Witchcraft

New_Departure06

Does anyone have experience of witchcraft working?

Sapien

Try the Paganism Forum.

Kernel

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

stormkeeper

Kernel wrote:

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

What about fireballs and lightning from your hands? I think that would be pretty cool. I've yet to see that in action, mind.

Seriously though, the Paganism forum is the best place to ask this, even if the concept of "magick" could be regarded as supernatural.

Nevyn

Infact many pagans and witches would consider magic to be not supernatural but natural

tk123

Kennett wrote:

What about fireballs and lightning from your hands? I think that would be pretty cool. I've yet to see that in action, mind.

haha busted - it sounds like you've been watching Charmed

stormkeeper

Thaedydal wrote:

Infact many pagans and witches would consider magic to be not supernatural but natural

I agree. I consider it more natural myself, but acknowledge that others may not think so. Different strokes as they say

tk123 wrote:

haha busted - it sounds like you've been watching Charmed

Not recently, but yes, I've watched a lot of it... I have a bit of a thing for Piper

Kernel

Thaedydal wrote:

Infact many pagans and witches would consider magic to be not supernatural but natural

Yes, but that was before the Age of Enlightenment surely?

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but that was before the Age of Enlightenment surely?

Which one?

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

Which one?

This one, of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment

Which other Age of Enlightenment do you allude to?

6th

Is this really in the right place?

Could a mod decide if it belongs in the Pagan forum?

GuanYin

It looks good for the recycle bin. I thought it was in your list of things to talk about under 13/41?

Nevyn

Kernel wrote:

Yes, but that was before the Age of Enlightenment surely?

Acuatlly I was talking about currently amoung witches and most magical practioners be they pagan or not.
Not all witches are pagan.

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

This one, of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment

Which other Age of Enlightenment do you allude to?

They're not all quite so gregariously named or universally recognised, but if one pays attention...

(That is an awful wiki entry, by the way.)

Nevyn

Sapien wrote:

(That is an awful wiki entry, by the way.)

Isn't it,
have you seen the ones on hermetics and Hermes Trismegistus ?

Sapien

Thaedydal wrote:

Isn't it,
have you seen the ones on hermetics and Hermes Trismegistus ?

I dread to think.

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

They're not all quite so gregariously named or universally recognised, but if one pays attention...

I'm listenin'.....

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

I'm listenin'.....

Good. Keep it up.

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

Good. Keep it up.

No, I'm still listening... waiting for you to make a point.

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

No, I'm still listening... waiting for you to make a point.

My point (heretofore fully made) is that one is a bit behind the times to be working off 18th century developments as the dernier cri in philosophic thought. Mainstream philosophy has been wracked by several paradigm shifts since the advent of Voltaire and Hume, and the philosophy of magick only really got off the ground a century ago, if you ask me. Do you see?

Kernel

Sapien wrote:

My point (heretofore fully made) is that one is a bit behind the times to be working off 18th century developments as the dernier cri in philosophic thought. Mainstream philosophy has been wracked by several paradigm shifts since the advent of Voltaire and Hume, and the philosophy of magick only really got off the ground a century ago, if you ask me. Do you see?

Not really, point me to another shift of such magnitude as The Age of Enlightenment since then (barring technological and scientific advance - themselves facilitated by the aforementioned age).

In the field of philosophy alone, we have made painful little progress since then tbh.

Remember, you must back up your claims.

Sapien

Kernel wrote:

Not really, point me to another shift of such magnitude as The Age of Enlightenment since then (barring technological and scientific advance - themselves facilitated by the aforementioned age).

In the field of philosophy alone, we have made painful little progress since then tbh.

First tell me precisely what advances your vaunted Age of Enlightenment brought.

Kernel wrote:

Remember, you must back up your claims.

:-|

Sapien

(And why "barring technological and scientific advance"? Why shouldn't they count? Remember the context.)

Talliesin

Kernel wrote:

Thaedydal wrote:

Infact many pagans and witches would consider magic to be not supernatural but natural

Yes, but that was before the Age of Enlightenment surely?

No, if anything it was during that time of a major resurgence in interest in the occult of all forms, including witchcraft, and the new interest in applying the newly developped philosophical and scientific views to its study, that led to the kind of reassessment of "supernatural" and "natural" that Thaedydal is referring to.

The Enlightenment frequently gets referenced badly in respect to the occult and paranormal by people with some knowledge of the increased scientific endevour of the time who ignore or are ignorant of the increased occult endevour that coincided with (and was intertwined with) it. Frequently making statements about the effect of the Enlightenment upon occult thought that are diametrically opposed to the actual history.

Kernel

Talliesin wrote:

No, if anything it was during that time of a major resurgence in interest in the occult of all forms, including witchcraft, and the new interest in applying the newly developped philosophical and scientific views to its study, that led to the kind of reassessment of "supernatural" and "natural" that Thaedydal is referring to.

How can you use 'scientific reassessment' to support a statement that magic is natural, since science scoffs at the very idea of magic and witchcraft? Maybe I'm taking you up wrong here, or maybe you're colouring Thaeds statement differently to defend it.

Talliesin wrote:

The Enlightenment frequently gets referenced badly in respect to the occult and paranormal by people with some knowledge of the increased scientific endevour of the time who ignore or are ignorant of the increased occult endevour that coincided with (and was intertwined with) it. Frequently making statements about the effect of the Enlightenment upon occult thought that are diametrically opposed to the actual history.

I understand and acknowledge that many curious people practiced science and superstitious ideas of the occult to push the understanding of mankind during the period of Enlightment. Science led somewhere, scientific method was a useful tool, witchcraft and many occult practices did not, so was discarded. Ideas are also subject to natural selection. Alchemy became chemistry, and was discarded when we discovered atomic theory and later verified it with electron microscopes (although unfortunately it's making a resurgence with ideas of homeopathy).

With regard to witchcraft, I believe that people nowadays who practice it are slightly touched in the head - as it's been my experience that they are eccentrics seeking to be different, or living in a fantasy world created from one too many D&D game. Do you think the theology of paganism practiced today is the same as the ancient (pure) primitive paganism? Not unless you perform human sacrifices it isn't. Worship the moon and the sun? Fair enough back in the primitive days, but we've since discovered what the moon and the sun are, and they aren't gods. The evolved paganism of today is a mix n' match hodge podge of theological beliefs, and as such is fairly irrelevent to most people. Witchcraft is a throwback to the flat earth society days.

stevenmu

Kernel banned for one week, this isn't the place to call religions into doubt, and particularly not the place to suggest that their followers are 'slightly touched in the head'.

IPI

Kernel wrote:

With regard to witchcraft, I believe that people nowadays who practice it are slightly touched in the head...

Though you might be sailing a little close to the wind there, banning-wise (has everybody read his charter?) the legal loophole that might let you out is a general lack of definition of "witchcraft". There's obviously a literal definition which in itself begs a definition of "witch", but witchcraft as it is generally accepted has been practiced and is being practiced by people who have discovered a way of life that brings them more closely into contact with patterns of earth-force (this is so definitely a paranormal subject, not a pagan one).

From my understanding, energies are channelled (just as psychic energies are utilised by psychics, mediums, telekineticists and all) and by careful guidance and control can impact on a vast range of physical and psychological phenomena. Can a prince be turned into a frog? Probably not, unless he's already French (hurr-hurr). Can a princess be put to sleep for a hundred years? I'd say almost definitely. Is there a religious dimension to witchcraft? Let's say a theological one, instead. God is in everything, once you find the right definition of God.

I've known witches who've said they were witches and I've known frauds who wished they were, but in all cases there was an underlying understanding of the universe that transcends the commonly accepted norms, one which really isn't all so far removed from a description of the universe that accepts most other paranormal phenomena besides, from ghosts to UFOs.

The OP asks if anyone has first-hand experience of witchcraft working, to which most witches I know would probably be inclined to say "Yes. Everybody. Just open your eyes."

Talliesin

Kernel wrote:

How can you use 'scientific reassessment' to support a statement that magic is natural, since science scoffs at the very idea of magic and witchcraft?

Science doesn't scoff at anything. Science investigates and posits hypotheses.

However my point was not anything about science itself, but the Age of Enlightenment which was a period in history during which attitudes to both science and the occult changed, with a major increase in the interest in both.

It was from these two trends that the idea that nothing happened that wasn't natural coincided with the belief of some in magic to lead those people to define magic as natural rather than supernatural.

This does entail that the application of scientific method to occult phenomena is possible (there are arguments against even for those who hold magic to be natural, but that's another matter) which had an enormous effect both on occult practice and on the very concept of "paranormal".

Nevyn

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Witchcraft

Sapien

Sapien wrote:

Kernel wrote:

Not really, point me to another shift of such magnitude as The Age of Enlightenment since then (barring technological and scientific advance - themselves facilitated by the aforementioned age).

In the field of philosophy alone, we have made painful little progress since then tbh.

First tell me precisely what advances your vaunted Age of Enlightenment brought.

*Ahem*

(I don't mind people giving up - but it's terribly rude to resume a thread leaving a highly salient question a-dangling.)

IPI

Sapien, if you check back you'll see Kernel was banned for his "I believe that people nowadays who practice [witchcraft] are slightly touched in the head" comment. Otherwise, I'm sure he wouldn't leave us all danglin'.

On the other hand, we can now say what we want about his comments and he can't argue. Hmmm...

Sapien

IPI wrote:

Sapien, if you check back you'll see Kernel was banned for his "I believe that people nowadays who practice [witchcraft] are slightly touched in the head" comment. Otherwise, I'm sure he wouldn't leave us all danglin'.

Thanks IPI - I spotted that.

He has left me waiting for more than a month now, so I presumed he had forgotten about, or banished himself from the thread.

As to Kernel's impugnations of the mental wholeness of our pagan comrades - do we not feel he should be taken on in some way? He clearly anticipates being cast into the void whenever he decides to vent his spleen so - and I imagine he takes it as a small victory every time he is. Surely some strong willed witches or other (naming no names) would be eager to face down these uncouth challenges. I have previously found myself the subject of his psychological appraisals, and pursued the matter unto not-unpleasing ends. The chap clearly has a bit of a chipped shoulder on the matter and I think it would be interesting to set aside a thread to try to smooth him over. Or be convinced of the folly of our own beliefs. Whatever.

Nevyn

Sapien wrote:

He clearly anticipates being cast into the void whenever he decides to vent his spleen so - and I imagine he takes it as a small victory every time he is.

It would appear so, as this has not been the first time.

Sapien wrote:

Surely some strong willed witches or other (naming no names) would be eager to face down these uncouth challenges.

Sapien wrote:

The chap clearly has a bit of a chipped shoulder on the matter and I think it would be interesting to set aside a thread to try to smooth him over. Or be convinced of the folly of our own beliefs. Whatever.

sadly I don't think that would happen

Sorry if this is off topic but ah well I am not a mod here so I can go off topic ocassionally.

The thing is Wicca is a religion Witchcraft or the Craft is not nessacarily so.

GuanYin

Lets leave the Kernel issue there folks. He has been dealt with.