What does the Catholic Church does concerning witches, nowadays?
>>889425
Mostly condemn witch craft, while the catechism does not comment on it, conservative Catholics are adamant that magic is real and dangerous
>>889434
>magic is real and dangerous
Of course it is.
>>889437
I've always wondered why magic doesn't work on camera.
>>889437
Sure pal.
>>889443
>he thinks real magic works like harry potter
what if all the scientific things and theories that cite and prove witchcraft and magic in general as impossible is just a deep and complex web of propaganda set forth by the Catholic Church to suppress and prevent people from practicing it.
>>889437
Even if magic was real, this is the same institution that said classical liberalism and translations of the bible were dangerous, so I would still take their judgment on the matter with a grain of salt
>>889456
Man, seriously, the whole "modern science" stuff began with magicians. The royal society was a club of occultists. Newton himself was an occultist.
/his/ is naivier than I thought.
>>889425
If magic was real why wouldn't you want to use it? Even if there were risks associated it there are risks with all sorts of modern things, even a stove can be dangerous if not used properly.
>>889467
>even if magic was real
>if
>>889479
Because dealing with occult forces makes you an easy instrument of evil.
Pay no attention to ultimate reality
>>889467
>thinking you have the authority to judge and/or interpret the word of god
protestant scum pls go
The official stance is that magic don't real
Satan deludes people into thinking it is
>>889485
The dangers of most esoteric practices don't seem any more dangerous than those of Christan esoteric practices. Indeed many Christan mystics were supposedly haunted by "demons"
Of course we understand now that both eastern and Christan mystics were engaging in similar practices which effected thei subconscious, and thus often suffered from similar side effects. The Buddhists at least were aware of those side effects and had teachings to guard against them. Christians seem to welcome the fact they are being challenged to prove their loyalty to God.
>>889506
The thing about magic is that it's amoral. It is neither demonic nor holy, but it is divine: it's a moldable and capable of being any shape or form.
So in a cosmic battle between good and evil what both sides would want is humans as a sort of agent, or recruitment. The idea of a 3rd option removes humans from the conflict entirely.
>>889506
There's no such thing as "christian esoteric practices". Christianism is about confession and sincerity.
Christian mystics deal with the Holy Spirit, only.
>>889533
>Christian mystics deal with the Holy Spirit, only.
There are people in the Catholic church both in the past and today, saints even, who are doing things an anthropologist would find indistinguishable from shamanism, even if a cannon lawyer would argue otherwise.
If you want to pretend that the holy spirit differentiates between Catholic altered states of consciousness and pagan altered states of consciousness that's your business, though I really dont think your contributing anything to our understanding of esotericism in human culture by doing so
>>889547
>there's no good and evil
Shut up, of course the Holy Spirit differentiates.
>>889560
>>there's no good and evil
Well I didn't say that, nor do I see any thing that puts Catholic and orthodox practices in a unique category from eastern or pagan methods.
>>889576
Of course you can't differentiate.
>>889576
Also, stop reading evola/guenon
>>889589
Do you have any method of differentiating that doesn't rely on the holy spirit or Christian faith? Otherwise there is no difference as far as anthropology or comparative religious studies would be concerned, other than perhaps a brief mention that you insist they are different
I love Christian threads, religious people say the funniest of things.
>>889470
Im sure the guy who invented fire was considered a sorceror, and perhaps he only taught his scientific secrets to his apprentice
>>889609
Probably.
>>889605
>any method of differentiating that doesn't rely on the holy spirit or Christian faith
No, it's impossible.
>>889607
Why do atheists think the world "religion" is bad and negative?
Religion simply means world-view.
Everyone has a world-view, the religion of atheists is evolutionism/darwinism.
>>889620
Ok so we have several groups who have spiritual powers, or at least what passed for spiritual powers in an earlier age. a nonpartisan observer can note small differences in their individual methods but more similarities than differences. turning to science their practices both trigger the same parts of the brain to activate, and they both show similar health benefits and risks.
Yet one side insists that the other is using evil. Why would a nonpartisan observer give weight to this?
>>889634
>Religion simply means world-view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
>Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] Different religions may contain various elements, ranging from "the belief in spiritual beings",[2] the "divine",[3] "sacred things",[4] "faith",[5] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings" [6] such as God or angels, or "...some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life." [7]
>Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community", from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods",[11] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[12]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure.
>>889634
It's a world view that main idea is to ignore evidence/factual data and trust that hard-belief in something is all that matters, and that pretty much anything can be justified through it.
It's not about being offensive, modern religions are simply retarded viewpoints to have. Evolutionism and dawinism are based on the scientific method, not merely wishing evolution to be true, even if evidence against it were to rise.
>>889636
>nonpartisan observer
Can't exist.
And the fact that atheists, gnostics or satanists call orthodox christians "evil" doesn't make them right. Someone taught you to stay forever in the verbal world and you can't even see beyond it.
>>889650
Holy shit this is bait.
>darwinism is based on scientific method
0/10
Evolutionism has been debunked years ago. It is unscientific. It is based on assumptions and forged hoaxes.
0/10
>>889451
This is modern apologetic in a nutshell, "don't take is so literal". Yet in the Bible, let alone the folk beliefs of the average medieval person, witchcraft/sorcery is a real thing that give you "harry potter" supernatural abilities. Look up the Witch of Endor story as an example.
>>889650
>factual data
>evidence
>evolutionism
>scientific mathod
I dare you to take a time to think 5 minutes about these items.
>>889655
Nice bait, but I won't bite. I got better stuff to do than entertain a moron like you tonight.
Sleep tight.
>>889657
It is a real thing you retard.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not-real.
Magic is not some bullshit from a MMORPG where a Wizard casts spells.
Magic is the occult, the elite Luciferians of the world practice it.
>>889660
0/10
keep believing in your monkey myths
>>889657
Medieval people had eyes.
>>889654
Non partisan in this case simply means not in either camp. its why I did not use the word "neutral".
>And the fact that atheists, gnostics or satanists call orthodox christians "evil" doesn't make them right
I never called them evil nor do I think that.
>Someone taught you to stay forever in the verbal world and you can't even see beyond it.
I am not sure what the "verbal world" is but I assure you I have experience with both Catholic prayer and secular meditation, as well as historical and hoplological texts on the subject, as well as primary sources so I am not coming at this without some knowledge.
>>889662
What is a thing you can do with magic that you cannot do without magic?
>>889681
Divination.
>>889684
Elaborate on what this means.
>>889681
Demon possession/channeling
Inviting evil spirits into your home
Alien abductions, Poltergeist activity
Making objects defy the laws of physics
Divination, becoming famous
Magic is calling upon the fallen angels, you sell your soul to the devil in exchange for a deal.
>>889684
We /x/ now
>>889686
Acess the absolut in order to foresee things you normally wouldn't.
>>889691
>to foresee things
What kinds of "things"?
>>889681
>shapeshifting
>transforming other things
>weather control
>teleportation
>commanding wild beasts
>telekinesis
>various other disciplines
>>889695
When I'm going to get a gf(soon)
>>889490
Then why does a church official have anymore authority to interpret it?
>>889434
Then they're wrong
>In 1490, only three years after it was published, the Catholic Church condemned the Malleus Maleficarum as false. In 1538 the Spanish Inquisition cautioned its members not to believe everything the Malleus Maleficarum said, even when it presented apparently firm evidence
>>889711
>All of them.
In a way somehow not possible through non-magical means? For example, if someone were to set up a truly random number generator, someone using divination would be able to predict more numbers than someone just guessing?
>>889707
Because he has apostolic succession and thus is trained from an organization that is rooted in the Apostles and equally as important Peter the first Pope who were given authority to bind and loosen.
>>889723
Yes, nothing is random, the first act of the universe already contains in itself all the others.
>>889701
>I have never read any of the old lore or grimoires but let me tell you how magic works
>>889727
Apostolic succession is unscriptural.
Catholicism was invented by the Nicolaitians and popularized by Constantine.
>>889732
Well no, the radioactive decay of a given nuclei is random compared to its neighbours. That would actually be a much better test than what I was initially going to respond with. If someone were to magically predict radioactive behaviour on a nuclei-by-nuclei basis that would be pretty definitive. Hasn't been done.
>>889746
>confusing mecanical act with metaphysical act
Pls get out.
>>889437
Yes it is
How else do you explain these trips?
>>889774
Magic confirmed btfo
>>889681
Find a gf
>>889490
>Latin translations instead of using the original Greek
Papal scum go.
>>889425
>Modern day witches.
Priests would recommend a social life, attending regular masses, and possibly nice churchgoing boyfriends.
>>889866
Even the one on the far left?
>>889425
Condemn it.
Religious burnings fell out of western practice as governments began to find them unfavorable, as government organized the VAST majority of it. Execution for witches fell out of favor as religious tolerance became accepted.
Also >>889866
>>889634
>Religion simply means world-view.
Religions are more than a worldview. It is a way of life based on the worldview. This is why we get a different name for people who accept the worldview but do not practice the way of life.
Certain worldviews don't have established ways of life that extend from them, and so they aren't religions.
>>889491
Generally this. The Catholic view would be denying people who can make real change contrary to natural processes and God's own creation. Some, then would say that if it is neither natural processes or God's own creation and yet they still accept that the "spell" was actually efficacious then it is best explained as being just existing creatures we cannot examine (such as fallen angels) rather than actual magic.
However whether the "spell" is actually efficacious is the whole of the issue and most people today would say that no "spell" is and would agree with the church on a rejection of magic.
>>889886
What would you say the pharaoh's court magicians were using?
>>889866
The redheaded one is a qt :3. Would commit blasphemy for.
>>889892
The church was struggling for power and lost it. It is not about Christendom, but specifically about the Catholic church authority verses secular authority.
In the power struggle between secular rulers and the church, wars and disruptions to society tended to trigger more witch trials and to resist the new change,Witchcraft was re-defined as being in league with the devil, and therefore as heresy.
>>889886
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Why have you abandoned Christianity?
>>889886
>Generally this. The Catholic view would be denying people who can make real change contrary to natural processes and God's own creation. Some, then would say that if it is neither natural processes or God's own creation and yet they still accept that the "spell" was actually efficacious then it is best explained as being just existing creatures we cannot examine (such as fallen angels) rather than actual magic.
But that is what spells and magic are based on - calling on the help of supernatural beings with incantations.
Like pretty much any Catholic Church ceremony when you think about it.
I attend the Miley Cyrus school of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Oh, you're curious about campus life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKWC8syE64Y
>>889909
>Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Mosaic Law is not Christianity.
>>889914
>But that is what spells and magic are based on - calling on the help of supernatural beings with incantations.
No, magic is understood in a lot of different ways mainly because of ignorance and the church's acceptance of calling stuff magic while still denying real powers. What I was speaking about was the idea of powers.
And no, material interaction is not the name as intercession.
>>889886
Wolfshiem when are you going to debate the board's local Satanist?
>>877606
>>889892
One thing is that the Old Testament never says other Gods don't exist, it just says you aren't supposed to interact with them if you are a Jew. It also makes it pretty explicit that magic is a thing but you really shouldn't do it if you are Jew. Yawheh makes a pact with the Jews giving them protection and favor if they make him their only divinity.
>>889938
>No, magic is understood in a lot of different ways mainly because of ignorance and the church's acceptance of calling stuff magic while still denying real powers. What I was speaking about was the idea of powers.
No. Magic is done by calling on higher beings.
http://www.spellsofmagic.com/spells/love_spells/friendship_spells/13199/page.html
>>889938
>Mosaic Law is not Christianity
How do Catholics wrap their head around this idea?
Moses is the highest prophet in your religion. He's above any of the Apostles or Saints since he is the only human to have ever seen the face of God (funny enough he didn't describe Jesus as per-existing or mention a trinity). God gave his law straight to his prophet, he didn't even use a middle man in the way of Jesus.
From what I've gathered of historical research the justification for Christianity dismissing Jewish law comes from your religion's founder Paul, who tried to push the scripturally unsupported idea that Mosaic Law wasn't given by God but by angels so it "doesn't count"
>>889949
>One thing is that the Old Testament never says other Gods don't exist,
Other than all the times it does say that.
https://www.gci.org/God/howmany
>>889938
>Mosaic Law is not Christianity.
So no Ten Commandments then.
I guess God changed his mind about witches.
>>889959
>God gave his law straight to his prophet, he didn't even use a middle man in the way of Jesus.
I feel like you have a couple a misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.
>>889959
Usually catholic hold that Paul and the apostles met and debated the issue, the debate ended with a Peter receiving a "dream" allowing for the consumption of pork and other meats.
It pretty clear however that the author of Acts was a follower of Paul, The gospels themselves are wonderfully contradictory on the issue of the law, probably owing to the authors being of different sides of the debate.
>>889954
>Succubus
As I said, how we understand magic depends on how Abrahamic faiths shaped it's understanding of it. This falls in line with what I said in >>889938
>>889949
Probably not at all. I don't frequent /his/ much.
>>889959
>How do Catholics wrap their head around this idea?
God's moral law (the moral law "written on our hearts") is intrinsic to all people and hasn't changed. However over time, as you see through the Old Testament, there is a slow progression of greater and greater covenants in scale. Mosaic law came about as the covenant before Christianity and was made to have certain laws made for the people at the time because of their nature to prepare them for the New Covenant. Jesus says just as much when speaking of the Mosaic Law's teaching on divorce and saying it was a law given by Moses because "their hearts were hard".
And you should probably move away from the anti-Pauline conspiracies. Paul's letters are only accepted as they were accepted by Peter.
>>889963
Generally so, yes, but as I just said to OuterLimits, the God's moral law is intrinsic to us and eternal and so the Ten Commandments are still upheld, as historically Christians have argued for it being representative of moral teachings rather than judicial or ceremonial.
The judicial/ceremonial/moral split is a common theologian tool to parse why certain teachings of Mosaic Law stay while others remain that is used in the early church, apostolic sects, and protestant sects. And it falls in line pretty snug with everything already taught during the apostolic era.
And as I've illustrated with OuterLimits this is not a "changed mind" thing.
>>889964
If you pay attention even badly to the bible you should see that Jesus is subserviant to his father. He is an intermediator between God and people. Honestly he was probably originally supposed to be a prophet himself before the concept of trinity was invented.
>>889963
Also fuck Jesus
>For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Not only do we throw out a dot of the Law we throw out the entire Old Testament.
If you look at all the times Jesus discussing Mosiac laws he never says that it's "not the word of God" or "doesn't count". He quotes Old Testament law all the time and affirms the laws.
Early Christian was highly Mosiac. Than Paul comes a long and makes it Gentile friendly. James and Peter supposedly pushed for contiueing all the weird laws like cirumsicion. But hey, Paul knows better than the guy with heaven's keys and Jesus's twin brother.
>>889996
You realize outside of Christian circles, Paul's role in the development of Christian dogma is the subject of some debate. Given the number of scholars that subscribe to such thoughts its hardly a "conspiracy theory".
>>889467
>translations of the bible were not dangerous
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_Rebellion
It was basically what kept people from going crazy. No problems in the long run, but in the short period following the translations, Europe was completely destabilized.
>>890000
There is no doubt debate over the development of dogma in regards to Paul but the support for the extreme view of Paul being solely instrumental in the creation of the New Covenant as an idea is "Jesus didn't exist" levels of fringe to my knowledge and nothing I respect.
>>890004
It was certainy dangerous for the church and for those institutions that derived power and legitimacy from the church.
But for long term human development, not so much
>>890014
Paul was not the only voice, certainly he had supporters and collaborators, though there is also some evidence that his ideas were not immediately or universally accepted, there is also the question of how closely Paul's gentile converts adhered strictly to his vision.
From what I have read the common view today is the very early church was divided on both political and dogmatic lines.
>>889996
>As I said, how we understand magic depends on how Abrahamic faiths shaped it's understanding of it. This falls in line with what I said in
But how you understand magic, either you personally or the Catholic Church as an organisation, who you seem to disagree with, is not the definition of magic. That is just an assertion.
Magic is using the powers of higher beings such as Gods and Demons.
>>889996
>Ten Commandments are still upheld
Well minus that whole part about honoring the Sabbath. "Don't worry man we have a new Sabbath! Also we have new Convenet! It's not changing the law. It's fufilling it!"
>God's moral law
God's moral law is for the Jews. There is a separate law for Goyim which consits of little beyond "don't torture animals" and "don't kill". Everything beyond that in the Old Testament only applies if you are a Jew. So already we have the idea that there are two moralities.
>prepare them for the New Covenan
What did God say to Abraham? What was his pact? Think back to your sunday school lessons? God's Covenant was about land and nations, the creation of Israel and the promise that the Jews would live there. That is what God's morality and Covenenant is about, Israel. The Goyim are not even on the menu.
The very idea of one thing becoming another is a type of change. So a new convenient by definition is a change. Any attempt to say otherwise is lingustic trickery
God doesn't change his mind, so the very idea of a new convent is absurd. But you know what? Let's say you are right and God develops better and newer covenents. Hell let's even say they are being "fufilled" or "expanded" whatever you want. What does that mean for you? Well it means any moment God can divorce mother church and have a third coveneant. Or a 4th or a 5th. You have justified the Protestant Reformation, every schism, and the fucking Muslims! All new covenents bro! Mother church is divorced just like God divorced the Mosiac Rabbis!!
>>889996
>And as I've illustrated with OuterLimits this is not a "changed mind" thing.
So God didn't say you shouldn't suffer a witch to live.
>The judicial/ceremonial/moral split is a common theologian tool to parse why certain teachings of Mosaic Law stay while others remain that is used in the early church, apostolic sects, and protestant sects. And it falls in line pretty snug with everything already taught during the apostolic era.
That sounds awfully subjective and you don't have particularly brilliant sources from the apostolic era to be making such a bold claim.
>>890014
Here is a Yale Proffessor saying exactly what I and everyone else is telling you about Paul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qCUgkr2ohY&index=17&list=PL462B0F2345C29AFA
But hey he's probably part of the conspiracy.
>>890018
Not only for the Catholic Church, but for the people in general. All over Europe people were creating their own sects based on their own intepretations of the Bible. Doesn't sound too dangerous until you see the the results. It wasn't just because the Church was afraid of losing power, but also because of the numerous revolts started by cultist leaders. Some even declared theocracies of their own.
>>890032
Granted, in an era where political and spirtual power are tied at the hilt, almost any heterodox movement is a threat.
But that certainly was not the case in the classical world before Christianity outlawed other faiths, followed by the Christianized kings in latter years.
the Latin Vulgate was specifically a popular translation thus the name Vulgate.
>>890040
>But that certainly was not the case in the classical world before Christianity outlawed other faiths, followed by the Christianized kings in latter years.
More or less. Religion was still tightly controlled. Socrates himself was condemned to death for, among other things, not believing in the Gods.
>>890022
That's generally true. I'd say Paul's letters are testament to the diversity between the early church. They were bound by the same authority figures (sans the Gnostics and partially sans the people who fought the idea of Paul being upheld by the the apostles) and that's where their unity lie.
>>890026
>Well minus that whole part about honoring the Sabbath.
For the most part true, there. Some argue the moral relevance of it and others recognize it (I'd say rightfully) as a ceremonial law and just include it as it comes whole with the other 9 moral laws.
>God's moral law is for the Jews.
This is false.
>That is what God's morality and Covenenant is about, Israel.
Instituting Israel to set the stage, ultimately, for a greater overall covenant. There was a covenant in the Pentateuch even after this promise.
And man, I didn't go to sunday school. Started lax baptist, became atheist early on, remember?
>God doesn't change his mind, so the very idea of a new convent is absurd.
God doesn't change his mind. God's actual law had not changed. This is what I had already told you. The growing covenants in the Bible are example of a growing in closer communion with God rather than God changing minds.
>What does that mean for you? Well it means any moment God can divorce mother church and have a third coveneant. Or a 4th or a 5th.
First off, there have been more than three and second, Christianity is understood to be the final.
But it's late and I need to sleep, man. You have a good night.
>>890057
>This is false
You do realize Judaism is an ethnic religion? The entire Old Testament is designed for this ethnicity.
Now a lot of your statements seem to be based on self-referncing theology rather than an actual historicity. So I'll address one certain part
>The growing covenants in the Bible are example of a growing in closer communion with God rather
Nothing can be further from the truth. The Christian understanding of God is exactly why we have rampant fedorism. Luther is evolved Christianity and atheism is evolved Protestantism. Now I've only learned this recently but it really shocked me: Early Judaism, and all pre-Christian divinities were centered on earth. God physically lived in a temple. And the message of God walking in the Garden of Eden isn't a metaphor, it's literal. This because material and spiritual were not antithesis. As an example of the type of divinities this leads, I'm told in the original Hebrew things like Moses are called "God" not "god-like" but God. This a unity of the earth and heavenly realm.
This is why early Judaism didn't need an after-life. The earth was already divine, specifically the land of Israel. Christianity needs an after-life precociously because the earth isn't divine...the earth has been disenchanted and only the promise of the after-life wards off nihilism.
1/2
>>890261
So we were already close to God in the past. So close he walked among us and we could become divine ourself. Not even Mary was as close to the divine as Enoch, who became an arc-angel. Any man can do what Enoch did, but Mary had to have a special birth and even she didn't become a divine being. And you think Christianity brings you closer to the divine LOL
It was only with Christianity and it's Platonic influence that the divine and material became separate things. The new covenant was proto-atheism and put divinity into a distinctive non-material other. It was only time until Luther took the logical step of declaring that God couldn't be in the material Eucharist or baptism. It was the next logical step for the atheists to declare God isn't present in anything at all, in fact since he has no presence he doesn't even exist.
Have you ever read the Dignity of Man? It's one of the banned Catholic books. Among the heresies it says man is capable of uniting with the divine and to become an angel or even merge with God himself. So getting close to God is exactly the opposite of what is planned. Divinity is non-material and the earth is material. Neither man nor the earth can be divine but when the earth is all we have there is no divinity at all. This is what it means that God is dead and we killed him.
If you want to save spirituality, as I do, we need to make man and the earth divine things again
>>889900
See, someone actually makes a good historical point and everyone ignores it.
Classic /his/
>>889711
Show me one recorded example of witchcraft please
>>890491
Do you mean actual ones, or stories of accusations from the 16th-18th century?
