Talk:Theurgy

Not magic

' Prayers to a God to accomplish a practical, physical goal (such as personal benefit or material gain) are the domain of practical magic. '

The above is from the article, now removed. Sam [Spade] 01:21, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I question the use of the word 'magic' because that does not really describe what theurgy is. Theurgy can involve some types of magic, but in general theurgy is actions, such as ritual or perhaps prayer, that seeks to unite the soul with God. I'm going to do some research and change the intro a bit, but would like to see if anyone has a response first. I certainly agree that prayer is not magic. The sentence above should perhaps change the word 'prayer' to 'incantations' or something. --DanielCD 20:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree w you. Magic is widely seen as against God, opposite of prayer, blessings, miracles, etc... On the other hand, while Theurgy does seem to embrace mysticism, the goal is a oneness w God, an ambition no pious person should take offense to. Sam [Spade] 20:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Woof. Gotta disagree with this. Theurgy is *certainly* magic. Its goals are different, but it's still trying to accomplish something outside the generally available channels. Also, let's not be too Judeo-Christian-centric here, if we can help it. Practical magic is perfectly all right in Hinduism and Taoism, for instance, if done for the proper goals. Certainly, though, I do see your (pl) point that magic and religion have a fuzzy separator. Perhaps we could add a paragraph describing the debate between those who want to equate magic and religion (lots of anthropologists) and those who find strong differences (lots of other anthropologists!)? I'd prefer that than just glossing out "magic" entirely.--Peccavimus 02:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Magic is seen as extremely wicked in Hinduism, and I can't imagine it would be very different in Buddhism (which aims to renounce all worldly desires, mind you ;). Even in pagan cultures there is a tremendous stigma against witches. Just take a look at modern witch-hunts in africa. Their done by pagan people, not judeau christians (who have mostly given up believing in witches long ago). Sam [Spade] 03:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

By most Esoteric and Hermetic writers, such as Aleister Crowley and Israel Regardie, Magic is indeed synonymous with the divine process of Theurgy. The matter may be resolved as follows: Magic is a term that corresponds to two practices. One is Theurgy, the divine working which brings about Henosis; and Goetia, or "black magic" that is concerned with selfish gain by the use of demons and the like. The former is taught by most Occult writers to be the proper definition of Magic (Theurgy), while the latter is a gross distortion of it. Given that these topics were revived in the 20th century and earlier by these individuals that held Magic to be the art of Theurgy, this view should be given some thought before dismissing it. Yogensha

“Woof. Gotta disagree with this. Theurgy is *certainly* magic. Its goals are different, but it's still trying to accomplish something outside the generally available channels. Also, let's not be too Judeo-Christian-centric here, if we can help it. Practical magic is perfectly all right in Hinduism and Taoism, for instance, if done for the proper goals.” No, there’s no ‘certainty’ to the claim that theurgy is magic or that opposing the label is being ‘Judeo-Christian-centric’ (and yes, I understand that I’m pretty late to the party). Theurgy is neither Hinduism nor Taoism, just as it is not Judaism, for instance. So let’s not be too ‘South Asian’ or ‘East Asian centric’ either. Furthermore, opposing the label ‘magic’ for theurgy is not being ‘Judeo-Christian-centric.’ It is a central feature of theurgic Neoplatonism. Iamblichus (who is the central figure in theurgic Neoplatonism), was adamant that theurgy was neither magic nor sorcery. I recommend reading Crystal Addey’s book Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), pp. 32-38, 171-213 and Kevin Corrigan and L. Michael Harrington, “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2019 Edition (ed., Edward N. Zalta), part 4.2. -- Carissimi (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Magic in Hinduism et al.

The Atharva-Veda is nothing more than a collection of spells. I'm not sure how you can say magic is regarded badly in Hinduism when one of the Vedas is concerned with it. Certainly, *some* magic is frowned on. But that's far different from *all* magic.

Many individual Christians practice folk magic with no expectation that they will be punished for it. Ask a Catholic how to sell a house sometime.

Buddhism does tend to frown on practical magic, but there are many Tantric Buddhist practices that must be regarded as magical in nature.

An entire system of Jewish magic, the Cabala, focuses both on mystical and practical concerns.

The fact is, all of these religious technologies are also magical technologies if one shifts the focus. A Catholic burying a plaster saint upside down in his lawn is performing a religious act -- granted, one not specifically sanctioned by Rome, but religious none-the-less. he is not, however, performing an act of Theurgy.

And although you're right that certain types of magic were frowned on in *some* pagan cultures, others encouraged it. The Lapps were renowned for their magical knowledge, and the Norse had their seid-witches. --Peccavimus 04:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thats all true, but frankly the word "magic" has bad connentations. For me it means "stuff thats not real". For some people, (like my wife, and pretty much any conservative christian) magic=satanism. Its important to be semantically clear, and the word "magic" isn't. Sam [Spade] 05:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeing your point

I do see your point. Of course, in anthropology, "magic" has a very specific definition -- unfortunately, it's one that's been in considerable contention for, oh, fifty or sixty years.

The devision between the two fields of magic, theurgy and thaumaturgy is both a pretty old one and a pretty well-accepted one by those who claim to practice some form of magic (for example, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn made the distinction). I can see why some groups, such as -- say -- conservative Christian groups or devout Muslims or any other religion that forbids the practice of "magic" might be offput by description of magic that purports to be an avenue to the divine.

Still: the neutral viewpoint demands that one approach a subject from a non-judgemental position. Most of those people practicing theurgy and calling it theurgy also consider it magic (and, usually, neither evil or unreal). Whether Plotinus, Iamblichus, and -- oh, say, Bal Shem Tov, considered it magic . . . well, no. They didn't have the word. Or, arguably, the concept. They probably considered it something more akin to what we used to call "natural philosophy" before we made up the word "science."

As a scholar, I have to admit, this kind of semantic tangle kind of thrills me.  :) It's a mess! And I love playing in messes.

Still, practicalities intrude: so, I think that the article should maintain at least one link to magic (paranormal), and a recognition that a lot of people consider theurgy to be magic. Maybe you could add a disclaimer or edit the religious stuff at the end to reflect the other viewpoint? I think the best avenue is to include both viewpoints. --Peccavimus 08:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree again. The best way to handle any conflict of POV's is to include both. Point + counterpoint = gestalt ;) Its also more fair to the reader, who may have either POV, some unknown other, or perhaps none, coming to our article seeking to be informed, rather than swayed. I definitely think a link to magic is appropriate, as well as mention that many consider this to be magic. That said I son't like statements like the one I removed above, stating that "prayer is magic" or anything of that sort. Mentioning the various viewpoints impartially is always the best way to go in situations like these, IMO. Sam [Spade] 18:46, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Theurgy doesn't equal (=) magic, as far as the defining statement. Magic covers some of what theurgy is, but is not totally equivalent to it. I don't mean at all to banish the term 'magic' from the article, even include it in the definition perhaps, but not as equivalent. I'd just want to clarify what the difference is. I don't think religious rituals are 'magic', and much of what theurgy is is religious ritual. I guess my perspective comes from my studying it exclusively from the ancient history POV. All religions have some ritual, so do all religions partake of magic? I'm educated enough to split hairs too thin, but I think this is worth considering. Thanks for the responses; I'm just happy someone else besides me cares. --DanielCD 19:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the left hand path / right hand path dicotomy which some "magical" type people view as important are relevant (if controvercial) to this subject. Mention of these views would need to be handled carefully, but would prob be enlightening here. As best as I can tell, theurgy would be seen as right hand path by those who find the label useful. Sam [Spade] 21:01, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just want to say I like the new intro. --DanielCD 00:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sentence in last paragraph

Hey. I love the article. I did, however, find the following sentence incomprehensible in the Christian theurgy section:

"In Greek orthodox christianity may of the services and the even baptism contain as Vladimir Lossky refer to christian theurgy."

Huh? :) As I can not even tell what the original sentence was supposed to be, I thought I'd just put it down here so that the editors who are familiar with this article can decipher it. :-) Thanks. Kephera975 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been changed to

"In Greek Orthodox Christianity, many of the services, including even baptism may contain theurgy (as Vladimir Lossky refers to Christian theurgy) in a thaumaturgical way, similar to magic."

This seems to imply that Vladimir Lossky refers to "Christian theurgy" as "theurgy". Why are we pointing out that someone calls something by its name? Would we say

"the forests contain tigers (as Vladimir Lossky refers to Bengal Tigers)"

194.247.82.75 08:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

This tag only belongs on articles without even one reference or external link that is related to the article content. Currently there are 74,296 articles with this tag, many of these, such as this one, actually do have at least one reference or external link. By removing the tag from articles, such as this one, which have such a link we can expose the articles that are truly unreferenced and in most need of a review. This is why I am removing the tag that has been here since June of 2006 and replacing it with {{refimprove}} which alerts everyone the article needs works done on referencing but separates from the articles which have not a single reference or external link. I am not sure what anyone thinks {{unreferenced}} will accomplish that {{refimprove}} will not.--BirgitteSB 13:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about external links, they are not references. I agree that an article with even one reference should be changed to refimprove, but I don't agree with counting external links as references when they are not designated as such. IPSOS (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see the differences in quality between the articles with one external link and none at all, you haven't spent much time looking through Category:Articles lacking sources. Referencing standards have changed monumentally over the years. We cannot discount sources just because they are not designated as references according to the latest standards. We really need to expose the articles without even one external link, so they can be dealt with. My motivation is simply to expose the articles with nothing at all in order to find those which need to be deleted. That is what I am trying to accomplish. After nearly a year of being tagged, what do you think {{unreferenced}} will accomplish on this article that {{refimprove}} will not?--BirgitteSB 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)