Talk:Cleromancy

message: The first source cited, Tacitus, refers to continental Germanic tribes, not Scandinavians. This type of mistake is made a lot because the continental Germanic religion of the time is mostly known trough Scandinavian branches that survived several century's longer then the continental ones.
In addition, Tacitus does not mention runes in the discribtion of throwing lots, this is an much later interpetation and one that is, to my knowledge, not considered the academic standart. I don't know the second source, can someone who does confirm wether or not that source mentiones runes by name?
80.65.103.177 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandinavian? Runes?

message: The introduction was quite bizarre. Cleromancy is a form of divination using random selection. Drawing straws is not a form of divintaiton it is a form of selection that can, e.g. be used to make a fair choice without any divine intervention! I'm not at all sure "casting lots" as I originally checked should come here at all, but neither should it point to allotment for exactly the opposite reason that allotment is primarily not a form of divination. Life is too short to work out what should happen, so I've left a note with a link to allotment.
--Mike 11:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a bit too much editorialising and speculation.  I've trimmed this; hopefully the texts are clear enough by themselves. Pdch 16:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: For the time of the events cited from the Old Testament, they would have been more exactly yet retrospectively be regarded as Near Eastern culture. DFH 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western culture ? 

message: Quote from article (my bolding):
:In the Old Testament, there are four cases where casting lots was invoked as a means of determining God's wishes:
Should we write "at least four cases" instead - I'm not aware of any sources outside Wikipedia listing the four cases we've found. As far as I recall, this part of the article began with a list of three cases that I'd collected over the years, without reading the Bible from beginning to end, and then someone added a fourth case. I'm not sure the list is complete now.
Also, in the four cases cited, it's not the really the whishes of this god that are revealed (except in the case about Saul); it's rather his knowledge. So could we write "God's mind" instead - or something?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So now it's done. Someone got a better way of putting it than "God's mind"?--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible stuff - FOUR cases? God's WISHES? 

message: In the lead, user:Lambiam changed
:Cleromancy is a form of divination using sortilege, casting lots or casting bones in which an outcome is determined by random means, such as the rolling of dice.
into
:Cleromancy is a form of divination using sortition, casting of lots, or casting bones, in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are believed to reveal the will of God or other supernatural entities.
Of course, Lambiam's got a point. On the other hand, in some cases, the supernatural intervention in cleromancy may be thought to enter through the process of interpretation rather than trough the randomization. Could the text be tweaked either to mention this possibility, or (better, in the absense of source), not to rule it out?--Noe (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the new text rules out the possibility of interpreters being needed for explaining the divine will, as revealed in the outcome of the process, to laypeople – just as in many scripture-based religions one has priests to explain the divine will as revealed in sacred scripture.  --Lambiam 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random? 

message: In the section In Judeo-Christian culture, there's a paragraph on the Book of Mormon. In my view of things, this is not notable, certainly not on a par with material from the Old Testament that (as far as I understand) is common to three major World religions. So, should the Mormon stuff be removed?--Noe (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Mormon 

message: The present article begins
:Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots)
but the article Sortition begins
:In governance, sortition [...] is the selection of political officials as a random sample
and never gets around to define what "sortition" might mean outside of governance. (It has a "See also" link to Cleromancy, though.)
The paren "(casting of lots)" partly saves the situation, but should we avoid calling it sortition, or should the article Sortition define the concept more broadly (say, "Sortition is reaching decisions by casting of lots. In particular, in governance, ..."?--Nø (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortition?