Superstition Watch: Among the Unbelievers

New York’s young and hip seek assistance from fertility candles and “magickal seals.”  The New York Times’ fashion editors are intrigued.  A friend buys a “dressed” candle and lands an acting gig.   “Coincidence?”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Superstition Watch: Among the Unbelievers

  1. Dan says:

    I’ve always been annoyed when people insist on spelling “magic” with a “k”. Is it not real if it doesn’t have that extra letter? Or is that just your marketing department hard at work?

  2. A-Bax says:

    Just goes to show that so many people who claim to have rejected “religion” have not done the hard intellectual work of really thinking it through, and just reject judeo-christianity (likely for emotional reasons).

    Hence the near-religious fervor which some on the Left approach their politics, e.g global-warming ideology as religious (as the late Michael Crichton described.) All the way down to new-age healing crystal’s and the like.

    Like the hippie-chicks I knew in college who would never be caught dead in a church or synagogue, but they have no problem talking about yogi’s levitating or whatever. It’s a kind of fashion statement.

  3. Donna B. says:

    It may be a fashion statement, but have you noticed that almost all the “serious magick” people are in it for the money?

  4. Panopaea says:

    It’s because in the fallen state you are not capable of not worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. A person who has been regenerated by the Word and the Spirit is able to worship the Creator. Human beings will either worship the Creator or the creation. (And the creation includes themselves.)

  5. A-Bax says:

    “Regenerated”:

    That’s twice now that I’ve see the term “regenerated” in the comments section on this blog by folks who I presume to be born-again, or fundamentalist Christians of some kind. Is that some kind of code-word? Is it about the purported bodily resurrection after JC descends from the sky in flames and such? (Someone else told me in the comments of an earlier post that after I was “regenerated” I would come to accept The Truth).

    I must say, it’s hard to get the image of a cell-phone being recharged out of my mind when I read that. (And after the 7th hour, the Lord’s phone had 3 bars…and it was good.)

    PS – I just want a few quickie sentences about it, not a homily. I’m fairly deaf to that noise.

  6. Panopaea says:

    Ms. Macdonald, I was responding to the comment directly asking for a definition of regeneration. Maybe you can’t see that context when you get individual comments in your queue for moderation. Read A-Bax’ comment (comment #5). But since I didn’t save my little effort I won’t try to duplicate it. You should be more aware of what is going on though.

  7. Panopaea says:

    >That’s twice now that I’ve see the term “regenerated” in the comments section on this blog by folks who I presume to be born-again, or fundamentalist Christians of some kind. Is that some kind of code-word? Is it about the purported bodily resurrection after JC descends from the sky in flames and such? (Someone else told me in the comments of an earlier post that after I was “regenerated” I would come to accept The Truth).

    Regeneration in theological and biblical language is pretty much synonymous with ‘effectual calling’ and being ‘born again.’ It is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit. It precedes conversion which is when you come to have faith and repentance. (Effectual calling means when the Word of God is either read or heard by a person it will then, like seeds being planted, either grow in them or it won’t; if it does then the ‘call’ was effectual. The call can go to everybody, but it will be effectual for some.)

    In my comment which didn’t get through (maybe it was too long) I gave some quotes from basic systematic theology, but you can find such definitions by googling the word (though of course discernment is needed in finding on-the-mark teaching on these subjects).

    I also gave some description of regeneration from personal experience, which really is the only way to describe it to someone. Regeneration can really only be seen in hindsight, after the fact. Seeing how you’ve changed, your interests, what you value, etc.

    Two clear marks of regeneration though are a high and abiding valuation for the Word of God (the Old and New Testaments), and a real love for fellow Christians (even, believe it or not, if they are across doctrinal divides such as Protestant and Catholic). And I should add a good will understanding for other Christians, which manifests when one sees Christians who are perhaps being a bit shallow for whatever reason. Fake or mercenary (for monetary gain) self-identified Christians and false teachers can be seen for what they are though.

    But with regeneration comes illumination and discernement given by the Holy Spirit which is why it is needed to see biblical teaching. Without it biblical teaching is seen as foolishness. (I then quoted passages of the Bible illustrated this, but I won’t include that here again.)

  8. Dave M says:

    I’ve always been annoyed when people insist on spelling “magic” with a “k”. Is it not real if it doesn’t have that extra letter? Or is that just your marketing department hard at work?>/i>

    Blame ole’ Uncle Al (Crowley). He used it to differentiate his version from “mere” Stage Magic.

  9. David Heddle says:

    A-Bax,

    That’s twice now that I’ve see the term “regenerated” in the comments section on this blog by folks who I presume to be born-again, or fundamentalist Christians of some kind. Is that some kind of code-word?

    It should be easy to see that regenerated = generated again = born again. Hardly a code word, but the very catch-phrase of evangelical Christianity.

    I perceive some fellow Calvinists among the commenters–most excellent!

    By the way, Baptist Calvinists should be welcome with open arms on this blog. Baptists “invented” separation of church and state, and Calvinists are responsible for the Protestant work ethic. What better friends could you ask for?

  10. A-Bax says:

    Panopaea: You lost me pretty much within the first sentence. I’m inclined to think though, that’s it’s not so much a case of me not being able to follow, so much as it is a case of “regeneration” being one melody of the “tribal chanting” that Bradlaugh uses to describe Theology.

    It does us no good for you to explain “regeneration” by invoking “effectual calling”, “born again”, “Word”, “Spirit” (with caps, no less!). Those terms don’t really have any objective referent, and don’t really mean much to me, or anyone outside your religion, unfortunately.

    Thank you for taking the time to try to explain it, though. I appreciate it. (Seriously.) But, I am afraid I will have to pass over that term in silence next time I see it, regarding it as a kind of “oogedy-boodegy” incantation.

    Best,

  11. Panopaea says:

    >It does us no good for you to explain “regeneration” by invoking “effectual calling”, “born again”, “Word”, “Spirit” (with caps, no less!). Those terms don’t really have any objective referent, and don’t really mean much to me, or anyone outside your religion, unfortunately.

    Beyond that first sentence where you apparently stopped reading I gave you this: “Effectual calling means when the Word of God is either read or heard by a person it will then, like seeds being planted, either grow in them or it won’t; if it does then the ‘call’ was effectual. The call can go to everybody, but it will be effectual for some.”

    If that simile doesn’t qualify as objective referent I must say I wasn’t looking to provide and ‘objective referent’ in my response. I was merely assuming your request for a definition of a term you didn’t know was genuine.

  12. Statsquatch says:

    A-Bax,

    It sounds like you are describing the “I am not religious so much as spiritual” crowd. I am told this line gets you laid in college while the line I used (“I am not a strict verificationist so much as a demander of falsifiability”) got me nothing. Maybe I should have said “I am not a regenerate so much as I am not a degenerate”? Seriously though, I always thought a hyper-Calvinist easier to deal with than a Wicca enthusiast. They are more polite and they wash regularly.

  13. A-Bax says:

    Statsquatch: “I am not religious so much as spiritual”…you’re right about the use to which displays of sympathy toward think kind of mushiness can be put! I did find it curious in college that hippie-chicks, etc. would beam their eyes and bob their heads in agreement when one dissected the transcendent claims of Christianity, but then narrow those same eyes and close up a bit in terms of body-language when one turned that same skeptical knife on some of the more silly claims of, say, Theravada Buddhism.

    Eventually, you learn to go with the flow! (But really, it’s hard to kill the sexy-time vibe more quickly than with talk of verificationism and falsifiability, as near and dear to my heart as those concepts are.)

    Hyper-Calvinists might forgive you your transgression more easily though, since it’s all been pre-ordained anyway, and you couldn’t really have done otherwise, right? 😉

    Panopaea: Don’t mean to upset you, and I did read your full post. I think I see what you’re getting at. You have to realize though, that for an outsider to your religion (me), all the religio-poetic terms start to bleed into one another, and since there’s nothing objective that any of them to latch onto, it’s a tall order to keep them clear and distinct from one another? (That’s what was meant by “referent” – a thing in the world to which a term refers.) When explaining a religious term to an outsider, it doesn’t help to heap more in-group religious terms on top.

    Thanks for giving me a sense of “regenerate”. Good luck with that.

  14. Panopaea says:

    A-Bax, shouldn’t atheists be more knowledgeable of that which they are sure is nonsense? If I was against physics as a scientific discipline, or just thought it was nonsense, but knew next to nothing about it, wouldn’t you call me ignorant? Would you take me seriously? A mind as big as the Renaissance, indeed a Renaissance humanist of the caliber of a John Calvin, who if he had never been born again and led by God away from the life of a classical scholar and into the life of a revolutionary theologian and leader – indeed the American historian George Bancroft called him the real founding father of the United States – atheists would genuflect before and be in awe of, yet he has to now be seen as some sort of silly moron by you. You have to affect to have greater understanding than him. Think about this. Who is being silly?

    And be aware as well, if you respond with the usual boilerplate pop-mythology of John Calvin (I could have chosen any number of other names) you will, without knowing it, be echoing the least intellectually curious Christians among Protestants (Catholics have their own reasons for saying negative things about Calvin).

    Atheists can talk about flying spaghetti monsters all they want, but believers in the God of the Bible, not flying spaghetti monsters, founded the civilization you exist in. Why is it seen as serious by atheists to be ignorant of the beliefs of those people? Again, if I took the same approach to physics you’d call me ignorant and not serious.

  15. A-Bax says:

    Panopaea:

    1) About my not knowing enough about the intellectual giant that is John Calvin in order to even engage in discussing the content of his ideas: Fine example of the Courtier’s Reply. Classic in fact.

    1.1): Have you studied the theology of Islam? Why aren’t you serious enough to do so? How about Confucianism? How about the myriad forms of Hinduism and the various strains of Buddhism? Zoroastrianism? Orthodox Judaism? Reform Judaism? Jainism? 2-3 flavors of African animism? Etc., etc., etc. Can you show that you know more than “next to nothing” about these world-views? Why should anyone take your (presumed) implicit rejection of them seriously then?

    Substitute “John Calvin” with the name of the founder of any religion, and you will find supporters as fervent, as committed, with the same amount of evidence for their beliefs (read: zero) as you have for yours. Think about this. Who is being silly?

    2) Physics is about the empirical world. It is a “legitimate” discipline, in the sense that Bradlaugh has using. Calvinism, like all theology, is mere “tribal chanting” (with a dash of “tribal navel-gazing” thrown in, I’d say.) The burden is on the theologist, and believer in general, to show that the object of their study/veneration indeed exists. Till then, you’re howling at the moon.

    3) Finally, the civilization I live in was certainly NOT founded by believers in the god of the bible. It’s my understanding that the ancients Greeks played a role in Western Civ, as did the Romans. Last I checked, neither Athens nor Rome was founded by believers in the God of the bible.

    Best,

Comments are closed.