BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Christ, Christians, and Christianity

  
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
SMS
01:17 / 10.08.02
We've had Christ-topics in both fora in the past. It seems like it doesn't have too much impact on who ends up in the discussion, but I do try to give some consideration to where we are talking about it.

This seems more Head Shoppy than Magicky to me, but I won't mind either way. As long as you use that wonderful thread in the Policy to keep us informed.
 
 
Seth
11:56 / 11.08.02
It fits into both forums, is the trouble. I have a problem with the idea that it belongs in one or the other, but I think there could be something to be gained by moving it between the forums periodically.
 
 
Secularius
17:02 / 18.08.02
Christianity: This one is a lot harder. I don't buy into it, mainly because I don't believe I have a soul to be saved

That's your problem. Your so numbed out on your medication that you don't feel your soul anymore. You can at least feel pain when you're depressed. Depression is a very strong emotion. When the valleys are low the peaks are also higher. When you're on drugs you're just so fucking content and mediocre that you can't feel strong pleasure or pain anymore.
 
 
Ganesh
17:06 / 18.08.02
Could I make a plea for us to schedule the 'depression is valuable and drugs numb the soul' discussion for a separate thread, please?
 
 
Seth
18:02 / 18.08.02
The Biblical anti-Christ is more likely to be a figure masquerading as Christ than one who mischeivously does the opposite of Christ (ie; punching holes in the side of obstinate oil tankers with his x-ray vision, making the Leaning Tower of Pisa straight, that kinda thing).
 
 
grant
18:59 / 19.08.02
Antichrist being a sort of familiar subject to me, it's worth pointing out that, although there are references to a specific Antichrist in Revelation, the prior references (in Corinthians, I think) have a plural - antichrists.
As in those who twist the master's message into its opposite.
 
 
Seth
19:02 / 19.08.02
In places I believe it also refers to the spirit of the anti-Christ.
 
 
SMS
00:06 / 21.08.02
Could anyone comment on how Christianity relates to practicing magic? There are sections of the bible that pretty plainly denounce it. It doesn’t cover every kind of magic as we understand it, but it does cover quite a lot. I’m not going to write them all out right away, but these are the references.

Ezekiel 13:17-23
Deuteronomy 18:10-11
1 Samuel 15:22-23
Micah5:12
Gal 5:20
Rev. 21:8

also

Isaiah 47:11-15

Deuteronomy’s worth copying out. It says
No one shallbe found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an auger, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead.

On the other hand, we have things like this:
John said to [Jesus], “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a deed in power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.”

I’m not willing to say that these two things contradict each other, but so often it seems like Jesus is saying “No no no. That’s not the point. Just forget about the rules for a second and think. You’re getting upset about things we should celebrate!”

Still, though.....
 
 
Yagg
02:46 / 21.08.02
"I’m not willing to say that these two things contradict each other, but so often it seems like Jesus is saying “No no no. That’s not the point. Just forget about the rules for a second and think. You’re getting upset about things we should celebrate!”

Right! There is quite a bit in the canonical gospels wherein Jesus seems to be on about respecting the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. Thus the position that the Mosaic Law of Judaism is no longer necessary, because Jesus in fact replaced it with Himself. The Law was made of words, but Jesus was the Word made flesh.

There was conflict in the early church over the whole issue of whether or not Jesus' teachings were just an extension of the Hebrew faith or a complete replacement for them. Further complicated by the fact that both Jews and gentiles were converting to this new faith. Mainstream Christianity, it seems, struck a sort of compromise. The Hebrew Old Testament is still part of the Christian Bible, but the New Testament is viewed as vastly more important.

As for the prohibition against magick: I'll have to look up the verses you list. In my long-rejected Catholic upbringing, gambling, superstions, even such things as four-leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet were written off as sinful. Anything that involved "chance" or "luck" denied the absolute authority of God. Which seemed silly to me. If God had absolute authority, He could control these things as well, right? So who cares if you think "17" is your lucky number? If God is really behind it all, He decides if it really is or not.

Maybe we should all call this thread off and just go watch Monty Python's "Life of Brian," perhaps the definitive work on the whole subject.
 
 
grant
14:16 / 21.08.02
There's the passage in Samuel about the Witch of Endor (who brings up the spirit of Samuel, I believe, to prophesy once again against Saul). It's a bit tricky, that one.
The Levites are also given a kind of "hotline to God" in the Urim and Thummim, pulling colored stones out of a bag to answer questions.
The difference, I think, is in *agency*: are you relying upon the Power of God to fix you up? Or are you consorting with non-God-related spirits?
 
 
Seth
17:15 / 21.08.02
I grabbed some stuff off the net on this a few weeks back, but never had time to do further research on it. It relates specifically to the original Hebrew words used in Deuteronomy 18 - apparently, there is some debate over the correct translation of the terms (surprise surprise). Apologies in advance for this: I know it's considered really bad form to rip stuff off other people's sites without claiming credit - I didn't copy down the URL at the time, as it was purley for my personal use. Also apologies are due for ripping stuff off and posting it with no commentary - I don't have time right now to engage in the thread properly, but I will come back to this. Thought it would be invaluable to the current discussion, which is why I've just slapped it up:

Clearly, translators have had a great deal of difficulty selecting unique English words or short phrases to match the 8 original Hebrew words:

yid'oni: Making contact with spirits (not of God).

sho'el 'ov: Making contact with the dead.

qosem q'samim: Foretelling the future by using lots or a similar system.

m'onen: Predicting the future by interpreting signs in nature.

m'nachesh: Enchanting (perhaps related to nachash, a snake).

chover chavar: Casting spells by magical knot tying.

m'khaseph: evil sorcery; using spoken spells to harm other people.

doresh 'el hametim: "One who asks the dead", probably via another method than sho'el 'ov

The reference to passing children through the fire has historically been interpreted as the ritual killing of the first born child in each family. Tribes surrounding the Israelites were believed to engage in this practice. In reality, it probably refers to a painful coming-of-age challenge that children had to endure. They would pass through the fire and (hopefully) emerge without much injury. In other traditions, they would run between two fires. This phrase has caused many people to believe that Pagans in ancient times engaged in child sacrifice. This appears to be the source of the belief among some Christians that modern day Pagans do the same thing. While we do not know what ancient Pagans did, we can be certain that modern-day Pagans do not murder children. This phrase (and many similar ones throughout the Bible) has probably contributed greatly to the public's widely held fear of ritual abuse and satanic ritual abuse.

Interpreting Deuteronomy 18 in terms of modern-day practice, it is apparent that the following are prohibited:

yid'oni: The New Age practice of channeling in which a person attempts to contact a spirit in order to gain knowledge.

sho'el 'ov: Spiritualism, in which a medium contacts the dead.

qosem q'samim: Casting stones or sticks and predicting the future by their position (e.g. I Ching, and perhaps runes, or Tarot cards).

m'onen: Foretelling the future by looking for signs in nature (e.g. predicting the harshness of a winter by looking at moss on trees, or fur thickness on animals in the wild, or whether the groundhog sees his shadow on FEB-2.)

m'nachesh: Snake charming.

chover chavar: Casting (presumably evil) spells while tying knots.

m'khaseph: Reciting evil spoken spells to injure others .

doresh 'el hametim: Any other method of contacting the dead.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
21:16 / 21.08.02
To respond to the initial post in this thread...

I, too, grew up a Christian without questioning it. The closest I came to actively considering the truth of Christianity was reading a lot of apologetics, mostly to discuss them with the atheists in my high school. I was actually the only Christian within a year of my age there (with many hostile atheists), but I also happened to have the most information to bring into the discussion. Rarely did I end up on the losing end of a discussion, and that convinced me that I was right.

Sometime last year, after several years of such discussions, I began to consider my own arguments. I saw that most of my arguments were based on the truth that Christianity is non-falsifiable. That is, there are no arguments (that I'm aware of) that can nail Christianity when viewed from a variety of perspectives.

Over the last year, I've begun to realize that while Christianity is not directly falsifiable, neither is it verifiable. Which would have been acceptable. However, Christianity requires a great deal of its adherents - at least those adherents who want something more than a comfort blanket.

Christianity demands your very life from you. It makes grand and sweeping statements about the way reality works. So is it really too much to ask for grand and sweeping evidence? I am not a Christian anymore.

Can we really seperate Christ and Christianity? After some thought... I say yes, we can. The Jesus presented in the Bible is a man of incredible complexity. At turns subtle and extravagant. I haven't figured Him out yet. Could I really have a relationship with this man? The idea is intimidating. "Anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." And Jesus' own cross was a scary sucker. The belief system we call Christianity is a simplification, a popularization of Christ's teachings. Jesus himself... I don't know the man.

And Christians? I think Christians are often people trying to navigate between Christianity and Christ. If Christ becomes too scary - then they retreat into Christianity. Christians are as individual as every other demographic.
 
 
the Fool
22:39 / 21.08.02
Over the last year, I've begun to realize that while Christianity is not directly falsifiable, neither is it verifiable.

This is the central problem with all belief. Even atheists aren't excluded from this. Belief in no god is the same as belief in god, its still belief and as such there is no proof either way.

Its why one religion is not better than another. It all works a lot better, in my opinion, when you give up the notion that any of them are absolutely true. They all contain some truth, they should all be looking at the same thing...

The car is red
The car is vermillion
The car is crimson
The car is scarlet

Its all the same car. In a land of absolute truth everyone is convinced they are looking at different cars based of the word used to describe it. None of them are actually looking at the car, just the words. The words are different therefore its a different car.
 
 
the Fool
22:40 / 21.08.02
Of course my above post is also a belief. And there is no proof, either way...
 
 
SMS
00:25 / 22.08.02
m'onen: Foretelling the future by looking for signs in nature (e.g. predicting the harshness of a winter by looking at moss on trees, or fur thickness on animals in the wild, or whether the groundhog sees his shadow on FEB-2.)

I suppose this should also include measuring the temperature of the ocean, detecting ocean currents, satellite imaging, and so on. Is this right?
 
 
SMS
20:23 / 22.08.02
expressionless:I know it's considered really bad form to rip stuff off other people's sites without giving
credit - I didn't copy down the URL at the time, as it was purley for my personaluse.

the URL
 
 
the Fool
00:29 / 23.08.02
yid'oni: The New Age practice of channeling in which a person attempts to contact a spirit in order to gain knowledge.

sho'el 'ov: Spiritualism, in which a medium contacts the dead.

qosem q'samim: Casting stones or sticks and predicting the future by their position (e.g. I Ching, and perhaps runes, or Tarot cards).

m'onen: Foretelling the future by looking for signs in nature (e.g. predicting the harshness of a winter by looking at moss on trees, or fur thickness on animals in the wild, or whether the groundhog sees his shadow on FEB-2.)

m'nachesh: Snake charming.

chover chavar: Casting (presumably evil) spells while tying knots.

m'khaseph: Reciting evil spoken spells to injure others .

doresh 'el hametim: Any other method of contacting the dead.

If this is what it probihits, it leaves room open for a lot of magic. Even personal magic. Sigils (for good purpose) seem allowable, so is magic for healing (reiki?). Persumably using Kaballah is allowable, which allows for contact with higher entities. So ritual magic is okay as long as you use judeo-christian thought forms.

From this it seems what is disallowed is divination from nearly any source. Contact with the dead. And cursing of all forms.

Channeling is probably disallowed as it is a form of possession.

This is quite different to what I thought was the judeo-christian position on the use of magic...
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply