>No, I'm saying the exact opposite. Necromancy works and it disturbs the dead >who are the ones your actually talking to (in most cases).
Actually, I never said *I* believed the dead were truly dead, only that this was the way the Bible reads if done so without any external interpretations or handed-down traditions. That is, that the dead are as dead as anything else in this world that dies. That they know nothing and are beyond communication. (This however -- as I noticed you mentioned elsewhere -- does not mean that divine intervention can not physically resurrect them. That is essentially a separate issue from chatting up the dead.) As to what I (or we) believe, that's a bit of long discussion. The details of which are perhaps not suitable for the ears of some among.... Suffice it to say that when I was young I was not afraid -- as Nietzsche put it -- to "stare into the abyss". Without getting into the first Magick ritual I ever performed, shortly thereafter I got into the habit of openly inviting the dead to come and see through my eyes if they wanted. To feel flesh again for a while. Mind you, even folks I know that are into... what you might call "the really dark arts" tend to stop smirking when I tell them that. (For as they remind me, assuming for a moment the supposition that the dead live on, and that there are demons, then it is absolutely one of the most dangerous things you can possibly do.) That's also the point at which most "Christians" start trying to exorcise me. (I don't mind. I let them if they want.) They don't quite appreciate the humor in it when I tell that "I am Legion" either. :) Anyway, after that, obviously I don't personally believe the dead are dead either. (Although not for the reason most people do. I simply don't believe in linear time (with all apologies to the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory) -- I don't believe there is a true distinction in past/present/future. It's simply a dynamic morphology of a higher-dimensional state of existence. Ie, it's impossible to truly die. Or to paraphrase a certain physicist "everything happens all at once".) >Again, I disagree. My people have been discussing these topics non-stop for >literally thousands of years. The ancient Aramaic you mention is taught to >just about every Jewish teenager who goes to a Yeshiva. Yes, there are some >terms that are used poetically but there are others that mean exactly what >they say. I will not argue against that (strongly). If there is any one group of people on the Earth who is most familiar with this subject it would be yours. Mandatory :) study is of great benefit here. However, even with records that physically are several thousand years old, there is always more than one (valid) interpretation of what they actually mean. That's not the fault of those doing the interpretations, simply that the records are ambiguous for a few understandable reasons. I've occasionally thought that there needs to be a color-coding system :) for all Religious documents to indicate the general intent of each passage (strong wavy purple lines running down the sides for pure psalm-like poetics, ... bold dark triple lines to mean, "yes, damn it, we mean the donkey is actually talking", etc...). At any rate I did just spend a couple hours yesterday reading Numbers and so on... which isn't such a bad way to occupy one's self on the Sabbath I suppose. >The part of Bamidbar (numbers) where God opened the mouth of the mule to >speak to its master and the part in Berashis (genesis) where God has his >angels stop by Avraham's tent on their way to destroy Sidom and Amora are I remember those of course, and they are close, but... I'm hard pressed to say what the names of the texts I was actually talking about were. At the time I was observing the Sabbath in proper Jewish fashion (I've experimented with most every religion briefly) and, and aside from a few books on Jewish law and tradition was reading through the dead sea scroll collections as I recall, which of course means it could be a variation on almost anything, including "enhanced" versions or translations of parts of Bamidbar etc.... >taken quite literally. If God can create reality I have no problem with him >doing the little things like making an animal talk. I have no problem with Him doing that either if He wants. As to whether He actually did that or it's a misunderstood allegory of some kind is another issue though. I'm not actually a Gnostic, but I do agree with their analysis that parts of some of the books tend to be misinterpreted to be literal when in fact that does not logically seem to be the original intent. >We actually just passed the holiday of Simchas Torah, where we end the >reading of the entire Torah for the year and start over again. I'd remove >the semi-mandatory from your sentence above. :) I almost did originally, to be truthful, but then thought that from a practical stand-point that only applies to practicing orthodox Jews, not those Jewish by bloodline inclusive. Well, over-thinking as usual I suppose.... :-) Point taken. --min ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
