I may have written about this before, but I like the concept and I’ve been thinking about it. I think I like it cuz it’s kinda sciencey and therefore helps me explain magic to people who look at me like a freak when I mention it.

We can look at magic as shifting the probabilities or “ the odds” from one outcome to another. “There’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow,” or “The odds against that happening are ten to one.” In such a statement, there are two factors: the probability and the improbability. If the odds are ten to one against, the probability is one and the improbability is ten. But the thing is, in such a case, if you do it ten times, then the improbability drops to one, and the probability goes up to ten. Once more, and the improbability becomes a virtual certainty. Even if the odds are a million to one against, like in winning the lottery, if more than a million people play, then at least one is virtually certain to win. This could explain why there are so many coincidences and synchronicities. In an infinite universe, all improbabilities must be finite. Nothing we can imagine truly impossible. The only real question is, what are the odds?

In this context magick as “probability enhancement” consists of increasing the odds to favour of our desired outcome. It’s like piling rocks on the high end of a seesaw until the balance shifts, and the other end goes up. Every bit helps— not only large boulders, but even small pebbles and grains of sand; it just takes more of them. When both ends of the seesaw are off the ground and level, the balance is 50:50, and it hinges on the fulcrum (balance point). At that point, it doesn’t take much to tip the balance one way or another—or even to pivot the whole thing into a different alignment entirely.

The trick is to find the cusp. A cusp is an intersection between fields of alternative probability. At such places the potential as to which of these alternatives the probability wave will collapse into is in delicate balance—things could easily go either way. At a cusp, it takes little energy to move between the intersecting states, and “probability enhancement” can have very large impact because of a domino effect of probabilities changing outward through space and time like ripples in a pond.

I didn’t write this. I can’t remember who did, I cut and pasted it, okay I ripped it off, but I’m willing to admit it, so I don’t screw with anyone’s copyright. I liked it and felt like I needed to post something to balance out all this Jesus talk that’s been happening around here.

While reading one of the posts, I don’t even remember which one, someone suggested, “turning the other cheek” regarding some matter. This term was used to mean, “Let bygones be bygones.”

I just can’t help it; I have to point out that that’s not really what phrase ‘turn the other cheek’ means. Over time and in today’s society that is what it has come to mean, but originally it might something entirely different, if fact almost the exact opposite.

This line of course, comes from Matthews Sermon on the Mount 5:38ish. At the time that Matthew was written customs of the time made it permissible for a person of ‘higher status’ to slap the right cheek of any offending person for any transgression. For example a Roman solider could slap pretty much any of the common peoples, and a Master could slap the right cheek of a slave. This custom could be used any place where someone of a higher class was punishing someone of a lower class. The custom was for the Right Cheek only, and only one slap. The person receiving the punishment could do little about it because of their ‘lesser’ status.

Therefore to ‘turn your other cheek’ invites the master/solider or other ‘higher class citizen’ to merit out punishment beyond the custom. The lesser person is suggesting that one slap doesn’t matter and to ‘go ahead slap me again’. This passive aggressive behavior takes the humiliation off of the lesser person, and potentially brings humiliation to the higher because they either 1. Have to ‘give in’ to the lesser and walk away from the situation, thus giving the lesser the upper hand. Or 2. Lose their temper and slap the other cheek, which would also be humiliation to the higher status person.

The same paragraph mentions “if anyone sue you for your coat, give him your cloak as well”, and “if any one forces you to go one mile, with him two”.

Again in the cases of classes someone of a higher class could demand a lesser person’s coat, as payment if money was owed, or really just cuz they could. The lesser person could get the upper hand by also giving their cloak, or robe- basically giving them all their clothes so that the lesser was naked before the higher. This would be embarrassing to the higher, because demanding nudity of someone was offensive, and people would see the higher person as cruel for taking all of someone’s clothes, especially when that person is ‘less that you’ and probably poorer too.

I find the last one the most interesting. Again at the time there were customs (perhaps laws) saying that any Roman solider could demand that any common man carry all his belongings while on a march, but only for one mile. Then the solider would have to take his belongings back, or find another peasant. By insisting on going another mile, the ‘lesser’ would force the Solider to demand his own belongings back, or be seen as cruel for demanding more from someone than custom dictated.

The reason I point these out is that so often the term ‘turn the other cheek’ is used to say, ‘ah just let it go’. But it really is an invitation to passive resistance to authority. It is a way of given tools to the poor and common folk to demand respect of the higher class peoples. It’s about not letting it go at all but to ‘fight the power!’ for lack of a better phrase.

So often we forget the Jesus was revolutionary, who challenged authority, disregarded traditional custom, both secular and Jewish, in unique and, dare I say, subversive ways. Jesus as a Rabble Rouser- that’s someone I can believe in. (maybe)

Side note: the phrase “rule of thumb” refers to the width of a stick that a man could use to beat his wife. As in the stick you beat your wife with can’t be any wider than your thumb. Nothing to do with the bible, it just bugs me when I hear people use it.

Hhhmmm I realize that I’m using a little bit of shock value in naming this post, yet since in one way I still consider myself a witch and I have been going to church regularly the title remains accurate.

The simple fact of the matter is that since my return from the silent retreat last November I have more questions than answers and I’ve had this desire to be a part of a community.

When I was little we went to church every week and I had this sense of community, though I didn’t know that’s what it was called. I realized that’s what I wanted for my son; a sense of belonging and safety somewhere, and the only place that made sense was church. The fact that there’s nothing much else to do on Sunday mornings and we were bored, also played a role in this decision, but hush- saying that makes me look bad.

Now my son is becoming a part of “Children’s Community”, though I’ll always call it Sunday school. He was even invited to light the Christ Candle at the opening of the service a couple weeks ago. He made his grandma and myself strangely proud to watch him walk carefully up the isle holding the long taper thingy.

No disrespect to the minister intended, but I’m not finding the answers to my questions by attending Sunday services. Our minister’s sermons no doubt make me think and have given me pause over the last few weeks, but as far as Spiritual Enlightment goes, it’s not there on Sundays. I knew that would be the case and have discussed it with the minister a couple of times.

So why then am I going? Is the prodigal daughter returning meekly to the fold? Have I seen the error of my pagan ways and humbly prostrate myself before Jesus? Are you reading the sarcasm in my words?

Again, this community thing is important to me. We’re going to the same church that I attended as a child and my parents are still very involved in, so rather than having to make new acquaintances and friends, I’m re-enlivening my relationship with people I’ve known my entire life.

I’ve eluded to an event in past blogs that has made me rethink some things, change my perspective and though I am still unable to share the details of that event, I can share that has it’s led me to return to my roots. I’ve spent a long time growing upwards and outwards exploring an outer relationship with Spirit, but now I have to go inward and down, metaphorically, and that leads me back the Christian roots.

This does not mean that I’m turning my back on my pagan beliefs. I just can’t do that; I still remain deeply connected to those beliefs. Yet now I’m curious about this Christianity thing and my relationship with God through as one might say ‘a Christian bent’ and I keep hearing about this Jesus guy…

Jesus. Yeah, that guy. I don’t think my friend P knew what he was doing when he asked me the day we started the Silent Retreat “what’s your relationship to Jesus?” I don’t think he knew just what sort of reaction I was going to have to that question. My initial reaction was to ask him a question “did I even need to have a relationship with Him?” those within the Christian circle would likely say, of course. How can you be Christian and not have one?

But how many “good God fearing Christians” do? How many actually can say they have any more of relationship with Jesus than what they’ve been told all their lives? I know that a few fellow bloggers definitely have a relationship that is personal and close. PDave’s son seems to be struggling with his relationship, which is perhaps why I write this now, I’m thinking about it again. But the regular joe-shomoe does he? And does he care?

Really I have no answers to these questions, nor to I expect to find them. Regardless of that, I’ve joined this zany bible study class and I’m enjoying because I’m not the only one totally enraged by this nutty book so many people revere. It’s nice to know I’m not alone.

I have been reading a lot, the bible for one- this class has a heck of a lot of reading for it. And books like the 'Pagan Christ', by Tom Harper, 'Born of a Woman', by John Spong and the 'Gospels of Mary Magdalene'. All of which challenge me and comfort me, cuz Thank God I’m not alone in my beliefs! And as a result of the reading and thinking I leaning towards saying, ‘no I don’t need a relationship with Jesus. Just that being they call his dad.’

I do truly believe that is possible to reconcile my pagan beliefs and Christian ones. I do truly believe that some sort of interfaith is possible. I have a lot more to say on the subject but so much of it still remains half formed and somewhat ambiguous in my mind.

So please forgive the ramblings that will be coming as I work this out. For me writing helps me clear my head. I am considering turning off the comments here at my blog. My reason for that is that though I greatly appreciate the support of my readers, I find sometimes that some comments are not so much supportive but, what the word, preaching perhaps, no, that that’s not the word I want but I can’t find the rite one.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that this blog is my journey, my search and when I have posts that “tell” me I’ve got is wrong, or that “I should see it that way” irks me. I’m seeking and learning. I’m at a different point in the road and others and I don’t need to be told, “well I discovered THAT ten years ago”.

Does that make sense? I don’t want to offend anyone by saying this, but again, though I post here because the support helps me, a lot. Sometimes the comments I receive feel like judgment, which no one needs as they walk the path.

All that being said, if I do decide to turn off the comments, please feel free to tmail me. There are those of you whose opinions and thoughts matter to me, you know who you are, and I would miss your comments and friendship- which is the only reason I wouldn’t turn off the comments. I can’t have it both ways, I know. Just me thinking out loud again.

Anyway, time to get my son dressed for the day and read chapters 15-16 in the delightful gospel of Matty.

PDave, I would like to offer up another book challenge to you, should you be willing to accept it. I am of course, open to a book suggestion from you for me- just not CS Lewis again- he’s too long winded for me. I would like to suggest you read “Born of a Woman” by Bishop John Spong. I would very much like to discuss it with you. Let me know.

FM