To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.christnet,alt.magick,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.christian,alt.occult,alt.pagan.magick
From: (nocTifer)
Subject: Theurgy and Thaumaturgy (was Internet Message)
Date: 13 Jan 1999 03:00:32 -0800

49980608 aa3 Hail Satan!

peace be upon you, my kin.

# ...being a channel for divine energies, or holy magic, is theurgy 

that sounds as if it conforms to conventional terminology, yes.

# and therefore different than thaumaturgy as the source of the power 
# may [be] different as may be the requirements to be a channel.  

it sounds as if you discern the sources as different as well as the
the requirements for theurgical adepts.  that discernment is an
important one.  if you could say something about why you make such
a distinction and what you think the differences are between the
preparations for theurgy and thaumaturgy, I'd enjoy that.

# If thaumaturgy is dependant on the mage instead of divinity, 

notice the division: mage vs divinity.

# there might lie the difference, as theurgy implies miracle working, 
# while thaumaturgy does not.  

yes, a great deal of it is defined with respect to one's preferred
cosmology.  if the divine ('God' some would say) is different and
more powerful than (rather than coincident with) the natural (some
say 'Created') world, then it may be possible to perform
'supernatural' or 'unnatural' acts (the definition that may prefer
for the term 'miracle').  however, if the divine IS the natural
world and is either constrained to or in some manner chooses to
operate within certain principles (as Science has suggested), then
'miracles' may be a fanciful means of religious conversion that 
should be relegated to fantasy and children's books rather than
taken seriously.

there is also no necessary division between the accomplishment of
these acts and their source (supposing that mages cannot perform
miracles) excepting through terminological control.  if a mage
can achieve a 'supernatural' or 'unnatural' effect, then this is
the equal of the effects of any God.

thaumaturgy implies a certain relationship between the human
being in the event that theurgy does not (as source and final
cause of an event otherwise, by the theist, attributed to the God).
if one's cosmological presupposition precludes an intersection
or identity between the mage and God, then of course thaumaturgy
has no necessary connection to theurgy. 

# Therefore clergy and saints while still alive can have 
# preformed theurgy, miracle working as channels of God.  

I think the ecclesiatic (clergy, saints) categorization is a
means of monopolizing the propaganda of spiritual power.  we
say that this mage is 'good', being a theurge (as a member of
our church doing properly prescribed ritual actions), while
the other is 'bad', being a thaumaturge, performing rites and
techniques which our church has not licensed or approved.

the status of 'clergy' is defined by the church, as is 'saint',
and I don't see any necessary ontological difference between
them and the solitary mage or sorcerer.  this is in part because
I don't believe there to be an inherent moralism to the cosmos,
and also because I feel state of spirit moreso than membership
in any social system exemplifies authority.

on the other hand, I do occasionally infuse MY values into my
expressions about the entirety of religion and magick as a type
of acknowledged propaganda.  the clergy are those who are set
out to protect, defend and serve the meek and helpless, foment
spiritual understanding and awareness through rites and ideas
they find valuable in the enterprise, and can represent via
communicated expression the ethics and doctrines of the divine.
they may or may not be part of any organized system.

the saint is one who exhibits certain insightful and love-
embracing behaviors which pay as much respect to hirself as
to those whom she may serve.  she has a power of presence,
an attendance to the depth of experience, and the compassion
of the wise heart.  she may or may not be designated or even
recognized by any social organization.  

some who are recognized by social organizations as clergy and
saints never achieved these conditions and represent the
failure of initiatory commencement to inspire or impart the
prerequisite experience or depth of character which is ideally
associated to the titles.

# Obviously Moses was a Prophet, which may be a special category, 
# but he was indeed a miracle worker.  

the character of Moses as described within the scripture does
appear to be a theurge, yes.  I don't separate the role of Prophet
and theurge, as I think that the Prophet is a special case of the
theurge, bringing to the people the new vision of the divine in
a communicated mediation that can become widespread.

and also peace be with you, blessed beast!