Is the Bible a magic book?

[Elixir]

When called to account for pretending to channel God, creos keep referring to a book. They call it God's word, even though it is a compilation of a lot of words, few of which are actually attributed by that book itself to a God.
Then I am told that it is "infallible", which turns out to mean that if my plain reading of the infallible text conflicts with observable reality, either my observations of reality or my plain reading of the text must be flawed.
How can this be? I suppose it's possible if the god who wrote that book took every measure to deceive me ( @Learner knows god and assures me he doesn't pull that crap) for purposes beyond my meager comprehension.
But how is it possible to reconcile all the myriad differing interpretations of that book? There is either ONE correct interpretation (hear the chorus of "mine is the right one!") or the "true" meaning is highly variable, or ... the one 'possibility' that alleviates all this confusion, validates the infallibility of the book, and vindicates creos' version of reality. And that very distant IMO possibility is...
The Bible is a MAGIC book!
But... why can't creos just come out and say that?

 

[Politesse]

The Bible has certainly been a magic book. You can use it for bibliomancy.

 

[Elixir]

The Bible has certainly been a magic book. You can use it for bibliomancy.

So… the Bible is a magic book, a Tarot deck contains magic cards and of course The Magic 8-ball is, well, magic.
Anything used for divination becomes “magic”? Or are you just pointing out that magic is wherever someone believes it?
That would eviscerate it.

 

[Politesse]

Magic has a fairly consistent definition, at least in the social sciences and among intentional practitioners of magic: the use of supernatural means to effect natural ends. Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

 

[Elixir]

Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

Regardless of how badly it fails?
That’s some magic!

 

[steve_bank]

For Chritians any other supernatural beliefs are magic.

It seems obvious Christianity is magic. Especially the RCC. Priests ordained with special powers, ritauals, incntaions. Turning bread and wine into body and flesh of Jesus, and eating it. Ritual canabilism.

 

[Politesse]

For Chritians any other supernatural beliefs are magic.

It seems obvious Christianity is magic. Especially the RCC. Priests ordained with special powers, ritauals, incntaions. Turning bread and wine into body and flesh of Jesus, and eating it. Ritual canabilism.

You're correct, but I'm surprised at your insight in this regard. Aren't you the one who is always feigning utter shock at confusion about the existence of Christian Paganism? It really isn't that confusing if you think about it from the perspective of magic being common property between faiths rather than an exclusive property of one or the next.

 

[Politesse]

Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

Regardless of how badly it fails?
That’s some magic!

Most people who practice forms of divination do not regard them as having a low success rate.

 

[Elixir]

Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

Regardless of how badly it fails?
That’s some magic!

Most people who practice forms of divination do not regard them as having a low success rate.

Wow. Seriously, I did not expect that response. But I acknowledge it as a relevant fact. We DO all create our own reality. But I also believe - perhaps wrongly - that there exists an external reality that is constrained by natural “laws”, and about which we can learn.

I don’t think “magic” advances learning or understanding at all. I cannot deny its possible (emotional) value to “believers” but tend to think belief in it is a symptom of a weakness of character and/or mind, at least for those with access to better information.

 

[Politesse]

Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

Regardless of how badly it fails?
That’s some magic!

Most people who practice forms of divination do not regard them as having a low success rate.

Wow. Seriously, I did not expect that response. But I acknowledge it as a relevant fact. We DO all create our own reality. But I also believe - perhaps wrongly - that there exists an external reality that is constrained by natural “laws”, and about which we can learn.

I don’t think “magic” advances learning or understanding at all. I cannot deny its possible (emotional) value to “believers” but tend to think belief in it is a symptom of a weakness of character and/or mind, at least for those with access to better information.

And they likely think you're spiritually crippled and unable to perceive 90% of what goes on right in front of your nose. We can all say dismissive things about each other, that's easy. But is it productive?

 

[ideologyhunter]

It must be magic. You can do exegesis on nearly every part of it, in palindromes.

(Genesis) Cain, a maniac.
(Exodus) Egad -- no bondage!
(Leviticus) Repel a leper!
(Deuteronomy) Are we not drawn onwards, we Jews, drawn onward to new era?
(The prophets) Egad! A base life defiles a bad age.
(MT, MK, LK, and JN) 1- "Dogma! I am God!!"
2- Deliverer re-reviled.
3-"Did I do, O God, did I as I said I'd do? Good, I did."
(MT 6:26) Do geese see God?
(Revelation) 1- Dammit, I'm mad!
2- Live for a war of evil!

 

[Elixir]

Any form of divination certainly qualifies.

Regardless of how badly it fails?
That’s some magic!

Most people who practice forms of divination do not regard them as having a low success rate.

Wow. Seriously, I did not expect that response. But I acknowledge it as a relevant fact. We DO all create our own reality. But I also believe - perhaps wrongly - that there exists an external reality that is constrained by natural “laws”, and about which we can learn.

I don’t think “magic” advances learning or understanding at all. I cannot deny its possible (emotional) value to “believers” but tend to think belief in it is a symptom of a weakness of character and/or mind, at least for those with access to better information.

And they likely think you're spiritually crippled and unable to perceive 90% of what goes on right in front of your nose. We can all say dismissive things about each other, that's easy. But is it productive?

I don’t know. But … if it only saves one fundy, wouldn’t it be worth it?

 

[Swammerdami]

The Bible is a MAGIC book!
But... why can't creos just come out and say that?

On a scale of 1 to 10, where atheists are 1-2 and "normal" Christians 3-4, hard-core believers in the Bible's infallacy are 9-10. "Debating" them is just a waste of time, like astronomer taking a time-out to listen to Flat-Earthers.

And it drowns out more interesting discussion. I have interesting(?) questions about the Bible and have mentioned some here. I've never received a response beyond "Who cares? It's all lies anyway." (Why couldn't respondent at least have the grace to phrase a response from scripture: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.")

The Bible has certainly been a magic book. You can use it for bibliomancy.

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

RONALD
WILSON
REAGAN

MARGIE
TAYLOR
GREENE

DONALD
ORANGE
PSYCHO

 

[Elixir]

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
RONALD
WILSON
REAGAN

MARGIE
TAYLOR
GREENE

DONALD
ORANGE
PSYCHO

Holy shit, that’s incredible!
I see the light!

 

[Politesse]

The Bible is a MAGIC book!
But... why can't creos just come out and say that?

On a scale of 1 to 10, where atheists are 1-2 and "normal" Christians 3-4, hard-core believers in the Bible's infallacy are 9-10. "Debating" them is just a waste of time, like astronomer taking a time-out to listen to Flat-Earthers.

And it drowns out more interesting discussion. I have interesting(?) questions about the Bible and have mentioned some here. I've never received a response beyond "Who cares? It's all lies anyway." (Why couldn't respondent at least have the grace to phrase a response from scripture: "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.")

The Bible has certainly been a magic book. You can use it for bibliomancy.

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

RONALD
WILSON
REAGAN

MARGIE
TAYLOR
GREENE

DONALD
ORANGE
PSYCHO

Will he be the Final Trump? You decide...

 

[Elixir]

RONALD
WILSON
REAGAN

MARGIE
TAYLOR
GREENE

DONALD
ORANGE
PSYCHO

Will he be the Final Trump? You decide...

Hold on a moment - let me consult my Babble on that!

 

[Swammerdami]

DONALD
ORANGE
PSYCHO

Will he be the Final Trump? You decide...

The sons are too stupid to be threats but watch out for
IVANKA
DADDYS
DESIRE

 

[steve_bank]

For Chritians any other supernatural beliefs are magic.

It seems obvious Christianity is magic. Especially the RCC. Priests ordained with special powers, ritauals, incntaions. Turning bread and wine into body and flesh of Jesus, and eating it. Ritual canabilism.

You're correct, but I'm surprised at your insight in this regard. Aren't you the one who is always feigning utter shock at confusion about the existence of Christian Paganism? It really isn't that confusing if you think about it from the perspective of magic being common property between faiths rather than an exclusive property of one or the next.

As I have always saidinthe word I can and do respect beliefs.

On the forum which is about enquirer and debate I asked you to define what you mean by yiur identifying as Christian-Pagan and you would not. I asked you now what kind of agnostc you are and silence.

A college level teacher of mythology who can not articulate his beliefs? You sound shallow, what is your belief du jour?

Way back I told you that you have nothing to teach me about religion. By that I meant you appear to know facts but not people, feelings, experience, and emotions.

Who was it that coined the term 'In the battle of wits you are unarmed'?

Nothing shocls me or surprises me about beliefs. Myths in various forms have been and always will be part of culture. Nothing profound about that.

Or as the saying goes, it doesn't take a PHD to see it.

 

[Politesse]

On the forum which is about enquirer and debate I asked you to define what you mean by yiur identifying as Christian-Pagan and you would not. I asked you now what kind of agnostc you are and silence

I have answered your question a half dozen times now, you just continue to ignore any and all of my responses and keep accusing me of obfuscation. It really isn't complicated. I was participating in both Christian and Pagan religious communities at the time. That's what there is to it. My situation was not unusual, there are and always have been, for as long as Pagan circles have existed, overlap between Pagans and other religious communities.

I am and have long been an agnostic on religious matters, and that is not complicated either. I do not share your disdain for facts. On the contrary, facts when they exist are incredibly useful things, and emotions by the by are themselves facts about a person. However, I happily acknowledge that there are domains of life and experience beyond what can be easily reduced to facts, and that understanding the difference between fact and perspective is critical for work in any of the sciences. Certain human knowledge (gnosis) of fundamental or metaphysical truths is not possible, and on this jour and all other jours, I will continue to believe this, until such time as someone adequately demonstrates to me their special knowledge of the nature of the universe. I am generally skeptical of anyone who asserts but cannot rationally support an ontological claim, and within my current experience, that has included all ontological claims that I have encountered.

Luckily, this in no wise disturbs my ability to enjoy ritual and community life, or even to enjoy studying and considering belief itself. If no one can demonstrate certainty of knowledge, I see no reason to regard the consideration of alternative possibilities as somehow sinful. Why not consider whether sonething might be true, without feeling compelled to come to any specific conclusion? If "free thought" is defined as not allowing oneself to think about religious things for fear of contamination, I have no such fear and do not have any interest in the label. I prefer to demonstrate the freedom of my mind by actually feeling free to contemplate things.

You think it is odd, apparently, for an expert in religion and mythos to be agnostic about the truth of specific religious claims. Why, I do not know. Frankly I'm not sure how I would even accomplish my work if I held to strict positivist-materialist views; the work of an anthropologist is to understand the viewpoints and perspectives of others, not lecture them on ontological matters. Some degree of open-mindedness is fundamental to the methodology of the social sciences generally.

 

[steve_bank]

Oky doky if you say so, professor is it?

You are just not that interesting enough to engage with. Snarky and condescending is fine, as long as there is substance to go along with it.