Spirituality
18 Aug 09
19 Aug 09
Originally posted by jaywillSo when someone says 'the occult', what does it mean to you? You have told us that Christianity and the activities you involve yourself in are definitely not 'the occult' or even closely related to it. But what is this 'occult'? Do you take is as merely an insulting word, or is it some sort of religion, or is it specific practices, or does it describe certain works of the devil?
As for that being a [b]definition of Occult, I am not sure. [/b]
19 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRoot meaning though certainly relevant, is not the same as current meaning as I hope my 'nigger' example demonstrated. Can you find any literary reference that uses the word 'occult' in reference a practice by a mainstream religion?
I don't claim to be in possession of the 'one true definition'. I could say 'according to the root meaning' instead of 'strictly defined'.
19 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAgain, it has quite different connotations now.
"The word 'Fundamentalism' originally referred to a series of a dozen pamplets entitled The Fundamentals*, which were distributed free of charge by the American Bible League between 1909 and 1915. [...] The Fundamentals emphasised two key points. The first was the truth of the infallible Bible [...]. The second point stressed the concept of the born-again Christian [...]." (David S. Katz)
19 Aug 09
3 edits
The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons, Beelzebul. For their blasphemy Jesus told them that the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit would never be forgiven.
Am I trying to warn anyone of commiting an unforgivable sin? No I am not, necessarily. I am pointing out that in their opposition to Christ the pharisees attempted to lump Christ's ministry with the occult.
The blindness was certainly on thier side. They could not spiritually discern occult activity from the miracles of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. So they thought they were being quite wise of accusing Jesus of practicing the occult. This probably just encreased their blindness and further hardened their hearts.
"Then there was brought to Him one possessed by a demon, blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the crowds were amazed and said, Is this not the Son of David?
But the Pharisees, hearing this, said, This man does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons.
But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself becomes desolate, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How will his kingdom stand?
And if I, by Beelzebul, cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
But if I by the Spirit of God, cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Or how can anyone enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will thoroughly plunder his house.
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the one to come." (See Matt. 12:22-32)
19 Aug 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour 'nigger' example wasn't all that good, as a great many African Americans do use it in reference to their friends. I'm more concerned with whether the word fits than whether people in mainstream religion apply it to themselves. Obviously, a given group is unlikely to use a word it considers taboo, even though it may be perfectly applicable to them. That is kind of the point.
Root meaning though certainly relevant, is not the same as current meaning as I hope my 'nigger' example demonstrated. Can you find any literary reference that uses the word 'occult' in reference a practice by a mainstream religion?
For example, the Roman Catholic church, with its saints, relics, and exorcisms, has been accused of devil-worship and other unspeakable practices since the Reformation, with this blogger providing a poignant contemporary example: http://christianclarityreview.wpblogs.com/2009/07/12/occultists-exchange-gifts-obama-gives-pope-holy-relic/
Of course, Roman Catholicism is not the only mainstream religion to practice exorcism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism
Naturally, much of the time the term 'occult' is used to point fingers, such as this denigration of Pentecostalism, the fastest-growing Christian denomination (if that's the right word) worldwide:
http://www.bible.ca/tongues-dictionary-occult-donning.htm
Here's another from the same source ... http://www.bible.ca/tongues-slain-in-spirit.htm
What makes a religion mainstream, anyway? Sheer weight of numbers? If so, Pentecostalism is a mainstream religion. Hence Katz' coinage 'mainstream religious extremism'.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI define the occult as people specifically seeking out the demonic
Your 'nigger' example wasn't all that good, as a great many African Americans do use it in reference to their friends. I'm more concerned with whether the word fits than whether people in mainstream religion apply it to themselves. Obviously, a given group is unlikely to use a word it considers taboo, even though it may be perfectly applicable to them. ...[text shortened]... alism is a mainstream religion. Hence Katz' coinage 'mainstream religious extremism'.
or demonic like beings, while Christianity suggest we are being
put upon by the demonic as it puts its influence upon all mankind,
while telling us only to seek out God.
I'm not sure if I opened up more questions or answered any for you.
Kelly
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually that addition merely makes my example even better as it adds even more depth to the new meanings the word has taken on, and they use it will full recognition that it had become a derogatory term.
Your 'nigger' example wasn't all that good, as a great many African Americans do use it in reference to their friends.
I'm more concerned with whether the word fits than whether people in mainstream religion apply it to themselves.
But what do you mean by 'fits'? If the word is generally not used the way you wish to use it, then it doesn't 'fit' even if its root meaning or even past meaning does fit.
The dictionary definition I looked up does not seem to cover some aspects of modern usage (eg jawills understanding) for some reason.
I must also point out an important aspect of the dictionary definition "....purporting to achieve communication with things hidden and mysterious." Christians to some extent claim that their God is neither hidden nor mysterious. That may change the way the word 'fits'.
Obviously, a given group is unlikely to use a word it considers taboo, even though it may be perfectly applicable to them. That is kind of the point.
So is 'nigger' perfectly applicable to African Americans?
For example, the Roman Catholic church, with its saints, relics, and exorcisms, has been accused of devil-worship and other unspeakable practices since the Reformation,
And for some reason all your examples have to do with 'devil worship'. Why? What is the relevance here? I thought we were discussing whether mainstream religion when worshiping or believing in God could be described as 'occult'.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by KellyJayIt seems that that is the general understanding by some Christians (you and jaywill at least.)
I define the occult as people specifically seeking out the demonic
or demonic like beings, while Christianity suggest we are being
put upon by the demonic as it puts its influence upon all mankind,
while telling us only to seek out God.
I find it interesting thought that the dictionary does not add that aspect to it - it probably should if enough people are using the word that way.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI mean 'fits', as in 'if the cap fits, wear it'. I flatly disagree with your notion that a word's meaning has to be accepted by a majority of people for it to be valid. That's Humpty-Dumpty linguistics en masse.
But what do you mean by 'fits'?
[..]
And for some reason all your examples have to do with 'devil worship'. Why? What is the relevance here? I thought we were discussing whether mainstream religion when worshiping or believing in God could be described as 'occult'.
[...]
'Yo, ma nigga'. Yes, in certain contexts, it is perfectly acceptable.
[..]
Oh, God, I can't be bothered to rehash what seems perfectly obvious to me. Please, just ignore my posts.
20 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry if I said or implied that. It did not mean to.
I mean 'fits', as in 'if the cap fits, wear it'. I flatly disagree with your notion that a word's meaning has to be accepted by a majority of people for it to be valid. That's Humpty-Dumpty linguistics en masse.
'Yo, ma nigga'. Yes, in certain contexts, it is perfectly acceptable.
I did not ask if it was acceptable, I asked if it was applicable, based on its root meaning - black. Further, if it is applicable based on its root meaning does that makes it automatically acceptable.
Oh, God, I can't be bothered to rehash what seems perfectly obvious to me. Please, just ignore my posts.
I am sorry, but it is not obvious to me, and I am genuinely interested in know what point you are trying to get across. As far as I can tell you want to apply a word based on one meaning, then use an alternative meaning to draw a conclusion about the subject. Its a popular technique in this forum, but nevertheless pure folly.
If on the other hand you are merely pointing out that 'occultists' and Theists both believe in the supernatural and any theist who makes fun of or derides an occultist on those grounds is being a hypocrite then I would fully agree with you.
Kelly for example quite readily agreed that if you take your definition then he is an occultist, but who cares? If you invent a new definition where atheists are called 'occultists' then under that definition, I too would have no complaint about being called an 'occultist'. But it achieves nothing.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadVery well put. Which brings us to the question of semantics (and linguistics in general).
Sorry if I said or implied that. It did not mean to.
[b]'Yo, ma nigga'. Yes, in certain contexts, it is perfectly acceptable.
I did not ask if it was acceptable, I asked if it was applicable, based on its root meaning - black. Further, if it is applicable based on its root meaning does that makes it automatically acceptable.
Oh, God, I can' too would have no complaint about being called an 'occultist'. But it achieves nothing.
Now surely no one is going to disagree that the language is chaniging.
I have a few contentions here:
1. The world should have one language,(by this stage of its evolution). Even if it is a secoond language. This can only serve to reduce misunderstaniding. And English is definately the most likely candidate.
2. Meanings of words are changing and we need to have a BASIC agreement on what the meanings of some 'fundamental' words are.
The example here that springs to mind is "human". Rather than changing (so much), I reckon the meaning of this word is expanding to correlate with the multitude of human experiences that are being lived. (these multitudes also ,conversly, reflect the similarities,no?)
(the word "God" is so troublesome at times, that whenever any serious discussion comes up about that subject I need to use alternative words and phrases to explain what I mean. You know what I mean?
I guess generally you could substitue the word "spirit" and go from there. )
3. Some words shouldn't be translated because they are perfectly fine and retain a better meaning in their origonal language. Examples here could be 'dharma', karma', etc. (feel free to add to this list,I would be most interested)
4. Language and words directly relate to our "state of being" . They are the keys with which we may unlock our latent potentialities.
20 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is partly the light-hearted point of this thread, yes. I'd prefer to say it's about rehabilitating the word 'occult' by putting its usage into perspective.
If on the other hand you are merely pointing out that 'occultists' and Theists both believe in the supernatural and any theist who makes fun of or derides an occultist on those grounds is being a hypocrite then I would fully agree with you.
Kelly for example quite readily agreed that if you take your definition then he is an occultist, but who cares? If I too would have no complaint about being called an 'occultist'. But it achieves nothing.[/b]
The point of the post preceding your post that made me despair was simply to point out practices in mainstream religion that clearly fall under the specialised (Christian) meaning of 'occult'.
Kelly Jay's acknowledgement matters to me. Unlike some, the word 'occult' doesn't act like some symbol that automatically deprives him of reason.
I haven't invented any definitions.