Vortigern99 posted:Isaac Bonewits, an avowed witch, described magic as an art and science, and said: "Will, concentration and attention are the key elements of magic, which resides in the power of the mind itself -- the greatest instrument of magic." Bonewits described the physical universe as an interlocking web of energy, in which every atom and every energy wave is linked to every other. Modern witches do not seem to give credence to the Pauline idea, expressed below by Jabba-wocky, that spell-making manipulates or asserts power over supernautral, spirit-derived powers, but rather over natural forces that have so far escaped quantitative scientific investigation and confirmation.
Vortigern posted:But if Bonewits and the modern witches are correct, then magic is not supernatural at all, and thus avoids Paul and Luke's excoriation of it and its association with other vices such as orgies, hatred, rage and drunkenness. If modern witchcraft is not the ancient and widely debunked art of spiritual supplication and manipulation, but is rather the awakening of the subconscious mind to arouse emotion, enforce concentration, and facilitate entry into an altered state of consciousness in order to achieve broadened perception, a transformed relationship to the world, and attunement with natural "psychic" potencies, then this is not at all the kind of fantastical magic fictionally depicted in the Potter series, in which wands, potions and magic words achieve such ends, and is not to be feared or avoided by Christians at all.
Jabbadabbado posted:I know I'm entitled to my opinion. You don't have to remind me.
Jabbadabbado posted:I don't object to Wicca as an art form any more than I object to tattoos or finger painting as an art form. A lot of things function as art even if they fail as a spiritual practice. Take for example spiritually inspired art, e.g. Michelangelo's Pieta. Beautiful. Rich with spiritual messaging. Its artistic genius doesn't make the story of Jesus as savior any more true.
Jabbadabbado posted:But expressing the artist's (or a patron's) spirituality through an artistic medium is not the same thing as the practice of spirituality. I'm happy to reject Wicca as the latter without rejecting it as the former.
Jabba-wocky posted:I'm not sure there's any reason to take [Bonewits'] proposal [that magic is a science] as credible. If he is proposing some form of "energy" why is it totally undetectable by modern science? While I'd certainly admit that science has not found unlocked the keys to all knowledge in the universe, it seems implausible that a form of energy should be so vast, easily manipulated, and important, and yet undetectable. Especially since we can apparently detect "magic" and its effects with sensory systems that are less precise than are those that can be used in a laboratory. Overall, for a non-scientist to claim, on what is apparently a whim, that something is "actually science" makes me deeply skeptical, especially since this is an increasingly common tactic of legitimization for all religious persuasions. What we'd need to consider is whether it actually is science, and there's scant to no evidence in support of that. That being the case, then regardless of what Bonewits thinks his activity could probably still be described as manipulating the supernatural.
Jabba-wocky posted:Even putting aside the above objections, we would still have a practice that is deeply problematic. If it is in fact a natural function of the human body/mind, we have to wonder about the history of it. If, in fact, it was being used by ancient magic users, who were under the mistaken impression they were doing something spiritual, then the prohibition against witchcraft still stands. If it was not, and has only emerged recently, it begs the question of, why unique among although the mental and physical capabilities of man, only this one went totally unused and unheard of for the overwhelming majority of human history. Either way, we don't come away with an answer that allows us to conclude the practice is in any way legitimate.
Vortigern99 posted:The witchcraft of today is thus not that rebuked in the Bible, and it is not that depicted in Harry Potter, which is rather of the fantastical spell-casting variety, through sparking wands and enchanted potions, whilst riding mythical beasts such as hippogriffs, against enemies who do seek to gain power over death and who do comport with spirits, and who are clearly depicted as villains of the most vile and undesirable disposition, in a most unfavorable light. Thus Christians should have nothing whatsoever to be concerned about with regard to the Potter series.
Vortigern99 posted:However, applying scientific thought to magickal practices helps to explain such powers as part of and deriving from the natural world, which is the core of modern Wiccan belief.
Vortigern99 posted:You may reject the idea that such powers are real, or that they derive from perfectly natural forces in tune with the will of God, and that is certainly your perogative. But modern witches feel differently.
Vortigern posted:In the event that ancient magic-users were practicing the manipulation of natural forces available to all, for the purposes of divination and the focusing of one's will on worldly problems, I submit that Paul and the author known as Luke, as well as the Old Testament authors, were not addressing those harmless, natural arts at all. The prohibition against "witchcraft" in the Bible is rather a rejection of spirit-based magicks, real or imagined, such as raising the dead, laying curses, commanding demons, and the like.
Vortigern posted:Proper witchcraft, on the other hand, as can be seen in numerous benevolent covens and indvidual practitioners in the 21st century, is about healing, curing, growing herbs and other beneficial plants, creating arts and crafts, uniting people together, pushing away negativity, dancing, joy-making, love-making, learning, knowing (and that is the short list!). There is no truck with demons, no manipulation of supernatural forces but only of natural ones.
DorkmanScott posted:... I say that the negative Christian reaction to the Potter series is largely based on ignorance. To be able to draw that distinction, you have to actually know how Potter depicts witchcraft, which means you have to inform yourself and perhaps actually read [Rowling's books]. Few reactionary Christians would bother to do that, preferring instead to just go off their assumptions that the books are thinly-veiled works of the devil will spells that actually work once you give up your immortal soul. The catch-22 is that the only way to find out that's not the case is to read them, which they would never do because they assume that's the case.
Jabbadabbado posted: What we have here, ultimately, is a confusion of semantics: Witchcraft #1: Natural and beneficial, practiced the world over and since ancient times as a technique to gain insight into and control over one's own life. Witchcraft #2: Harmful and spirit-obsessed, practiced in ancient days (and presumably by some to this day) in order to control others and/or gain power over death. Witchcraft #3: Fantastical and non-existent, practiced in numerous novels and films by ficitious personages residing in fictive worlds that have no bearing on reality except as metaphor and escapist entertainment. Relating this back to Harry Potter. Is #3, in the form of children's literature, harmful because of its potential to influence Christian youth to become curious about #2? My position is that concern is baseless, and based on a failure to properly think through the issue. There is no direct vector from #3 into #2. I would say that the angst of Christian parents about their children delving into witchraft is, scientifically speaking, a jillion times more likely to spark the curiosity of children than anything in Harry Potter. I would also add that #2 doesn't exist in a meaningful way. If there is an attempt to pray to a false set of God or Gods or adopt phony spiritual practices, then that's well covered by other prohibitions. If the ritualism of witchcraft were to include openly evil acts, like raping a virgin or bathing in the blood of a human sacrifice, then, well these sins are covered by other provisions of the judeo-christian moral statute as well. Witchcraft, in other words, is superfluous to any reasonable understanding of Christianity. It's biblical fluff. Puffery. LostonHoth probably has it right. Western Christianity's unnatural obsession with witchcraft probably has its cultural roots in growth pains as early Christianity spread through western Europe and Britain and competed with preexisting religious practices.
