Tarot and the Bible?

[Bartmanhomer]

I been reading the Bible and the bible said that divination is evil. Well I been using tarot cards and I really don't see anything malicious about it and tarot cards are considered divination. So I really don't understand why would cards such as tarot considered to be evil against the bible. What do you think? :confused::confused::confused:

[darkNight]

What do I think? Please keep in mind that question can only be answered by IMHO statements not, for lack of a better term, "gospel".

I believe the basic principle behind the tarot, at least as famed psychologist Carly Gustav Jung explains it, is one of symbolism (as opposed to anything purely super-natural), and what those symbols tell us (our perception and insights).

This is the same principle behind the psychological ink-stain test called the "rorschach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test)". So by this argument, if divining via Tarot is wrong so is any test which requires us to utilize our subconcious.

This isn't that unusual. Remember Benjamin Franklin (who, after doing some research, it appears he could have easily been a Rosicrucian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian)) was perceived by a lot of his less educated peers as a "wizard" (experiements in lightning = him as Prometheus). Science and magick are linked, remember magnetism used to be considered "magick" before it was appropriated into science, and Astrology developed into Astronomy.

Evidence from the bible itself, remember the story of Joseph (prime minister of Egypt):

Genesis 44:15 (http://bible.cc/genesis/44-16.htm)
New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/44.htm)
Joseph said to them, "What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed practice divination?"

How did the Apostles choose a new member of their crew? By casting lots:

“And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26 (http://www.icr.org/bible/Acts/1:26)).

And finally ...

The Urim and Thummim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim)which were stones used by the high priests of Israel in an attempt to determine the course of action to take- AS ORDERED BY GOD.

Many people (both secular and non-secular) would say what I just wrote is nonsense, and I am going to hell for typing it. As a Christian, all I can answer with is "We'll see". :)

Then again, that is only what I think. Beware the person who says they know, without a shadow of doubt, things as weighty as spiritual matters.

Hope that helps

[Bartmanhomer]

What do I think? Please keep in mind that question can only be answered by IMHO statements not, for lack of a better term, "gospel".

I believe the basic principle behind the tarot, at least as famed psychologist Carly Gustav Jung explains it, is one of symbolism (as opposed to anything purely super-natural), and what those symbols tell us (our perception and insights).

This is the same principle behind the psychological ink-stain test called the "rorschach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_inkblot_test)". So by this argument, if divining via Tarot is wrong so is any test which requires us to utilize our subconcious.

This isn't that unusual. Remember Benjamin Franklin (who, after doing some research, it appears he could have easily been a Rosicrucian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian)) was perceived by a lot of his less educated peers as a "wizard" (experiements in lightning = him as Prometheus). Science and magick are linked, remember magnetism used to be considered "magick" before it was appropriated into science, and Astrology developed into Astronomy.

Evidence from the bible itself, remember the story of Joseph (prime minister of Egypt):

Genesis 44:15
New American Standard Bible (http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/44.htm)
Joseph said to them, "What is this deed that you have done? Do you not know that such a man as I can indeed practice divination?"

How did the Apostles choose a new member of their crew? By casting lots:

“And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26 (http://www.icr.org/bible/Acts/1:26)).

And finally ...

The Urim and Thummim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim)which were stones used by the high priests of Israel in an attempt to determine the course of action to take- AS ORDERED BY GOD.

Many people (both secular and non-secular) would say what I just wrote is nonsense, and I am going to hell for typing it. As a Christian, all I can answer with is "We'll see". :)

Then again, that is only what I think. Beware the person who says they know, without a shadow of doubt, things as weighty as spiritual matters.

Hope that helps

Wow! That's very interesting. Thanks darkNight!

[darkNight]

very welcome :smile:

[Louisvillian]

I been reading the Bible and the bible said that divination is evil. Well I been using tarot cards and I really don't see anything malicious about it and tarot cards are considered divination. So I really don't understand why would cards such as tarot considered to be evil against the bible. What do you think? :confused::confused::confused:
The Biblical god is understood in terms of a monotheistic deity who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. To divine the future, or fortune-telling, would be seen as an attempt to play god by knowing the future, which to those who believe in the Bible, is usually considered an affront to the Biblical god.

However, Christian mystics found a way around this argument by saying outright that it wasn't an offence to god, but was an attempt to achieve a closer connection to god. Hence why Christian mystics and occultists often did divination rituals, sometimes using playing cards (cartomancy). This carried over into the more generalised occult and esoterica movement of the 19th and 20th centuries that saw the birth of non-Christian mysticism like Hermetic and pagan revivalism, Theosophy, and the foundations of the later New Age spirituality movement.

The use of tarot in divination, however, didn't come into being until the 1780's, and only became widespread in esoteric and occult circles in the mid to late 19th century. So, even while divination is a very old practice, and cartomancy in general is quite ancient, divination using tarot cards is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[darkNight]

The Biblical god is understood in terms of a monotheistic deity who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. To divine the future, or fortune-telling, would be seen as an attempt to play god by knowing the future, which to those who believe in the Bible, is usually considered an affront to the Biblical god.


Mostly agreed. However, very few Christians would say meteorology (telling the future as it relates to weather) is an affront to God.

[Louisvillian]

Mostly agreed. However, very few Christians would say meteorology (telling the future as it relates to weather) is an affront to God.
Of course not. Times change, and conceptions of what offends who changes with it.

[ignescentphoenix]

I think you should just play it safe. If you're wrong you go to hell:hairred:.

You should ask your priest, Im sure he will agree with me.

[darkNight]

About weather forecasting?

[darkNight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_the_Tarot

Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism is a book published posthumuously and anonymously in 1985. It was originally written in French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language), and translated into English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) by Robert A. Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_A._Powell&action=edit&redlink=1) of the Sophia Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophia_Foundation&action=edit&redlink=1).
The author is known, but because of his request to remain anonymous, the link to the author is made through a redirecting page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeditationsOnTheTarotAuthor). The Afterword states that "The author wished to remain anonymous in order to allow the work to speak for itself, to avoid the interposition of any kind of personal element between the work and the reader--reasons that we respect."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_the_Tarot#cite_note-0)

The author is clearly a Roman Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic), although the ideas expressed are often not commonly associated with Catholic dogma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma). Many of the ideas are strongly influenced by Jungian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian) thought.

[Louisvillian]

Well, the original Tarot art, like those of the Marseilles Deck from the Renaissance period, did have heavy Christian and particularly Catholic symbolism. I mean, the Hierophant was originally "Le Pape", or "The Pope".
It wasn't really until the Rider-Waite-Smith deck in 1910 that the images and meanings were changed to a more generalised thing, as the Western occult tradition began to turn away from just Christian mysticism.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think you should just play it safe. If you're wrong you go to hell:hairred:.

You should ask your priest, Im sure he will agree with me.

Seriously, do I have to? :wtf:

[Bartmanhomer]

About weather forecasting?

I think ignescentphoenix meant by using the tarot for everything!

[darkNight]

Sorry, just my attempt at humor :smile:

[bellathebrave]

For centuries mysognistic religion have attempted to demonise anything self empowering or with the potential to empower others...particularly those things that have traditionally have been considered to be linked with the feminine such as intuition...Quite simply it threatens them and takes away their control...if people start believing they can directly interact with spirit the fear is the church becomes obselete...just my 2cents worth.

[Louisvillian]

For centuries misognistic religion have attempted to demonise anything...linked with the feminine such as intuition
Except that Christianity wasn't misogynistic; European society in general was, and it was like that long before Christianity rolled around. Attempting to pin it on Christianity, or any specific religion, is nothing more than neofeminist historical revisionism.


Quite simply it threatens them and takes away their control...if people start believing they can directly interact with spirit the fear is the church becomes obsolete...
While that might seem like a reasonable explanation, it really falls apart when you notice that divination was looked down upon by monotheistic faiths quite a long while before "the Church" came into existence. Christianity's disdain for the esoteric was simply a continuation of previously existing attitudes.

[ignescentphoenix]

Seriously, do I have to? :wtf:


Well, of course you don't have to, nor do I care if you do. Im not christian, so whether or not the church approves of what I do matters.

It is just that, well, you are christian. The bible tells you what you should and shouldn't do. Sorcery and divination are against christian principles. Or at least they are if you are following the bible. So, it would make sense that you would talk to your religious leader about it. Im sure he knows all about being a good christian.

I mean, from your past posts, I can tell that you follow a few archaic verses. The ones dealing with homosexuality anyway. So why not follow this one as well?

"Leviticus 19:26, Do not eat meat with blood still in it. Do not practice divination or sorcery."


Oh look, the one about homosexuals is in the same section!

"Leviticus 20:13, If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads"

[Bartmanhomer]

Because i like tarot and it hard to give up on! And i`m very wild and hyper christian! I get out of characther sometimes but i tone it down!

[darkNight]

Except that Christianity wasn't misogynistic; European society in general was, and it was like that long before Christianity rolled around. Attempting to pin it on Christianity, or any specific religion, is nothing more than neofeminist historical revisionism.


Particularly as a great deal of Europe (as opposed to mid-east which is what I think you were getting at) were actually egalitarian, such as the Celts, which at one time extended from Russia to Hibernia.

[wolf]

Where is the line drawn between divination (prohibited) and speaking prophecy (lauded)?

Who is to say that the God of the Hebrews would not choose to communicate through a stack of brightly colored pasteboard as much as He would through His Prophets?

Bibliomancy is used by a lot of people ... is that divination or devotion?

(not a lot of answers, but I do have a bunch of questions)

[darkNight]

Where is the line drawn between divination (prohibited) and speaking prophecy (lauded)?


Short answer? The message.



Who is to say that the God of the Hebrews would not choose to communicate through a stack of brightly colored pasteboard as much as He would through His Prophets?

Not I



Bibliomancy is used by a lot of people ... is that divination or devotion?

I was just re-reading a story where St. Francis opened a Bible 3x and each time the passage was on the Passion, he took it as a mesage.

[bellathebrave]

Except that Christianity wasn't misogynistic; European society in general was, and it was like that long before Christianity rolled around. Attempting to pin it on Christianity, or any specific religion, is nothing more than neofeminist historical revisionism.


While that might seem like a reasonable explanation, it really falls apart when you notice that divination was looked down upon by monotheistic faiths quite a long while before "the Church" came into existence. Christianity's disdain for the esoteric was simply a continuation of previously existing attitudes.


Sorry but Ill have to respectfully disagree with you...as a major in world religions I can assure you that the monotheistic religion prior to Christianity was Judaism...you may wish to research the attitudes of these people to divination. I am not aware of any other major world religion that was monotheistic prior to Christanity.
In terms of the mysogynistic nature of society at the time I agree , absolutely, however this was not the point. the point is rather that Christianity and other monotheistic religions reinforced these ways. In fact many would propose that this continiues today with some faiths refusing the highest positions to females and in espousing view like the woman is to submit, If you dont believe it there are plenty of examples of this in literature both ancient and modern...

Whilst I will defend anybodies right to follow whatever faith they choose I most certainly wont pretend the that the monotheistic religion I know of and have studied support equality of the sexes or female empowerment.
Btw it is interesting how much ritual and superstition exists within some faiths. A prime example of this is the catholic church which supported reincarnation (until it changed its mind.)
However this thread is not a debate on religion but rather a question about divination and faith.
I learned long ago never to argue about religion, one will never change anothers mind and nor should we necessarily. We will have to agree to disagree.
The OP would do best to look within, to their heart and do what is best for them...

[Louisvillian]

as a major in world religions I can assure you that the monotheistic religion prior to Christianity was Judaism...I am not aware of any other major world religion that was monotheistic prior to Christianity.
And apparently you've never heard of Zoroastrianism, which also largely opposed divinatory practices.
In any case, my original point was that Christianity inherited its stance against divination from Judaism. This was in line with the thread topic. I wouldn't have had to go off-topic if you didn't randomly throw your neofeminist revisionism into the thread.

[darkNight]

Whilst I will defend anybodies right to follow whatever faith they choose I most certainly wont pretend the that the monotheistic religion I know of and have studied support equality of the sexes or female empowerment.


Just wondering what you make of Deborah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah)(the judge, priestess, and prophet of Israel).

[bellathebrave]

One woman wielding some power doesnt equal equality - is what I think. Are you claiming there is equality for women in either the bible or the church? If so I would ask you what you what you think of this. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eph/Eph005.html#22))
?

Oh and before you say it is simply indicative of the times it was written, there are many many people now who STILL believe this....

[darkNight]

Yes, but they are... well, they are wrong. At the very least, guilty of taking it out of context. The dogma which Paul considered to be universal, as it regards the Christian faith, he put into the letter to the Romans.

This Epistle, like that of Corinthians, was written specifically for a certain group, Ephesians. Here there were many temples devoted to Artemis in which temple prostitution played a major part. Not wanting this, Paul was saying that the women, in this geographic area, shouldn't have leadership roles as they had "proven" that they would engage in temple prostitution.

What I am getting at here is that unless one specificially reads a text in Romans (as far as Paul's contributions to the bible) they needen't believe that it applies to all the known world, just that specific audience.

As if Paul was to write a letter to my church today. He wouldn't say, "And did you hear what the church in ___ was doing?". No, because he wasn't writing it about the other church.

I'm not saying there was 100% equality in the mideast. I am, however, saying there was 100% equality amongst the Celts.

[bellathebrave]

Yes the was equality amoungst the Celts ...In fact your point backs up what Im saying...the church did NOT follow the egalitarian example set by the Celts...
Many people today will tell you the bible is infallible....they believe what is written word for word... Some faiths will not allow females in leadership roles and still espouse female submission. This is my point....there really is no debate about why it was written.
Anyway, two things people will never agree on entirely religion and politic....Im not sure if your saying the church does not ask women to submit...if so we will just have to agree to disagree...

So long my friend and thanks for the discourse..Bel

[trueseeker]

Mostly agreed. However, very few Christians would say meteorology (telling the future as it relates to weather) is an affront to God.

:)))Good one.So good that it just solved my problem of how I'll tel mom I'm a pagan.Thanks.

[bellathebrave]

lol yes Ive never seen someone protest the 7 oclock weather report...I like your reasoning!

[Louisvillian]

I am, however, saying there was 100% equality amongst the Celts.
I doubt this. The Celts were far too broad and varied to generalise their culture as egalitarian all cross the board.

[Bartmanhomer]

I don't want to be off-topic about this, but I beginning to think that there a loophole that the holy bible is breaking it's own verses.

[Louisvillian]

It all depends on how you look at it. The verses denouncing divination come from the Old Testament. A lot of the OT is context-sensitive, regarding the time period it was written in. One could easily make the argument that divination is an act of henosis, of one becoming closer to god, and that the lines from the Old Testament are no longer relevant. This is the thesis used to defend Christian esoterics and occultists when they practised divination.

[darkNight]

Many people today will tell you the bible is infallible....they believe what is written word for word...

Personally, I believe it was "inspired" by God. But what does that mean? The Clapton song "Layla" was "inspired" by George Harrison's wife. It doesn't mean she wrote Clapton's song, just inspired it. Out constitution was inspired by French political philosophy, it doesn't mean it is French political philosophy. There's a lot of good stuff in there, 1 Peter (though, I doubt Peter wrote it) talking about how suffering for doing is good is noble, but there is no nobility in suffering for doing wrong... good stuff.

What cracks me up is in the creation story, the serpent wanted Adam and Eve to take what God said about dying literally, "Surely God didn't say you would 'die'". As it is explained later, God meant "death" not literally, but figuratively, hence the "fall", a figurative death. A lot of people are still buying into the serpent's skewed (purposely) logic.


Some faiths will not allow females in leadership roles and still espouse female submission. This is my point....there really is no debate about why it was written.

Another "flaw" with the bible, well really those who read it, is its interpetation. If you were a time traveller from the year 500 B.C, and I told you "Senator X, wow his ideas... he must be in left field". You would immediately expect to find in him in a literal field, to the left. Context is sooo important.

Take the part about females not being in leadership positions. That was not "Church-wide" dogma that Paul was espousing. He meant it for the church in Ephesus and Corinth, where temple prostitution was accepted. Paul's fear was that these same women would bring the practice to the Christian Church. Now the book of Romans, that is where Paul set down what was "universal" about the Christian faith, again as "inspired by God". The New Testament gives us plenty of women in leadership roles, specifically the Greek word "Diakonos" (where we get our word deacon) is used to describe Phoebe and Priscilla. Yes the Old Testament as has female leaders as well... again, Deborah.


Anyway, two things people will never agree on entirely religion and politic....Im not sure if your saying the church does not ask women to submit...if so we will just have to agree to disagree...

Agreed.


So long my friend and thanks for the discourse..Bel

No, thank you. Conversations such as these make me do my homework :smile:

[darkNight]

I doubt this. The Celts were far too broad and varied to generalise their culture as egalitarian all cross the board.

Well, I was using "Celt" as referring to the people from what is now Russia to Turkey (Galatia - from the book Galatians - had a lot of Celts) to Ireland. Really, maybe I should state the Druids were egalitarian.

The Druids had women in leadership roles such as judges, prophetesses (is that a word :smile:?) and in the front lines of battle.

[darkNight]

I don't want to be off-topic about this, but I beginning to think that there a loophole that the holy bible is breaking it's own verses.

Personally, I feel the bible is a "schizophrenic" text. Being as how it was written by many, many, people sometimes even "ghost writers" (it is quite possible that Moses didn't write all 5 books). At the same time people have a tendency to look at it as written by one entity, most often... God.

[Louisvillian]

(it is quite possible that Moses didn't write all 5 books).
Assuming Moses even existed. Most modern theories posit that the first five books of the Old Testament were written during the Babylonian captivity, by different authors. Later books were written in at different times.


The Druids had women in leadership roles such as judges, prophets, and in the front lines of battle.
The thing with the druids is, they were a social caste of learned and educated people. Many Celtic societies, that we know of, were organised in a caste system. Within the caste, the people of it might be equal, but it existed in an inherently unequal social dynamic.


Many people today will tell you the bible is infallible...

Actually, most Christians don't see the bible as infallible or inerrant. The majority of Christians are Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and they do not view the Bible, especially the old testament, as the literal, infallible word of god. Nor do the Anglicans or Episcopals, which have large followings. Most of the large Protestant groups aren't sola scriptura either, despite that concept as we know it having its origin in the Protestant reformation.

The majority of Christians are not fundamentalists. It is unfair to generalise them as such.

[darkNight]

Speaking as an Episcopalian, what drew me to that denomination was the philosophy that Scripture, Tradition, and Reason need to be utilized when approaching spiritual topics.