Notably this caused rather great friction with 'common' Christians as opposed to the educated and clerical classes. It took some time for the Catholic Church to crack down hard on demonology and AFAIK the eventual consensus was that no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
>the eventual consensus was that no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
Sounds like more butthurt "n-no, only god can do the thing and be the thing" bullshit.
Okay, but that's closer to a religious opinion than actual sensible logic. The Christian needs to understand that opposing religions may view their God the same way they (Christians) view others. Monotheistic absoluteness didn't begin with Christianity. "My god is better than your god".
>actual sensible logic.
ntayrt
Look up monads.
It works hermenuitically. Outside of their own texts it doesn't. Still logically holds, just from an initial base you don't like.
They can still logically reject all other gods with it too.
Logic is just a tool to work with initial premise not a unified truth.
It's a logical enough conclusion when every time God gets directly involved in the Bible vs some other god or other supernatural entity, it's a curbstomp. Plus I don't recall any record of demons cavorting with humans, just fricking them over. That said there were sorcerers mentioned in the Bible and they would have to be written off as charlatans.
Well since the Catholics believe that He is omnipotent, omnipresent and timeless logically nothing exists outside of God. Demons included.
If I use a winch to lift a heavy load it isn't God that's doing it for me.
Similarly, if I use a demon to learn esoteric secrets, it isn't God that's telling them to me.
Yeah, he might have allowed both of those things to happen but that whole routine gets tired pretty quickly.
Shut the frick up Satan. >Yeah, he might have allowed both of those things to happen but that whole routine gets tired pretty quickly.
He didn't allow both of those things. You've got free will, but God did give you the tools to do those things, you just decided to use them. >If I use a winch to lift a heavy load it isn't God that's doing it for me.
God gave you the knowledge and musculature necessary to do these things. Without him, you would be nothing. >Similarly, if I use a demon to learn esoteric secrets, it isn't God that's telling them to me.
All knowledge is derived from God. Therefore, the Devil is using God's knowledge to tempt you down a path of sin.
>the eventual consensus was that no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
Sounds like more butthurt "n-no, only god can do the thing and be the thing" bullshit.
They decided it around 750 AD and it carried through for several centuries, yes. It wasn't a particularly contentious decision. Demonology and witchcraft springing up among early Protestants is what spurred witch trials, where the people burning witches were punished and sometimes executed for heresy (since it is Church Law that witchcraft doesn't exist, neither do witches, meaning the people burning them had committed the sin of murder).
Protestants were far more prone to burning witches than Catholics ever were, like to a comical degree. Catholic trials had standards of evidence and proof, and if you brought up spurious charges you could yourself be very severely punished. The irony is that the Spain's own Inquisition was actually "fair" by the standards of its day, with more stringent standards of proof than secular courts and a preference for non-fatal punishments, as well as rules for when torture could be used, what tortures were permissible, and how much was permissible. I think they get the bad rap they do due to English-sourced anti-papist propagandizing. And to be perfectly fair to the Brits, they had endured a bunch of Catholic coup and assassination attempts, so it wasn't as if they hated Catholics for no reason.
No one was benevolent. I only take exception to the notion that the 'witch hunter' is heavily associated with Catholicism when the archetypal witch hunter was overwhelmingly some stripe of Calvinist.
It's almost certainly because Dr. Van Helsing from the original Dracula story was a Roman Catholic. Basically every monster-hunter trope stems from Dracula and its adaptations.
Cathars got dealt with like any other secessionist socio-ethnic or religious-ethnic group that didn't pay their taxes. It's not comparable to killing random people for hearsay.
>Charlemagne has been slaughtering the Saxons up in England >kicked the ass of the Saxon leader >converted him and his son to Christianity along the way >brings peace between Saxon and Frank (i.e. England and France) >2-3 years later decided to hold a council to decide how the conversion was going >Council decides to ban idolatry (can't make votive offerings to trees, wells, or alleged spirits) >outlaw witchcraft under the logic that it did not exist (and that "spells" are bullshit), so acting like it did exist was heresy >order the death penalty for any witch-hunter (stopping the just-converted from showcasing their new religious fervour by murdering their fellows and formenting civil strife)
Okay, but that's closer to a religious opinion than actual sensible logic. The Christian needs to understand that opposing religions may view their God the same way they (Christians) view others. Monotheistic absoluteness didn't begin with Christianity. "My god is better than your god".
Burning witches, and believing witches exist, was a pagan custom, not a Christian/Catholic one. Charlemagne took all the council's recommendations and put his stamp on them, making them official.
It wasn't 100% effective, of course. Rebellions did still happen despite the conquest and conversion process, Charlemagne just put them down by crushing the rebellion through military force, rounding up the prisoners, and executing them all for rebellion against the Emperor.
>It wasn't 100% effective, of course.
Hilarious understatement. Major witch hysterias were occurring until at least the 18th century. Frankly I don't think the 'no power outside God' argument holds water even in the context of the New Testament, let alone the old one. No power above or beside God, maybe.
It was reasonably effective within Catholicism proper, and while Charlemagne was around and until shortly after him it was downright brutally effective. Afterward, though, the church kind of moved on to other topics, it wasn't until the 1100s that they actually got around to codifying anything further on it, mainly in relation to what spirits and demons are and what, if any, powers they have (conclusion: none against those who have faith in God).
The problem was unironically the Protestants 99% of the time, and the English ones especially. Which makes sense, since a lot more of those old pre-Christian beliefs had managed to survive there than elsewhere.
>Saxon and Frank (i.e. England and France)
The Saxon wars had nothing to do with England, it was against the Saxon tribes of Northern Germany, not the ones that migrated to England.
The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Britain had already converted by that point.
>Notably this caused rather great friction with 'common' Christians as opposed to the educated and clerical classes
This is because Europeans (especially northern ones) are too stupid to understand concepts like “monotheism” or “omnipotence”.
IMO the iconiclasms were reasonable arguments over whether the veneration of saints was idolatry or not. It’s dumb, but not nearly as dumb as the northerners attempts to make Christianity dualistic (by inventing Satan and importing Hel).
This is just another variant of the whole 'theurgy against goetia' argument. Which is thus: How can you tell if an angel or god isn't a demon or something worse? Does it even matter? It's all indistinguishably alien at the end of the day. You are placing your luck in the hands of *something* either way. What is a god, a demon, an angel, etc, is itself a question of subjective perception. "Your god is not a god, it's a demon, and my god is a true God". It's a self-defeating argument. Magic, to me anyway, is *supposed* to be disagreeable, as a contrast with science which is, in-theory anyway, supposed to be agreeable on the basis of empiricism. Magic and science are two sides of the same coin. The concrete contrasting against the inconcrete. Ignorance is power.
I don’t see why the existence/nature of God in a fictional setting written by humans (which is what we’re ultimately discussing itt) would have any bearing on the existence/nature of god IRL. Christians who can’t imagine other cosmic orders are weak and should remove themselves from the gene pool.
>Christians don’t want to entertain the thought that their “God” is just an alien troll / some sort of alien architect.
They don't have to, because conquest of pagans and heretics was considered God's will and supremacy made manifest. "Your god is a phony" only really appeals to conquered people.
Christ was as much a man as he was a god. There was an ecumenical council that ruled any other belief as heresy.
Also Arianism is the belief that the Son is not co-equal with the Father, as espoused by our mentally ill cultist friend here:
The God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity.
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
This is quite distinct from the matter of whether Christ was a man, a god, both, or a hybrid.
4 months ago
JWanon
>This is quite distinct from the matter of whether Christ was a man, a god, both, or a hybrid.
Jesus was a spirit creature in heaven before he was born as a human on earth. Jesus himself said: “I have come down from heaven.”—John 6:38; 8:23.
God created Jesus before he created anything else. Regarding Jesus, the Bible says:
“He is the firstborn of all creation.”—Colossians 1:15.
He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Crowley is the only channeler I don't think was a fraud. I'm not saying he was actually in contact with supernatural beings, but I certainly believe that he thought he was.
I think he was a huckster who wanted attention and pussy (and boypussy, he was famously bisexual), but I also think he had an authentic religious experience in Egypt.
The idea has actually floated within Christian theology since at least medieval times, they came up with their own answer of how to distinguish between the two.
There's a common theme where heroes ignore the call of an angel twice, and only answer it the third time. The idea was that the power of demons is limited and they can only attempt to fool a man twice before having to give up, while God can call on people as much as he needs. Even Jeanne d'Arc uses it in her testimony of her visions when she was accused of mistaking demons for angels.
>The idea was that the power of demons is limited and they can only attempt to fool a man twice before having to give up
That sounds suspiciously arbitrary. I bet they’re still demons on the third try.
Not really, three was a number with a lot of divine symbolism (think of the holy trinity). It's where sayings like "all good things come in threes" come from.
>It's where sayings like "all good things come in threes" come from.
I'm not so sure about that. A lot of very old stories are structured in threes. It seems to be a number with inherent psychological significance, rather than a cultural thing.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Fair enough. The point is that the choice for three times was anything but arbitrary.
4 months ago
Anonymous
No, it is completely arbitrary. They, intelligent beings, are giving themselves arbitrary rules. Why would a squirrel never go for the same tree a third time?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yah, humans are just obsessed with threes for biological reasons (1 dick + 2 balls).
4 months ago
Anonymous
It is important for maths and the human brain, which conceptualises 3 more easily than other numbers. So three number sequences, for example, are instinctively easier to remember because our brains naturally like to do it that way.
>Not really
Yes really, you drooling moron. What is telling the external intelligent being “don’t do it more than twice”? Are you assuming angels and demons and such are autistic morons who can’t count to three?
Man this thing was answered way back in the NT. Jesus pointed out how Satan's temptations in the wilderness contradicted scripture then told him to frick off when the mask fell.
>t no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
And yet the Catholic Church still has trained exorcists, still publishes about the dangers of demonic possession and cases where it occurs, and still warns against the practice of witchcraft.
I’ve already been trying to explain to people like him (in that other thread) that Christian-think is excruciatingly ironic, but he just won’t have it.
I'm pretty sure that those present day Christians who think those things are harmful mainly just think that participating in worldly activities instead of pious ones can leave one vulnerable for demonic threats. The cartoonishly hysterical Christians like Jack Chick who believed that certain geometrical symbols and musical sounds are inherently satanic and that D&D portrays real magic are pretty rare these days and mostly protestants.
That being said, there was that one Catholic priest who claimed that Harry Potter house names are names of real demons. Imagine being a demon called Hufflepuff. Also, a lot of Christians are still weird about ouija boards like they were some kind of ancient occult weapons, they were made out as cash grab toys in 1890s to quickly capitalize on the spiritualism craze, and get a slice of money people were throwing at spiritism and medium shows.
>ouija boards like they were some kind of ancient occult weapons
They kinda are.. You literally open a vortex for souls to travel through, said to communicate.. And most of the time the one you're talking to, well wanna talk to.. arent your dead family like you wanted wanted and called for. Anyone that have spent some time with the paranormal knows it's a bad idea to use an ouija board, even moreso alone.
It works because of belief, though thousands of believers of this ''fact'', it becomes truth. Besides.. it doesnt really have to made of wood, but then It wouldn't really be called an ouija board, right? It's not magical just because it's an ouija board.
The ouija board itself isn't special in any way. However, using it is an invitation for spirits to come into your home and communicate with you.
If you believe in spirits, as Christians do, you SHOULD find this worrisome.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>as Christians do
Never met a Christian so I wouldnt know, but I've met lots of people that have had paranormal mishaps. Anyone in the ''circles'' of Spirituality do believe to a certain extent of it's workings.
I played around with ouija board few times as a kid. I didn't believe in any of it then either but played along because a girl I liked was into it. Nothing happened, unless me ending up blueballed was a demonic interference.
Weegee boards were invented whole cloth by a boardgame company. You can still buy them in the toy aisle at your local Target. There's nothing authentically spiritual, magical, religious or supernatural about them.
It works because of belief, though thousands of believers of this ''fact'', it becomes truth. Besides.. it doesnt really have to made of wood, but then It wouldn't really be called an ouija board, right? It's not magical just because it's an ouija board.
Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or spirits do exist and ouija boards are dangerous. Therefore, if you believe in spirits, you should be very cautious around ouija boards.
Them being modern inventions isn't really relevant in either case.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or spirits do exist and ouija boards are dangerous. Therefore, if you believe in spirits, you should be very cautious around ouija boards.
Your "therefore" is wrong. Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or they do exist and the boards are dangerous. Therefore, you should check and see if your beliefs conform to reality. The null hypothesis would be that spirits don't exist, because assuming they do exist posits extraneous entities that don't add explanatory power; belief in spirits is an epistemically costly assumption that fails Occam's razor. So, given that, how would you go about confirming or disconfirming the existence of spirits? How do you tell an imperceptible and unfalsifiable entity apart from no entity at all? How do you distinguish an entity that appears not to exist whenever anyone tests it from one that actually does not exist?
The logic behind the people that believe in spirits or divination is that the original intent of the tool does not matter, only the practices it's applied to. That won't stop some people from lying about the origin of a practice, like cartomancy using the tarot being invented wholesale in the 19th century.
Hell, you can *show* that they're bullshit by just blindfolding the participants (inb4 "the ghosts need to hijack our senses to communicate") or feeding them a bullshit story about the "spirit" they're "contacting" (inb4 "the ghosts are fricking with you for trying to test them")
It's all entirely charlatanry and/or the ideomotor effect, no spoopy ghosts or extradimensional entities involved whatsoever.
But monks were summoning demons USING the authority of God, you dolt. God-powered magic. No different from king Solomon. White wizardry. Hallowed sorcery.
>be Solomon >it's good to be the king >chat up sexy demon ladies >"why don't we go back to my place? >yeah, that big palace is mine >teleport with out error to bedroom >sexy demons get a little noisy >sexy demons get real weird and really noisy >frickin' guards storm the bedroom >forgot to tell 'em I was back >shit >sexy demon ladies panic and switch to battle form >gotta de-escalate, "Y'ALL, WAIT!" >guard captain says to men, "be not afraid, the King invokes Yaweh!" >youngest guard shits himself >slightly bestial sexy demon ladies complain about the shit smell and fly out window >okay, new rules >always admit any of the 72 women in this book >only guard captain reads and he thinks it's a grimoire and won't open it >it's not always good to be the king
The Church (and most Christians) disagreed. Summoning and oracles were already banned in scripture, so I'm not sure why they decided they were exempt because Solomon did it.
>No different from king Solomon.
none of the stories about solomon as a demon-summoning sorcerer come from the bible, and in the bible god takes away the kingship from his line because of his idolatry and greed.
solomon, especially later in life, is not someone christians ought to emulate.
>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. >For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
The best Divine caster in 3.5 is Archivist, and they're just a Wizard but for Divine spells. There's nothing stopping you from being an apathetic, autistic collector.
Pretensions stemming from pride more than arrogance make their starting points and goals much different. >arrogance knows its right, doesn't care what other people do or think >pride wants other people to think they're right, really cares what other people do and think
Clerics are social parasites. They have to commit acts of faith that convert masses and generate power for their deities that they can then suckle a small portion of.
Wizards take power.
Clerics beg and make pyramid schemes.
Depends on the system and setting. In mine, divine magic is fundamentally different from arcane magic in that the priest or cleric or equivalent merely acts as a conduit for the motive force of the divine, which reside on a higher plane.
I actually do believe that Islam tried to over-correct the tendency of the Christian converted populations to keep polytheistic beliefs and just superglue them to Christianity and the fact that the fathers of the Church seemed to either ignore or encourage this practice. That and as many others couldn't comprehend how a monad can have three distinct expressions.
The quiet ignoring of it, or encouraging of it, is probably a result of the church fathers preferring to have more converts than not. If you kill them all you can't really have them at the church on sunday.
You couldn’t tell the difference between the two in-universe, but making the distinction makes sense on a game level because you can accomplish different things with them.
Usually correct (at least within IRL belief systems… and Warhammer Fantasy), but there are definitely some Christian (and probably also Islamic) frameworks where a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the two.
Okay, but that's closer to a religious opinion than actual sensible logic. The Christian needs to understand that opposing religions may view their God the same way they (Christians) view others. Monotheistic absoluteness didn't begin with Christianity. "My god is better than your god".
pointed out, don’t actually actually mean anything. One god’s miracles aren’t necessarily miracles to another. You’re basically jus stating “my magic is better”.
Óðinn is a god who is also a wizard. That's not a contradiction in Norse mythology, he was one of the more knowledgeable magicians among the Æsir (thanks to the whole "hanging himself from Yggdrasil" business), and the Vanir were a whole separate group of gods regarded as more skillful magic-users than the Æsir.
There was not that much wizardry during the middle ages. In fact, the church considered any magic as a silly superstitious. The raise in the true interest for magic, and reaction against it, coincide with the rise of science.
>There was not that much wizardry during the middle ages. In fact, the church considered any magic as a silly superstitious.
This is simply not true. You'll want to look into hermeticism generally, alchemy specifically. Despite being a no-no, all sorts of divination persisted throughout the middle ages, straight past the Renaissance, and right into early modern and modern times.
Alchemy's emergence in Europe in the 1100s is generally identified as being Arabic texts that were transported west and translated, alongside Aristotelian texts that were part of a consistent transfer and trade of knowledge rather than a persistent magical belief among the wider population. They were not considered magic but as forms of science (e.g. Friar Roger Bacon's Great Work in 1267).
> They were not considered magic but as forms of science (e.g. Friar Roger Bacon's Great Work in 1267).
Funnily enough, centuries after his death, Bacon was frequently hailed as a wizard. His esoteric knowledge bases and sagely repute bases made him into one. He still believed in God, though, in a similar fashion to Newton (learning brought you closer to God).
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Arabic texts that were transported west and translated
which were originally transported from the Greeks, right?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I think the alchemical stuff was largely an Arabic invention, but I honestly haven’t done research.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Dunno exactly, Alas what I remember about was more of an greek-dhimmi, which were the so called ''Islamic Golden Age'', since it was depended entirely on the translation of the greeks by conquered populations. said ''arab'' numerals was invented in India around 700d.C and the number 0 invented by Brahmagputa in.. Uhhh 629? Caliph Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century ordered all dhimmis said israelites and christians to translate the greek but that was only the ''useful'' shits, not the scientific methods, they were samply rejected.
Think I remember reading this from an Greentext many years ago so the uhhh truthfulness is.. doubtful.. Perhaps I should just read books instead.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>centuries after his death
Yes. As I said, opinions from the wider population did not suggest an association of it with "magical belief" until the early modern period was already firmly underway.
>Arabic texts that were transported west and translated
which were originally transported from the Greeks, right?
Sort of. The earliest stuff I can recall offhand about alchemy has it starting mainly in Hellenistic Egypt with processes based around smelting, working glass, and primitive chemistry, with the earliest text being a 300 AD list of about 200 recipes. Gold, silver, purity tests, how to make fakes (there's one recipe that allows you to adjust the colouration of silver to look like gold), that sort of thing.
The vast majority of alchemy is of Arabic invention building on the works of Zosimos (4th century AD), who was also a Greek-Egyptian. His work was taken up by the eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines, and later made its way west to Europe in the 1100s as part of the Arabic textual influx. It was a science though, not magic.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Thanks for the Information Anon, I'll lay it in my notes for the future.
>alchemy specifically
Alchemy and magic are different arts. In fact, alchemy was probably the first form of experiment-based and not pure reasoning-based science.
No, it's you who are an idiot. Alchemy is not magic. Magic is tripe for homosexuals and women (also israelites), Alchemy is for gentlemen (like Isaac Newton).
Traditionally any magic comes from having a divine spark in you or because the gods grant it to you, not from an unlimited source of unconscious aether.
The Church was a self-hating Mages Guild by any other name. Lmfao.
Christian monks justified that they could summon and judge demons the same way Solomon did. Godly police. Why would it be bad if the source was from God? Why do demons deserve to go unpunished?
It still pissed off the clergy, and the most dangerous witch of all was actually considered to be the compromised (unholy) priest or bishop. The Devil infecting God’s ranks with his top minions.
You can link the wikipedia article, you know. It's good grist for the RPG mill if nothing else, especially if you run something like Honor + Intrigue and want a compromised priest as a villain.
>cleric vs wizard thread >awesome >open salvo invokes abrahamism >anons forever switch from history to fantasy mid-argument and back again
This could have been an interesting discussion.
Aghaa Ohha Wa!! Pipe it down my laddy, you're distracting my puffs, I'm about to make the signal to the lads from over the mountain, they're talking about all the sexy ladies AND that they're very thirsty for wienery, think I'm gonna come over there tonight, hehe.. wish me luck lads!
What? I’m just saying that
A. Some people play in fantasy settings explicitly based on historical periods (Ars Magica, Legend of the Flame Princess, Castle Falkenstein)
B. Some fantasy settings are highly influenced by specific historical periods (Warhammer Fantasy is very Early Modern, for instance)
C. People (by which I mostly mean “GMs”) frequently use their understanding of history to “fill in the gaps” in non-historically based fantasy settings
Shut the frick up, this is just a stealth-yid hating thread, just as any fantasy related ''history'' threads, sooner or later you Anons will start talking about Judes, don't think we know.
If I wanted to talk about israeli Mysticism in fantasy (a cool, interesting, and under explored topic imo), I’d go make a separate thread
…probably on a different website entirely.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Didn't know there are other websites were you can discuss this stuff. Are you sure you are not posting from 2005?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I feel like I could probably have a ~5% useful discussion on israeli mysticism and fantasy on the right Reddit or Lemmy board, which just barely beats out the 0% useful one I could have about it here (but still probably isn’t worth the time and effort of crafting a good OP).
“Magic doesn’t exist. But an old man in the clouds? Totally real.”
“Silly son of mine. Witches aren’t real. Now let’s go worship a ghost and eat of his flesh and blood, like cannibals.”
How does that not sound like fricking witchcraft?
Humans wouldn’t know how to identify blatant magic had it bit them in the ass, or removed their foreskins. They are blind to reality, or just the irony of their actions.
Never mind that the 21st century world is literally an Atlantean one.
How is that any different from any GODs? People really thought the Gods walked besides us, since long BEFORE the Sumerians were even about. Eating bread and turning water into white is some of the weakest shit one could do with magic brah..
Let’s be real, anyone repeating the “old man in the clouds” line is so totally ignorant of Christianity (and probably of religion in general) that there’s no way to have a productive conversation with them.
>guy who runs the universe has admin powers >humans do not and bathing in goat blood three times under a full moon or whatever fails to change this
Looks like a pretty reasonable distinction to me.
>Universe 1.1.2 Patch Notes >-Random global floods no longer possible >-'Child burning' exploit removed, stats no longer refunded after infant born >-Pigs may now host demons >-Ark of the Covenant no longer drops as epic loot
In the sense that it affects and convinces the ignorant mind? Sure. Religion and belief shepherd the masses. It can ruin and destroy lives.
I just watched a Coca Cola documentary about a fat Mexican shaman lady who prayed to mother Mary (after sacrificing a chicken) to cure a guy of his diabetes—which consisted of him drinking MORE Coca Cola, what the frick.
Yeah, ignorance is power. You don’t need mind control powers to mind control people. Giving someone the evil eye may very well ruin their week because they actually believe that shit. Similar to how doctors ruin lives by falsely diagnosing cancer.
>I just watched a Coca Cola documentary about a fat Mexican shaman lady who prayed to mother Mary (after sacrificing a chicken) to cure a guy of his diabetes—which consisted of him drinking MORE Coca Cola, what the frick.
Is this about that town where everyone has diabetes because Coca Cola is cheaper than water? >Yeah, ignorance is power. You don’t need mind control powers to mind control people. Giving someone the evil eye may very well ruin their week because they actually believe that shit. Similar to how doctors ruin lives by falsely diagnosing cancer.
Notably, there have been a few cases in Australia where men have died after being cursed by shaman-assassins called kurdaitcha. They believed the curse would kill them, so it did.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Is this about that town where everyone has diabetes because Coca Cola is cheaper than water?
Yes. I think.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Notably, there have been a few cases in Australia where men have died after being cursed by shaman-assassins called kurdaitcha. They believed the curse would kill them, so it did.
In South America people believe a sorcerer’s spit can kill. Or something like that. An invisible projectile.
So the point I was going to make is that witchcraft is at least conceptually falsifiable. It is performed in order to exert over the world around us and follows certain formulae. If that fails to work, if the witch is demonstrated to be a charlatan, it is pretty easy to conclude that witchcraft is bullshit. But no one can put God in a test tube nor summon Him with a ritual. Miracles operate on his time table, so there is a much larger degree of ambiguity.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>If that fails to work, if the witch is demonstrated to be a charlatan, it is pretty easy to conclude that witchcraft is bullshit.
Is it bullshit in the mind of the ignorant? It’s not bullshit psychologically. Fear/superstition does wonders.
I’m of the opinion that all magic/miracles are “sleight of hand” to some shade or degree, since if any hocus pocus spell or ritual actually worked, it’s still not supposed to, and something is *entertaining* it. Prayers and rituals don’t always go answered. These things are more so petitions than actual sciences. Demon, angel, demon or otherwise, these beings are still *intelligent* and actually have to answer and perform.
No different from a squirrel asking a human for a couple of nuts. That squirrel just doesn’t go “oh my god this giant being is clearly a benevolent god”.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>No different from a squirrel asking a human for a couple of nuts. That squirrel just doesn’t go “oh my god this giant being is clearly a benevolent god”.
That's a supposition on your part. For all we know, many animals may well see us as an equivalent to that.
>Never mind that the 21st century world is literally an Atlantean one.
wait what
I was so distracted by the fedora-tipping that I missed this New Age shit at the end of the post.
so
you be telling me that some parts of church were practicing black magic demonology and necromancy
what's next, you be telling me that's inquisition weren't burning and torturing ppl by hundreds because they were suspected of witchery?
“Nuhh uhhh, my God is so outside the universe he can exist in a billion dimensions!”
lol
Once again, you prove to me that ‘miracles’ are just an attempt at grasping for something more magical than magic, which is still magic. “No it’s better!”.
>he thinks god doesn’t perform miracles using nature >he thinks natural medicine isn’t a miracle of god
Imagine being a moronic religious person who refuses to take a blood transfusion.
If god made the universe, then everything inside of it is a miracle, good lord.
The hilarious thing is that the "we'll literally let ourselves die before accepting a blood transfusion" shit's all because of a misinterpretation/mistranslation.
This is why people like moronic Marcille spammer are truly idiotic. They think a miracle wouldn’t have objective information to it. God is literally moving water when Moses parts the sea. The fiery pillars he sends down are made out of fire. It’s all nature. How else would it manifest?
I can honest to god say Christians make these threads worse because they just aren’t on the same tier of thinking.
Christian Scientists, who reject modern medicine, believe that there is no such thing as disease, and that disease symptoms are actually caused by demons. Most Christians do not consider them Christian because their theology is insane.
Jehovah's Witnesses, who specifically reject blood transfusions, have an overly-literal interpretation of the Old Testament rule against ingesting blood. Most Christians ALSO do not consider them Christian because their theology is also insane. Notably, JW's are the biggest contributors to research into artificial blood substitutes, because they would be allowed to take those, since they have no objection to modern medicine, only to blood transfusions specifically.
So this argument doesn't really work in either case.
>Notably, there have been a few cases in Australia where men have died after being cursed by shaman-assassins called kurdaitcha. They believed the curse would kill them, so it did.
In South America people believe a sorcerer’s spit can kill. Or something like that. An invisible projectile.
Has anyone actually died from that or is it just a folk belief? I've read at least one account of someone with a perfectly healthy body that shut down because a kurdaitcha pointed a bone at him.
Something to keep in mind is that most cultures have stories of witches, but since witches are evil, few or no people actually practice what that culture considers to be witchcraft. In the case of kurdaitcha, they are shamans, not witches, and are sent to assassinate those who commit a serious crime and then flee the tribe before they can be punished.
>Jehovah's Witnesses, who specifically reject blood transfusions, have an overly-literal interpretation of the Old Testament rule against ingesting blood
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, and I escaped it with my mother and brothers. It’s partially why I despise the whole ‘miracles not magic’ position since they frequently used it in their fallacious arguments. These people see the word “wizard” and they panic.
….They banned movies like Lord of the Rings….but not the Hobbit…even though they are the same world….further implying the Disney-tier graphics of the Hobbit are precisely what made it “sage”….
I’m not joking either. Jehovah’s witnesses are moronic.
The Orthodox churches deny that the Catholics are Christian and vice versa. So no a very good way to tell who is who.
Me.
Better answer but still. no.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The Orthodox churches deny that the Catholics are Christian and vice versa. So no a very good way to tell who is who.
Not what I'm talking about. The First Council of Nicaea set out the Nicene Creed, which is adhered to by all mainstream denominations of Christianity.
Non-Nicenean Christianity is generally not recognizable to Nicenean Christians once you get into the nitty gritty of the theology. For example, Mormons believe that God was once a mortal man from the planet Kolob. If you were raised Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, you probably find that completely bizarre and incomprehensible.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Pretty sure catholics, orthodox and protestants find each other completely bizarre and incomprehensible as well.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You'd be wrong.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Catholic and Orthodox theology are nearly identical. Their quibbles are extremely minor and mostly revolve around whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son together, or just from the Father alone. Individual Orthodox churches sometimes rejoin the Catholic church and their rituals and practice are kept entirely intact. Their priests are even still allowed to marry, as long as they do so before ordination.
Protestant and Catholic theology have some more significant differences, like salvation by works vs. salvation by faith, but there isn't really any singular element that unites the Protestants apart from all of them hating the Pope. For example, the Anglican church has an essentially Catholic theology except that they say scripture is more important than tradition instead of co-equal.
But all of these mainstream denominations are united by their belief in the Trinity. Mormonism et al. lack even that, having no more in common with mainstream Christianity than they do with Islam.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You'd be wrong.
Man I 've met orthodox christians and their main problem with Catholicism is Papism. They find the idea bizarre, incomprehensible and offensive. Hubris one might say. >Orthodox churches sometimes rejoin the Catholic church
Even the phrasing here would raise some anger from them. They are pretty adamant they are the "first".
4 months ago
Anonymous
Not really. My Protestant ass finds Catholics kinda odd and clearly wrong about a few specific things, but they’re still clearly fundamentally Christian.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Baptist here.
The more I learn about the historical context of the New Testament, and the more I learn about Catholic/Orthodox Theology, the more I see where they're coming from.
I do not get that sense when I learn about Mormon/JW theology.
4 months ago
JWanon
>I do not get that sense when I learn about Mormon/JW theology.
Why ?
4 months ago
BaptistAnon
Because scripture, in general, portrays God (and Jesus and the Holy Spirit) in a different way from the way that Mormons and JWs describe them, while the notion of sacraments (the center of Catholic/Orthodox ecclesiology, and the main point of of departure from Protestantism) *does* seem to have at least *some* scriptural foundation.
Mormons, for example, blur the line between Creator and creature, thereby nullifying the impact of the Incarnation. If God and man were fundamentally the same type of thing anyways, how would His Son becoming a man have the Cosmic implications that Scripture ascribes to Christ's Work?
As for your sect, treating Jesus and the Spirit as created beings is equally problematic. The word limits prevent me from explaining why adequately, but suffice it to say that Logos/Reason/Wisdom and Pneuma/Life/Spiritedness - especially when considering the roles scripture ascribes to the Son and Spirit - strike me as necessary/essential manifestations of Who God Is, not contingent created beings that He could have done without. He is Wise, He is the Living God, and to claim that He somehow had to learn Wisdom, or bring Himself to Life strikes me as heretical at best - and Blasphemous at worst.
The answer to that is always "'A 'true Christian' equals my specific flavor of Christianity."
Nearly 40,000 slightly different interpretations of this one religion, and they're all claiming to be the One True Faith.
>Has anyone actually died from that or is it just a folk belief?
I’m not sure, it’s pretty dense and jungly over there. I’m just parroting their beliefs.
Yeah, it's the ultimate irony. They're neither Christians nor scientists.
>Has anyone actually died from that or is it just a folk belief?
I’m not sure, it’s pretty dense and jungly over there. I’m just parroting their beliefs.
I'm not going to debate theology with you. I'm just pointing out that your theology is fundamentally unorthodox and makes the differences between Protestants and Catholics look trivial.
4 months ago
JWanon
Unorthodox according to whom
4 months ago
Anonymous
According to the First Council of Nicaea, who determined it about 1700 years ago. Arianism has been universally considered a heresy since before the fall of Rome.
4 months ago
JWanon
>According to the First Council of Nicaea
JWs existed before the council of nicea, so how is it relevant to me
every other major christian denomination except the mormons disagrees with you on the trinity, and the mormons disagree with you on almost everything else
[...]
1 John 5:7 >For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Bruh
>"The passage appears to have originated as a gloss in a Latin manuscript around the end of the 4th century,[3] and was subsequently incorporated into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the 5th century, though not the earliest Vulgate manuscripts.[4]" >"It is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament." >"A Trinitarian gloss (marginal note) known as the Johannine Comma, added to Latin translations of the epistle in the 4th century,[26] was interpolated (added to the main text) within 1 John 5:7-8 over the course of the Middle Ages.[26] >Although no Greek manuscripts before the 15th century include the passage"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
Please stop posting this fake verse
4 months ago
Anonymous
>JWs existed before the council of nicea,
I almost forgot that you guys are LITERALLY insane.
4 months ago
JWanon
Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch
The council of nicea was a political move from pagan emperor Constantine to unify his subjects
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch
This is what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe.
4 months ago
JWanon
Because it's true
4 months ago
Anonymous
I mean, Paul got to randomly claim divine revelation.
4 months ago
JWanon
Actually, the witnesses who can confirm that Paul was chosen by God include Ananias, who was instructed by God to go and lay hands on Paul to restore his sight after his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19); Barnabas, who vouched for Paul's conversion and ministry (Acts 9:26-27); and Peter, James, and John, who acknowledged Paul's apostleship and recognized his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-10).
Not to mention the numerous miracles he performed.
4 months ago
Anonymous
No one cares about your meme theology.
4 months ago
JWanon
Ad hominem
4 months ago
Anonymous
every other major christian denomination except the mormons disagrees with you on the trinity, and the mormons disagree with you on almost everything else
The God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity.
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
1 John 5:7 >For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
That's nothing, you should check up on the rituals to summon and/or invoke angels, especially archangels, and sometimes also invoking the Saints. Turns out when people believe there are beings, natural or ascended, with supernatural powers they start looking for ways to bind and control them. Sure beats praying and hoping someone answers. Needless to say the church took a dim view of this since it cuts out the clergy and some of the archangels were getting to be more popular than G Daddy himself.
“No, miracles are not magic”
“No, science is not magic”
“No, psychic shit is not magic”
“No, shamans aren’t sorcerers”
“No, witches aren’t male”
“No, gods are not aliens”
For every statement like these thrown around, there are countless examples in history contradicting them.
>miracles are not magic
If mircales were magic it would've just been called that lol >science is not magic
was >psychic shit is not magic
true >shamans aren’t sorcerers
shamans vape, sorcerers are male. >witches aren’t male
Correct, they're wizards. >gods are not aliens
Correct. Now go leave
It’s actually really, really funny how angry and red faced a Christian gets when you call their God an alien, or accuse miracles of being magic, or point out how satanic their Sunday gatherings are.
Reminder that racist Christian Spaniards thought the israelites were a race of wizards and would always grab the nearest one to force into blessing their crops.
Eventually a law was placed to prevent people from doing this.
>religion is opposed to reason >reason is opposed to religion >implying most atheists have any capacity for reason outside of DEBOONKING moronic religious statements
It's because they're conditioned pretty early on to have a deep emotional investment to the point that any threat to the belief is a threat to them, personally.
I'm not sure, I feel like people pick up these madnesses all throughout life.
I met a guy once who INSISTED the sun was planted by the CIA.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I once found a blog run by a guy who was absolutely certain that the sky was made of glass and the sun was a giant light bulb. His evidence was that if you look out the window of a plane you can see some weird optical effects.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I see your "the sun is a CIA psyop" and raise with "the timeline is out of sync because we have microwaves but still use fire to cook things."
4 months ago
Anonymous
I once found a blog run by a guy who was absolutely certain that the sky was made of glass and the sun was a giant light bulb. His evidence was that if you look out the window of a plane you can see some weird optical effects.
these are both pretty solid crazies.
4 months ago
Anonymous
If you want to see a full-blown schizophrenic, check out Tamir Kitan on Youtube. He believes that Emma Watson is the leader of a cult of women with beautiful shins who are collaborating with an evil AI to persecute him by stimulating his feet with electromagnetic waves.
He also makes videos where he rambles about wanting to frick 14-year-olds and actually he shouldn't be having sex with adult women anyway because his Mongolian penis too small to please them.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not sure what the difference between a shizophrenic and someone who just believes a wrong thing is.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Does this clear things up?
4 months ago
Anonymous
no.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Schizophrenic
Person whose brain is actually messed up and operating abnormally. There is actually a difference between that and believing something that isn't true because they're ignorant/gullible/just really WANT it to be true.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>He believes that Emma Watson is the leader of a cult of women with beautiful shins who are collaborating with an evil AI
This is true, but the other things is no doubt schizoshit.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Actual paranoid schizophrenics are only entertaining for about 5 minutes. They become painfully tedious after that.
4 months ago
Anonymous
He's fun to check in on now and then but you're right that most schizos are tremendously boring once you've figured out what their particular fixation is. Terry Davis was a rare exception, and that was mostly because he was an honest-to-god genius in addition to being schizophrenic.
4 months ago
Anonymous
A genius losing their mind is usually just immensely sad rather than entertaining, though.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Terry was both. He would almost certainly have become a household name like Steve Jobs if he hadn't gone crazy, but even as a nutcase he created a truly impressive work of outsider art in the form of a 64-bit operating system with specifications dictated to him by God.
They aren't an atheist if they believe in gods. You can technically believe in any other crazy bullshit, including "time travelling Space israelites colonized Atlantis" and still be an atheist, but no deities allowed, not even "I believe they exist but think they're a bunch of pricks."
In my game no since they draw on different but related substrates of matter, where its effectively divine physical and arcane forming a blended trifecta
Pretentiousness is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than is actually possessed.
—
Taking your screenshot (which addresses the Middle Ages of our world and not a fantasy game's world, or even the world of another fantasy medium) at face value, clerics were not only trying to impress, but were actively trying to control the populace, as church and state weren't separate.
In the old /tg/ tradition of assuming D&D when no system is mentioned (which is usually met with moronic crying by D&Dgays these days), the entirety of their system and its legacy is pretentious, not just the clerics therein.
Even if we assume it's something D&D-adjacent, it is still inherently pretentious, as it is attempting to impress through greater culture than is possessed by riding on D&D's coat-tails.
It is definitely interesting how fragile the ego of a being that's supposed to be wise and above petty things like pride seems to be in the Abrahamic religions.
>Doesn't magic in most settings come from gods anyways?
Even settings where magic is some ever present energy, it is too conveniently constructed, or just arbitrarily constructed, for it NOT to be the invention of SOMETHING, even if it's just the author, making things convenient for the story.
All magic, myth, religion, etc , comes across as a game of some sort. It is entertained.
Because aspects of a fantasy game that don't exist in our world don't have to adhere to our world's singular perception of those non-existent aspects.
Common perception won't affect the preferences of someone who does what they want to, because they aren't dependent on a singular line of thinking.
This is what it means to not just go along with the herd, so if you're confused by personal agency, maybe you ought to return to your magic gods and Disney threads on Reddit, Literary Lord.
Justify the practice of "disfellowshipping" (i.e. ostracizing individuals who question leadership or otherwise step out of line too often) without attempting to downplay it or pretend like it doesn't still happen.
What makes Clerics interesting is their magic is conditional upon certain roleplaying decisions. Wizards study magic, which can be made conditional by the setting but isn’t inherent to the class. So there’s a lot of things that a DM can do to make the classes distinct. You can make studying magic illegal but holy magic revered. You can make a setting where the Gods are a lot more reserved or faded, meaning magical clerics are actually rare.
The dichotomy is actually a good one if you’re playing a game with actual roleplaying mechanics, but since DND’s and specifically 5e’s roleplaying mechanics are 99% nonexistent, homebrewed, or fiat, it makes sense that Clerics should probably be excised from the class list. At least wizards actually have the fact that they study magic reflected in their mechanics and the spell book and spell components are actual weaknesses that aren’t just eliminated by never doing roleplay.
But all this fails to account for the fact that Clerics are in DND because of marketing, and not actual synergy with other classes. DND, along with not being a roleplaying game, is not actually very cooperative either. The point of clerics is to be a writing exercise on making a character dedicated to a god that also casts spells. If having a God is integral to your character concept, it’s good to have clerics there. But mechanically their only use is a dip for better armor.
Notably this caused rather great friction with 'common' Christians as opposed to the educated and clerical classes. It took some time for the Catholic Church to crack down hard on demonology and AFAIK the eventual consensus was that no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
>the eventual consensus was that no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
Sounds like more butthurt "n-no, only god can do the thing and be the thing" bullshit.
Well since the Catholics believe that He is omnipotent, omnipresent and timeless logically nothing exists outside of God. Demons included.
Okay, but that's closer to a religious opinion than actual sensible logic. The Christian needs to understand that opposing religions may view their God the same way they (Christians) view others. Monotheistic absoluteness didn't begin with Christianity. "My god is better than your god".
>actual sensible logic.
ntayrt
Look up monads.
It works hermenuitically. Outside of their own texts it doesn't. Still logically holds, just from an initial base you don't like.
They can still logically reject all other gods with it too.
Logic is just a tool to work with initial premise not a unified truth.
>"My god is better than your god".
moses vs ramses.
It's a logical enough conclusion when every time God gets directly involved in the Bible vs some other god or other supernatural entity, it's a curbstomp. Plus I don't recall any record of demons cavorting with humans, just fricking them over. That said there were sorcerers mentioned in the Bible and they would have to be written off as charlatans.
If I use a winch to lift a heavy load it isn't God that's doing it for me.
Similarly, if I use a demon to learn esoteric secrets, it isn't God that's telling them to me.
Yeah, he might have allowed both of those things to happen but that whole routine gets tired pretty quickly.
Shut the frick up Satan.
>Yeah, he might have allowed both of those things to happen but that whole routine gets tired pretty quickly.
He didn't allow both of those things. You've got free will, but God did give you the tools to do those things, you just decided to use them.
>If I use a winch to lift a heavy load it isn't God that's doing it for me.
God gave you the knowledge and musculature necessary to do these things. Without him, you would be nothing.
>Similarly, if I use a demon to learn esoteric secrets, it isn't God that's telling them to me.
All knowledge is derived from God. Therefore, the Devil is using God's knowledge to tempt you down a path of sin.
>god made you
Your god didn't make shit, he was born long after humanity existed.
He's a fricking middle eastern demon.
A figment of the primitive imagination, in other words, reified only by the schemes of priests and the credulity of dupes.
They decided it around 750 AD and it carried through for several centuries, yes. It wasn't a particularly contentious decision. Demonology and witchcraft springing up among early Protestants is what spurred witch trials, where the people burning witches were punished and sometimes executed for heresy (since it is Church Law that witchcraft doesn't exist, neither do witches, meaning the people burning them had committed the sin of murder).
>They decided it around 750 AD
Black magic was still nonetheless conducted by church authorities for centuries after this point.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/539/nigromancy-in-the-later-middle-ages
Protestants were far more prone to burning witches than Catholics ever were, like to a comical degree. Catholic trials had standards of evidence and proof, and if you brought up spurious charges you could yourself be very severely punished. The irony is that the Spain's own Inquisition was actually "fair" by the standards of its day, with more stringent standards of proof than secular courts and a preference for non-fatal punishments, as well as rules for when torture could be used, what tortures were permissible, and how much was permissible. I think they get the bad rap they do due to English-sourced anti-papist propagandizing. And to be perfectly fair to the Brits, they had endured a bunch of Catholic coup and assassination attempts, so it wasn't as if they hated Catholics for no reason.
Ask the cathars about how benevolent the catholics were. Oh wait.
No one was benevolent. I only take exception to the notion that the 'witch hunter' is heavily associated with Catholicism when the archetypal witch hunter was overwhelmingly some stripe of Calvinist.
It's almost certainly because Dr. Van Helsing from the original Dracula story was a Roman Catholic. Basically every monster-hunter trope stems from Dracula and its adaptations.
Cathars got dealt with like any other secessionist socio-ethnic or religious-ethnic group that didn't pay their taxes. It's not comparable to killing random people for hearsay.
785, the Council of Paderborn.
>Charlemagne has been slaughtering the Saxons up in England
>kicked the ass of the Saxon leader
>converted him and his son to Christianity along the way
>brings peace between Saxon and Frank (i.e. England and France)
>2-3 years later decided to hold a council to decide how the conversion was going
>Council decides to ban idolatry (can't make votive offerings to trees, wells, or alleged spirits)
>outlaw witchcraft under the logic that it did not exist (and that "spells" are bullshit), so acting like it did exist was heresy
>order the death penalty for any witch-hunter (stopping the just-converted from showcasing their new religious fervour by murdering their fellows and formenting civil strife)
Burning witches, and believing witches exist, was a pagan custom, not a Christian/Catholic one. Charlemagne took all the council's recommendations and put his stamp on them, making them official.
It wasn't 100% effective, of course. Rebellions did still happen despite the conquest and conversion process, Charlemagne just put them down by crushing the rebellion through military force, rounding up the prisoners, and executing them all for rebellion against the Emperor.
>It wasn't 100% effective, of course.
Hilarious understatement. Major witch hysterias were occurring until at least the 18th century. Frankly I don't think the 'no power outside God' argument holds water even in the context of the New Testament, let alone the old one. No power above or beside God, maybe.
It was reasonably effective within Catholicism proper, and while Charlemagne was around and until shortly after him it was downright brutally effective. Afterward, though, the church kind of moved on to other topics, it wasn't until the 1100s that they actually got around to codifying anything further on it, mainly in relation to what spirits and demons are and what, if any, powers they have (conclusion: none against those who have faith in God).
The problem was unironically the Protestants 99% of the time, and the English ones especially. Which makes sense, since a lot more of those old pre-Christian beliefs had managed to survive there than elsewhere.
>Saxon and Frank (i.e. England and France)
The Saxon wars had nothing to do with England, it was against the Saxon tribes of Northern Germany, not the ones that migrated to England.
The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of Britain had already converted by that point.
>Notably this caused rather great friction with 'common' Christians as opposed to the educated and clerical classes
This is because Europeans (especially northern ones) are too stupid to understand concepts like “monotheism” or “omnipotence”.
What, you think the southerners fared better with this? The Byzantine wars of the icon say otherwise.
IMO the iconiclasms were reasonable arguments over whether the veneration of saints was idolatry or not. It’s dumb, but not nearly as dumb as the northerners attempts to make Christianity dualistic (by inventing Satan and importing Hel).
This is just another variant of the whole 'theurgy against goetia' argument. Which is thus: How can you tell if an angel or god isn't a demon or something worse? Does it even matter? It's all indistinguishably alien at the end of the day. You are placing your luck in the hands of *something* either way. What is a god, a demon, an angel, etc, is itself a question of subjective perception. "Your god is not a god, it's a demon, and my god is a true God". It's a self-defeating argument. Magic, to me anyway, is *supposed* to be disagreeable, as a contrast with science which is, in-theory anyway, supposed to be agreeable on the basis of empiricism. Magic and science are two sides of the same coin. The concrete contrasting against the inconcrete. Ignorance is power.
Underrated post. Christians don’t want to entertain the thought that their “God” is just an alien troll / some sort of alien architect.
I don’t see why the existence/nature of God in a fictional setting written by humans (which is what we’re ultimately discussing itt) would have any bearing on the existence/nature of god IRL. Christians who can’t imagine other cosmic orders are weak and should remove themselves from the gene pool.
>Christians don’t want to entertain the thought that their “God” is just an alien troll / some sort of alien architect.
They don't have to, because conquest of pagans and heretics was considered God's will and supremacy made manifest. "Your god is a phony" only really appeals to conquered people.
Y’all keep talking about IRL theology like it matters on /tg/. It does not.
Sorry you don't like the topic of this thread. Maybe you can go make a different one?
Isn't the whole point that Jesus Christ is a man? Criticizing the Christian God for being an unknowable entity misses the point somewhat.
>Jesus Christ is a man
Uh oh, looks like you just committed the Arian heresy.
All Catholics will tell you Christ is a True Man moron.
Christ was as much a man as he was a god. There was an ecumenical council that ruled any other belief as heresy.
Also Arianism is the belief that the Son is not co-equal with the Father, as espoused by our mentally ill cultist friend here:
This is quite distinct from the matter of whether Christ was a man, a god, both, or a hybrid.
>This is quite distinct from the matter of whether Christ was a man, a god, both, or a hybrid.
Jesus was a spirit creature in heaven before he was born as a human on earth. Jesus himself said: “I have come down from heaven.”—John 6:38; 8:23.
God created Jesus before he created anything else. Regarding Jesus, the Bible says:
“He is the firstborn of all creation.”—Colossians 1:15.
He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Crowley is the only channeler I don't think was a fraud. I'm not saying he was actually in contact with supernatural beings, but I certainly believe that he thought he was.
I think he was just a really convincing huckster doing it for attention and pussy.
I think he was a huckster who wanted attention and pussy (and boypussy, he was famously bisexual), but I also think he had an authentic religious experience in Egypt.
Both a big brain and a brainlet post at the same time. Incredible and fascinating work anon.
The idea has actually floated within Christian theology since at least medieval times, they came up with their own answer of how to distinguish between the two.
There's a common theme where heroes ignore the call of an angel twice, and only answer it the third time. The idea was that the power of demons is limited and they can only attempt to fool a man twice before having to give up, while God can call on people as much as he needs. Even Jeanne d'Arc uses it in her testimony of her visions when she was accused of mistaking demons for angels.
>The idea was that the power of demons is limited and they can only attempt to fool a man twice before having to give up
That sounds suspiciously arbitrary. I bet they’re still demons on the third try.
Not really, three was a number with a lot of divine symbolism (think of the holy trinity). It's where sayings like "all good things come in threes" come from.
>It's where sayings like "all good things come in threes" come from.
I'm not so sure about that. A lot of very old stories are structured in threes. It seems to be a number with inherent psychological significance, rather than a cultural thing.
Fair enough. The point is that the choice for three times was anything but arbitrary.
No, it is completely arbitrary. They, intelligent beings, are giving themselves arbitrary rules. Why would a squirrel never go for the same tree a third time?
Yah, humans are just obsessed with threes for biological reasons (1 dick + 2 balls).
It is important for maths and the human brain, which conceptualises 3 more easily than other numbers. So three number sequences, for example, are instinctively easier to remember because our brains naturally like to do it that way.
>Not really
Yes really, you drooling moron. What is telling the external intelligent being “don’t do it more than twice”? Are you assuming angels and demons and such are autistic morons who can’t count to three?
Man this thing was answered way back in the NT. Jesus pointed out how Satan's temptations in the wilderness contradicted scripture then told him to frick off when the mask fell.
That's why you should either become an animist and venerate your ancestors instead or become a Buddhist.
>Aliens are just Daemons! Dont get on the ships!
Is something I seem fairly commonly on /x/ and /misc/ nowadays. That and Flat Earthers.
aliens make more sense than a pancake planet
I've never heard about this before. What do I need to google to read more?
not him, but here's your resource:
archive
org/details/b3136245x/page/56/mode/2up?view=theater
>t no supernatural power exists outside of God, making all witchcraft, demon summoning, etc. fake.
And yet the Catholic Church still has trained exorcists, still publishes about the dangers of demonic possession and cases where it occurs, and still warns against the practice of witchcraft.
“Lalalalala- I can’t hear you, lalalalalala”
I’ve already been trying to explain to people like him (in that other thread) that Christian-think is excruciatingly ironic, but he just won’t have it.
I'm pretty sure that those present day Christians who think those things are harmful mainly just think that participating in worldly activities instead of pious ones can leave one vulnerable for demonic threats. The cartoonishly hysterical Christians like Jack Chick who believed that certain geometrical symbols and musical sounds are inherently satanic and that D&D portrays real magic are pretty rare these days and mostly protestants.
That being said, there was that one Catholic priest who claimed that Harry Potter house names are names of real demons. Imagine being a demon called Hufflepuff. Also, a lot of Christians are still weird about ouija boards like they were some kind of ancient occult weapons, they were made out as cash grab toys in 1890s to quickly capitalize on the spiritualism craze, and get a slice of money people were throwing at spiritism and medium shows.
>ouija boards like they were some kind of ancient occult weapons
They kinda are.. You literally open a vortex for souls to travel through, said to communicate.. And most of the time the one you're talking to, well wanna talk to.. arent your dead family like you wanted wanted and called for. Anyone that have spent some time with the paranormal knows it's a bad idea to use an ouija board, even moreso alone.
Can't you just do that by talking out loud or by thinking about it? The piece of wood/plastic seems redundant, why would demons need that?
It is demonic wood.
It works because of belief, though thousands of believers of this ''fact'', it becomes truth. Besides.. it doesnt really have to made of wood, but then It wouldn't really be called an ouija board, right? It's not magical just because it's an ouija board.
The ouija board itself isn't special in any way. However, using it is an invitation for spirits to come into your home and communicate with you.
If you believe in spirits, as Christians do, you SHOULD find this worrisome.
>as Christians do
Never met a Christian so I wouldnt know, but I've met lots of people that have had paranormal mishaps. Anyone in the ''circles'' of Spirituality do believe to a certain extent of it's workings.
Begone ghnome.
Demons are drawn towards symbols carved by man.
It's a novelty game made for children anon
I played around with ouija board few times as a kid. I didn't believe in any of it then either but played along because a girl I liked was into it. Nothing happened, unless me ending up blueballed was a demonic interference.
Weegee boards were invented whole cloth by a boardgame company. You can still buy them in the toy aisle at your local Target. There's nothing authentically spiritual, magical, religious or supernatural about them.
Look
Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or spirits do exist and ouija boards are dangerous. Therefore, if you believe in spirits, you should be very cautious around ouija boards.
Them being modern inventions isn't really relevant in either case.
>Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or spirits do exist and ouija boards are dangerous. Therefore, if you believe in spirits, you should be very cautious around ouija boards.
Your "therefore" is wrong. Either spirits don't exist and ouija boards are harmless, or they do exist and the boards are dangerous. Therefore, you should check and see if your beliefs conform to reality. The null hypothesis would be that spirits don't exist, because assuming they do exist posits extraneous entities that don't add explanatory power; belief in spirits is an epistemically costly assumption that fails Occam's razor. So, given that, how would you go about confirming or disconfirming the existence of spirits? How do you tell an imperceptible and unfalsifiable entity apart from no entity at all? How do you distinguish an entity that appears not to exist whenever anyone tests it from one that actually does not exist?
The logic behind the people that believe in spirits or divination is that the original intent of the tool does not matter, only the practices it's applied to. That won't stop some people from lying about the origin of a practice, like cartomancy using the tarot being invented wholesale in the 19th century.
Hell, you can *show* that they're bullshit by just blindfolding the participants (inb4 "the ghosts need to hijack our senses to communicate") or feeding them a bullshit story about the "spirit" they're "contacting" (inb4 "the ghosts are fricking with you for trying to test them")
It's all entirely charlatanry and/or the ideomotor effect, no spoopy ghosts or extradimensional entities involved whatsoever.
But monks were summoning demons USING the authority of God, you dolt. God-powered magic. No different from king Solomon. White wizardry. Hallowed sorcery.
>be Solomon
>it's good to be the king
>chat up sexy demon ladies
>"why don't we go back to my place?
>yeah, that big palace is mine
>teleport with out error to bedroom
>sexy demons get a little noisy
>sexy demons get real weird and really noisy
>frickin' guards storm the bedroom
>forgot to tell 'em I was back
>shit
>sexy demon ladies panic and switch to battle form
>gotta de-escalate, "Y'ALL, WAIT!"
>guard captain says to men, "be not afraid, the King invokes Yaweh!"
>youngest guard shits himself
>slightly bestial sexy demon ladies complain about the shit smell and fly out window
>okay, new rules
>always admit any of the 72 women in this book
>only guard captain reads and he thinks it's a grimoire and won't open it
>it's not always good to be the king
The Church (and most Christians) disagreed. Summoning and oracles were already banned in scripture, so I'm not sure why they decided they were exempt because Solomon did it.
>No different from king Solomon.
none of the stories about solomon as a demon-summoning sorcerer come from the bible, and in the bible god takes away the kingship from his line because of his idolatry and greed.
solomon, especially later in life, is not someone christians ought to emulate.
He was the wisest man who ever lived, though. That's gotta count for something.
>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
>For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
>the wisest man who ever lived
>immediately gathers a harem and dives into demonology
What does this mean?
20 WIS
4 INT.
>Sinners go through all kinds of mental gymnastic to convince themselves they're not sinners
Who'd've thought
>D&D
All castergays in D&D are pretentious twats.
Uhhhhh, BASED?
/thread
Shut the FRICK UP you filthy fricking barbarians.
Based and martialpilled.
virgin with pointy hat in shambles
The best Divine caster in 3.5 is Archivist, and they're just a Wizard but for Divine spells. There's nothing stopping you from being an apathetic, autistic collector.
Seething swordtard.
The thread should have ended here. There is nothing else to say. Modern DnD players are all twats anyway, but castergays are by far the worst of the,
only good post in the thread
Pretensions stemming from pride more than arrogance make their starting points and goals much different.
>arrogance knows its right, doesn't care what other people do or think
>pride wants other people to think they're right, really cares what other people do and think
Clerics are social parasites. They have to commit acts of faith that convert masses and generate power for their deities that they can then suckle a small portion of.
Wizards take power.
Clerics beg and make pyramid schemes.
Depends on the system and setting. In mine, divine magic is fundamentally different from arcane magic in that the priest or cleric or equivalent merely acts as a conduit for the motive force of the divine, which reside on a higher plane.
That’s super cool but, uh, [citation needed]
>[32]
moron.
This is just proof that Christianity is the false religion. Inshallah
I actually do believe that Islam tried to over-correct the tendency of the Christian converted populations to keep polytheistic beliefs and just superglue them to Christianity and the fact that the fathers of the Church seemed to either ignore or encourage this practice. That and as many others couldn't comprehend how a monad can have three distinct expressions.
The quiet ignoring of it, or encouraging of it, is probably a result of the church fathers preferring to have more converts than not. If you kill them all you can't really have them at the church on sunday.
Yeah maybe, Islam did pretty well in that front despite being far stricter in that regard.
Islam also involves binding of djinn, so...not so much. In Mohammedian paganism, Jesus is still considered a key prophet.
Yes. There is fundamentally no difference between magic and miracles.
Careful, we just had a whole other thread destroyed because some moronic theist got offended by this notion.
>Magic is self-serving
>Miracles serve the divinity granting them ultimately being an expression of it.
Seems like a decent distinction to me.
Indistinguishable.
You couldn’t tell the difference between the two in-universe, but making the distinction makes sense on a game level because you can accomplish different things with them.
Usually correct (at least within IRL belief systems… and Warhammer Fantasy), but there are definitely some Christian (and probably also Islamic) frameworks where a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the two.
Those Christian frameworks, as
pointed out, don’t actually actually mean anything. One god’s miracles aren’t necessarily miracles to another. You’re basically jus stating “my magic is better”.
Assuming you’re not running a setting where Christianity Is Right.
>Magic
Performed by mortals
>Miracles
Performed by the God(s).
Gods can’t be wizards? Don’t be an idiot.
It’s almost like they forget that Odin existed, and gave rise to characters like Gandalf.
Odin is a god not a wizard moron
Óðinn is a god who is also a wizard. That's not a contradiction in Norse mythology, he was one of the more knowledgeable magicians among the Æsir (thanks to the whole "hanging himself from Yggdrasil" business), and the Vanir were a whole separate group of gods regarded as more skillful magic-users than the Æsir.
Odin was the original min-maxer, anon. He was THE Norse wizard/archmage. Femininity didn't stop him from learning magic.
Hello again, anon. I hope you're having a nice day!
There was not that much wizardry during the middle ages. In fact, the church considered any magic as a silly superstitious. The raise in the true interest for magic, and reaction against it, coincide with the rise of science.
>There was not that much wizardry during the middle ages. In fact, the church considered any magic as a silly superstitious.
This is simply not true. You'll want to look into hermeticism generally, alchemy specifically. Despite being a no-no, all sorts of divination persisted throughout the middle ages, straight past the Renaissance, and right into early modern and modern times.
That’s Early Modern, not Middle.
>hermeticism
That's early modern bro (1500-1700).
Alchemy has pre-Renaissance roots.
Alchemy's emergence in Europe in the 1100s is generally identified as being Arabic texts that were transported west and translated, alongside Aristotelian texts that were part of a consistent transfer and trade of knowledge rather than a persistent magical belief among the wider population. They were not considered magic but as forms of science (e.g. Friar Roger Bacon's Great Work in 1267).
> They were not considered magic but as forms of science (e.g. Friar Roger Bacon's Great Work in 1267).
Funnily enough, centuries after his death, Bacon was frequently hailed as a wizard. His esoteric knowledge bases and sagely repute bases made him into one. He still believed in God, though, in a similar fashion to Newton (learning brought you closer to God).
>Arabic texts that were transported west and translated
which were originally transported from the Greeks, right?
I think the alchemical stuff was largely an Arabic invention, but I honestly haven’t done research.
Dunno exactly, Alas what I remember about was more of an greek-dhimmi, which were the so called ''Islamic Golden Age'', since it was depended entirely on the translation of the greeks by conquered populations. said ''arab'' numerals was invented in India around 700d.C and the number 0 invented by Brahmagputa in.. Uhhh 629? Caliph Al-Ma'mun in the 9th century ordered all dhimmis said israelites and christians to translate the greek but that was only the ''useful'' shits, not the scientific methods, they were samply rejected.
Think I remember reading this from an Greentext many years ago so the uhhh truthfulness is.. doubtful.. Perhaps I should just read books instead.
>centuries after his death
Yes. As I said, opinions from the wider population did not suggest an association of it with "magical belief" until the early modern period was already firmly underway.
Sort of. The earliest stuff I can recall offhand about alchemy has it starting mainly in Hellenistic Egypt with processes based around smelting, working glass, and primitive chemistry, with the earliest text being a 300 AD list of about 200 recipes. Gold, silver, purity tests, how to make fakes (there's one recipe that allows you to adjust the colouration of silver to look like gold), that sort of thing.
The vast majority of alchemy is of Arabic invention building on the works of Zosimos (4th century AD), who was also a Greek-Egyptian. His work was taken up by the eastern Roman Empire/Byzantines, and later made its way west to Europe in the 1100s as part of the Arabic textual influx. It was a science though, not magic.
Thanks for the Information Anon, I'll lay it in my notes for the future.
>alchemy specifically
Alchemy and magic are different arts. In fact, alchemy was probably the first form of experiment-based and not pure reasoning-based science.
>Alchemy and magic are different arts.
You're an idiot.
No, it's you who are an idiot. Alchemy is not magic. Magic is tripe for homosexuals and women (also israelites), Alchemy is for gentlemen (like Isaac Newton).
>Alchemy is not magic.
Imagine actually believing this.
Traditionally any magic comes from having a divine spark in you or because the gods grant it to you, not from an unlimited source of unconscious aether.
The Church was a self-hating Mages Guild by any other name. Lmfao.
Christian monks justified that they could summon and judge demons the same way Solomon did. Godly police. Why would it be bad if the source was from God? Why do demons deserve to go unpunished?
It still pissed off the clergy, and the most dangerous witch of all was actually considered to be the compromised (unholy) priest or bishop. The Devil infecting God’s ranks with his top minions.
Pic related.
You can link the wikipedia article, you know. It's good grist for the RPG mill if nothing else, especially if you run something like Honor + Intrigue and want a compromised priest as a villain.
>Tfw born to late to have witch-cleric, sorceror-priest, or wizard-monk be a viable career path
Why even live
The Devil hands out “black miracles” so this makes sense
It's the other way around: wizards are pretentious fedora-wearing clerics.
>cleric vs wizard thread
>awesome
>open salvo invokes abrahamism
>anons forever switch from history to fantasy mid-argument and back again
This could have been an interesting discussion.
We're only 42 posts in Anon..
*opening salvo, goddamn it
Found the phoneposter
- posted from my iPhone.
Found the youngster
-posted from my jitterbug
Found the younger bone
-posted from my town-telegraphy
Use search function before Necroing threads.
Locked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
~in this dark ages of deceit i feel truly enlightened~
Would you lot keep it down? I'm having a devil of a time keeping this pigeon still.
Aghaa Ohha Wa!! Pipe it down my laddy, you're distracting my puffs, I'm about to make the signal to the lads from over the mountain, they're talking about all the sexy ladies AND that they're very thirsty for wienery, think I'm gonna come over there tonight, hehe.. wish me luck lads!
As it turns out, history frequently informs fantasy.
Shut the frick up /misc/tard
What? I’m just saying that
A. Some people play in fantasy settings explicitly based on historical periods (Ars Magica, Legend of the Flame Princess, Castle Falkenstein)
B. Some fantasy settings are highly influenced by specific historical periods (Warhammer Fantasy is very Early Modern, for instance)
C. People (by which I mostly mean “GMs”) frequently use their understanding of history to “fill in the gaps” in non-historically based fantasy settings
Shut the frick up, this is just a stealth-yid hating thread, just as any fantasy related ''history'' threads, sooner or later you Anons will start talking about Judes, don't think we know.
If I wanted to talk about israeli Mysticism in fantasy (a cool, interesting, and under explored topic imo), I’d go make a separate thread
…probably on a different website entirely.
Didn't know there are other websites were you can discuss this stuff. Are you sure you are not posting from 2005?
I feel like I could probably have a ~5% useful discussion on israeli mysticism and fantasy on the right Reddit or Lemmy board, which just barely beats out the 0% useful one I could have about it here (but still probably isn’t worth the time and effort of crafting a good OP).
>sooner or later you Anons will start talking about Judes
Pure coincidence.
Christians are so fricking stupid holy shit.
“Magic doesn’t exist. But an old man in the clouds? Totally real.”
“Silly son of mine. Witches aren’t real. Now let’s go worship a ghost and eat of his flesh and blood, like cannibals.”
How does that not sound like fricking witchcraft?
Humans wouldn’t know how to identify blatant magic had it bit them in the ass, or removed their foreskins. They are blind to reality, or just the irony of their actions.
Never mind that the 21st century world is literally an Atlantean one.
Spoken like a moron who has never read the Bible but thinks he knows everything about Christianity. How old are you? 15?
Yeah, you are too butthurt to see it. Stay blind.
How is that any different from any GODs? People really thought the Gods walked besides us, since long BEFORE the Sumerians were even about. Eating bread and turning water into white is some of the weakest shit one could do with magic brah..
Let’s be real, anyone repeating the “old man in the clouds” line is so totally ignorant of Christianity (and probably of religion in general) that there’s no way to have a productive conversation with them.
I do remember ''learning'' about Christianity from Family Guy and Simpson and having 6-7hour debate on Ganker when I was a lad myself..
>guy who runs the universe has admin powers
>humans do not and bathing in goat blood three times under a full moon or whatever fails to change this
Looks like a pretty reasonable distinction to me.
>Universe 1.1.2 Patch Notes
>-Random global floods no longer possible
>-'Child burning' exploit removed, stats no longer refunded after infant born
>-Pigs may now host demons
>-Ark of the Covenant no longer drops as epic loot
God is an extra dimensional. Correct. So are aliens, probably. Glad to see you are learning.
God by definition is an alien. But our local subset are likely microbes if they exist at all.
That’s just a matter of scale. It’s relative.
Do you believe witchcraft actually works?
In the sense that it affects and convinces the ignorant mind? Sure. Religion and belief shepherd the masses. It can ruin and destroy lives.
I just watched a Coca Cola documentary about a fat Mexican shaman lady who prayed to mother Mary (after sacrificing a chicken) to cure a guy of his diabetes—which consisted of him drinking MORE Coca Cola, what the frick.
Yeah, ignorance is power. You don’t need mind control powers to mind control people. Giving someone the evil eye may very well ruin their week because they actually believe that shit. Similar to how doctors ruin lives by falsely diagnosing cancer.
>I just watched a Coca Cola documentary about a fat Mexican shaman lady who prayed to mother Mary (after sacrificing a chicken) to cure a guy of his diabetes—which consisted of him drinking MORE Coca Cola, what the frick.
Is this about that town where everyone has diabetes because Coca Cola is cheaper than water?
>Yeah, ignorance is power. You don’t need mind control powers to mind control people. Giving someone the evil eye may very well ruin their week because they actually believe that shit. Similar to how doctors ruin lives by falsely diagnosing cancer.
Notably, there have been a few cases in Australia where men have died after being cursed by shaman-assassins called kurdaitcha. They believed the curse would kill them, so it did.
>Is this about that town where everyone has diabetes because Coca Cola is cheaper than water?
Yes. I think.
>Notably, there have been a few cases in Australia where men have died after being cursed by shaman-assassins called kurdaitcha. They believed the curse would kill them, so it did.
In South America people believe a sorcerer’s spit can kill. Or something like that. An invisible projectile.
So the point I was going to make is that witchcraft is at least conceptually falsifiable. It is performed in order to exert over the world around us and follows certain formulae. If that fails to work, if the witch is demonstrated to be a charlatan, it is pretty easy to conclude that witchcraft is bullshit. But no one can put God in a test tube nor summon Him with a ritual. Miracles operate on his time table, so there is a much larger degree of ambiguity.
>If that fails to work, if the witch is demonstrated to be a charlatan, it is pretty easy to conclude that witchcraft is bullshit.
Is it bullshit in the mind of the ignorant? It’s not bullshit psychologically. Fear/superstition does wonders.
I’m of the opinion that all magic/miracles are “sleight of hand” to some shade or degree, since if any hocus pocus spell or ritual actually worked, it’s still not supposed to, and something is *entertaining* it. Prayers and rituals don’t always go answered. These things are more so petitions than actual sciences. Demon, angel, demon or otherwise, these beings are still *intelligent* and actually have to answer and perform.
No different from a squirrel asking a human for a couple of nuts. That squirrel just doesn’t go “oh my god this giant being is clearly a benevolent god”.
>No different from a squirrel asking a human for a couple of nuts. That squirrel just doesn’t go “oh my god this giant being is clearly a benevolent god”.
That's a supposition on your part. For all we know, many animals may well see us as an equivalent to that.
>Never mind that the 21st century world is literally an Atlantean one.
wait what
I was so distracted by the fedora-tipping that I missed this New Age shit at the end of the post.
We are living in a practically Atlantean society. Persons in history would have brain aneurysms trying to comprehend what we take for granted today.
Your cellphone is essentially a wand, and its apps are essentially spells.
>We are living in a practically Atlantean society.
What the hell does that mean? Plato's Atlantis wasn't the same as the one from Stargate.
I'm always worried that some people take that meme seriously.
so
you be telling me that some parts of church were practicing black magic demonology and necromancy
what's next, you be telling me that's inquisition weren't burning and torturing ppl by hundreds because they were suspected of witchery?
It's basically "do magic by begging the gods for a crumb of their power" vs "do magic through a combination of extensive study and natural talent."
What happens if they overlap, a la high ceremonial magicks?
This isn’t oil and water people. People have been attempting to contact angels and God through ritual for thousands of years.
“My God is more outside than your god”
lol
“Nuhh uhhh, my God is so outside the universe he can exist in a billion dimensions!”
lol
Once again, you prove to me that ‘miracles’ are just an attempt at grasping for something more magical than magic, which is still magic. “No it’s better!”.
lol
>he thinks god doesn’t perform miracles using nature
>he thinks natural medicine isn’t a miracle of god
Imagine being a moronic religious person who refuses to take a blood transfusion.
If god made the universe, then everything inside of it is a miracle, good lord.
The hilarious thing is that the "we'll literally let ourselves die before accepting a blood transfusion" shit's all because of a misinterpretation/mistranslation.
This is why people like moronic Marcille spammer are truly idiotic. They think a miracle wouldn’t have objective information to it. God is literally moving water when Moses parts the sea. The fiery pillars he sends down are made out of fire. It’s all nature. How else would it manifest?
I can honest to god say Christians make these threads worse because they just aren’t on the same tier of thinking.
Christian Scientists, who reject modern medicine, believe that there is no such thing as disease, and that disease symptoms are actually caused by demons. Most Christians do not consider them Christian because their theology is insane.
Jehovah's Witnesses, who specifically reject blood transfusions, have an overly-literal interpretation of the Old Testament rule against ingesting blood. Most Christians ALSO do not consider them Christian because their theology is also insane. Notably, JW's are the biggest contributors to research into artificial blood substitutes, because they would be allowed to take those, since they have no objection to modern medicine, only to blood transfusions specifically.
So this argument doesn't really work in either case.
Has anyone actually died from that or is it just a folk belief? I've read at least one account of someone with a perfectly healthy body that shut down because a kurdaitcha pointed a bone at him.
Something to keep in mind is that most cultures have stories of witches, but since witches are evil, few or no people actually practice what that culture considers to be witchcraft. In the case of kurdaitcha, they are shamans, not witches, and are sent to assassinate those who commit a serious crime and then flee the tribe before they can be punished.
>Jehovah's Witnesses, who specifically reject blood transfusions, have an overly-literal interpretation of the Old Testament rule against ingesting blood
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness, and I escaped it with my mother and brothers. It’s partially why I despise the whole ‘miracles not magic’ position since they frequently used it in their fallacious arguments. These people see the word “wizard” and they panic.
>These people see the word “wizard” and they panic.
No Harry Pottah then? You lucky bastard.
….They banned movies like Lord of the Rings….but not the Hobbit…even though they are the same world….further implying the Disney-tier graphics of the Hobbit are precisely what made it “sage”….
I’m not joking either. Jehovah’s witnesses are moronic.
>sage
safe*
>Jehovah's Witnesses
Aren't Chirstians.
Who defines who are and aren't Christians?
The First Council of Nicaea.
The Orthodox churches deny that the Catholics are Christian and vice versa. So no a very good way to tell who is who.
Better answer but still. no.
>The Orthodox churches deny that the Catholics are Christian and vice versa. So no a very good way to tell who is who.
Not what I'm talking about. The First Council of Nicaea set out the Nicene Creed, which is adhered to by all mainstream denominations of Christianity.
Non-Nicenean Christianity is generally not recognizable to Nicenean Christians once you get into the nitty gritty of the theology. For example, Mormons believe that God was once a mortal man from the planet Kolob. If you were raised Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, you probably find that completely bizarre and incomprehensible.
Pretty sure catholics, orthodox and protestants find each other completely bizarre and incomprehensible as well.
You'd be wrong.
Catholic and Orthodox theology are nearly identical. Their quibbles are extremely minor and mostly revolve around whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son together, or just from the Father alone. Individual Orthodox churches sometimes rejoin the Catholic church and their rituals and practice are kept entirely intact. Their priests are even still allowed to marry, as long as they do so before ordination.
Protestant and Catholic theology have some more significant differences, like salvation by works vs. salvation by faith, but there isn't really any singular element that unites the Protestants apart from all of them hating the Pope. For example, the Anglican church has an essentially Catholic theology except that they say scripture is more important than tradition instead of co-equal.
But all of these mainstream denominations are united by their belief in the Trinity. Mormonism et al. lack even that, having no more in common with mainstream Christianity than they do with Islam.
Man I 've met orthodox christians and their main problem with Catholicism is Papism. They find the idea bizarre, incomprehensible and offensive. Hubris one might say.
>Orthodox churches sometimes rejoin the Catholic church
Even the phrasing here would raise some anger from them. They are pretty adamant they are the "first".
Not really. My Protestant ass finds Catholics kinda odd and clearly wrong about a few specific things, but they’re still clearly fundamentally Christian.
Baptist here.
The more I learn about the historical context of the New Testament, and the more I learn about Catholic/Orthodox Theology, the more I see where they're coming from.
I do not get that sense when I learn about Mormon/JW theology.
>I do not get that sense when I learn about Mormon/JW theology.
Why ?
Because scripture, in general, portrays God (and Jesus and the Holy Spirit) in a different way from the way that Mormons and JWs describe them, while the notion of sacraments (the center of Catholic/Orthodox ecclesiology, and the main point of of departure from Protestantism) *does* seem to have at least *some* scriptural foundation.
Mormons, for example, blur the line between Creator and creature, thereby nullifying the impact of the Incarnation. If God and man were fundamentally the same type of thing anyways, how would His Son becoming a man have the Cosmic implications that Scripture ascribes to Christ's Work?
As for your sect, treating Jesus and the Spirit as created beings is equally problematic. The word limits prevent me from explaining why adequately, but suffice it to say that Logos/Reason/Wisdom and Pneuma/Life/Spiritedness - especially when considering the roles scripture ascribes to the Son and Spirit - strike me as necessary/essential manifestations of Who God Is, not contingent created beings that He could have done without. He is Wise, He is the Living God, and to claim that He somehow had to learn Wisdom, or bring Himself to Life strikes me as heretical at best - and Blasphemous at worst.
Me.
The answer to that is always "'A 'true Christian' equals my specific flavor of Christianity."
Nearly 40,000 slightly different interpretations of this one religion, and they're all claiming to be the One True Faith.
“Your miracles are ass. The farts of demons. So are your beliefs. Shave your fricking beard, orthodox scum.”.
>Has anyone actually died from that or is it just a folk belief?
I’m not sure, it’s pretty dense and jungly over there. I’m just parroting their beliefs.
Plant magic:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetalismo
Phlegm magic:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yachay
South American magic is actually pretty unique and interesting, and ripe with creative inspiration.
>Christian Scientists
>Christian
>Scientists
Yeah, it's the ultimate irony. They're neither Christians nor scientists.
Cool links, I'll check these out.
Yes they exist. The “smartest man in the world” believes he can prove God’s existence using math.
These are just people using science to mold their beliefs into a proper avenue, since the Bible is technically outdated.
>Most Christians ALSO do not consider them Christian because their theology is also insane.
Give one example
Non-trinitarianism.
The God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity.
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
I'm not going to debate theology with you. I'm just pointing out that your theology is fundamentally unorthodox and makes the differences between Protestants and Catholics look trivial.
Unorthodox according to whom
According to the First Council of Nicaea, who determined it about 1700 years ago. Arianism has been universally considered a heresy since before the fall of Rome.
>According to the First Council of Nicaea
JWs existed before the council of nicea, so how is it relevant to me
Bruh
>"The passage appears to have originated as a gloss in a Latin manuscript around the end of the 4th century,[3] and was subsequently incorporated into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the 5th century, though not the earliest Vulgate manuscripts.[4]"
>"It is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament."
>"A Trinitarian gloss (marginal note) known as the Johannine Comma, added to Latin translations of the epistle in the 4th century,[26] was interpolated (added to the main text) within 1 John 5:7-8 over the course of the Middle Ages.[26] >Although no Greek manuscripts before the 15th century include the passage"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
Please stop posting this fake verse
>JWs existed before the council of nicea,
I almost forgot that you guys are LITERALLY insane.
Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch
The council of nicea was a political move from pagan emperor Constantine to unify his subjects
>Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch
This is what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe.
Because it's true
I mean, Paul got to randomly claim divine revelation.
Actually, the witnesses who can confirm that Paul was chosen by God include Ananias, who was instructed by God to go and lay hands on Paul to restore his sight after his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19); Barnabas, who vouched for Paul's conversion and ministry (Acts 9:26-27); and Peter, James, and John, who acknowledged Paul's apostleship and recognized his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-10).
Not to mention the numerous miracles he performed.
No one cares about your meme theology.
Ad hominem
every other major christian denomination except the mormons disagrees with you on the trinity, and the mormons disagree with you on almost everything else
1 John 5:7
>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
That's nothing, you should check up on the rituals to summon and/or invoke angels, especially archangels, and sometimes also invoking the Saints. Turns out when people believe there are beings, natural or ascended, with supernatural powers they start looking for ways to bind and control them. Sure beats praying and hoping someone answers. Needless to say the church took a dim view of this since it cuts out the clergy and some of the archangels were getting to be more popular than G Daddy himself.
Similarly worship and invocation of the Virgin Mother.
Look up the difference between left handed and right handed magic.
>Mormons
>Jehovah's Witnesses
All American off-brand Christianity KEK
“No, miracles are not magic”
“No, science is not magic”
“No, psychic shit is not magic”
“No, shamans aren’t sorcerers”
“No, witches aren’t male”
“No, gods are not aliens”
For every statement like these thrown around, there are countless examples in history contradicting them.
I hate you guys.
where in history did you find an example of gods being aliens?
for the love of all that is holy do NOT mention chariots of the gods
I watched a lot of Ancient Aliens. It was not healthy, but I still watched it.
>miracles are not magic
If mircales were magic it would've just been called that lol
>science is not magic
was
>psychic shit is not magic
true
>shamans aren’t sorcerers
shamans vape, sorcerers are male.
>witches aren’t male
Correct, they're wizards.
>gods are not aliens
Correct. Now go leave
>was
You’re saying a chemist isn’t allowed to consider the table of elements magic? Frick you. They can make funky colored flames and everything.
No. The other way around.
>magic is not science
was
There!
It’s actually really, really funny how angry and red faced a Christian gets when you call their God an alien, or accuse miracles of being magic, or point out how satanic their Sunday gatherings are.
Reminder that racist Christian Spaniards thought the israelites were a race of wizards and would always grab the nearest one to force into blessing their crops.
Eventually a law was placed to prevent people from doing this.
>every israelite is King Solomon
—“It’s not supernatural, it’s preternatural!”
There has never been a more hair-splitting, stupid-sounding statement in the history of the church.
Reminder that Mexican witchcraft and Voodoo incorporates Catholicism in its spells and rituals.
“God is an alien
There has never been a dumber statement by an atheist
What’s sad is that the fedora toppers aren’t wrong here.
Supporting religion is like supporting the low IQ cool kid on the playground. Supporting reason is like supporting an butthole who’s smarter than you.
>Supporting reason
Yeah keep on taking the vax sheeptard
But supporting reason means not trusting the vax. Because humans are garbage.
>speak in basic logic
“bro you’re a vax taking fedora wearing redditard”
>Injects horse dewormer
>Deifies Reason and thinks that that is against the Logos Made Flesh.
You have a lot to learn.
>religion is opposed to reason
>reason is opposed to religion
>implying most atheists have any capacity for reason outside of DEBOONKING moronic religious statements
>point out that god isn't real
>seething
>point out trannies aren't real women
>seething
>point out any unpopular fact
seething
I am not sure why honest to goodness true and provable things are like, categorically disallowed in favor of people's fantasies.
It's because they're conditioned pretty early on to have a deep emotional investment to the point that any threat to the belief is a threat to them, personally.
I'm not sure, I feel like people pick up these madnesses all throughout life.
I met a guy once who INSISTED the sun was planted by the CIA.
I once found a blog run by a guy who was absolutely certain that the sky was made of glass and the sun was a giant light bulb. His evidence was that if you look out the window of a plane you can see some weird optical effects.
I see your "the sun is a CIA psyop" and raise with "the timeline is out of sync because we have microwaves but still use fire to cook things."
these are both pretty solid crazies.
If you want to see a full-blown schizophrenic, check out Tamir Kitan on Youtube. He believes that Emma Watson is the leader of a cult of women with beautiful shins who are collaborating with an evil AI to persecute him by stimulating his feet with electromagnetic waves.
He also makes videos where he rambles about wanting to frick 14-year-olds and actually he shouldn't be having sex with adult women anyway because his Mongolian penis too small to please them.
I'm not sure what the difference between a shizophrenic and someone who just believes a wrong thing is.
Does this clear things up?
no.
>Schizophrenic
Person whose brain is actually messed up and operating abnormally. There is actually a difference between that and believing something that isn't true because they're ignorant/gullible/just really WANT it to be true.
>He believes that Emma Watson is the leader of a cult of women with beautiful shins who are collaborating with an evil AI
This is true, but the other things is no doubt schizoshit.
Actual paranoid schizophrenics are only entertaining for about 5 minutes. They become painfully tedious after that.
He's fun to check in on now and then but you're right that most schizos are tremendously boring once you've figured out what their particular fixation is. Terry Davis was a rare exception, and that was mostly because he was an honest-to-god genius in addition to being schizophrenic.
A genius losing their mind is usually just immensely sad rather than entertaining, though.
Terry was both. He would almost certainly have become a household name like Steve Jobs if he hadn't gone crazy, but even as a nutcase he created a truly impressive work of outsider art in the form of a 64-bit operating system with specifications dictated to him by God.
Smarter people than you have believed in God tbqh. But at least your post tacitly admits you know you're taking the midwit position.
>Smarter people than you have believed in God tbqh
Couldn't be helped.
They aren't an atheist if they believe in gods. You can technically believe in any other crazy bullshit, including "time travelling Space israelites colonized Atlantis" and still be an atheist, but no deities allowed, not even "I believe they exist but think they're a bunch of pricks."
what's with the /misc/tard who keeps trying to derail the thread to be about how much he personally hates israelites
It’s a moronic elf poster. Don’t worry about it.
In my game no since they draw on different but related substrates of matter, where its effectively divine physical and arcane forming a blended trifecta
Astrology became astronomy
Alchemy became chemistry
Theurgy became ??????
Theurgy became the Left-Hand Path.
Psychology.
Aliens.
Pretentiousness is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than is actually possessed.
—
Taking your screenshot (which addresses the Middle Ages of our world and not a fantasy game's world, or even the world of another fantasy medium) at face value, clerics were not only trying to impress, but were actively trying to control the populace, as church and state weren't separate.
In the old /tg/ tradition of assuming D&D when no system is mentioned (which is usually met with moronic crying by D&Dgays these days), the entirety of their system and its legacy is pretentious, not just the clerics therein.
Even if we assume it's something D&D-adjacent, it is still inherently pretentious, as it is attempting to impress through greater culture than is possessed by riding on D&D's coat-tails.
this post is pretty fricking pretentious
Make a point or piss off.
my point is you're a big dumb doodoo head
>Pretentiousness is attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than is actually possessed.
Yeah, that's God alright.
It is definitely interesting how fragile the ego of a being that's supposed to be wise and above petty things like pride seems to be in the Abrahamic religions.
why do we even need a distinction between divine/magic?
Doesn't magic in most settings come from gods anyways? why the seperation?
>in most settings come from gods anyways
Not unless it's a moronic setting and something any GM can easily fix.
>Doesn't magic in most settings come from gods anyways?
Even settings where magic is some ever present energy, it is too conveniently constructed, or just arbitrarily constructed, for it NOT to be the invention of SOMETHING, even if it's just the author, making things convenient for the story.
All magic, myth, religion, etc , comes across as a game of some sort. It is entertained.
Because aspects of a fantasy game that don't exist in our world don't have to adhere to our world's singular perception of those non-existent aspects.
Common perception won't affect the preferences of someone who does what they want to, because they aren't dependent on a singular line of thinking.
This is what it means to not just go along with the herd, so if you're confused by personal agency, maybe you ought to return to your magic gods and Disney threads on Reddit, Literary Lord.
I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Ask me anything
how many times were you molested as a child
I'm not catholic
Justify the practice of "disfellowshipping" (i.e. ostracizing individuals who question leadership or otherwise step out of line too often) without attempting to downplay it or pretend like it doesn't still happen.
Summoning demons is fricking gay.
Practical Kabbalah is summoning demons.
Christians =/= Satanic israelites.
morons
No, it's a less homosexual Paladin.
What makes Clerics interesting is their magic is conditional upon certain roleplaying decisions. Wizards study magic, which can be made conditional by the setting but isn’t inherent to the class. So there’s a lot of things that a DM can do to make the classes distinct. You can make studying magic illegal but holy magic revered. You can make a setting where the Gods are a lot more reserved or faded, meaning magical clerics are actually rare.
The dichotomy is actually a good one if you’re playing a game with actual roleplaying mechanics, but since DND’s and specifically 5e’s roleplaying mechanics are 99% nonexistent, homebrewed, or fiat, it makes sense that Clerics should probably be excised from the class list. At least wizards actually have the fact that they study magic reflected in their mechanics and the spell book and spell components are actual weaknesses that aren’t just eliminated by never doing roleplay.
But all this fails to account for the fact that Clerics are in DND because of marketing, and not actual synergy with other classes. DND, along with not being a roleplaying game, is not actually very cooperative either. The point of clerics is to be a writing exercise on making a character dedicated to a god that also casts spells. If having a God is integral to your character concept, it’s good to have clerics there. But mechanically their only use is a dip for better armor.
Could you give an example of a game with real role-playing mechanics?
I'm not asking because I'm trying to defend D&D, I'm asking because I want to know what the other options are, and how they work.
Everything should have stopped at magic-user / magician
Tru
It’s incredible how stupid you guys are
No u
what do you mean?
There is clear irony to the whole ‘magic vs miracles’ thing. It’s the same with ‘magic vs science’.