What is worship?

I think worship is a misleading word. When you look at Christian Worship it’s not really Worship. If you look at the structure of their ritual of worship and the ritual of spirit summoning you’ll see they both have the same structure. Invoking the name of the god, candles, incense, a sacrifice, petitioning for results, and pardoning of the spirit. Christians call this worship, this is actually Spirit summoning.

Except that Christians do not know the name of their god and instead of real blood they use wine or grape juice. Is it really a wonder why none of their shit works?

If anything is accomplished it is because of focused intention with lots of emotion, what Witches call Spellcasting.

My interpretation of worship is praising something, something not found in Churches.

We should refer to Christian Worship as Watered Down Sorcery, and our own practice as Evocation/Summoning/ or Conjuring.

Worship is a Christian idea and belongs in the trash can.

In the same way that Eric Koetting refers to Christianity as a cult or mythology. Do not give Christianity any respect it doesn’t deserve any.


The archaic meaning of worship is… to bow down and work for any non human master. That is what I know and have read and is the original meaning. It has little to do with Christianity, it is just a way of being/behaving towards a deity etc…

1 Like

The word worship can mean many things tbh… If you think about it, hindus worship stones and all that stuff by bowing down to them,giving them offerings they even whack there heads on them (no disrespect to hindus just stating what I have heard and seen) …on the other hand Christians worship by signing all sorts of songs and drinking what they consider holy water etc… It all comes down to the main key meaning that worship is basically doing an act which shows respect or adoration to a specific diety… Atleast that’s what I think anyway what Christians do is what they feel is worship what hindus do is what they feel is worship

If you were to take this out of the contexts the monotheistic religions place it in and then place it into the context of a practitioner of say yogic, daoist or african tradtions is takes on a different context. You are then going to these entites and forces to become their student in the old traditional sense of master and student.

In which case bowing to the master of a teaching is both respectful and symbolic to bowing and paying your respects to the teachings and all who have gained a level of mastery.

This contexts applies to the older traditional practices and to learning directly from human and spiritual entities if you value the teaching being offered. (Edit) thought patterned came out jumbled after work :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Because in these cases the student doesn’t know what they do not know or need to know and so have placed their trust in the teacher THEY sought out in order to learn from and then respect what they are being taught by doing it.


Since Protestants (and Neopagans converted from Protestantism) often charge the the veneration of the Saints is no different from praying to Pagan gods, we would do well briefly to review the Church’s teaching on the subject.

The way the Church speaks to Angels and the Saints is not the same way the Church Speaks to God. When she speaks to God, it is out of the spirit of worship, which is technically called latria, from the Greek word λατρεια meaning “worship.” In the Church’s liturgy;

the acts of bowing, incensation, genuflection, kneeling, and so forth are considered gestures of latria and reserved for God alone.

When the Church invokes the Angels or the Saints, she speaks in a manner of dulia, from the Greek word δουλεια, meaning “reverence” or “work.” She speaks to the Angels and Saints as one would speak to a revered and cherished friend, oftentimes as a friend able and willing to help us out of a tight spot.

Lastly, there is a special category within Catholic devotion, called hyperdulia, from υπερδούλια, meaning “extra special reverence.” There is only one person who receives hyperdulia, and that is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They do actually. :face_with_monocle:

It’s called the Tetragrammaton (God) and the Pentagrammaton (Jesus Christ).

In the middle of the second century, St. Justin Martyr affirms the Real Presence:

  • " For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

Iranaeus of Lyons, around the end of the second century, tells us:

  • When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can [ the heretics ] affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, Which is life eternal, which [ flesh ] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?"

While we again run the risk of overkill, we see there’s no question that early Christians did not believe the Eucharist was a mere symbol, but the testimony is plain that they believed the elements truly became the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, none of this talks about how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, only that they do.

As to the “how,” thee is no specific hypothesis supported in Scripture. The Catholic Church, moved by the Aristotelian metaphysical concepts of “substance” (a thing as it is in itself) and “accidents”(what a thing looks/smells/feels/sounds/tastes like), defined this process as Transubstantiation at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.

  • “His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us.”

This is a fallacy.

See my first paragraph explaining how the Church see’s worship. :point_up:

Closer to the modern period, in the mid-nineteenth century, we find Eliphas Levi ( a defrocked Catholic Deacon whose real name was Alphonse Constat) saying roughly the distinction between the magician and the sorcerer.

In his Le Grand Arcane, he cites the Church as a magical Order, Writing that the Roman Church :

  • " alone possesses the monopoly of Transcendental Magic and it’s efficacious ceremonies. It charms demons with water and salt; with bread and wine it invokes God and constrains Him to become visible and palpable on earth; it imparts health and pardon with oil. It does yet more, for it creates priests and kings."

on this subject, we see even Aleister Crowley; the deranged anti-Catholic genius (whose anti-Catholicism is strange when contrasted against his friendship with Fr.Montague Summers), recognized the distinction between magic and sorcery, referring to the latter as “witchcraft,” and he stated quite clearly in his book Magic in Theory and Practice, Book III Ch. 4.
That witchcraft is illusory and denies the Holy Ghost the right to indwell His temple.

  • " Witchcraft consists in treating it as the exclusive preoccupation of Magick, and especially in denying to the Holy Spirit his right to indwell in His temple."

Okay, :rofl:

There is not one system of magic that hasn’t started as a small congregation of people (cult) which then led to a religion.

So with that logic no religion (Pagan ones included) deserve respect either. :thinking:


if You need an extensive list of reasons for doing this behavior then here you go… worship

I have most often heard the word worship used as it relates to Christian churches. Within that paradym, It is my understanding that most modern non denominational bible churches, view worship as the loud modern band style music up front with the full congregation on their feet singing. This is intended as sincere praise and Worship based on the congregations gratitude for perceived blessings received or yet to come.

The energy raised in such a “worship” scenario is in fact incredibly high. Penecostal churches worship is more traditional musically, but once the energy raises it is not uncommon to see people breaking out randomly in glossolalia.

From a Buddhist perspective, i believe a similar state would be accomplished by the entire sangha meditating and chanting in unison.

My personal point of view is that the loudly calling out in honor and praise of any deity. Speaking of their strengths loudly, and often in unision with others who are also praising is worship.

All examples release dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline and in the group setting oxytocin. This chemical high raises the energy in honor of some person, place or thing.

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

One is worship, the other is a concert.

1 Like

Perfect! With only one small correction: There is a difference between “δουλειά” and “δουλεία”! Δουλειά, means indeed “work”, but when we speak about worshiping the word is δουλεία (dulia) which means “servitude”. (Fun fact: its the same word we use for “slavery”)

When calling Angels and Saints its not Latria (from church’s side of course because the worshipers don’t see it that way) and the bowing and such are for honorary reasons.


We agree on this point. It is a concert by most standards. However it is considered to be worship by those in attendance of the “concert”. On the flip side many conspiracy types believe that many who attend true modern concerts are in fact engaging in acts of worship. As with anything, its the intention behind the act.

1 Like

I was reading from the Doctrine, but yes very true.

Some of the Greek words have changed over time.

Thanks for pointing that out. :grin::+1:

Malaka ! :heart:

1 Like

Thats where I disagree with them, I have a more objective/historical view of worship and don’t think it changes just because someone “considers” what they are doing to be “worship”.

Facts over feelings.

If that is how you define worship, then churches definately have it. At least protestant ones, can’t speak for the other demoninations. Fuck, they never shut up about praising this and that. Listen to a christian radio station some time.

I would however accept that religion and magic are fundamentally the same.

Not… exactly. They are the “Name of the Name of God”. Tratragrammaton means the four letter name of god, which would be YWHW. Same with Pentagrammaton, which is YHShWH.

Not sure what you’re arguing here?

Where do you get this “Name of the Name of God” from? That’s kind of redundant.

I’m going by the LXX translation of “YWHW”

1 Like

It is redundant! The Christians viewed actually using the name of god that they knew as too sacrilegious, so they created a descriptive title for it. Thus Tetragrammaton. However, it itself was considered magically potent enough that it shows up in a lot of Gotetic spell forms (most likely because the people that created them didn’t actually know the difference between Tetra and YWHW). If I remember correctly, one of the other “names of god” is actually a by-name for the Tetragrammaton title itself, which makes it three layers of redundant.

Basically just trying to point out how silly the whole thing is.

Actually, it has nothing to do with Christianity. It derives from Judaism and the traditional Kabbalah.


No this was the Jews that thought this, they would substitute YHWH with Elohim (Lord).

The Tetragrammaton was just how the Septuagint (LXX) Translated it from the original Hebrew.

It conveniently matched up with the Kabbalah and Plato’s concept of the Monad, through the Tetractys.

You’re making it redundant by calling it a “name of a name” when really it’s just a translation.

1 Like

This is hardly difficult to prove. I’ll make it easy Click this please.

It is not an actual translation but a description. There is a difference, if it were a translation then he would have tried to understand what the name of god meant and then convert that meaning into Greek.

If I have a book that is green and call it “that green book” then that becomes a description, not a name. By just saying that the name has four letters he does not give us sufficient information to actually have or use the name, it could be any four letters, and we are given no information about the meaning or emphasis from it either.

The rest of it, the Monad and Kabbalah stuff, I’m largely ignorant about that so I shall bow to your superior wisdom. Plus it does match up with what little I do know.

I know it means “four letter” but since the meaning of the name Yahweh is lost to history possibly being derived “I AM THAT I AM” (which is also descriptive).

The Greeks choose to use Tetragrammaton as well as Logos, God has never had a definitive name like “Freddy” they have all been descriptive, Like how Lord describes a Ruler.

This is because the God of the Bible is described as the Creator of everything and has a very different personhood than that of humans and human-like god’s such as Osiris.

But in Christianity they have the name Jesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity. So Christians use that name for God more often than not.


My understanding of worship is putting everything you can into a relationship with a “god” or spirit to aid us in mortality Christians have "Jesus"and their “God” but someone mould have “insert demon/spirit name” and “* insert high Angel/ great demon*”