New Ager Now Born-Again Christian Testimony (Read this if you hold a pagan belief system)

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Modern science is so limited in it's scope and its methods

this thread has officially gone off the deep end.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
Oh, you thought I'd actually produce legit scientific journals on demons? Sorry to disappoint you. The Mysteries won't reveal themselves to the lazy or the blind that are not willing to put some effort into it. Which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not..

So, we're supposed to take that on our faith in you? On the basis of your little broadcast? To my experience, practitioners of...what? the 'mystic arts'?...don't talk about it all willy-nilly. They certainly don't go 'dig me'. That would be considered exceedingly bad form among their peers.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

imho, he only challenge you (and others) to test it yourself and even if you dont do it, i dont think he will be disappointed.

those who genuinely seeks the truth, imho, are not afraid of having encounters with angels or demons.

to me, i only have one shot with this body to understand the reality from human's perspective. if i meet angels or demons, i would only see it as encounters with strangers on the road.
life is short, why not make some 'mistakes'?

or maybe angels and demons, heaven and hell, good and bad, light and dark, etc are just mini 'realities' created by the mini minds inside our heads? maybe.

peace

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Tangerine


We cant hold our breath. I know of one case done at Duke University years ago but results were never published. We are really dependent on folks with experience speaking out about the reality. Scientific studies just are not going to say anything much in the area of results if those results are going to verify what John and Jane Doe have been saying for years.

Alas, reality is a very slippery word. I reserve the use of the word "fact" for claims verified by testable evidence. Fact is the purview of science. That does not mean that something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been proven via testable evidence, but it does mean that it does not qualify as "fact". I hope this clarifies my point.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Tangerine

I never claimed to have extensive knowledge. Just the basics, you don't need much experience to come to know some of these things.

Scientific journals, oops, I meant ancient texts.. they're both scientific investigations into phenomena. Depending on how you define science of course. Modern science is so limited in it's scope and its methods. I prefer occult science over positivist science when dealing with the unknown, since the latter hasn't even started scratching the surface of the unknown.

Oh, you thought I'd actually produce legit scientific journals on demons? Sorry to disappoint you. The Mysteries won't reveal themselves to the lazy or the blind that are not willing to put some effort into it. Which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not..

No, I absolutely didn't think you'd produce scientific journals or anything else that's verifiable. I was just curious as to why you'd put yourself on the spot by making such a claim.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

This is a forum on the internet, talking about it with fellow practicioners is largely why I'm here.

My little broadcast? Don't know what you mean by "dig me", sounds like 70's jive..

All I'm saying is, if a person has problems with negative entities, maybe they shouldn't listen to the guy that would equate them with the Tooth Fairy when they're doing real damage. Doesn't really matter though, if the person has experienced them he/she will know he's clueless anyway.

I am merely correcting a person that I know from personal experience is wrong. If you don't like it you can buzz off.

No one said anything about having to believe anything, that's just a strawman of your invention.

And I don't need to conform to your expectations either, what do you know about me? I could be exceptionally evil for all you know, I'm not gonna pretend I'm all about "love and light" if I'm not, right now I'm more about fire and brimstone, there's a time for that kind of stuff too. There's plenty of black magicians out there you know. Hell, even Buddhas take wrathful forms. Like we're all supposed to be perfect role models or something, and if we stray even a little bit it's supposed to be a big deal. Hogwash. Ask Milarepa how he got started.

a reply to: Tangerine

To highlight the fact that mystical systems are actual investigations, some of them honed for thousands of years by countless Masters that spent most of their life pursuing them.
What they are not is random haphazard ramblings with no connection to reality..

Honestly, it seems like a rather shallow view to me, to think that most people hold such a one dimensional view of mysticism. To really think that all these incredibly wise Masters were really just making stuff up all along beggars belief and is in my opinion quite credulous.

But each to his own.

a reply to: Tangerine

One problem with your question.
And really you should know better.

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Understanding Science @ Berkley.edu

a reply to: TzarChasm

Why?
What laughing said is true.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

This is a forum on the internet, talking about it with fellow practicioners is largely why I'm here.

My little broadcast? Don't know what you mean by "dig me", sounds like 70's jive..

All I'm saying is, if a person has problems with negative entities, maybe they shouldn't listen to the guy that would equate them with the Tooth Fairy when they're doing real damage. Doesn't really matter though, if the person has experienced them he/she will know he's clueless anyway.

I am merely correcting a person that I know from personal experience is wrong. If you don't like it you can buzz off.

No one said anything about having to believe anything, that's just a strawman of your invention.

And I don't need to conform to your expectations either, what do you know about me? I could be exceptionally evil for all you know, I'm not gonna pretend I'm all about "love and light" if I'm not, right now I'm more about fire and brimstone, there's a time for that kind of stuff too. There's plenty of black magicians out there you know. Hell, even Buddhas take wrathful forms. Like we're all supposed to be perfect role models or something, and if we stray even a little bit it's supposed to be a big deal. Hogwash. Ask Milarepa how he got started.

a reply to: Tangerine

To highlight the fact that mystical systems are actual investigations, some of them honed for thousands of years by countless Masters that spent most of their life pursuing them.
What they are not is random haphazard ramblings with no connection to reality..

Honestly, it seems like a rather shallow view to me, to think that most people hold such a one dimensional view of mysticism. To really think that all these incredibly wise Masters were really just making stuff up all along beggars belief and is in my opinion quite credulous.

But each to his own.

And who might these masters be whose words you rely on regarding demons? What makes them "masters" of this topic?

a reply to: Tangerine

I'm sorry I don't have a particular guru when it comes to demons, mostly it's just basic observations I've made myself. Nothing special or advanced really, basic things you pick up.

When talking about Masters I was talking in a general sense.

A genuine Master would most likely know such things because they would have been around the various planes a few times, observing, communicating, experimenting.

One can't forget that there's innumerable entities and classes of entities out there either.

I don't know what your purpose is in continuing this discussion but I am not really getting anything out of it.
So if you're truly being curious about this I suggest you investigate for yourself, since you seem to adore science and since science is all about exploration maybe you should try astral projection so you can observe the astral wildlife, that way you can find out for yourself if there's anything to it and then make your mind up, if isn't already made up that is.

You know what they say about condemnation without investigation.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
You know what they say about condemnation without investigation.

Ah yes...but it is you that is disparaging scientific investigation. The problem with your take is that you are anthropomorphizing things you don't understand. And you insist that yours is 'the path'...not terribly well evolved from the ancient Chinese explaining an eclipse by stating that a dragon had eaten the sun.

No, science has not explained everything...maybe it never will. But I fall back on a yet-to-be-discovered Unified Weirdness Theory, which is probably related to quantum physics. Now that may seem like magic...but it's science. Meanwhile, enjoy your dragons.

a reply to: Tangerine

Sadly the rebuttal an Alexandrian Wiccan made to Triumph of the Moon (Trials of the Moon), is by someone I know, and have ritual with. He and I butted heads when Triumph came out. Its a great book (though I also think reading Stations of the Sun would help many people with a reality check )

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm sorry I don't have a particular guru when it comes to demons, mostly it's just basic observations I've made myself. Nothing special or advanced really, basic things you pick up.

When talking about Masters I was talking in a general sense.

A genuine Master would most likely know such things because they would have been around the various planes a few times, observing, communicating, experimenting.

One can't forget that there's innumerable entities and classes of entities out there either.

I don't know what your purpose is in continuing this discussion but I am not really getting anything out of it.
So if you're truly being curious about this I suggest you investigate for yourself, since you seem to adore science and since science is all about exploration maybe you should try astral projection so you can observe the astral wildlife, that way you can find out for yourself if there's anything to it and then make your mind up, if isn't already made up that is.

You know what they say about condemnation without investigation.

So, bottom line, you didn't actually read the "scientific journals about demons" you claimed you had read and haven't read any "ancient texts" about demons you claimed to have read and can't name any ancient "masters" of the topic. OK. That confirms my suspicions. Thank you for coming clean.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Tangerine

Sadly the rebuttal an Alexandrian Wiccan made to Triumph of the Moon (Trials of the Moon), is by someone I know, and have ritual with. He and I butted heads when Triumph came out. Its a great book (though I also think reading Stations of the Sun would help many people with a reality check

)

What was the rebuttal? Either they can produce documents proving a direct link to pre-Christian practices or they can't. It's my understanding that they couldn't and Hutton was able to document the relatively modern origins of Wicca. Thanks for the book reference.

a reply to: Tangerine

He rebutted that there were some "inaccuracies" in the book, especially about Sanders. It looks really bad when an Alexandrian (thus a follower of Uncle Alex (Sanders)) gets antsy about published history The problem is Ronny (Hutton) is not the only one who made these claims. The late Isaac Bonewitts (founder of my Druid Order, also a second degree Gardnerian, OTO member, and curmudgeon supreme) around the same time published the same stuff.

One of the problems Alexandrians have is that Sanders story (which I will NOT go into here) is easily proven to be fabricated, as he was refused initiation into Gardners Covens, and the first Books of Shadows in his tradition bear striking resemblance to the Gardnerian ones.

Oh and the Alexandrians are the main hold outs to "antiquity" apart from a few "strange" branches.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Tangerine

He rebutted that there were some "inaccuracies" in the book, especially about Sanders. It looks really bad when an Alexandrian (thus a follower of Uncle Alex (Sanders)) gets antsy about published history

The problem is Ronny (Hutton) is not the only one who made these claims. The late Isaac Bonewitts (founder of my Druid Order, also a second degree Gardnerian, OTO member, and curmudgeon supreme) around the same time published the same stuff.

One of the problems Alexandrians have is that Sanders story (which I will NOT go into here) is easily proven to be fabricated, as he was refused initiation into Gardners Covens, and the first Books of Shadows in his tradition bear striking resemblance to the Gardnerian ones.

Oh and the Alexandrians are the main hold outs to "antiquity" apart from a few "strange" branches.

OK, thanks. I take it that no one was able to dispute Hutton's claim that Wicca had no ancient origins by producing documentation that proved that WIcca did have ancient (ie. pre-Christian origins). Am I correct? This was simply "witch war" stuff, right?

a reply to: Tangerine

All the "disputes" are "our elders said" type ones.... so yeah no proof of paleolithic origins

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

What I am anthropomorphizing? You are the one that is denying things that you don't understand, things that go bump in the night.

Not really, I am investigating things and while it might not lead to any revelations for anyone but me I have already found answers which positivist science has not.

You might not want to believe, nor do you have to, either way it is of no concern to me. I already know what I know.

No, it is not science, it is reality. Science is merely a vehicle for trying to understand that reality.

As for magic, it is simply a word, a word describing a particular science hoary with old age.

Impressive picture, not at all stereotypic. Maybe throw in the words rational, Occam's razor and empirical next time? Will help you make your point even better.

a reply to: Tangerine

You don't really have any point do you?
You thought you'd catch me with my pants down on not being able to deliver any scientific journals. But when I explained further, you're now trying to make me look bad for not mentioning any text specifically, as if you wouldn't just brush them aside for being nonsense anyway. Yeah, big win. I could mention grimoires all day, but what's the use? You still wouldn't dare experiment with them. Cause really, underneath it all you're just ***SNIP*** not willing to put the money where your mouth is, i.e. being willing to investigate controversial subjects on your own instead of hiding behind your scientific paradigm. As it is your opinion is worth nil.

What would be really noteworthy would be you truly living up to the scientific creed by declaring that you don't really know. That would be the rational stance in lieu of evidence either way, cause as far as I know you can't prove a negative. So what'll it be, will you take the agnostic stance or will you pretend to know even when you don't?



Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Tangerine


We cant hold our breath. I know of one case done at Duke University years ago but results were never published. We are really dependent on folks with experience speaking out about the reality. Scientific studies just are not going to say anything much in the area of results if those results are going to verify what John and Jane Doe have been saying for years.

Alas, reality is a very slippery word. I reserve the use of the word "fact" for claims verified by testable evidence. Fact is the purview of science. That does not mean that something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been proven via testable evidence, but it does mean that it does not qualify as "fact". I hope this clarifies my point.

Well fact relative to science. Something demonstrable to all.

Its a big gulf there but understandable. At this point I am no longer concerned with anyone but myself. Demonstrating that is. Like LaughingGod says. I don't care at this point.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

What I am anthropomorphizing? You are the one that is denying things that you don't understand, things that go bump in the night.

Not really, I am investigating things and while it might not lead to any revelations for anyone but me I have already found answers which positivist science has not.

You might not want to believe, nor do you have to, either way it is of no concern to me. I already know what I know.

No, it is not science, it is reality. Science is merely a vehicle for trying to understand that reality.

As for magic, it is simply a word, a word describing a particular science hoary with old age.

Impressive picture, not at all stereotypic. Maybe throw in the words rational, Occam's razor and empirical next time? Will help you make your point even better.

Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You are looking into a room through the keyhole, and building a an alternative reality based upon what little you see. Sure, science does that too to an extent, but at least it relies upon testable, repeatable observations. But hey, fill yer boots!

Meanwhile, in the words of the prophet:
"Careful you don't step in that, Wilbur..."

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

So?

I'm not thick, I understand what you're saying(I think), there is nothing supernatural, as everything is naturally, natural.
That much is obvious and I get tired of hearing it as if it was original or profound. Supernatural is merely a word to denote that which seems unusual or impossible from a mundane frame of reference.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. So what?
What are you implying? That humans possess such advanced technology and they're messing with me? That ET's are?
Is there a point to you quoting this?

So we got two possibilities, one of them have been reported to happen all throughout human history. The other may have happened all throughout history but may have been misinterpreted as something else. Either way the current paradigm is faulty and wrong. Something IS happening and it contradicts common perspectives on reality.

Either way, apply Occam's razor. You're adding complexities that aren't neccessarily needed to the situation, without any indications that would warrant such elaborations.

I don't even know what we're discussing anymore.. I suppose my experiences of communicating and otherwise interacting with non human entities. Of which you know nothing. So I don't really know where you're coming from.

As for magic, it is not technology by any common definition of the word, it is the harnessing and direction of energies by will. Most often based upon the Hermetic axiom that "The All is Mind" and that reality can therefore be subjected to manipulation by consciousness.

"Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will."

So magic is not just what the uneducated proles call undiscovered science, it IS science, it is a science and an art. Perhaps the synthesis of science and art even.

"In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the vulgar."