Actuarial Outpost

Actuarial Outpost (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php)
-   Surveys (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Do you consider magic demonic? (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=341218)

The Right 06-20-2019 03:53 PM

Do you consider magic demonic?
 
No poll, just answer the question and give why if you like

Jasper07734 06-20-2019 04:09 PM

I don't know about demonic, but, any attempt to invoke superstitions/the supernatural that is inconsistent with my faith's fundamental theology is a no from me, dawg (other than if done for entertainment/in jest).

ETA: Not to be construed as invalidating other major faith's theologies. I'm talking about horoscope/witchcraft/ouija board/cultist $#!+.

Super Silver Haze 06-20-2019 04:15 PM

Define "magic". Like, pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

Vorian Atreides 06-20-2019 04:16 PM

I would also look to define "demonic". Are we talking a synonym for "evil"? Or that one believes in the spirits out to destroy all that is good in the world?

DyalDragon 06-20-2019 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides (Post 9649199)
Or that one believes in the spirits out to destroy all that is good in the world?

Sounds like Tuesdays in political

Arroway 06-20-2019 04:55 PM

Assuming by magic you mean sleight of hand types of tricks, no.

If instead you mean you are literally changing the fundamental nature of the world, I would say yes, but only if it's real, which I doubt.

Vorian Atreides 06-20-2019 05:17 PM

It's all Strange.

As in Strange with a PhD.




Or maybe Strange with an M.D. :tfh:

Dr T Non-Fan 06-20-2019 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Right (Post 9649168)
No poll, just answer the question and give why if you like

What kind of idiots do you think we have around here?









I mean, I know there are some idiots, but what kind?

Dr T Non-Fan 06-20-2019 06:29 PM

I don't believe in magic.







Well, perhaps in a young girl's heart.

BlackPhillip 06-21-2019 09:29 AM

No. Magic is just a means to an end. "Wouldst thou like the taste of butter?"

Vorian Atreides 06-21-2019 10:37 AM

IMO, everything she does is magic.

Everything she does just turns me on.

glassy 06-21-2019 11:08 AM

Oh, Oh, Oh, it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so

ARTS 06-21-2019 11:16 AM

Do I need magical specs to see the poll? :confused:

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 11:39 AM

Other posters are correct to point out that the question is fairly meaningless without a good, working definition of magic. Even clarifying that OP specifically meant something numinous or extra-natural, as opposed to card tricks, doesn't get us very far (and I am making that assumption, because otherwise this thread is even sillier than it already is).

If you're interested in the study of magic (with a "k," if you like, I do not like), you won't get very far before running into the name of Alistair Crowley (whose history I'll let you research on your own), so for the sake of discussion, we could do a lot worse than to look at the working definition he used. "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." That's quite an expansive definition. Why, by that definition, the very act of willing your fingers to tip-tap out an internet post could be called an extremely magical act. Indeed, if I understand Crowley's beleifs correctly, he would very much agree with that assertion. But that would lead us to a pretty weird discussion here. Is the act of using your will to cause your body to effect change in the world "demonic?" I would be very interested in hearing from someone arguing that it is.

Vorion Atreides gets a special sticker for pointing out that we need to establish what we mean by "demonic." For most people who would ask the question, "Is magic demonic," I think we can make some assumptions about the kind of demon you're talking about, and the tradition from which that archetype comes. The question really being asked is, "Is magic evil." That's an interesting discussion on its own, but one much more broad than I feel like tackling on a lazy Friday afternoon. Trying to define "magic" is tricky. Trying to define "evil?" Above my celestial pay grade.

For one of Crowley's Golden Dawn associates, on the other hand, the question would be ridiculous. Some magic (goetic, for example), is demonic by definition, inasmuch as it deals with demons by names. Enochian magic, on the other hand, was delivered by angels, and is thus strictly angelic (unless you believe that the angels in question were actually demons dissimulating, which admittedly does sound a lot like something a demon would do). Asking "Is magic demonic" is like asking "Is actuarial science Bornhuetter-Fergusonian."

For those with less structured world views, practitioners of chaos magic for example, the question is meaningless in a different way. Some might believe that angels and demons are real, but are actually manifestations emerging from the creative power of human thoughts and fears, and anything angelic or demonic about them is likewise the result of the bias of human worldview. Others might believe that angels and demons have no external reality outside of the human imagination, but nonetheless have found that they have a certain psychic "reality" to them, and that treating these psychic ("imaginary," if you like, again, I do not) entities as if they had their own reality can help them achieve results in their spiritual journey just the same as if these entities had an independent existence. The quote you might hear: it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is.

These are all, I should point out, summaries of pretty modern understandings of what magic is or might be. I'm sure I don't need to explain that you could slice out any decade from the past couple thousand years of western history, and find very different interpretations and ontologies that require completely different discussions on how "magic" and "demonic" should be defined.

All this to say my short answer is, "No, with an if," long answer, "Yes, with a but." If you need further solace, I have something or other by Lon Milo DuQuette in my office.

Non-Commutative Peach 06-21-2019 01:52 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Qt9VpSi.jpg http://www.mtgmintcard.com/images/mt...NG-BEEBLES.jpg http://i.imgur.com/tlDiugv.jpg

Vorian Atreides 06-21-2019 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarot Actuary (Post 9649843)
Other posters are correct to point out that the question is fairly meaningless without a good, working definition of magic. Even clarifying that OP specifically meant something numinous or extra-natural, as opposed to card tricks, doesn't get us very far (and I am making that assumption, because otherwise this thread is even sillier than it already is).

If you're interested in the study of magic (with a "k," if you like, I do not like), you won't get very far before running into the name of Alistair Crowley (whose history I'll let you research on your own), so for the sake of discussion, we could do a lot worse than to look at the working definition he used. "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." That's quite an expansive definition. Why, by that definition, the very act of willing your fingers to tip-tap out an internet post could be called an extremely magical act. Indeed, if I understand Crowley's beleifs correctly, he would very much agree with that assertion. But that would lead us to a pretty weird discussion here. Is the act of using your will to cause your body to effect change in the world "demonic?" I would be very interested in hearing from someone arguing that it is.

Vorion Atreides gets a special sticker for pointing out that we need to establish what we mean by "demonic." For most people who would ask the question, "Is magic demonic," I think we can make some assumptions about the kind of demon you're talking about, and the tradition from which that archetype comes. The question really being asked is, "Is magic evil." That's an interesting discussion on its own, but one much more broad than I feel like tackling on a lazy Friday afternoon. Trying to define "magic" is tricky. Trying to define "evil?" Above my celestial pay grade.

For one of Crowley's Golden Dawn associates, on the other hand, the question would be ridiculous. Some magic (goetic, for example), is demonic by definition, inasmuch as it deals with demons by names. Enochian magic, on the other hand, was delivered by angels, and is thus strictly angelic (unless you believe that the angels in question were actually demons dissimulating, which admittedly does sound a lot like something a demon would do). Asking "Is magic demonic" is like asking "Is actuarial science Bornhuetter-Fergusonian."

For those with less structured world views, practitioners of chaos magic for example, the question is meaningless in a different way. Some might believe that angels and demons are real, but are actually manifestations emerging from the creative power of human thoughts and fears, and anything angelic or demonic about them is likewise the result of the bias of human worldview. Others might believe that angels and demons have no external reality outside of the human imagination, but nonetheless have found that they have a certain psychic "reality" to them, and that treating these psychic ("imaginary," if you like, again, I do not) entities as if they had their own reality can help them achieve results in their spiritual journey just the same as if these entities had an independent existence. The quote you might hear: it's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is.

These are all, I should point out, summaries of pretty modern understandings of what magic is or might be. I'm sure I don't need to explain that you could slice out any decade from the past couple thousand years of western history, and find very different interpretations and ontologies that require completely different discussions on how "magic" and "demonic" should be defined.

All this to say my short answer is, "No, with an if," long answer, "Yes, with a but." If you need further solace, I have something or other by Lon Milo DuQuette in my office.

First, to clarify my request for clarification of the definition of "demonic" is also to extend to the idea that "magic(k)" is a form of "demonic control".

Second, I think King of the Hill captures Crowley's ideology and definition of magic(k) in the episode Witches of East Arlen. IMO, a fun 23 minutes (exclusive of commercials) worth of anyone's time.

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorian Atreides (Post 9650162)
First, to clarify my request for clarification of the definition of "demonic" is also to extend to the idea that "magic(k)" is a form of "demonic control".

Oh, of course! Some would say the two topics are intractably linked, but again, you have to decide what you really mean by either word before you can decide if they're conceptually severable.

Quote:

Second, I think King of the Hill captures Crowley's ideology and definition of magic(k) in the episode Witches of East Arlen. IMO, a fun 23 minutes (exclusive of commercials) worth of anyone's time.
How wonderful! I haven't seen all of King of the Hill, so I didn't know about this episode.

Spoiler:

Tarot Actuary 06-21-2019 03:21 PM

:lol: Okay, that was fun. I don't find it to be particularly reminiscent of Crowley/GD type stuff. It more puts me in mind of a sort of generic LaVeyan/Left Hand Path kind of mileau.

On a side note:
https://kingofthehill.fandom.com/wik..._of_East_Arlen
Quote:

Bobby begins giving tarot readings, including one to Bill Dauterive. Bill gets The Ten of Swords card, which Bobby initially understands to denote prosperity (Bill recalls his recent romantic luck with Laoma as confirmation of this). Unfortunately, the card is upsidedown, which instead is a sign of "pain, affliction, tears, sadness, desolation." It is interesting to note that all mention of Bill's relationship with Laoma ceases after this episode.
Hopefully this gives pause to those of you who doubt the efficacy of tarot.

Entropy 06-21-2019 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper07734 (Post 9649190)
I don't know about demonic, but, any attempt to invoke superstitions/the supernatural that is inconsistent with my faith's fundamental theology is a no from me, dawg (other than if done for entertainment/in jest).

ETA: Not to be construed as invalidating other major faith's theologies. I'm talking about horoscope/witchcraft/ouija board/cultist $#!+.

Does "theology" automatically not include "magic" then? Why wouldn't you consider them to be "demonic"? Just trying to understand which religions/theologies you'll make fun of. Scientology fair game?

Jasper07734 06-21-2019 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropy (Post 9650306)
Does "theology" automatically not include "magic" then? Why wouldn't you consider them to be "demonic"? Just trying to understand which religions/theologies you'll make fun of. Scientology fair game?

I will make fun of the ones that aren't mine, obviously. :co:

Scientology is a cult, so it is always fair game.

Jasper07734 06-21-2019 05:28 PM

Also, theology is not magic, no.

Jasper07734 06-21-2019 05:31 PM

Also also, I will soon quote/list my source material that helps me in distinguishing a sect of a religion from a cult. (I learned my lesson about leaving you hanging. :-) But family is in town so it must wait.)

Chuck 06-21-2019 05:59 PM

He was a pretty good basketball player.

mathmajor 06-21-2019 08:57 PM

I think very vaguely "magic" can be real (when it's meditation, willpower, that sort of thing).

I don't believe in demons so that's kinda out.

Jasper07734 06-21-2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper07734 (Post 9650366)
But family is in town so it must wait.)

...aaaand it was an abject failure. :wall: (I might even make a thread about it.)

nonlnear 06-22-2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper07734 (Post 9650460)
...aaaand it was an abject failure. :wall: (I might even make a thread about it.)

What was an abject failure? The family visit, or you trying to assemble a defensible differentiation between religious sects and cults?

Jasper07734 06-22-2019 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonlnear (Post 9650515)
What was an abject failure? The family visit, or you trying to assemble a defensible differentiation between religious sects and cults?

The family visit. :-P (It made me wish I had magic abilities.)

Whiskey 06-22-2019 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper07734 (Post 9650366)
Also also, I will soon quote/list my source material that helps me in distinguishing a sect of a religion from a cult. (I learned my lesson about leaving you hanging. :-) But family is in town so it must wait.)

I am looking forward to this.

I don't think I have seen this ever executed well.

Arroway 06-22-2019 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarot Actuary (Post 9649843)

you won't get very far before running into the name of Alistair Crowley

[ninja risk acknowledged]

also the subject of a pretty awesome Black Sabbath song

[/ninja risk acknowledged]

Jasper07734 06-22-2019 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiskey (Post 9650540)
I am looking forward to this.

I don't think I have seen this ever executed well.

I appreciate your "faith" in me. :kiss:

Anyway.

Quote:

Religious groups can be classified into three categories: (1) mainline religions; (2) sects, or offshoots of these mainline religions; and (3) cults.

What are cults? How do they differ from mainline religions and sects?

Although written almost forty years ago, perhaps the most useful definition of a cult is this: "A cult is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more aspects as to belief or practices from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative [standard] expressions of religion in our total culture.

Many studies have been done about cults. Consistently, analysts have picked out five characteristics that usually apply to cults.
  1. The Authority of the Leader: Cults have leaders who claim divinity or special relationships with God through revelations given to the leaders alone.
  2. Total Control of Its Members: The governance of cult members' lives is usually complete. This giving up of personal choice is frequently desired by members of cults. Life is easier and more comfortable when people do not have to make decisions.
  3. Emotional Dependence on the Cult: Cults typically create an aura of exclusivity and isolation for their members. Thus, cultists develop a deep emotional dependence on their leaders especially.
  4. Prohibiting Independent Thinking: Cults prohobit their members from using critical analysis and independent thinking. This aspect of cults is clearly related to characteristics 1, 2, and 3 listed above. But some cults go even further and try to destroy the egos or individual personalities of members by using mind-controlling techniques.
  5. Money for the Leader: Ironically, many leaders of cults preach against the corruption of the whole world but live nicely (sometimes even extravagantly) on the funds raised by their followers. Some cults require that new members turn over all of their wages and savings to the group. Often members are given tasks that neither use their talents nor contribute to the larger society.

Source: Great Religions of the World by Loretta Pastva, ISBN: 0-88489-175-5
This is always my starting point when thinking about the difference between a sect of a legit religion and a cult.

Whiskey 06-22-2019 03:10 PM

Using this definition, all sects or mainline religions were once cults.

So,
Cult + time = sect
Sect + time = mainline religion

Gotcha

Jasper07734 06-22-2019 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiskey (Post 9650558)
Using this definition, all sects or mainline religions were once cults.

So,
Cult + time = sect
Sect + time = mainline religion

Gotcha

Not so fast.

Let's evaluate Christianity through this lens, as an example (at the time of its founding and today, to incorporate your desire for historical perspective).

At its founding:
  1. I'll give you that this one is at least debatable. Although others perceived him as speaking as if he had authority, Christ did not see Himself this way. He was not an authoritarian leader whom you must obey or else.
  2. Christ ordered no one to follow Him, and He didn't micromanage every minute of their lives if they did follow Him.
  3. If there was emotional dependence on Christ, people created that for themselves. Jesus did not emotionally manipulate people by design.
  4. No.
  5. Also no.

Today (I'll use the Catholic Church for this example, since that Christian church seems to grind the most gears on here):
  1. We do not worship the Pope (or Mary, or the saints). Furthermore, papal infallibility (which non-Catholics frequently misunderstand as impeccability) doesn't mean that everything the Pope says is law and we must accept his words without question. It's more the converse: The pope says something because it's unalterably true, and has been since Christ.
  2. The doctrine of free will prevents this one from being applicable.
  3. imo, Catholic faith is the least emotional of all Christian faiths. We keep our focus on God and not on human emotion, and the Mass is a reflection of this.
  4. We do not believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. That's one example of why this one is a No.
  5. I can see why this one looks debatable on the surface. But if you notice that no one is ever required to make a weekly offering, and certainly no one is ever required to hand over their savings or wages, this one is a clear No.

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glassy (Post 9649817)
Oh, Oh, Oh, it's magic, you know
Never believe it's not so

Please move post to the double-negative thread.
Thank you.

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:30 PM

Also, no Arthur Clarke references??

ARTS 06-24-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan (Post 9651105)
Also, no Arthur Clarke references??

To that one quote, or to Childhood's End?

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 12:35 PM

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Learned that from "Archer."

I mean, all this defensive posturing about religion is kind of derailing the thread.
Or, it's going exactly where the OP wanted it (on the rail and over the cliff).

glassy 06-24-2019 12:43 PM

I never did believe in the ways of magic. But I'm beginning to wonder why

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 01:50 PM

I gotta strange maaaaaagic.

Vorian Atreides 06-24-2019 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan (Post 9651115)
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Learned that from "Archer."

I mean, all this defensive posturing about religion is kind of derailing the thread.
Or, it's going exactly where the OP wanted it (on the rail and over the cliff).

ALL ABOARD!!

Dr T Non-Fan 06-24-2019 02:08 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
Aye, aye aye


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Page generated in 0.44312 seconds with 9 queries