Is the Occult, Witchcraft, Antithetical to Christianity?

I was thinking about the occult and secret societies and magick and ritual and thought the real problem with them all is their separation from God, elevation of the human will over God’s, and the lack of interest in divine revelation. The first is the most important for in recognizing that reality emanates from the highest, it fails to see that the highest is God and has His own will which we must submit to. In attempting to change the landscape of reality through our own manipulation of our environment, whether that is in the physical plane or some higher plane towards consciousness or the spiritual, is hubris beyond belief. Second, elevating the human will over God’s will is the cause of this hubris and arrogance and this is why the occult is associated with satanism since satan was the first to attempt to assert his will over God’s. Lastly, ignoring Divine Revelation as in the Holy Scripture, the Church, and the continued work of the Holy Spirit is also foolish. For it assumes again that the emanations of God can be understood by reason or some logical process. Aquinas felt there was a limit to this, others felt that it was impossible altogether outside of God’s special divine act of allowing the creature to have intellection. Either way, it is impossible to do ANYTHING outside of God’s will. My response to a video on secret societies goes something like this: “AMORC or the Rosicrucians also claim to originate back to the ancient Egyptians. Much of this has to do with the secrecy of such groups due to public, and earlier religious, persecution as well as their origins in some rebirth of the Alexandrian systems of magic(k) which are the result of the amalgamation of Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and Christian perspectives on the spirit alongside a sort of multi-tiered view of varying levels of physical to spiritual reality (neoplatonism, its emanations, and their respective levels of reality). If one reads the Egyptian Book of the Dead as well as any Neoplatonist one will be acquainted with these views and their rich history, perspectives on reality, and influence.” Though I would say that while the emanations reflect something of reality we can’t define them by our intellect nor should we seek to try to change the spiritual realm…or at least the closer we get to the spiritual the less effectual our wills are. The lowest level of reality we can change the easiest or with less offense or defiance to God. The higher we go and attempt to change the worse it is against God or the harder it is to do. We can change things in ethereal realms but only slightly…we can see things in these realms but again only slightly for we are to wait for God to ascend us…not wrong to explore…but to do rituals or assume we can alter, change, or worse control these realms is wrong.

A Quick Note on the Resurrection of Christ, His Body, and What it Means?

As far as I can tell, the resurrection of Christ is an event that a.) ensured that we are resurrected…b.) was not merely the reanimation of this body but the reestablishment of our incorruptible bodies…and c.) while we cannot ‘see’ the resurrected bodies of our loved ones SINCE they are standing above us, just as they are not walking on that which we crawl on, Christ’s body was and still can be visible if He chooses because His stature as God ensures that His reflection, particularly in the TIME He was crawling, was SO large that He could be seen and interacted with even though HIS body was incorruptible ( the divine sort) but encompassed even the lower grounds where we crawl…just as the waters capture the image of the sky while not capturing necessarily the particular star we wish to see…Christ WAS there just in a divine way as well as in a corporeal way but incorruptible.

What Does Male and Female Mean in a Metaphysical Sense?

Sex in two places…The first, the lower, is terra (what we refer to wrongly as the body…for we have a terra body, an idea/astral body, and a divine body) men seek the lower terra sex. It is initiated by the penis into the passive female. However, in the ideational/astral, the woman has a phallic member of her body. The penis protrudes from the ordinary body in order to make changes to, to impart unto, the female body. Likewise, the female astral body has a member that is its influence…it protrudes into the passive astral/psychological body of the male in order to spray influence. This influence involves emotional, psychological motivation to create a new person, but really inspires a divine being to fall towards the ideational…this is the creation of animals…when the male is influenced enough to become one flesh with the female then they inspire a divine being to fall fully into the ‘clay’ terra, where we are supposed to walk, and there the inspiring sex of the female’s penetration into the male’s psyche/astral body which is impregnated gives birth to the establishment of the sex of the male and female in the terra body to make the divine being fall all the way down. Furthermore, the sciences can be divided into three…the Divine (theology)...the psyche (metaphysics or philosophy)...the third into naturalism or the natural sciences of empirical sciences.

Naturalism: Assuming there is a thing in reality called 'Nature'

As to this definition privided by atheists, “the natural world is the world of reality and the world we inhabit. It's the world described by propositions that are true and it's the world that is represented by our various senses (more or less) and which is described with somewhat greater fidelity by our sciences.” This too is imprecise and needn’t exclude such phenomena that is embraced by various philosophical perspectives and even theology, e.g. God, the soul, metaphysics, etc. As I mentioned earlier concerning earlier definitions of nature which included such phenomena, as described by Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., this definition does not exclude these phenomena. Often atheists say, “In that world, we exclude supernatural claims and whilst we may not have a final precise definition of the word "supernatural" and it may well be somewhat slippery and open to redefinition in light of new evidence (not an uncommon phenomena in the sciences) we certainly have accepted instances of what we would consider to be supernatural events (if they actually held true)” Again, supernatural by an exclusion of phenomena such as God, the soul, etc. This is a pejorative and loaded term because it arbitrarily defines such phenomena per mentioned as OUTSIDE of nature and nature EXCLUDES such phenomena. But that is only because they deny such phenomena NOT because they are NOT natural. Magic wands, ghosts, etc., are not included in philosophical or theological discourse and as such the mention of these is irrelevant. Furthermore, comparing meteorology to Thor is a categorical mistake. Meteorology is the study of phenomena in the atmosphere. Thor is a supposed identity that is associated with nordic spiritual and religious themes. You don’t study theology like meteorology. Theology is a study of shared spiritual experiences and titles given to persona associated with these vague, mystic, but nonetheless real experiences. One could chalk it up to psychology. But nonetheless it is NOTHING like meteorology and therefore it doesn’t test things and their predictability, it interprets themes that have already been instantiated, in a similar way as we do history, not by reproducing events but interpreting events that can’t be reproduced but interpreted. Some spiritual experiences can be reproduced, but historical revelations can’t be. “If it turned out that we were wrong with respect to some conclusion that we would currently consider to be a supernatural claim, than we'd be faced with 2 options: 1) - broaden the definition of naturalism to include the sorts of things we would now understand to be part of reality or 2) maintain our current sensibilities as to the sorts of things that are supernatural and acknowledge that in point of fact some such things actually do occur.” Again, this strategy by atheists does not wnecessarily exclude theology however. Now, if they point to specific scientific disciplines, well of course these exclude theology since they are focusing on their specific purview of investigation and the phenomena proper to it. “I think there are patterns in the sorts of things that we think are supernatural which I think I've already set out - which includes some form of agency that takes place but which is inconsistent with the notion that sentience and agency is uniquely a property of a functioning neurological structure (or the equivalent). In other words, a disembodied intelligence or sentient being does not fall within the constraints of naturalism, nor would a zombie absent a functioning neurological structure.” Barring the use of the term supernatural here, which as I have stated ad nauseum, is inappropriate, if one assumes a priori that consciousness emerges from neurons then of course one is going to be able to address consciousness outside of that context. However, if one views the brain as a receptor of consciousness, like a radio receives radio signals, then intentionality would be primal and would instantiate particles and materiality and not the other way around. We can’t say which one is the case and as far as I can tell, given the constraints of observation, I would say it is impossible to determine whether reality is an emergent property or an emanating set of properties from some higher source, i.e. God. “There's nothing a priori about concluding that our universe could not have been inhabited by gods or created by a singular god.... but any sort of evidence that supports that claims - things like being able to apply teleological reasoning with respect to the universe at large or identifying some communication for such a deity or being able to identify possible interventions by such a deity invariable fails. We just don't have the evidence to suggest that our universe belongs to the subset of logically possible universes which have such a deity or deities. And frankly, the universe of all logically possible universes isn't something worth investigating... it's simply too huge and so we need must look to the logically possible universes in which we have some evidence.” This is circular reasoning since it states that we need evidence to support theological claims. However, we only accept evidence from a form of naturalism which excludes what you call supernatural claims (a misnomer) which is a treatment of nature that excludes intentionality and theology a priori. So, I would argue that this is wrong here and it is an a priori, presuppositional, claim. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true and one may be right. But not based on scientific analysis, but based on philosophical presups that seem to make the most sense to one. “You're no doubt familiar with the notion of the neural correlates of consciousness but these theories go further and attempt to identify what it is about the brain that creates consciousness - see for example: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness These theories make testable predictions as to when someone will or will not be conscious based upon certain features of their neural network.... and of course make no reference to miracles or divine interventions. We are still early days. And whilst consciousness is still a mystery, it's one that is slowly being rolled back by scientific method.... and I fail to see how the notion that it remains somewhat mysterious helps you? There's a wide consensus amongst neurobiologists that mental phenomena are the result of brain activities and that we need not look to some invisible homunculus somehow attached to our bodies as an explanation as to how we see or hear or think.” In this example of a typical atheist rebuttal to the mind being something external to, or separate from, neural causes these tests rely on a person reporting certain conscious states and then corresponding neural events occur. This presupposes that a conscious state is experienced AND a neural event occurs. If a body is made of nerves, neurons, etc., then these which bring in information from the world around it will correspond to events commensurate with the body of nerves and neural systems. Of course, one has such and such an experience. This says nothing to the conscious event being caused by the neurons, only there is a correspondence to their instantiation. “A philosopher today not familiar with the sciences relevant to his area of expertise would be essentially blind. It's the science that is pushing the philosophical trends and not the reverse. One doesn't decide what's natural from an a priori perspective but rather based upon experience.” Likewise, a scientist unfamiliar with philosophical themes, research topics, etc., may improperly define a philosophical principle as associated with a phenomenon within their own purview of research. Most scientists are hesitant to bridge the gap between theology/philosophy and science and for good reason. They recognize, which is sensible to do, that the content of their investigation does not necessarily, if at all, speak on behalf of philosophy or theology. They restrict their findings to their own specific discipline. When scientists run into trouble is when, like people like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, take off their scientist hat and put on their philosopher one, and switch back and forth presenting rather confusing views on philosophy and science. It is best to recognize the boundaries, see that there is an infinite smallness and greatness (as observed by Blaise Pascal) which one can never traverse, and allow space for other disciplines based on conceptual, spiritual, and religious experiences as well, And so, I would say that it is fine to be a naturalist. However, naturalism is not provisional in the sense that many are trying to argue it is. I think the provisional portion of naturalism is in reference to scientific facts that are included into the lexicon and language of a naturalism which denies intentionality and theology, which is fine. But again this is a presupposition and not one that is unanimous in all the fields of science. Some scientists share this view, but they do so as philosophers NOT as scientists. I can provide many sources from scientists that would agree with my view and criticize some of their colleagues on their misassociation of science with philosophical themes. And so, while I am sure many will continue to see my side as being against the historical trajectory of the sciences, which is fine, I hope you can see my side as being critical of scientists that confuse their own fields with philosophy. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong, and their colleagues that share my view are right. But I hope what you take from this is that it isn’t as plain as many in this group and many antitheist groups portray the supposed contention between religion and science.

Why Idealism is more sensible than Naturalism

Naturalism is predicated on the idea of materialism, or that observed proceses is responsible for all things that exist. But if this is the case then this is nothing more than materialism 2.0 or physicalism. It suggests that mind, or consciousness, emerges from lifeless, dead, thoughtless, purposeless, matter. And yet, this is inconceivable. I can’t conceive of any possible way in which matter would produce mind or intention or consciousness. However, I can conceive how mind, or intention, or consciousness, can produce matter or physical systems. By a thought, other thoughts can be produced. By intention, other intentionalities can be produced. These intentionalities, personalities, through their interactions, likewise produce modes of interactions which are themselves things like number, and then ultimately rules, laws, physical properties. When an intentional PERSON, a someone, interacts with another someone, the mode of interaction forms a system of rules or laws or habits. These in turn have a set of properties which are observable, testable, etc. But one needn’t have these systems to have the intention or the person. However, in order to have the system, we have to have interactions between people. For a system is a set of laws. And a set of laws are rules. And rules are intentioned guidelines for interactions. But with purely physical phenomena, there is no intention or personal interaction therefore there cannot be rules. If there cannot be rules, there cannot be laws. If there cannot be laws there cannot be physics. What this boils down to is the concept of life after death and that having a different mode of interactions between other intentionalities, or personalities, is certainly reasonable. The fact that our ‘bodies’ die is nothing more than our ‘focus’ on one mode of interaction which has its limits. But from a naturalist’s perspective, there can be no life after death. And yet, from a naturalistic perspective it is impossible to see how there can be life FROM death in the first place.

What are demons?

What are demons? Are they the fallen angels described cryptically in the Bible which had aligned with Lucifer in an attempt to overthrow God and were thus plunged into Hell awaiting their eternal judgment? Are they the gods of ancient cultures that while falling into obscurity are nonetheless present in the aether world waiting to be evoked? Are they ghosts, the spirits of humans that were dramatically transformed due to some trauma at their death? Or are they something else entirely, like some archetypal themes in our subconscious which represent features of the ego we prefer not to focus on, as Mathers, Crowley, and others felt? Some of the earliest mentions of demons, or spirits that we could refer to as demons, or daimons, comes from a word meaning divider, or provider. For Socrates/Plato, the daimonion, or spirit, was merely an entity that dwelled between the earth and heaven. For “spirits, you know, are halfway between god and man. (Diotima asks) ‘What powers have they, then?’ (Socrates responds)They are the envoys and interpreters that ply between heaven and earth, flying upward with our worship and our prayers, and descending with the heavenly answers and commandments, and since they are between the two estates they weld both sides together and merge them into one great whole. They form the medium of the prophetic arts, of the priestly rites of sacrifice, initiation, and incantation, of divination and of sorcery, for the divine will not mingle directly with the human, and it is only through the mediation of the spirit world that man can have any intercourse, whether waking or sleeping, with the gods. And the man who is versed in such matters is said to have spiritual powers, as opposed to the mechanical powers of the man who is expert in the more mundane arts. There are many spirits, and many kinds of spirits, too, and Love is one of them.’” This is in contrast to the biblical perspective, particularly New Testament doctrine, of fallen angels. The Old Testament, and particularly Jewish traditions, have very little regard for demons, having the Se'irim and the Shedim, the former being the he-goats of Assyrian myth and the latter simply other gods from other cultures. Arabic and muslim traditions have the jinn and teh shaitan, the latter being more obviously malevolent than the former. However, in antiquity, demons, were depicted more in line with the Socratic/Platonic view of beings that exist between this world and the other; intermediary beings in other words. And so, we have to consider whether demons are absolutely malevolent, as Christian/biblical traditions teach, classes of malevolent and benign entities, such as the jinn and shaitan of islam, beings that are either mythological, symbolic, or representations of other gods as taught by Judaism, or they are beings that exist between the higher and lower realms of reality (or even the conscious Mind of an idealistic, Jungian, Platonic universe). And so, there are a variety of possibilities that these beings could be. Not one perspective is absolutely true nor provable. And yet, I have had encounters with what I think are these beings (which these experiences could be simply my imagination, an experience of archetypal themes, actual entities that are malevolent, good, or neutral). I won’t be so dogmatic to make a statement on what they are. But THAT they exist in some form seems plausible given my own experiences. I also think that the experiences of religious figures in history, magicians, occult practitioners, etc., also help legitimize their objective existence in some form. But again, what they are is not something one can absolutely claim, in spite of religious texts, grimoires, etc., that offer more ambitious and absolutist claims to the contrary. Se'irim, Shedim, Jinn, Shaitan to name a few examples of demonic personal features found in thw world of experience.

Pools

Every summer, we all witness that mad dash of sweaty, cloistered bodies stripped of their cumbersome winter apparel streaming towards a sanctuary from Apollo’s wrath; some cool body of water. The frozen plains of reflective glass only months earlier give way to a rebirth of the solar god, whose throne is once again reclaimed. And so, a gentle breeze cuts through the reticulated landscape to have its way with the ponds, lakes, and puddles we all like to splash in. And pools once again attract us to their buoyantly delicious fluid we all love to swim in. The young and the old find their common ground in either splashing about or fixed lacily prostate in its dense, but spacious, wetness.

One can’t help but think of the Roman bath houses, the banks of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, or Syrinx’s reeds in an Arcadian lake awaiting the musical lips of Pan to blow. Historically, mankind has sought out pools as not only a way to cool themselves off, but also as a means of congregation. For as we all know, there is nothing more appealing to Man as Society itself; and in particular socializing. The greatest achievements of civilization are civility. And it requires a collective to produce a civil act; for one cannot be civil to one’s self alone.

The pool, therefore, like the aggregate of men and women, is the result of millions upon millions of drops of water coming together. The rain carelessly falls with each bead and one never knows where the individual drop will fall. But, the kinetics of the pool we can safely and confidently predict. The arm glides over the surface and slices through it and we immediately know the direction of the swell. The Northwind blows traversing the skim and we perceive its ambulation and which way it is going.

Jesus once said in a conversation to the genuinely inquisitive and open Nicodemus that the spirit was like the wind and that one could never know its direction (whether it went this way or that). But can we say anything different about the rain in contrast to the pools? Consider a game such as football. For if one of the members of The New England Patriots has possession of the ball, are we not convinced of the direction the rest of the team and the opposing team will rush to? Contrariwise, can we equally say with the same degree of certainty what Prometheus would chiefly do with his time if he were unchained? John Paul Sartre, the existential philosopher, pointed out that his own free will terrified him, for it was possible that he could perform any act at any given time, marvelous or dreadful. The individual, while cursory, unpredictable, and monstrously god-like at times, is our highest expression of existence. The group, the herd, Nature herself, are superficial in contrast; and monotonously predictable. And while I can see why we find pools so relaxing and rejuvenating on a hot summer day, they are hardly the right places to find relief from the heated, vexing light of our own inner souls and spirits, where purpose drowns out the chaos of our humdrum lives.