Magic and Literature

[dinadan]

(Continuing from the Harry Potter thread)

If, you accept my premise that the only difference between "magick" and a miracle is the source of the power, then there is amplie biblical citation. Look at Moses in Egypt where the Egyptian priests can do a lot of the same things (though not all, their source of power was insuffiecient);, look at Joshua at Jerico (there's something formulaic/magickal about that); check out Elijah and Elisha again. And then, leaving aside Christ himself (because it would get us in too far into discussing the dual nature of Christ vs. monophysitism), look at the things the apostles do.

I realize this isn't the way these things usually get viewed, but I think it is a lot more consistent.

[twyrch]

dinadan said:

(Continuing from the Harry Potter thread)

If, you accept my premise that the only difference between "magick" and a miracle is the source of the power, then there is amplie biblical citation. Look at Moses in Egypt where the Egyptian priests can do a lot of the same things (though not all, their source of power was insuffiecient);, look at Joshua at Jerico (there's something formulaic/magickal about that); check out Elijah and Elisha again. And then, leaving aside Christ himself (because it would get us in too far into discussing the dual nature of Christ vs. monophysitism), look at the things the apostles do.

I realize this isn't the way these things usually get viewed, but I think it is a lot more consistent.

I completely agree. In my opinion, the magic can not be denied. For instance, in the Bible, King Saul visits the Witch of Endor and requests her to contact the spirit of Samuel, which she does. She is able to communicate with the spirits of the dead through magic. 1 Samuel 28: 3-25.

The members of OBOD have discussed the source of their power in a thread. Their views are very different from mine, but that is their belief.

I believe the power comes from one of two sources. God or Satan. Untimately, it is a supernatural power and must derive itself from a supernatural being.

Just my musings....

[Riothamus]

But the difference isn't just the source--it's the use, as well. For example, the destruction of Jericho was not done on Joshua's instigation, but upon that of God. Same goes for every other miracle in Scripture--God dictates the work to be done, not man. Now, this is very important, and differentiates the miracles from, say, the sorcery of the Egyptians, which was entirely man-centered and man-initiated. This isn't to deny the reality of the magician's work--just it's validity. If man initiates the act, he is in essence claiming authority over nature, in fact, asserting his godhood and autonomy as opposed to God (this is why not soothsayers were permitted in Israel.) It's a reinactment of the Original Sin in Eden--the attempt to seize power which is not one's own. However, when God works a miracle through a prophet or a saint (saint, in this case, being a believer in Christ,) it is He that initiates, and it is clear that He alone is responsable. (And the witch of Endor is actually a pretty bad example--if you read the text, she seems as surprised as Saul to actually see Samuel.)

[dinadan]

So, what I gather is that you are not contradicting my position, since, I made it clear that the use is wholly governed by the submission of the will of the practioner to the Divine Will? I may have needed to clean up my examples, so I'll do that now in case I have caused confusion. In the Old Testament examples, you are absolutely right that in all the instances (that are considerd OK--Saul in Endor is a bit different) it is abolutely God calling the shots. The difference for those of us post-Christ is that He gave those that follow him power to command as He commanded. Since the advent of the Holy Spirit, this is a power that is there for Christians--remember that Simon Magus tried to buy it from the apostles. In effect, if your will isn't in tune with the Divine Will, the magick becomes "no dice" for you anyway--which is why it is such a danger to become accustomed to magick at all, because those selfish desires to do "what you will" is exactly what you say, a reenactment of the Fall. Once you are open to the possibilities, though, you realize there are other methods of working magick, and those will let you do whatever you want--for a price.

Coincidentally, I think it is very funny that the conceptionsof magick from the popular Christian imagination today come from the 16-17th century...because before that, it was not uncommon for priests to be "soothsayers" in the sense of divination; it happened, and was reasonably acceptible. The problem with it was, again, questioning the source. Eventually, in the thoughts of the Reformation leaders, it was better to be safe than sorry (which then spread into the Counter-Reformation movement in Catholicism).

[dinadan]

"Very True.... That is something I have discussed with my Wiccan Friends as well. The source of the power. They believe it comes from the earth itself, but I feel strongly the source is much deeper than that." (Twrch from the other board)

And you'd be right; try to get your Wiccan friends into discussing what they mean by "spirits of the earth" sometime--it'll draw them into a pantheistic argument that you should be easily able to defeat.

I think there were "neurtral" spirits around out there in the past--there may be some still, but certainly fewer in number. And by neutral, I mean neutral in relationship to man--although as time wears on, all of them will have to come down on one side or the other. (I will confess to heretically believing that it is possible for angelic spirits to be forgiven; otherwise, I can't conceive of God being Just. In fact, I believe it possibel right now for Satan himself to ask for forgiveness and be given it--the problem with him is that he never will, which is his sin of Pride.)

This makes the Wiccan idea about earth-spirits very dangerous to them without their acknowledging it. because they are trying to go on believing that there are neutral spirits still out there to work their will, when there aren't anymore.

This, I realize, is highly theological and theoretical and most likely irrelavent to anything, so if we want to drop it I'm cool with that.

[Riothamus]

So, what I gather is that you are not contradicting my position, since, I made it clear that the use is wholly governed by the submission of the will of the practioner to the Divine Will?

Not contradicting; clarifying. If you say "the only difference is the source," without the coda which we both have expressed, it would be possible, for instance, for someone to attempt divination "using" God rather than Satan; however, in the end, they would be following the same path. God is not to be used, not even when

The difference for those of us post-Christ is that He gave those that follow him power to command as He commanded.

It's still not to be grasped and sought with spells, et cetera--it's given, granted, bestowed.

However, I'm still dicey about using terms like "magick" for real-life works of God--it can lead to a false conception; however, in literature of the fantastic, such a rule wouldn't be as firm.

I think there were "neurtral" spirits around out there in the past--there may be some still, but certainly fewer in number. And by neutral, I mean neutral in relationship to man--although as time wears on, all of them will have to come down on one side or the other.

C.S. Lewis expressed a similar idea in That Hideous Strength. Theologically, I think it's problematical, but it's very useful in the novel. That kind of theorizing is what makes so much fun of literature of the fantastic.

I will confess to heretically believing that it is possible for angelic spirits to be forgiven; otherwise, I can't conceive of God being Just.

I take it you're no predestinarian

[dinadan]

Lewis did indeed use the concept in That Hideous Strength--although he seems to have picked it up from Williams, who picked it up from Kierkegaard. I don't see anytihing at all problematical about it; it seems to me that a spirit may have fallen with Lucifer, but not necessarily wanted to join up with him after the initial war in heaven. I can see it being possible that such a spirit might hang around here, doing whatever, and could possibly be forgiven later--or could take the other path and decide to throw in with Hell after all. Either way, there is a period of time (as we perceive it--to the hypothetical spirit in question, it could be almost no amount of time at all) where it would still be semi-divine, but also not working for either side. Hence, neutrality--of a type.

And as for God not working through spell and incantation...I'm not sure about that. In both Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and Coptic belief as well), the Mass is considered to be a kind of magical act, wherein the celebrant conducts the ritual according to certain predefined rules for interracting with the Deity; it is no coincidence that the term "black mass" that witches (i.e. of old, not modern Wiccans) used to describe their activities were almost identically the rituals of the Church turned away from the use of interracting with God to interracting with Satan.

I never meant for this to get into an embroiled doctrinal conflict; I just wanted to see if anyone else was interested in looking at our faith from another point of view.

Also, no, I do not buy wholesale the idea of predestination. I think God can know all possible outcomes of all possible choices that we make (I therefore don't dispute Omnicience)...but we are free to make those choices; I see no logical reason why angels are not similarly constructed.

Also, I should have started this conversation off with the a little disclaimer that I've been accused of heresy before--and from a strictly orthodox (small "o") point of view, I probably am a heretic. I lean toward Monophysitism, as well as (as we've been discussing) some interestingly non-traditional points of view on the nature and interaction of the material world with the supernatural. So, my apologies if I have accidentally offended anyone, or have confused anyone. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[Riothamus]

I wasn't under the impression that we're in a doctrinal conflict--more like a discussion of ideas. If I seem huffy or haughty in my posts, it's not intentional--just my writing style. Shall we go on?

[dinadan]

Don't aplogize...I thought I might've been stepping on toes, so I felt that I was at fault.

If you're willing to proceed, so am I.

[Riothamus]

Perfectly willing. ;D (I just love this kind of stuff!)

We seem to have more than one theme going here: Angelic neutrality, "spells" as workers of Divine Will, and just a bit about Predestination. I won't address that last, as it's not really important to our discussion.

The prime reason I hold angelic neutrality to be troubling is that it implies that there is some option besides God or Satan--a third path. But that would erode God's sovreignty. If I (were I an angel--I'm assuming you don't mean to say the same in regard to humans,) say to God, "I'm not on your side, I'm not on Satan's side, I'm on MY side," then I am in essence saying, "I am God, my will trumps Your's." This is of course the essence of sin--it was in fact what caused Satan's fall. In leaving the service of God, he became a sinner. Now, leaving aside the question of the possibility of redemption for devils (you can probobly guess my views on that ) the fact remains that Satan's pride prevents him from returning to God--at the fall, he was "confirmed" in his sin--the act was so violently anti-God that he can never go back without risking humiliation, which his pride won't allow. So, concievably, his followers would have similar sentiments. So that pride puts every one of them in direct opposition to God, because to not do so would be to deny their own godhood. To even attempt neutrality would be to concede the possibility that God might, after all, be Lord of All.

I could go on, but I've got to run.

[dinadan]

See, I don't think so. I mean, yes, from a strictly "You must be A or you are therefore B" standpoint, I absolutely agree with you. But, as is the problem with evil people working together (as both Plato and Aristotle explored), they don't like it. Now, theoretically, I can concieve of some angel having rebelled, but that had nothing against humans. Let's say this was an idealistically rebellious angel. OK, Lucifer wants to be God--well, so so I; in which case it's in my best interest to join up with him for the short term, and then when we've won, he and I'll sort it out. Of course, they didn't win--but, instead of following Lucifer in deciding to "get back" at God by tempting humankind to sin, let's say that I just took a stance of neutrality in relation to humans, which is what I meany by "neutrality--of a type." Of course, this theoretically angelic "I" would be under condemnation for rebellion against God, but it doesn't necessarily follow that "I" should carry that quarrel over to humanity as Lucifer et all have.

There again, I'm not saying that such a being could stay in such a state forever; after all, since the Incarnation, God has been seriously focused on the material concerns of humanity as a whole. In my mind, that's the genius of the Incarnation--by becoming co-inherent with Christ, we get what Adam tried to get in the Fall. We become not just god-like, but actually part of God. Which, again, I think, opens to us the possibility of sub-creative power under the Divine Will. But, such a condition sets humanity over the angelic powers that formerly had dominion over the various parts of the globe (ike the Prince of Persia whom Gabriel wrestled with 21 days to be able to bring a message from God to Daniel). The problem now is that these spirits have been dispossessed of their dominions, and now they're pissed. If you discount the possibility that they might be redeemed, then they must again band together with Lucifer and hope of winning this time. Which brings us to Armegeddon and the end of the world as we know it .

[Riothamus]

I see what you're saying, but if one is opposed to God, how can one be neutral toward anything he favors or creates? Hatred of God is such a radical position that one can't help but hate everything about Him, including His creation. And once man fell, he entered the service of Satan, was high priest of Satan; still, it isn't neutrality, it's overlordship. In the one case, the fallen spirits are trying to destroy man because he belongs to the Holy One, and in the second, they're destroying man because he is Satan's.

[And if I'm muddying the waters, please tell me; I tend to obfusticate.]

[dinadan]

I don't think I agree with the idea that because man fell, man became a servant of Satan. If that was the case, then everyone before the Law (and everyone who was not a Hebrew) was automatically damned. The whole concept of the virtuous or God-fearing pagan goes away--which would make the story of Jon and of Abraham and Melchizadek impossible. I definitely believe in the idea that all cultures have within them "seeds of truth" pointing to the Truth of God; which means I definitely believe in the virtuous pagan.

And, if we were wanting to get really technical about the logical conclusion of your idea that without being in the service of God we are therefore in the service of Satan, it could be construed that no one before Christ could have possible been virtuous or allowed into Paradise (which the Bible and Church tradition both refute--"He descended into Hell" from the Apostle's Creed, etc.)

So, if people can be in a "Not A but not therefore B" situation, I certainly think that angelic beings could be as well. Not that this is here nor there--since the Incarnation, you're point holds water pretty well. "The Choice" to the angelic beings was forced--and since you don't believe them capable of redemption, then their choice was a non-choice. The Incarnation forced them to declare for the other side.

[Riothamus]

The whole concept of the virtuous or God-fearing pagan goes away--which would make the story of Jon and of Abraham and Melchizadek impossible.

Well, Abraham and Melchizadek were both Semites--decendents of Shem and so covenant-people. Jo[b?] I'm not so certain of. But that really gets back to different concepts of salvation. If God is the initiating factor in salvation, then he can save anyone he wants. Now man must be totally deprived, because in the fall he set himself up over against God. So that, without a change of heart, he'll join the devils in hell. Now fallen man is dead in sin, and a dead man can effect no change--only God can raise the dead. See where I'm coming from? But, see, really the idea that fallen man was [and is] a servant of Satan doesn't deny that there's a seed of truth in every culture. Indeed, Paul shows in the first chapter of Romans that every culture starts out with the truth. However, he corrupts it and twists it and forsakes the worship of God, exchanging it for the image of man and beast, because his heart is exceedingly wicked all the days of his life--unless a change is effected.

And, if we were wanting to get really technical about the logical conclusion of your idea that without being in the service of God we are therefore in the service of Satan, it could be construed that no one before Christ could have possible been virtuous or allowed into Paradise (which the Bible and Church tradition both refute--"He descended into Hell" from the Apostle's Creed, etc.)

Exactly. No man can be righteous, because the thoughts of his heart are continually wicked. Hence d**nation. But remember, Christ is the Lamb slain "from the Foundation of the World,"--which clearly means that His sacrifice had a retroactive effect upon Old Testament saints. Abraham "saw My [Christ's] day, and was glad," he "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." All saints; that is, all believers; are saved through faith in Christ, no matter what dispensation they fall under--Old or New. Because the Sacrifice of Christ is the only means to salvation. (As to "descended into Hell," there's actually quite a bit of controversy over that line, and I'm not certain it refers to an actual descent by Christ into Hell.)

[dinadan]

I did mean Job.

However, I'd like to know where you get your info on Melchizadek. He's kind of just a shadowy figure who just comes in and says "Hey, I'm priest of the Most Hight."

I suppose the problem I have with your argument about the retroactive nature of Christ's salvation is that you are still condemning to an eternity in Hell everyone who was not an Old Testament saint...unless you're willing to committ yourself to the position the substitutive nature of sacrifice, in which case one really could pray for the atonement of a departed person and them be saved--at least, at first, we'll limit this to those who departed before the message of Christ came to them. But that, iin itself, rasises a stickey issue; what about places which didn't the opportunity to hear the Christian message until long after the ressurection? Do those people likewise get condemned, or can they too be retoractively saved by descendents atoning for them?

I just think it is too inconsistent to believe that God is both (A) Just and (B) willing to condemn people because they we're born Semites or in the Mediterranean basin after Christ's death. These things are logically incompatible.