply that, well, those actions are themselves determined. An occultist would say that their actions are no different under such a framework, and so, again, not supernatural. Aleister Crowley himself argued roughly this way.

What I think is really at the heart of what most people have in mind when they use the term "supernatural" is a direct or semi-direct causal pathway from the internal to the external worlds. For example, normally, if I want to get a book off my shelf, I get up, walk over to it, extend my arm, and grasp it. I take physical actions. But doing it the "magical" way, I would just think about it, and some invisible force would float the book over to my desk. Well, this sort of thing is possible, but usually not worth the effort. More importantly, the assumptions we usually have about the relationship between mind and body, and the internal and external worlds, are probably wrong, and almost certainly not shared by the people living in the millieux in which the Bible was written.

But most often, magic isn't done this way. Here's an example:

Crowley, we now know, was working for British Intelligence during World War I. The reason he came to America during that period was because he claimed to be able to get America to enter the war on the side of the British--which at that time was not a foregone conclusion. Plenty of powerful people in the U.S. wanted to join the war on the side of Germany. Crowley set up shop in New York City, and published pamphlets, under the name of a front organization called something like "Germany First!" (I don't recall the exact name). Those pamphlets contained propaganda calling for the German navy to start shelling American trade convoys in the Atlantic. These pamphlets were actually brought to the floor of Congress and read during the proceedings in which we voted, finally, to enter the war on the side of Britain, on the grounds that Germany was becoming hostile to the U.S. Now, it's true that there were other pro-Britain forces at play. But Crowley recognized the proper moment, when the forces were in near-perfect balance, and employed his pamphlets to push things over the edge in favor of Britain and not Germany. So, from one perspective, Crowley spent a few dollars and used nothing more substantial than some ink and a few sheets of paper to alter the course of history. Magic, indeed.

Please note I'm only sketching some ideas which take book-length essays to explicate properly.

Substantiate, and then worry about explication. I'd like more information on the insulin and sorcery business and on the claim that the "western church" once asserted that demons lived inside violins.
All I'm vaguely aware of is a Scandinavian myth about this. It was thought by many about Paganini that his virtuosity was supernatural.

ashurbanipal · Jul 14, 2015

tosca1 said:
I just gave you Strong's Concordance.

pharmakeia: the use of medicine, drugs or spells
Original Word: fa?µa?e?a, a?, ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pharmakeia
Phonetic Spelling: (far-mak-i'-ah)
Short Definition: magic, sorcery, enchantment
Definition: magic, sorcery, enchantment.

And I've already explained the usage of hallucinatory drugs in those practices!

So...three points:

1. Strong's is not a lexicon.

2. No one, least of all me, is denying that drugs were used in ancient (and modern) cultures, or that drug use has appeared in mystical and magical contexts.

3. The point is that drug use and doing magic (in the modern occult sense) are two different things. Some magicians use drugs. Others do not. The verse inveighs against those that do, but it doesn't say anything about those that don't.

tosca1 said:
Sorry, but I'd have to say you're wrong....unless you can back that up with something credible. I've got my credible references.

I made three claims to which this might be a reply; I'm not sure to which you are referring. Here they are, for the sake of convenience:

1. The term "sorcery" is not in the Bible, the Bible having not been written in English.

2. The use of the term "pharmakeia" in Gallatians 5 and in Revelations 9 and 18 extends to cover the use of poisons and drugs, and not all magical practices generally.

3. The articles you posted are arguments, not explanations.

I cannot imagine 1 being controversial.

The second may be, but it shouldn't be. See, for example, the entry from Etyma Graeca by Edward Wharton on pharmakon and the related word "phyro." It is true that the revised Liddell's lists "sorcerer" as one of the definitions of "pharmakos," but as evidence, it simply points to the fact that the word has been translated that way (which begs the question). The classical sources don't use the term this way (i.e. to actually mean "magic" or "sorcery," rather than something simply associated with magic or sorcery) as far as I can tell. There is a good popular book on the subject called Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds, by Daniel Ogden which provides a variety of sources on the subject. Aside from that, there are words in Greek that do mean "sorcerer" or "wizard," or "magic" or what-have you--e.g. "goes," "magikos," "thaumatorgia," "theorgia," etc. If you can find a classical source (i.e. a source in Attic or Koine Greek) that uses the term "pharmakos" unambiguously to mean "magic," or at least something along such lines, you'll have a case.

I've already posted why I think 3 is correct.

tosca1 said:
Personal opinions aren't worth anything in a serious discussion unless you've got something to support it, when challenged.

Not necessarily. It depends on a variety of factors, though I would agree that an opinion totally unanchored from facts isn't likely to be of much use.

tosca1 · Jul 14, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
3. The point is that drug use and doing magic (in the modern occult sense) are two different things. Some magicians use drugs. Others do not. The verse inveighs against those that do, but it doesn't say anything about those that don't.

Like I said, I'm talking about BIBLICAL occult sense! You're talking modern.

We're not on the same page.

ashurbanipal · Jul 14, 2015

tosca1 said:
Like I said, I'm talking about BIBLICAL occult sense! You're talking modern.

We're not on the same page.

Perhaps not. My question is about modern occult practices. If there is a stark separation between the practices under discussion in the Bible, and what modern occultists do, then it seems the Bible has nothing to say about modern occultism. Alternately, if it does have something to say about modern occult practices, then your point seems moot.

ashurbanipal · Jul 15, 2015

CrabCake said:
Although within the realm of possibility, that smells a lot like an old urban legend or modern myth. Do you have any evidence that this is historically accurate? Otherwise I think I'm going to file this one under the "probably a myth" category.

Not exactly. My grandmother, who had diabetes, was raised in the Nazarene church, and she told me the story of her pastor's reaction to a doctor's prescription for insulin (which was that it was "of the devil"). Somewhere there is a biography of Gerald B. Winrod, evangelist preacher in the early part of the 20th century, and he was fairly famous for making claims like this (i.e. that such-and-such new-fangled medical treatment was "of the devil"). Ditto Billy Sunday. Check out a book titled Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden. He describes a number of instances of evangelists in the early 20th century responding to new medical treatments with religious opprobrium.

CrabCake said:
This one is almost certainly a myth. Do you have any evidence to back up this anecdote?

It's in Thorndike's History of Magic, vol. 7, in his coverage of the second trial of Pietro d'Abano. I haven't had time to look up the page number (my copy is in another state at the moment). That being said, reading my words again, I think they were rather too strong. The entire western church did not ban bowed stringed instruments or violins in particular. There were merely some instances of invectives from Bishops and Archbishops, and from the Inquisition, to this effect.

All of that said, I think your reply misses the point a little. I was merely trying to think of off-hand examples of phenomena that are now considered natural which previously were considered supernatural. Unless you think there are no such phenomena, it seems you ought to agree with my overall point, which is that someone who relies on the Bible to draw lines between natural and supernatural is on shaky ground, since that line has shifted so many times since the Bible was written.

CrabCake said:
No, it's not possible. If it were possible, it would almost certainly be well worth it because the JREF would give you $1,000,000 if you demonstrated this ability The Million Dollar Challenge - JREF.

Well, four points:

1. There is a difference between what is possible and what is demonstrable, and it's important not to confuse the two. This is important especially in relation to point 4, below.

2. Of course it's possible. Can you point to anything which forecloses on the possibilty? The laws of physics, for instance, do not, and even if they did, there's Hempel's dilemma to deal with: physics is not finished, so making claims about impossibilities on the basis of incomplete physics is specious.

3. A fellow named Robert McLuhan has written a pretty well-reasoned book about JREF and CSI called Randi's Prize: What Sceptics say about the Paranormal, Why they are Wrong, and Why it Matters which sums up my own thoughts on the subject. On the one hand, it is certainly good to expose, er, people (I use the term loosely) like Peter Popoff or Uri Geller, who bilk people out of millions of dollars using lies and deceit.

Even worse from my perspective is that such people leave the public with a very skewed view of subjects and phenomena which might be loosely grouped under the category of "spiritual." Most people are not aware, but many occultists of the early 20th century spent a great deal of time debunking spiritism and other such nonsense.

On the other hand, folks like Randi, Shermer, Hyman, etc. go too far. On the basis of debunking some, they insinuate that all such claims are nonsense.

4. My own experience convinces me that something like this both is possible, and would take a great deal of effort. I've had three experiences in the entire time I've been a practicing magician (which is now over 20 years) of phenomena which aren't easily explainable by mundane means. Indeed, probably not explainable at all. However, none of those experiences were under my control--that is, I don't know how they came about or why. Most often, when magic is successful, coincidences just line up with unusual ease to bring about the desired result. It may be that if I dropped everything and went to the desert for five years or something, and did nothing but ritual and meditation, I might figure it out. But it's pretty hard to do that in the modern world (for one thing, all the deserts are owned by someone).

ashurbanipal · Jul 15, 2015

CrabCake said:
Most people wouldn't call that magic, they would call it propaganda. There's no real reason to re-name it magic.

It's odd that you phrase things this way. "Magic" is a much older word than "propaganda." If anything, calling it propaganda is renaming. But, that quibble aside, what Crowley did was not even propaganda. He wasn't trying to support Germany (though this was a rumor he had to live with for the rest of his life). What he did, if it could be called propaganda at all, was reverse propaganda. But that quibble also aside, how much propaganda is really that successful? How many propagandists claim to be able to get some major country or other to enter a war on a particular side, and then actually succeed in doing it?

The point I was making is that magic doesn't typically proceed by casting fireballs or turning people into carrots or what-not. The effects look, to an outsider, like a lucky set of coincidences. To those who take up magic seriously, after a while it's obvious something else is going on, since the luck seems nearly bottomless. Coincidence after coincidence piles up, and after a decade or so, it's pretty difficult to believe it's only due to coincidence. Now, again, I do think more traditionally "supernatural" effects are possible, but they're at least unpredictable, and probably not worth the effort.

tosca1 · Jul 15, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Perhaps not. My question is about modern occult practices. If there is a stark separation between the practices under discussion in the Bible, and what modern occultists do, then it seems the Bible has nothing to say about modern occultism. Alternately, if it does have something to say about modern occult practices, then your point seems moot.

My response was to your title, and your OP.

Thanks to some responses in another thread, I'm curious about how people view the occult. I don't want to define what the "occult" is, since that would be to influence the views expressed. But I'm curious to see how people would respond to these questions:

1. What is the occult?

2. What do people who are into the occult do?

3. What is the moral valence of the occult (i.e. good, evil, in-between)?

There was no specific indication that you meant modern until now.
Furthermore, my response(s) made sure you know I'm responding from the Biblical perspective.
Your responses to my posts did not say that you're only interested in the modern occult

- as a matter of fact, you've engaged me on my ground (Bible-wise).

So, no.....my responses to you were not moot. You were discussing with me on my ground. I was simply responding to you.

tosca1 · Jul 15, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
So...three points:

1. Strong's is not a lexicon.

Who said it is? Will you kindly backtrack and read again.

3. The point is that drug use and doing magic (in the modern occult sense) are two different things. Some magicians use drugs. Others do not. The verse inveighs against those that do, but it doesn't say anything about those that don't.

All I was explaining was the reason why drug use is forbidden in the Bible - because magicians and other occultists invoking other deities or supernaturalism, used drugs in their rituals and practices.

I don't think legitimate use of drugs for medicinal purposes and that does not have anything to do with the occult,
is prohibited........ after all one of the Apostles was a physician!

Luke was a physician! Surely he must've administered something even just as relief for the common cold?

I made three claims to which this might be a reply; I'm not sure to which you are referring. Here they are, for the sake of convenience:

1. The term "sorcery" is not in the Bible, the Bible having not been written in English.

That's how the scholars had interpreted pharmakeia

2. The use of the term "pharmakeia" in Gallatians 5 and in Revelations 9 and 18 extends to cover the use of poisons and drugs, and not all magical practices generally.

Yes. That's why I had to explain WHY it is foribidden in the Bible!

3. The articles you posted are arguments, not explanations.

I cannot imagine 1 being controversial.

The second may be, but it shouldn't be. See, for example, the entry from Etyma Graeca by Edward Wharton on pharmakon and the related word "phyro." It is true that the revised Liddell's lists "sorcerer" as one of the definitions of "pharmakos," but as evidence, it simply points to the fact that the word has been translated that way (which begs the question). The classical sources don't use the term this way (i.e. to actually mean "magic" or "sorcery," rather than something simply associated with magic or sorcery) as far as I can tell. There is a good popular book on the subject called Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds, by Daniel Ogden which provides a variety of sources on the subject. Aside from that, there are words in Greek that do mean "sorcerer" or "wizard," or "magic" or what-have you--e.g. "goes," "magikos," "thaumatorgia," "theorgia," etc. If you can find a classical source (i.e. a source in Attic or Koine Greek) that uses the term "pharmakos" unambiguously to mean "magic," or at least something along such lines, you'll have a case.

I've already posted why I think 3 is correct.

The article(s) are explanations about the Bible's stance on this!

Not necessarily. It depends on a variety of factors, though I would agree that an opinion totally unanchored from facts isn't likely to be of much use.

I'm still waiting for anything credible to support all your rebuttals above. Your opinion is not good enough.

ashurbanipal · Jul 16, 2015

tosca1 said:
There was no specific indication that you meant modern until now.

The verbs "is" and "do" are present tense. If I ask you "what is the temperature outside?," I don't mean to ask what the temperature was two thousand years ago. Similarly, if I ask you "what do you do for a living?," I don't mean to ask what kind of job you once had.

tosca1 said:
Furthermore, my response(s) made sure you know I'm responding from the Biblical perspective.
Your responses to my posts did not say that you're only interested in the modern occult

Well...do you think the Bible applies to modern life, or not? If it says not to use drugs, isn't it the case that it means people shouldn't use drugs today? Note that I don't necessarily agree with such a position. I'm merely asking what you believe.

Now, here's the point. We're discussing occultism, and specifically the question of what the Bible has to say about occultism. It seems there are really only two positions available on the further question of whether the Bibla has anything to say about modern occult practices or not. Suppose you think it does not. In that case, there are at least no biblical grounds for condemning people who are into the occult today. On the other hand, suppose you think it does. In that case, you can't really say that my replies don't signify because I'm talking about modern occultism while you're discussing biblical occultism.

tosca1 said:
Who said it is? Will you kindly backtrack and read again.

It is implied from your reply: if you want to know what a word in Greek means, you cite a Greek Lexicon. Ditto Hebrew words, Latin words, Italian word, Russian words, and so on. Lexicons compile word meanings. When you cite some source as authoritative on the meaning of a word, in order for that authority to be taken seriously, it is a necessary condition for it to be a lexicon. Strong's is not a lexicon, so its compilation of word meanings in Greek is not authoritative.

tosca1 said:
All I was explaining was the reason why drug use is forbidden in the Bible - because magicians and other occultists invoking other deities or supernaturalism, used drugs in their rituals and practices.

OK, where does the Bible say just that? My point was that this was not an explanation, but an argument, because in order to think this you have to make certain other assumptions. The articles you posted were quite...cavalier with their interpretation of some verses, and in many points, didn't cite anything at all to back up an assumption. Again, I've already posted the primary example.

tosca1 said:
I don't think legitimate use of drugs for medicinal purposes and that does not have anything to do with the occult,
is prohibited........ after all one of the Apostles was a physician!

Luke was a physician! Surely he must've administered something even just as relief for the common cold?

This is one example of many why I think the Bible cannot be taken as a univocal source.

tosca1 said:
That's how the scholars had interpreted pharmakeia

I take it you mean that scholars had interpretted the word "pharmakeia" to mean "sorcery." Which scholars are those? Jerome, for example, translated "pharmakeia" as "veneficos," which means, unambiguously, "poisoner." He was working the fourth century.

I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the term came to be associated with magic and sorcery after the fifth century. Prior to that, however, it had a much more specific meaning. Another pretty good indication of this is that Christians of the first five centuries (even after Athanasius' Easter Epistle) seemed to think nothing of using magic. See, for instance, Ancient Christian Magic edited by Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith, published by Princeton University Press.

tosca1 said:
Yes. That's why I had to explain WHY it is foribidden in the Bible!

I don't understand what you're getting at.

tosca1 said:
The article(s) are explanations about the Bible's stance on this!

They're only explanations to someone who already agrees. To one who does not, they require belief in additional assumptions.

tosca1 said:
I'm still waiting for anything credible to support all your rebuttals above. Your opinion is not good enough.

I have already cited (informally, I will admit) two lexicons and two scholarly works. I'm not sure what you could be talking about here unless you want the formal citations.

tosca1 · Jul 16, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
The verbs "is" and "do" are present tense. If I ask you "what is the temperature outside?," I don't mean to ask what the temperature was two thousand years ago. Similarly, if I ask you "what do you do for a living?," I don't mean to ask what kind of job you once had.

Dabbling with the occult IS STILL forbidden to us Christians even today, as we speak! Therefore, the present tense applies to us!

Furthermore....your topic is posted in RELIGION! Of course I'd assume you're interested in religion-based responses.

Acknowledging that there are others who may have a different take on the occult based on their own religion.....I specifically pointed out that the definition/explanation I was giving were from the Biblical perspective!

Golly, I didn't realize that providing the explanation as to why it is forbidden to us Christians could turn into such an argument!
I suppose you most likely already had a script in your head as to how you'll tackle this topic.....
......unfortunately, my response was out of script! :lamo

Chagos · Jul 16, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Thanks to some responses in another thread, I'm curious about how people view the occult. I don't want to define what the "occult" is, since that would be to influence the views expressed. But I'm curious to see how people would respond to these questions:

1. What is the occult?

Where in the actual sense meaning hidden (as already pointed out by others), in the actual practice of today, superstition.

2. What do people who are into the occult do?

Pursue superstition

3. What is the moral valence of the occult (i.e. good, evil, in-between)?

That one is more difficult. I don't generally hold it to be good for the practitioner but then neither is smoking. So where without value (in my book), where it doesn't get in my face, let 'em get on with it.

ashurbanipal · Jul 16, 2015

tosca1 said:
Dabbling with the occult IS STILL forbidden to us Christians even today, as we speak! Therefore, the present tense applies to us!

OK, so I don't understand the point you were trying to make with regard to the present, er, point. Here's the conversation as I understand it so far:

1. You said, in a response to my posts, that you were just responding from a biblical perspective, and didn't mean to answer the question "what is the occult?" from a modern perspective.

2. I responded by saying that, at least presumably, you think what the Bible has to say about the occult is still applicable today, and so you really are addressing modern occultism.

3. You've now said that yes, this is just what you mean.

So, I don't understand what you're on about.

tosca1 said:
Furthermore....your topic is posted in RELIGION! Of course I'd assume you're interested in religion-based responses.

I've never said otherwise.

tosca1 said:
Acknowledging that there are others who may have a different take on the occult based on their own religion.....I specifically pointed out that the definition/explanation I was giving were from the Biblical perspective!

Sure--correct. And now I'm just investigating that perspective.

tosca1 said:
Golly, I didn't realize that providing the explanation as to why it is forbidden to us Christians could turn into such an argument!

I wouldn't call this an argument, at least not in the common sense of the term. It's a discussion between people who hold differing points of view. You've been quite respectful, and I hope none of my remarks have been taken as disrespectful. Discussion, and even debate, is one of the best ways to discover the contours of other points of view.

tosca1 said:
I suppose you most likely already had a script in your head as to how you'll tackle this topic.....

Well, I certainly have quite a few thoughts about the occult. But I didn't have any thoughts, and certainly no script, about how this discussion would go. Nothing I've said is meant to shut you up or anything; I'm merely responding in the manner that occurs to me.

tosca1 · Jul 16, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
OK, so I don't understand the point you were trying to make with regard to the present, er, point. Here's the conversation as I understand it so far:

1. You said, in a response to my posts, that you were just responding from a biblical perspective, and didn't mean to answer the question "what is the occult?" from a modern perspective.

2. I responded by saying that, at least presumably, you think what the Bible has to say about the occult is still applicable today, and so you really are addressing modern occultism.

3. You've now said that yes, this is just what you mean.

So, I don't understand what you're on about.

I've never said otherwise.

Sure--correct. And now I'm just investigating that perspective.

I wouldn't call this an argument, at least not in the common sense of the term. It's a discussion between people who hold differing points of view. You've been quite respectful, and I hope none of my remarks have been taken as disrespectful. Discussion, and even debate, is one of the best ways to discover the contours of other points of view.

Well, I certainly have quite a few thoughts about the occult. But I didn't have any thoughts, and certainly no script, about how this discussion would go. Nothing I've said is meant to shut you up or anything; I'm merely responding in the manner that occurs to me.

It's okay. We don't have to go through all that. I was just explaining the biblical perspective. That's all.

So about the modern occult? What about it?
I don't understand your point since you've brought up something about a haunted violin, and something during world war 2?

CrabCake · Jul 16, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
Not exactly. My grandmother, who had diabetes, was raised in the Nazarene church, and she told me the story of her pastor's reaction to a doctor's prescription for insulin (which was that it was "of the devil"). Somewhere there is a biography of Gerald B. Winrod, evangelist preacher in the early part of the 20th century, and he was fairly famous for making claims like this (i.e. that such-and-such new-fangled medical treatment was "of the devil"). Ditto Billy Sunday. Check out a book titled Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden. He describes a number of instances of evangelists in the early 20th century responding to new medical treatments with religious opprobrium.

People are famous for things that are unusual. They are famous because they stand out from the rest. So, if what you are saying is true, then there were a few crackpots out there who had crazy ideas about this kind of medicine. That hardly seems to back up your original claim. You used weasel words like "it was considered" to make it seem like this was a widespread belief which you claimed is now a belief relegated to the fringe. But in fact it sounds like the only evidence you have points to it having always been a fringe belief.

ashurbanipal said:
It's in Thorndike's History of Magic, vol. 7, in his coverage of the second trial of Pietro d'Abano. I haven't had time to look up the page number (my copy is in another state at the moment). That being said, reading my words again, I think they were rather too strong. The entire western church did not ban bowed stringed instruments or violins in particular. There were merely some instances of invectives from Bishops and Archbishops, and from the Inquisition, to this effect.

So, again, you took a few fringe cases and pretended that they were widespread and that we now know better.

ashurbanipal said:
All of that said, I think your reply misses the point a little. I was merely trying to think of off-hand examples of phenomena that are now considered natural which previously were considered supernatural. Unless you think there are no such phenomena, it seems you ought to agree with my overall point, which is that someone who relies on the Bible to draw lines between natural and supernatural is on shaky ground, since that line has shifted so many times since the Bible was written.

I don't have a problem with that statement. I only had a problem with your usage of myths to back it up.

ashurbanipal said:
2. Of course it's possible. Can you point to anything which forecloses on the possibilty? The laws of physics, for instance, do not

Sure they do. The laws of thermodynamics for starters.

ashurbanipal said:
...On the other hand, folks like Randi, Shermer, Hyman, etc. go too far. On the basis of debunking some, they insinuate that all such claims are nonsense.

That has nothing to do with my statement. Whether what they do is good or not, the fact remains that if you can demonstrate what you purport, it is worth at least a million dollars. Your original claim was that it is not worth it. That's only true as long as it takes more than a million dollars worth of effort.

ashurbanipal said:
4. My own experience convinces me that something like this both is possible, and would take a great deal of effort. I've had three experiences in the entire time I've been a practicing magician (which is now over 20 years) of phenomena which aren't easily explainable by mundane means. Indeed, probably not explainable at all. However, none of those experiences were under my control--that is, I don't know how they came about or why. Most often, when magic is successful, coincidences just line up with unusual ease to bring about the desired result. It may be that if I dropped everything and went to the desert for five years or something, and did nothing but ritual and meditation, I might figure it out. But it's pretty hard to do that in the modern world (for one thing, all the deserts are owned by someone).

So your claim now isn't that it is possible. But that you think it is and you don't believe anyone can prove it isn't.

CrabCake · Jul 16, 2015

ashurbanipal said:
It's odd that you phrase things this way. "Magic" is a much older word than "propaganda." If anything, calling it propaganda is renaming. But, that quibble aside, what Crowley did was not even propaganda. He wasn't trying to support Germany (though this was a rumor he had to live with for the rest of his life). What he did, if it could be called propaganda at all, was reverse propaganda. But that quibble also aside, how much propaganda is really that successful? How many propagandists claim to be able to get some major country or other to enter a war on a particular side, and then actually succeed in doing it?

Propaganda is wildly effective. There are at least 36 companies that find it so valuable they spent over $1 billion every year on it. Countless others spend millions.

I'm not sure that anyone claims the ability to lead countries into wars; it isn't an ability most would boast about. But there is no doubt that it happens.

Having said that, I think it's a really big stretch to claim that if those pamphlets hadn't been read, the US would not have joined World War I. There was a great deal of debate in favor of joining the war against Germany and most of it had to do with far more serious things than badly written pamphlets. Germany's use of submarine attacks in the North Atlantic was likely the strongest catalyst. To claim that if those pamphlets hadn't been read, the outcome would be different is simply not justified by the evidence. It's far more likely that the effect was neglibible.

ashurbanipal said:
The point I was making is that magic doesn't typically proceed by casting fireballs or turning people into carrots or what-not. The effects look, to an outsider, like a lucky set of coincidences. To those who take up magic seriously, after a while it's obvious something else is going on, since the luck seems nearly bottomless. Coincidence after coincidence piles up, and after a decade or so, it's pretty difficult to believe it's only due to coincidence. Now, again, I do think more traditionally "supernatural" effects are possible, but they're at least unpredictable, and probably not worth the effort.

I think this is, again, a case where I don't have a problem with your conclusion, but rather with your choice of bad examples.

It seems that despite your initial claims:
1. There probably wasn't any widespread religious disagreement with certain medications derived from animals.
2. There was probably not any widespread religious movement against violins.
3. Aleister Crowley probably had little to no impact on the U.S.' choice to become involved in World War I.
4. There is nothing about propaganda that anyone considers magical.

ashurbanipal · Jul 18, 2015

CrabCake said:
People are famous for things that are unusual. They are famous because they stand out from the rest. So, if what you are saying is true, then there were a few crackpots out there who had crazy ideas about this kind of medicine. That hardly seems to back up your original claim. You used weasel words like "it was considered" to make it seem like this was a widespread belief which you claimed is now a belief relegated to the fringe. But in fact it sounds like the only evidence you have points to it having always been a fringe belief.

Well, now wait a minute: that doesn't seem like a fair assessment. I never said that everyone once believed insulin therapy a kind of sorcery, or even that most people did. Nor would either be necessary for my point to have force; it would only be necessary that substantially fewer think so today than did at that time. The book I referenced indicates that the reaction to insulin (or at least modern medical treatments in general) shortly after its advent by some fairly sizable religious groups (the Nazarenes had a fair number of members at that time, for example) was along these lines. Now, the same church thinks nothing of it.

CrabCake said:
So, again, you took a few fringe cases and pretended that they were widespread and that we now know better.

Again, that's a little too fast. That the Inqisition took such a position in a trial for heresy suggests it was at least a somewhat common belief. But as far as I can tell, literally no one presently believes bowed stringed instruments make sounds because a demon lives in the bow. Again, this is really all that is needed for my point to have some force.

CrabCake said:
Sure they do. The laws of thermodynamics for starters.

Really? How so? (I'm not sure whether you would do this or not, but don't reply with something like "take a physics class." I've taken graduate level physics courses. I know what the laws of thermodynamics say, and I genuinely have no idea how they would preclude such a scenario. And all of that is aside from the point that such laws could be revised or even abrogated.)

ashurbanipal · Jul 18, 2015

CrabCake said:
That has nothing to do with my statement.

Well then, let me be a little less coy. There are a number of reasons it would not be worthwhile to take the challenge. Randi uses the prize to perpetuate a particular worldview, but it's essentially a kind of propaganda. I once read an exchange between an assistant of Randi's and an astrologer who wanted to take his challenge. The proposal was simple. A licensed professional psychologist would conduct personality inventories on twenty people unknown to the astrologer. The astrologer would cast natal charts for these same people (the only information he would receive about them was exact time and place of birth), and match the natal charts to the personality inventories at significantly better than chance. But Randi's assistant began making bizarre demands, such as that the astrologer find a way to "code" the natal charts for statistical analysis. The astrologer responded as I would: huh? That doesn't make any sense. But as soon as he said that, the assistant cut him off. This was apparently part of the negotiation process over the protocol as described by JREF. Others have reported similar bizarre and ultimately unfair treatment. In the sixty-odd years the challenge has been in existence, there have been over one thousand applicants. Not a single one has made it past the protocol negotiation phase. That fact alone ought to pique a genuine skeptic's interest. Heck, I'll pledge a million dollars right now to anyone to demonstrate anything they want, so long as I have absolute veto power over the nature and parameters of the demonstration.

In general, I've noticed a pattern with Randi and his ilk--Ray Hyman excluded--that they are happy to test obvious frauds, and shy away from more difficult cases. I've also gathered some cases where they clearly overstep, or even outright manipulate information so as to be favorable to their position. In short, CSI is generally not a sincere bunch, and I have serious doubts about Randi's desire to proceed with the challenge in good faith.

One rule of genuine occult work is that involvement with money has to be kept at the barest possible minimum. A true teacher will charge absolutely nothing for teaching, and will work tirelessly with a student so that he or she understands. I suppose that, by tradition, occult authors do make some money for writing books, but it's typically not very much. Groups that have temples, such as the O.T.O., have to charge dues to pay rent and utilities, but dues are kept low and no one profits personally. To accept money for a demonstration of magic would be a kind of violation of this rule, which is founded on deeper principles I won't go into here. Occult work, and its results, are wholly incomensurate with money, and no amount of money would induce me to break that principle.

On a more practical level, I have a family to support. So, suppose I decided to do what I think it would take. I quit my job, go into retreat for three to five years to undergo a brutal regimen of ritual, prayer, and meditation, all while my wife and daughter fend for themselves, and possibly sink into poverty and starvation. Then, suppose I succeed in getting the requisite media and professional attention, and get through the negotiation phase, and I also succeed in demonstrating the ability to float a book off of a shelf. My name would invariably be leaked or reported to the press, and I'd be hounded for the rest of my life by reporters, government officials seeking to weaponize my powers, skeptics seeking to debunk my abilities where Randi could not, terminally ill people thinking I have the power to heal their illness, and religious nuts who'd like to stone me to death because they're sure I'm in league with the devil.

The alternative is that if I want a book, I can just get up from my chair, walk a few steps, and get it. So, yeah, it's really not worth it.

ashurbanipal · Jul 18, 2015

CrabCake said:
So your claim now isn't that it is possible. But that you think it is and you don't believe anyone can prove it isn't.

How in the world did you get that from what I posted?

CrabCake said:
Propaganda is wildly effective. There are at least 36 companies that find it so valuable they spent over $1 billion every year on it. Countless others spend millions.

Hmmmm...so the amount of money people invest in something is proof of its effectiveness? I bet we could get a contradiction with the rest of you position pretty easily from that.

CrabCake said:
I'm not sure that anyone claims the ability to lead countries into wars; it isn't an ability most would boast about. But there is no doubt that it happens.

Isn't that what building coalitions to go fight the war du jour is all about? Anyway, Crowley remained silent about his role his entire life. Someone leaked his involvement.

CrabCake said:
Having said that, I think it's a really big stretch to claim that if those pamphlets hadn't been read, the US would not have joined World War I. There was a great deal of debate in favor of joining the war against Germany and most of it had to do with far more serious things than badly written pamphlets. Germany's use of submarine attacks in the North Atlantic was likely the strongest catalyst. To claim that if those pamphlets hadn't been read, the outcome would be different is simply not justified by the evidence. It's far more likely that the effect was neglibible.

Well, I agree it's not possible to have certain knowledge of historic counterfactuals. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Crowley told British Intelligence he could get the U.S. to enter the war on the side of Britain, and Britain was, in turn, doubtful enough of this outcome to send him. The first round of sinkings led to the U.S. merely seeking a diplomatic solution. Crowley's pamphlets came after the first round of sinkings, and they convinced, or at least helped to convince, Congress that the Sussex Agreement was merely a ruse.

Finally: how do you know the pamphlets were badly written? Do you have one in your possession or something?

CrabCake said:
4. There is nothing about propaganda that anyone considers magical.

I think I've adequately answered 1-3 in my reply, above. This, however, demands a little more than what I've already said.

Crowley argued, convincingly in my opinion, that magic is at the heart of every single event which takes place anywhere. When people think about magic, it seems basically to come down to the notion that when something is magical, it's mysterious. And there will always be mystery. Look: think of some familiar causal chain, such as one billiard ball striking another, causing the second ball to move. Now, we know that the atoms in each ball mediate some field in such a way that when A strikes B, A cannot pass through B, and B must get out of the way. This it does in a semi-predictable manner. But why? Why can the fields not pass through each other, and why is the second ball moveable, and why does it move in a particular direction? Appeal to some natural law isn't enough, since laws merely describe. There are theories which attempt to answer these questions, each one stated in some positive manner. Suppose we adopt some set of such theories as explanations. We can take the positive statements those theories make, and ask again: why? And so on, ad infinitum.

The power of any one level of explanation depends on the next level. Suppose you saw a ball moving on a billiard table, and I told you it was because another ball struck it. Then you asked why the first ball was moving, and I said it was for absolutely no reason at all. That really doesn't explain the second ball's movement, since ultimately the second ball's movement is caused by whatever made the first ball move.

So now, with regard to propaganda: can you really explain, finally, how propaganda works? Can you explain in such a way that there is literally no mystery left? No, that's simply impossible. In fact, the chain of causality breaks down very quickly. Who knows why one person, confronted with some message, takes it up, and another does not?

ashurbanipal · Jul 19, 2015

tosca1 said:
It's okay. We don't have to go through all that. I was just explaining the biblical perspective. That's all.

Fair enough, though I think you and I have a few fundamental disagreements about the nature of the biblical perspective. I also doubt either of us is going to persuade the other.

tosca1 said:
So about the modern occult? What about it?

I don't understand your point since you've brought up something about a haunted violin, and something during world war 2?

The point of that bit is that you invoked a distinction between natural and supernatural. But the distinction is an artificial one that has changed many times. Luke himself, for example, likely thought that any medicines he administered worked by bringing some kind of humor or energy to the ill person, rather than in the chemical manner in which we currently understand medicine. Nevertheless, he also probably thought that those humors or energies are entirely natural. Similarly, a goes calling upon some daemon or other would think of its existence as natural. My thinking is that the notion of something's being supernatural just doesn't make any sense. The categories "natural" and "supernatural" are confused.