Clivedurdle

On the divination discussion, people would destroy the works of opposing diviners because although they were high on volcanic fumes and various concoctions and read entrails and the death throes of human sacrifices, they were also, like magi and druids, highly trained priests who knew how to say things to favour their kings or hurt their enemies. Destroying the enemies diviners would have been seen as a normal battle tactic, like destroying elephant.

If we treat divination as psychological warfare and black arts operations it makes more sense than a reaction it was evil.

Clivedurdle

I have quoted elsewhere Witchcraft a short history.

Some types might have been if involved with matters of state, the majority natural traditions were not.

Sauron

That does not prove that pagans disapproved of magic or witchcraft. It only proves that the emperor wanted to cherry-pick which prophecies would stand, and which would be erased. But even those prophecies he allowed to stand were the product of sorcery, witchcraft, etc.

Given that fact, it's silly (and rather deceptive) to try and use this example to prove a general pagan distaste for such practices. This example proves no such thing.

That is also deceptive, Bede. What the Suda actually says is that Diocletian burned these books not because he objected to Egyptian alchemy or witchcraft, but because he wanted to deny Egypt its fabled wealth, and remove the ability to create gold to fund military actions against Rome. No disapproval of the Egyptian practice at all. And, showing us that the emperor believed that alchemy worked:

The preparation of silver and gold. Diocletian sought out and burned books about this.
[It is said] that due to the Egyptians' revolting behavior Diocletian treated them harshly and murderously. After seeking out the books written by the ancient [Egyptians] concerning the alchemy of gold and silver, he burned them so that the Egyptians would no longer have wealth from such a technique, nor would their surfeit of money in the future embolden them against the Romans.[1]
Look under "skin."[2]

Again: destroyed not because of disapproval, but as a military strategy.

Flatly incorrect, as the above plainly shows.

Bede

It was the case in Christian Europem until c. 1500 that magic was not a crime but 'maleficia', causing harm with magic, was. Then things changed for reasons that are not entirely clear.

B

PS: Great to see atheists defending belief in magic. I'll stick to science.

andrewcriddle

If the books in Acts 19:18-19 are the same sort of thing as found in the Greek magical papyri; then they have some unpleasant/highly dubious features.

They would include charms to make someone become your lover even if they don't really want to, charms to harm your enemies, charms to break up a relationship etc. (along with other more innocuous stuff).

As information about popular religion and superstition in the ancient world I find the Greek magical papyri fascinating but I suspect they had a unwholesome influence on their original owners and users.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

And how have you used science to determine that the being who supposedly inspired the writing of the Bible revealed his true intentions?

lpetrich

My understanding was that the ancient Romans, and likely many others, mostly disapproved of hostile or black magic, like what andrewcriddle describes: magic to injure people or make people do things againt their will. But friendly or white magic was OK with them.

Sauron

However, you've been trying to claim that the policy of pagans and christians towards magic and divination was identical. But your examples do not show this.

The examples you quote of the Roman Empire's attitude toward magic do not indicate that they burned books because they were manuals on bad magic; i.e., causing harm.

In the first instance, an emperor eradicated prophecies he didn't like, while allowing those he liked to stand. That speaks more of managing public relations spin.

And in the second example, Diocletian burns the books of the Egyptian enemy that he believed gave them the ability to make gold and silver. But there is no indication that alchemy was bad magic, per se. Diocletian merely wanted to keep the gold and silver from being used to fund military campaigns.

Yawn. Standing up for people's right to believe whatever they want without church interference is a time-honored freedom that skeptics can easily defend. The right to be wrong, and belief without state force are concepts that the church despises.

Except when science is inconvenient, in which case you'll toss it out the window in favor of faith.

Clivedurdle

I strongly recommend Witchcraft a history (or via: amazon.co.uk) for a comprehensive understanding of what happened in Western Europe with the beginnings of the enlightenment.

And since when is attempting to describe a phenomena properly defending it?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...hesecularweb09