IslandWoman,
Your post illustrates that people will see anything they really want to see. Please look at the Britannica definition again. It nowhere states that casting lots is "a form of divination." Instead, it states that "other methods" of divination "involve or have involved . . . casting lots."
Birthday celebrations "involve or have involved" a cake, but a cake is not necessarily a birthday cake. Some hospital treatments "involve or have involved" the use of herbal medicines, but the use of herbs is never a representation of hospital treatments. The pagan practice of divination can employ the use of lots. It can also involve the use of drugs, fire, water, chemicals, snakes and other animals, music, dancing, etc., but none of those things in themselves are a form of divination.
Similarly, the Encarta does not state that casting lots was "a form of divination," as you claim. It explains that ancient divination required "interpretation by a medium." The medium studied or pretended to study "the behavior of animals and natural phenomena, which might convey messages from the supernatural." That study or pretense at study utilized "casting lots" and other "means." Though the Encarta doesn't explain how the medium used lots, other sources do. They show that it was simply to determine which animal or corpse should be studied and which could be discarded. In other words, it was as simple a matter as our tossing of a coin or pulling straws to help us make a choice between two alternatives. Just as coins and straws are hardly to be viewed as instruments of divination, neither are lots.
Just as lots were studied, so were crack patterns in shells, the flight of birds, the flow of water and water patterns. In themselves, none of those things were "forms of divination." People today study the flight of birds because of their fascination with the animal kingdom, but that does not identify them as diviners.
Divination requires a diviner, medium or oracle. On the other hand, anyone could engage in the casting of lots. We don't need a priest on hand when we roll dice or toss coins or pick straws, and we wouldn't need the presence of any such person if we lived in ancient times and cast lots to help us make up our minds on some matters. Of course, some priests and other religious and national leaders did cast lots. Nevertheless, the casting of lots has never in history been on a par with forms of divination such as the study of the entrails of sacrificial animals (haruspication), the inspection of animals shoulder blades (scapulimancy), crystal gazing, palmistry, fortune-telling and astrology.
I'm not expecting to change your mind, IslandWoman. You've already committed yourself, and I really doubt you will back down from your position. That's okay. Your challenge added to my enlightenment, and I hope it did the same for others.
You wrote:
I am also not a Christian in the accepted use of the term.
I took you at your word. You didn't say "I am not a Christian." You added "in the accepted use of the term." That left the impression that you claim to be a Christian but not the ordinary kind. I think you should be able to understand that your sentence could be misleading. Since then, of course, your near anathema against Christians has convinced me that you indeed are not a Christian in any sense of the word.
Despite the strong words we've exchanged with each other, I hope we're still friends. Knowing the type of person you've shown yourself to be in other threads, I tend to think that your feeling is probably the same toward me. Thanks.
Herk
