Is the Bible a magic book?

[Lion IRC]

Well I don't agree that it was "genocide" being ordered or rape.
But it's very easy to argue that failure to punish evil would not be a loving thing to do.

If God hadn't intervened to hasten an end to the Midianite war, there would have been even more death and suffering.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Now that's what I call a magic book!!! Stand up forthrightly for selfless love and mercy, but have a god on your side who lets you own slaves for life and kill your enemy down to the infants. Presto change-o, abra cadabra.

 

[James Brown]

One can't help but wonder what the Bible would be like if the Devil was the Editor-in-Chief.

 

[Elixir]

One can't help but wonder what the Bible would be like if the Devil was the Editor-in-Chief.

Any evidence that it isn’t so?

 

[Politesse]

Magic requires a will. A book has none. But the person who uses it might.

 

[Elixir]

Magic requires a will.

Magic requires delusion.
Willful delusion is optional.

 

[Politesse]

Magic requires a will.

Magic requires delusion.
Willful delusion is optional.

Magic is cause and effect. All Craft works, but if you're deluded, you will not get the outcome you anticipate.

 

[Elixir]

Magic is cause and effect.

Magic is apparent contravention of cause and effect.

 

[Politesse]

Magic is cause and effect. All Craft works, but if you're deluded, you will not get the outcome you anticipate.

Magic is apparent contravention of cause and effect.

Well said.

 

[steve_bank]

I blow a horn and the walls of an enemy city fall down, cause and effect....

 

[Politesse]

I blow a horn and the walls of an enemy city fall down, cause and effect....

This very frequently happens in war. The blowing of horns and the falling of walls.

 

[James Brown]

What animals look at while drinking can change the color of their offspring.

 

[DBT]

Well I don't agree that it was "genocide" being ordered or rape.
But it's very easy to argue that failure to punish evil would not be a loving thing to do.

If God hadn't intervened to hasten an end to the Midianite war, there would have been even more death and suffering.

Punish evil? That has nothing to do with it. Nor were the Midianites, Amalakites, etc, any worse than the Israelite's, who are said to be Gods chosen people. As for condoning slavery and rape, what do you think 'take the virgins for yourselves' implies?

 

[Lion IRC]

If they did deserve punishment would you agree a loving God should intervene to end their wickedness?

And would you agree that it is kinder to take unmarried virgins into your (patriarchal) care rather than leaving them to fend for themselves amid the many other ravaging warlord tribes in that region?

 

[Elixir]

it's very easy to argue that failure to punish evil would not be a loving thing to do

Lol! ... and theists' love of punishment/retribution rears its ugly head once again...
"Step right up, gitcher guilt trip right here!"
^ That's the whole reason Catholicism was so successful for so long.

If they did deserve punishment

Maybe you should step out of the way if YOU think they deserve punishment.

would you agree a loving God should intervene to end their wickedness?

Fuck no. I don't pretend to be in any position to say what a "loving god" (whatever that is) "should" do.
But it is no surprise when bookbound theists freely render their 'divinely inspired' verdicts on shit like this.
It's almost like they consider the bible to be a magic book that confers powers of judgment upon them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Magic requires a will.

Magic requires delusion.
Willful delusion is optional.

Not really. I don't think you're being properly Charitable with regards in particular to Politesse.

We could engage in a conversation of what magic actually is within the contexts of usages perhaps adjacent to Politesse's statement (and what it isn't), but unless you're willing to set aside the built up cruft of "fantasy formulations" and discuss "the real stuff" with the folks who actually make some attempt to understand it (a vanishingly small subset of those who practice it), you're just going to succeed in alienating folks... even ones like me who are pure physicalists and could explain in a perfectly sane way why we do things which to you seem either insane or are otherwise incomprehensible.

Some people are, sadly, delusional. Many perhaps, with regards to magic. It's certainly healthier to believe wrongly that there is no such thing than it is to believe wrongly that some mental emulation can be reified without doing meaningful work. In this latter, more fatal error, some useless action is used in the place of effective action.

Despite this, others harboring delusion about things does not directly translate to me (or Politesse) harboring the same delusions about those same things; we may still, but the one does not imply the other.

 

[Elixir]

.

… others harboring delusion about things does not directly translate to me (or Politesse) harboring the same delusions about those same things; we may still, but the one does not imply the other.

Hey, that’s why I said “Magic is apparent contravention of cause and effect”.
I like magic as much as the next guy.

 

[Jarhyn]

Magic requires a will.

Magic requires delusion.
Willful delusion is optional

Hey, that’s why I said “Magic is apparent contravention of cause and effect”.
I like magic as much as the next guy.

No, to Politesse's usage (which is different from yours), you responded that it requires delusion.

Magic *is not* an apparent contravention of cause and effect with respect to serious, credulous wizardry of the sort I engage in, for example; rather in that usage, it is "the reification of the pure creation of the imagination."

This is agnostic to whether causes must precede effects in the rendering of the result, though fairly well assumes the effect (reification) follows the cause (imagination).

 

[Elixir]

No, to Politesse's usage (which is different from yours), you responded that it requires delusion.

Ah, right. My bad for creating that confusion.
There’s a difference between what magic “is” and what is required to believe that causality has been violated.
Then there remains (for some) the question of whether causality is in fact violable. It’s absolutely your option to remain agnostic about that. In fact, if it enriches your life experience to entertain the possibility, I wholly endorse it, assuming no harm comes to others as a result.

 

[Politesse]

No, to Politesse's usage (which is different from yours), you responded that it requires delusion.

Ah, right. My bad for creating that confusion.
There’s a difference between what magic “is” and what is required to believe that causality has been violated.
Then there remains (for some) the question of whether causality is in fact violable. It’s absolutely your option to remain agnostic about that. In fact, if it enriches your life experience to entertain the possibility, I wholly endorse it, assuming no harm comes to others as a result.

Reminds me of a certain rede I know...