Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
They have the potential to share in that power. Satan isn't as selfish or jealous. And obviously has equal amount of authority and power. A genuine rival I might add.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why would Christians believe in witches?
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
He used a reference implying "god", not a low ranking prince or an angel.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No he doesn't have anything close to equal power. He's a created being with limited power.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Then, why all the worry?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Worry? Who is worried about God losing in the end? Not anyone who understands scripture. Meanwhile, we can lose battles however because we allow Satan to gain territory.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
I don't think you need to call "using natural forces around us to bring about change" by the name "magick". I mean, sure, do what you want... but that seems to bring along with it a bit of bias toward a particular way of thinking, and is therefore superfluous and unnecessary - impractical, if you will.
If I take a broom and sweep up the dust on my floor using the natural principles of force and friction to bring about the change of my floor from dingy to clean, am I doing "magick?" Why not call it by the more neutral (and applicably descriptive) name "sweeping"?
Good thing that's the actual definition regardless of what you think it should say.
Good day.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Again, as I replied earlier, it is unnecessary to call this "magick". Not only for the reasons I already cited (lack of necessity, impracticality, and bias), but also because "magick" is an umbrella term. Non-descriptive as to what is actually going on. A façade, in other words, and my opinion is that it is employed to make whatever act it is actually being "accomplished" seem more profound than it actually is. A cover-up, in other words, for what is likely just a cheap trick that sees its greatest efficacy when used on the gullible. In other words, something not to be proud of, but putting the term "magick" on it gives it some air of betterment or mystery.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Is this you actually wishing me a "good day"? Or is it you trying to end the conversation for some reason?
That was my way of saying I'm probably not returning to this conversation.
Mostly due to the fact that whether or not you actually agree with my usage of the term Magick makes no difference to my actual usage of the term.
You want to think it impractical, unnecessary, a façade or cover up, that's fine and dandy.
I'm going to continue to use this term, for as long as it allows me to spiritually/pastorally counsel friends, and acquaintances.
It is not inconsistent for a Christian to believe that pagan and occult practices can be efficacious in their material aims. In the Christian view, Satan and his angels do have (an albeit constrained) power to act in the world.
Again, under the Christian belief system God permits evil to exercise a degree of influence in the world. Of course (assuming Christianity is true) all preternatural influence must be permitted by God and so a Christian in a state of grace would have little to fear. Indeed, occult practices would be more likely to hurt the practitioners themselves.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Can you please describe to me the usefulness of calling it "magick"? Do you admit that there is another description you could give any given act you undertake to attempt to achieve some goal or effect?
Nope. I already mentioned pastoral counseling, that's as much as I'm answering you.
Nope, why would I?
Bathos Logos
Active Member
I can guess why... but like you, I will keep it to myself.
Obviously I expected you to out yourself and your agenda/bias with a refusal. Why else do you think I asked?
Bathos Logos
Active Member
Yes, I agree. And yes, I did, and would do so again for what I consider legitimate reasons.Everyone is biased *shrug*
Even you make yours clear here
Even your refusal to admit that there are words that can be used in each instance other than "magick" flies in the face of evidence you already provided. You said "prayer" is magick. That's expicitly admitting that "prayer" already has the more descriptive name "prayer", but that you would like to call it "magick". Why not use the word "prayer"? You basically refused to even admit that such words even exist and that you necessarily must call it "magick". "Prayer" is more descriptive to the ultimate act being accomplished. "Magick" is nebulous, and entirely unnecessary. It doesn't add anything of value to the proposition of the action.
If X believes in the NT, as a realistic account of things that were, or are yet to come, then I would say that the sky is the limit for what else X could potentially believe. And witches look quite ordinary when compared with the rest.
ciao
- viole