Jump to content

Thoughts about Tarot

  • entries
    12
  • comments
    38
  • views
    6,941

Christianity and Divination


There are topics like that... I will write a little on it, can't post there as we can't edit our posts in the forum and I assume I will delete this one later on, as it is very controversial topics, so why go there too much... But could be good idea to cover a little of my view to it here.

 

If we view the new testament there is very little mention of devils, satan or anything like that, I think it was few dozen in the whole thing and most of them are very unclear, as to what is being addressed.
All this description of Hell, Satan, all of it, none of this is from either parts of the Bible. Where it comes from is long to go into, however, and easy to check in sources about that.

But there was a vast framework that was added to the story there, later on.
Not to mention that they are clearly written long after the events, the gospels that is... Since Roman Empire was not very friendly to Christians back then, its fair to assume it was passed in secret for a long time until recorded... So having some doubt on the clarity of the text is a good idea, as the sources are not very clear. Even today there isn't a single page of the original texts and even today we still aren't sure on what language the gospels were written, as far as I'm aware. Although people interested in the esoteric part of it, would have good reason to guess its Aramaic, but that is another story.

 

If we look the main message of Jesus in the texts, however, its for non judgment, acceptance and loving unconditionally. That I don't see contradicting with Tarot or most other system out there.
His disciples, didn't seem so clear, but looking at his view to them, listening to them too much seems unwise. He wouldn't, why would we do so...

 

If we dig more into it... Jesus came as part of a specific religion back then, we call Judaism, so much so that he was initiated in it. His main message seems to be for people part of that. Some view that his idea was to play a role they were expecting there for a long time and still do today, actually. That is also important to keep in mind, as with all remedies, some of them are tailored to specific problem, aren't that easy to use for any problem one could have...

And today Christians view that the old testament is part of Christianity, yet haven't spend much effort to actually learn what it is.
As if we read Kabbalists, people that are on the inner part of Judaism, the Torah(most of the old testament is called that) is actually showing us Sephirot by Sephirot how it all works.
Some Sephirot are nice to work to, some may need some getting used to... Taking the text from random Sephira, not with the idea to understand, but with the idea to use random sentences as commandments on how to live ones life... That is never going to work, as few pages later when it gets to the opposite Sephira it will write the opposite view.

 

Yet most Christians that step on the idea of devil, hell etc. as they can't really find source for that in the new testament, in a very convincing way, usually look at the old one. And in there the God seems meaner, that isn't the case, however, its just not made to be taken as recommendation for every carefully selected sentence of it, its just showing how it all works, step by step each Patriarch showing one sephira. And some steps are difficult and challenging... Some are easy.


All this are very long and messy topics, though, but considering that the problem becomes lack of interest. Jesus was part of Judaism, in his own view, very clearly. It was something that even later on he still initiated in(as given clearly in the story with John the Baptist).
So understanding the old testament requires one to understand Judaism. Understanding Judaism requires one to understand the Kabbalah.

None of that is required for Christianity, only Jesus message seems to be. Non judgement, unconditional love etc. But since good parts of the Christians can't really cover that one and instead put a lot of effort to find base to judge as much as they can others on, the lack of base to do that from could be challenging... But why conform to that, that isn't Christianity, isn't Judaism, either, its some confusing mess people did, as they couldn't do the "unconditional love" part they were only suppose to focus on.

 

 

So in my humble view, if one wants to be a good christian, trying to sense what Jesus pointed to is a great start. Trying to judge less, to accept more, to see the good even in our enemies, share with people when they need it and we may not etc. That seem to be the main message.

Digging into the old testament, ignoring that this is Kabbalistic material and taking sentences out of their context(description of Sephirot) to use as a base to judge others on, is so far from what Christianity was suppose to be, in my humble view, that anyone that decided to align their practices with that mess, will have difficult time. But aligning it with the pure message in the new testament is very easy, as there is nothing there that contradicts Divination or most other stuff, people aim in the name of "Christianity" at.

Edited by Deian

38 Comments


Recommended Comments



Minotaur

Posted

In many conservative Christian churches they practice divination using Bibliomancy. Much like one person mentioned in this thread they open their holy book and land on a verse. They generally don't use the entire Bible. They pick verses from the Book of Psalms. That approach can give some very interesting answers to questions.

gregory

Posted

On 2/18/2025 at 9:31 PM, Deian said:

 

As someone that have been in somewhat expensive seminars for initiation into "rays of light", I always had the idea that more or less everything had its own initiation, everything that can be learned or be part of, at least...

 

On 2/18/2025 at 9:49 PM, katrinka said:

That would depend on your definition of "initiation."

 

Very true. I was baptised and confirmed in the Church of England (Anglican) - but I don't feel I was initiated into anything; initiation has to have something to do with learning, with changing, with SOMETHING. I was baptised when I was too small to have the remotest idea what was going on - hardly an initiation - and confirmed because all our class were matched down to the cathedral one afternoon (in March; it was bloody cold and we were not happy) to have the Bishop put his hands on our innocent heads. All it achieved was the chance to go to first breakfast at school and get the best choice of rolls. No ray of light was involved, nor was I in any way changed. But I am and remain a member of the C of E. Something which would only be useful if I had a burning desire to marry in one of the churches where the minister requires you to have been "done" or something.

Scandinavianhermit

Posted

32 minutes ago, gregory said:

Very true. I was baptised and confirmed in the Church of England (Anglican) - but I don't feel I was initiated into anything; initiation has to have something to do with learning, with changing, with SOMETHING. I was baptised when I was too small to have the remotest idea what was going on - hardly an initiation - and confirmed because all our class were matched down to the cathedral one afternoon (in March; it was bloody cold and we were not happy) to have the Bishop put his hands on our innocent heads. All it achieved was the chance to go to first breakfast at school and get the best choice of rolls. No ray of light was involved, nor was I in any way changed. But I am and remain a member of the C of E. Something which would only be useful if I had a burning desire to marry in one of the churches where the minister requires you to have been "done" or something.

I have the problem with not fitting well into any particular religion, but I have very fond memories from being an exchange student in England long ago. I had the fortune to meet intelligent, erudite and contemplative Anglicans who cared for social justice. Since the late 19th century* they have revived their own mystical heritage from the late middle ages. I would say that the kernel of Anglican spirituality is Prayer Book matins and evensong (choral if possible, otherwise private) + the mysticism of Walter Hilton. If you already have a habit of practicing meditation, attending choral evensong will occasionally lead to altered states of consciousness. That said, Anglicanism is not for everyone, because one has to come to terms with virgin birth and resurrection, and not everyone manages that. Buddhism, Sikhism, Wicca, Shinto or many flavours of Hinduism fit some people better. I'm fond of Druidry. 

 

* Though not the sole person responsible for Anglican mysticism, Evelyn Underhill (1875-1941) is worth thanking for the revival of mysticism within Anglicanism. Georgian and early Victorian Anglicanism must have been very dry and uninspiring. The improvement happened in late Victorian and the Edwardian age. Back in the 17th century there was an Anglican, Joseph Hall (1574-1656), who took meditation seriously, and I've been told, that vicars read Walter Hilton throughout the 16th century and well into the 17th. A funny thing with Evelyn Underhill is, that she was involved in one of Arthur Edward Waite's esoteric orders. 

gregory

Posted

Good Anglicans (which I am not ! I defected years ago, much to the disgust of my mother and the delight of my father - an Anglican minister !) are excellent people - I'd agree, But I don't think any of "us" were ever "initiated" into anything. And I don't think choral evensong was ever supposed to take you into another place of consciousness. For the record - Anglicans don't by any means subscribe to literal Virgin birth and resurrection; that's more Roman Catholics,. I do speak as one who was totally raised as Anglican and by a minister - I was soaked in it all - and I am sure he would disagree, too. It is on the whole charmingly matter-of-fact. That isn't at all the same as dry and uninspiring. It is also far less restrictive and hide-bound than most. How about the Quakers - no formal rituals at all, and the nicest, most thoughtful (in terms of religion) and caring lot I know. I can't seriously see religion as a means to altered states; REAL religion is about caring for others, acceptance of all, and sharing.

Nemia

Posted

Some remarks to the OT.

 

Quote

 Jesus came as part of a specific religion back then, we call Judaism, so much so that he was initiated in it.

 

Jesus was not initiated into Judaism. There is no need for initiation to Judaism. It's an ethno-religious group so being the son of a Jewish mother was enough to be considered a Jew. 

 

Quote

Some Sephirot are nice to work to, some may need some getting used to... Taking the text from random Sephira, not with the idea to understand, but with the idea to use random sentences as commandments on how to live ones life... That is never going to work, as few pages later when it gets to the opposite Sephira it will write the opposite view.

 

Sephiroth is the plural of the word sephirah - and the sephiroth are not mentioned in the so-called Old Testament (properly called Hebrew Bible). How can you "take text from a random sephiroth [sic]"? Sephiroth are not texts. What are you talking about? 

 

The Torah is not most of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible consists of three parts: the Torah (five books believed to have been written by Moses), the Prophets and other writings. 

 

Quote

As if we read Kabbalists, people that are on the inner part of Judaism, the Torah(most of the old testament is called that) is actually showing us Sephirot by Sephirot how it all works.

 

Quote

So understanding the old testament requires one to understand Judaism. Understanding Judaism requires one to understand the Kabbalah.

 

Kabbalists are by no means at the center of Judaism; they're a small but important group combining their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible with elements of Neo-Platonism and also Christian mystery teachings. Many Jews live their lives according to their religion without ever dealing with the Kabbalah. The central element of Judaism is fulfilling the mitzvoth and living a godly life based on the Ten Commandments. Kabbalah is not required for that. 

 

Quote

And today Christians view that the old testament is part of Christianity, yet haven't spend much effort to actually learn what it is.

 

And I wouldn't say that Christians don't really know the Hebrew Bible. Every Christian knows the stories of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph from childhood, and every serious theology student has to learn Hebrew (together with Latin and Ancient Greek) to be able to read the original. (That's what I had to do when I studied Theology and every minister I know, Catholics and Protestants). 

 

@deian, with all due respect, there are mentions of hell in the Hebrew Bible. The prophets Isaiah and Ezrah mention the gehennom as hell-like place. Jesus struggles with the Devil. 

 

Later generations added a whole folklore image of hell that can't be found in the Scriptures, that's true. Some of it reflected the dreaded Pagan gods like Pan/Faun, some of it local superstitions that were added to the Christian belief system as an oral tradition. 

 

Quote

Digging into the old testament, ignoring that this is Kabbalistic material and taking sentences out of their context(description of Sephirot) to use as a base to judge others on, is so far from what Christianity was suppose to be, in my humble view, that anyone that decided to align their practices with that mess, will have difficult time.

 

The so-called Old Testament is not "kabbalistic material", it's much older than the Kabbalah. Your disdain of Judaism and its Holy Scripture as "that mess" doesn't sit well with me, especially as it is combined with a lack of knowledge about what Judaism actually is. 

 

We can't demand respect for our own beliefs and treat other religions disrespectfully. 

 

Just my opinion. 

 

Deian

Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, Nemia said:

@deian, with all due respect, there are mentions of hell in the Hebrew Bible. The prophets Isaiah and Ezrah mention the gehennom as hell-like place. Jesus struggles with the Devil. 

 

 

Lets look at what I actually wrote:

 

Quote

All this description of Hell, Satan, all of it, none of this is from either parts of the Bible.

The description that I meant, in connection to Tarot of course, would be the Devil with the horns, the tail, and the one we can find very extensive details about in today Christian literature, movies and articles. The hell as the place sinner go, after their life is done and they are judged(as in the card judgment day etc.)

Have to remember, we are writing about Tarot here, not about random religious thoughts.

 

With all due respect... Can you actually find that in the New Testament?

I can't, really. Can see some vague idea of something that tempts here and there, and lives low, that is all. That can be said about potatoes as well. And that I also mentioned in other places, so its not a big surprise its there, yet doesn't contain much in its essence..

 

So show me, please that your reply isn't just because you want random arguing on unrelated topic and you actually have some substance behind your post, and show me where exactly these description exist?

 

I do have problems with the rest of your post as well, yet we do have to view something, the fact you didn't understood what I wrote is fine, yet I do agree its important our fact based parts are on point, so lets examine this. You find in this description, so clearly that  I made a mistake and it should be address. Lets develop it. Post the quotes and lets see who can see what in them.

Edited by Deian
katrinka

Posted

2 hours ago, Nemia said:

Jesus was not initiated into Judaism. There is no need for initiation to Judaism. It's an ethno-religious group so being the son of a Jewish mother was enough to be considered a Jew. 


This is an irrefutable fact.

 

2 hours ago, Nemia said:

Sephiroth is the plural of the word sephirah - and the sephiroth are not mentioned in the so-called Old Testament (properly called Hebrew Bible). How can you "take text from a random sephiroth [sic]"? Sephiroth are not texts. What are you talking about?


Well, Deian? What were you talking about?
 

2 hours ago, Nemia said:

Your disdain of Judaism and its Holy Scripture as "that mess" doesn't sit well with me, especially as it is combined with a lack of knowledge about what Judaism actually is. 


I very much agree with this. This kind of thing is definitely NOT OK.

Neither is this:
 

1 hour ago, Deian said:

So show me, please that your reply isn't just because you want random arguing on unrelated topic and you actually have some substance behind your post, and show me where exactly these description exist?

Scandinavianhermit

Posted

1 hour ago, gregory said:

I can't seriously see religion as a means to altered states; REAL religion is about caring for others, acceptance of all, and sharing.

When Christianity in general, and Episcopalianism/Anglicanism in particular, functions well, there's a place for both soup-kitchens, foreign aid, retreat centres,  religious communities under vows and a meditation regimen. Sikhs manage to combine those things, too, and so does Taiwanese Buddhists. If I remember correctly, Society of St. Francis and Society of St. Margaret are more involved in social work, while Sisters of the Love of God are more into the contemplative side. 

 

1 hour ago, gregory said:

For the record - Anglicans don't by any means subscribe to literal Virgin birth and resurrection; that's more Roman Catholics,. 

 

Well, yes, I'm aware of David Jenkins and John Shelby Spong, but I think Rowan Williams believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection in some sense of the words. Lancelot Andrewes, Thomas Traherne, William Law, E.B. Pusey, Harriet Monsell, Richard Meux Benson, Elizabeth Ferard, Henry Scott Holland, Stewart Headlam, Conrad Noel, Florence Li Tim-Oi, C.S. Lewis, Trevor Huddleston, Ken Leech and Desmond Tutu did, too, as far as I know. I admit, that John Macquarrie is a little bit vague on those two points (which funnily enough didn't stop him from appreciating evensong ending with sacramental adoration!)

 

2 hours ago, gregory said:

That isn't at all the same as dry and uninspiring.

 

I didn't call Anglicanism/Episcopalianism after c. 1860 dry and uninspiring. On the contrary, I had a very positive experience over there. I love choral evensong. I admire the social work done by Episcopalians/Anglicans and their struggle against apartheid until 1994. I have a deep respect for retreat centres and communities of religious within Anglican/Episcopal churches. It's the combination of the spiritual workout schedule described in Book of Common Prayer, a meditation regimen (perhaps in Walter Hilton's or Joseph Hall's styles) and a social conscience that makes Episcopalianism/Anglicanism work! But as I wrote above: Sikhs (and some Buddhists) do it, too!

gregory

Posted

6 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

When Christianity in general, and Episcopalianism/Anglicanism in particular, functions well, there's a place for both soup-kitchens, foreign aid, retreat centres,  religious communities under vows and a meditation regimen. Sikhs manage to combine those things, too, and so does Taiwanese Buddhists. If I remember correctly, Society of St. Francis and Society of St. Margaret are more involved in social work, while Sisters of the Love of God are more into the contemplative side. 

 

True - but I was referring specifically to Christianity and specifically, to Anglicanism. Who do indeed involve themselves in all those things, as do most religions actually.

 

6 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

Well, yes, I'm aware of David Jenkins and John Shelby Spong, but I think Rowan Williams believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection in some sense of the words. Lancelot Andrewes, Thomas Traherne, William Law, E.B. Pusey, Harriet Monsell, Richard Meux Benson, Elizabeth Ferard, Henry Scott Holland, Stewart Headlam, Conrad Noel, Florence Li Tim-Oi, C.S. Lewis, Trevor Huddleston, Ken Leech and Desmond Tutu did, too, as far as I know. I admit, that John Macquarrie is a little bit vague on those two points (which funnily enough didn't stop him from appreciating evensong ending with sacramental adoration!)

 

Sure, loads of people in the C of E do - but equally loads don't and it isn't REQUIRED. I do know  that my father didn't, and nor did most of his clerical  colleagues I met,.

 

6 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

I didn't call Anglicanism/Episcopalianism after c. 1860 dry and uninspiring. On the contrary, I had a very positive experience over there. I love choral evensong. I admire the social work done by Episcopalians/Anglicans and their struggle against apartheid until 1994. I have a deep respect for retreat centres and communities of religious within Anglican/Episcopal churches. It's the combination of the spiritual workout schedule described in Book of Common Prayer, a meditation regimen (perhaps in Walter Hilton's or Joseph Hall's styles) and a social conscience that makes Episcopalianism/Anglicanism work! But as I wrote above: Sikhs (and some Buddhists) do it, too!

 

I love choral evensong. I have often sung in choirs "performing" it,. But its purpose is to worship, not to enter alternate states of reality or take up a meditation routine. Many religions have that as a part of their practice, Anglicanism doesn't - and I'm not even convinced that the BCP outlines one..

Scandinavianhermit

Posted

5 minutes ago, gregory said:

Sure, loads of people in the C of E do - but equally loads don't and it isn't REQUIRED. I do know  that my father didn't, and nor did most of his clerical  colleagues I met,.

Ah, yes, broadchurch or centrist, then? Most Anglicans I met were 1. academics, 2. Labour voting and 3. involved in Affirming Catholicism. It was back in the ASB era, before Common Worship  existed. An early edition of Celebrating Common Prayer was around, but, for sung purposes, parishes, colleges and cathedrals generally seemed to revert to BCP evensong, probably because there were more musical settings for that text version. 

 

8 minutes ago, gregory said:

I love choral evensong. I have often sung in choirs "performing" it,. But its purpose is to worship, not to enter alternate states of reality 

Mystical states is more of a side effect of attending evensong, and I suppose someone's psychological response to attending evensong depends on personality profile. In my own experience, there is so much going on simultaneously at several levels during evensong. It's a wonderful invention, far beyond what Cranmer himself could have been consciously aware of at the time he compressed Cardinal Quiñones book, slashed the Salisbury Breviary and adapted the result for English vernacular circumstances. It's Benedictinism adapted for married lay couples with children! So clever! And very adaptable for local needs.

 

 

15 minutes ago, gregory said:

...  or take up a meditation routine. Many religions have that as a part of their practice, Anglicanism doesn't - and I'm not even convinced that the BCP outlines one..

Anglicans during the 16th and 17th centuries meditated in addition to using the Prayer Book offices and abstaining from things on Fridays. Martin Thornton has written about how one or another meditation method complemented the Prayerbook in the Elizabethan and Stuart eras. I'm under the impression, that many modern Anglicans blatantly disregard the Prayerbook's advice on fasting. Evelyn Underhill wasn't the only one, nor the first, to revive the mystical strand of Episcopalianism/Anglicanism. This revival was intertwined with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism. The reintroduction of communities of religious certainly helped.

Scandinavianhermit

Posted

Do you mind, @gregory, if we continue this discussion in private messages? 

joy

Posted

We would like to remind everyone of the first rule of the forum, to be respectful of each other.

Discussing religion is always going to have strong opinions. The forum is mainly a tarot and divination discussion place as a purpose, and therefore, probably not the right place to discuss religion.

Thank you

joy

gregory

Posted

22 hours ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

Do you mind, @gregory, if we continue this discussion in private messages? 

 

Not at all - but I am in NO way religious, so it might not help a whole lot !


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.