Views of witchcraft

[Draka]

If they worship the devil? It's exceedingly common.

The more actively religious they are, regardless of which religion they practice. This means all. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and more. The Christian who sits in a church involved in group prayer...witchcraft. The Catholic with their Rosary beads or taking communion...witchcraft. It is not specifically connected with "devil worship", but how one worships, or that one worships at all. In fact, most religions that openly acknowledge use of witchcraft don't even have a concept of evil or the "devil", so it certainly has no connection.

 

[Caladan]

I am sure this must have been discussed here before, but I'm new here and I haven't seen any recent discussion of this topic. From your personal and religious standpoint, how do you view witchcraft

In previous centuries and in some present day cultures I'd say that witchcraft would be the folk side of religion, perhaps the aspects of religious beliefs more popular with the use of the common people.
after the revival movements of the 20th century the term received a new meaning on many levels, not always easy to define as it also goes hand in hand with alternatives to more recognized forms of religion.

 

[Villager]

The more actively religious they are, regardless of which religion they practice. This means all. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and more. The Christian who sits in a church involved in group prayer...witchcraft. The Catholic with their Rosary beads or taking communion...witchcraft. It is not specifically connected with "devil worship", but how one worships, or that one worships at all. In fact, most religions that openly acknowledge use of witchcraft don't even have a concept of evil or the "devil", so it certainly has no connection.

That's one definition- that exonerates witchcraft, so it may look too convenient, and suspicious. It's also novel, bearing no relation to 4000 years of common understanding that is certainly not as accommodating of witchcraft as that. It may be of that sort of frivolous nonsense that the internet, available to the lowest literate intelligences and moralities, has produced. It may otoh be entirely correct and above board. But nobody should naively assume that, until it has passed a lot of checks.

What does the Bible, used to define many concepts, used by Shakespeare, who, as we have seen, associated witchcraft with evil powers, say on this subject? What does the Bible, used to define many concepts by many other authors, used by responsible people- politicians, judiciaries, medical experts, with whole populations who elect and are influenced by these influential people- say about witchcraft? Is it not reasonable to examine the majority definition of one's own surviving civilisation? Can any view that totally ignores the overwhelming majority definition of one's own civilisation really be worth reading?

The Bible says that a witch is a necromancer, one who consults departed spirits, or who practises sorcery. It does not specify a female in this activity, and a man who consults departed spirits is equally under consideration. And the testament of the Bible is that, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity is made, sorcery is out of the question. The obvious conclusion is that those who find divine commands too difficult will prefer the teachings of demons. It may be that sorcery is connected to demon possession. It may even be that demons teach that Christianity, that is famously opposed to witchcraft, is itself a form of witchcraft. That teaching would, if believed, effectively neutralise opposition to demon influence- somewhat obviously, one might add. So one must not only be wary, one must be seen to be wary.

In those circumstances, the Bible says, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity has been made, sorcery is punishable.

'Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.' Dt 18:10-12 NIV

Of course, some have taken that precept out of context, and punished witches and sorcerers without any explicit commitment, without any authority but their own. That in no way invalidates the biblical view, and the consequent view that the occult as a whole- witchcraft, sorcery, ouija boards, etc.- is dangerous to mental health, jeopardising the stability of society, and is eventually sociopathic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It is amusing to see you guys go at it as if witchcraft is actually something real that needs careful consideration rather than overmystified and (usually rather recently invented) 'ancient' nonsen... I mean, traditions...

 

[Villager]

It is amusing to see you guys go at it as if witchcraft is actually something real that needs careful consideration rather than overmystified and (usually rather recently invented) 'ancient' nonsen... I mean, traditions...

Amusing?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Amusing?

As in entertaining.

 

[Villager]

As in entertaining.

Ok.

Could atheists, being at least morally equal to believers, kindly offer assistance to the risible latter, when they have stopped laughing? Otherwise it might be suspected that they are not atheists at all, and come to the defence of any who oppose Christianity.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok.

Could atheists, being at least morally equal to believers, kindly offer assistance to the risible latter, when they have stopped laughing? Otherwise it might be suspected that they are not atheists at all, and come to the defence of any who oppose Christianity.

The thing is, I consider myself an empiricist, first and foremost.
Which means that I am mainly an atheist as a consequence of that.
So you see, all concepts unsupported by empirical, objective and scientific evidence, or at the very least postulated from said evidence, are equally silly in my view.
The reason I go out harder against, say, the Abrahamic religions, is that they have a greater influence and more of an impact on society.

 

[Erebus]

It is amusing to see you guys go at it as if witchcraft is actually something real that needs careful consideration rather than overmystified and (usually rather recently invented) 'ancient' nonsen... I mean, traditions...

Are you saying it isn't real or you don't believe it's real? Also how do you define witchcraft? You've mentioned not having seen evidence for it, what would constitute evidence and how would you propose to set up an experiment where said evidence could be tested and repeated? Which forms of witchcraft have you personally been involved in and practised? How many witches have you known outside the internet? How about covens? How many books on the theory and application of magic have you read? What are you're thoughts on blood magic and chaos magic?

Let's get a debate going here before you dismiss the concept

*edit* For the record, I do enjoy a lot of your posts jarofthoughts and I'm not saying you should believe in witchcraft. It just strikes me as a little odd that some things are so quickly dismissed as nonsensical and irrelevant when they've played such a big role in our history and culture.

 

[darkstar]

That's one definition- that exonerates witchcraft, so it may look too convenient, and suspicious. It's also novel, bearing no relation to 4000 years of common understanding that is certainly not as accommodating of witchcraft as that. It may be of that sort of frivolous nonsense that the internet, available to the lowest literate intelligences and moralities, has produced. It may otoh be entirely correct and above board. But nobody should naively assume that, until it has passed a lot of checks.

What does the Bible, used to define many concepts, used by Shakespeare, who, as we have seen, associated witchcraft with evil powers, say on this subject? What does the Bible, used to define many concepts by many other authors, used by responsible people- politicians, judiciaries, medical experts, with whole populations who elect and are influenced by these influential people- say about witchcraft? Is it not reasonable to examine the majority definition of one's own surviving civilisation? Can any view that totally ignores the overwhelming majority definition of one's own civilisation really be worth reading?

The Bible says that a witch is a necromancer, one who consults departed spirits, or who practises sorcery. It does not specify a female in this activity, and a man who consults departed spirits is equally under consideration. And the testament of the Bible is that, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity is made, sorcery is out of the question. The obvious conclusion is that those who find divine commands too difficult will prefer the teachings of demons. It may be that sorcery is connected to demon possession. It may even be that demons teach that Christianity, that is famously opposed to witchcraft, is itself a form of witchcraft. That teaching would, if believed, effectively neutralise opposition to demon influence- somewhat obviously, one might add. So one must not only be wary, one must be seen to be wary.

In those circumstances, the Bible says, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity has been made, sorcery is punishable.

'Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.' Dt 18:10-12 NIV

Of course, some have taken that precept out of context, and punished witches and sorcerers without any explicit commitment, without any authority but their own. That in no way invalidates the biblical view, and the consequent view that the occult as a whole- witchcraft, sorcery, ouija boards, etc.- is dangerous to mental health, jeopardising the stability of society, and is eventually sociopathic.

What would you say, if someone opposed your religion or practices out of ignorance of what your religion really was? What would you do then, if this person used their religious text as the ONLY source to oppose your religion?

Witchcraft is a term used to refer to pagan practices, worship and magic. It has nothing to do with demons, or Satan. In fact most pagans don't believe in such Deities or concepts.

Also, practicing witchcraft myself for over 18 years, I have never encountered a pagan claiming to be possessed by any demon. I HAVE met Christians claiming such.
ALSO the bible says that a witch is a necromancer? Awesome, since I have never once disturbed the dead to ask my questions. I don't know anuone personally that has.

As a response to the OP: I personally view magic as a tool. Witchcraft has been viewed as bad by many due to the influence of Christianity for quite some time. Personally I don't use the word witchcraft often because I don't feel like hearing the fire and brimstone speech, or trying to explain that I don't worship the devil.

 

[fantome profane]

Ok.

Could atheists, being at least morally equal to believers, kindly offer assistance to the risible latter, when they have stopped laughing? Otherwise it might be suspected that they are not atheists at all, and come to the defence of any who oppose Christianity.

Exactly what assistance is required?


If you have observed that generally atheists are less critical of witches then they are of mainstream religion it is likely because witches don’t tend to push their religious beliefs on others.

 

[Cassiopia]

As a response to the OP: I personally view magic as a tool. Witchcraft has been viewed as bad by many due to the influence of Christianity for quite some time. Personally I don't use the word witchcraft often because I don't feel like hearing the fire and brimstone speech, or trying to explain that I don't worship the devil.

Thanks. I am new here but I must admit that I have been a bit disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. As the term "Religious Education" forms part of the name of this site I was hoping that the responses might have been more along the lines of genuine interest rather than dominated by the same predictable prejudices and grandstanding I see in other places all too often.
I was actually hoping to learn something about how witchcraft is viewed and practiced in different religions.
I am not exactly shocked that some atheists sneer at anything vaguely religious or that some Christians view witchcraft as something bad or satanic; but I had hoped we would get beyond that here.

 

[darkstar]

Thanks. I am new here but I must admit that I have been a bit disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. As the term "Religious Education" forms part of the name of this site I was hoping that the responses might have been more along the lines of genuine interest rather than dominated by the same predictable prejudices and grandstanding I see in other places all too often.
I was actually hoping to learn something about how witchcraft is viewed and practiced in different religions.
I am not exactly shocked that some atheists sneer at anything vaguely religious or that some Christians view witchcraft as something bad or satanic; but I had hoped we would get beyond that here.

Well most of my magic is viewed as witchcraft, or as shamanism.

The thing is, that people are either knowledgeable about the subject or have a preconceived prejudice about such. Or have no interest at all.

 

[Draka]

That's one definition- that exonerates witchcraft, so it may look too convenient, and suspicious. It's also novel, bearing no relation to 4000 years of common understanding that is certainly not as accommodating of witchcraft as that. It may be of that sort of frivolous nonsense that the internet, available to the lowest literate intelligences and moralities, has produced. It may otoh be entirely correct and above board. But nobody should naively assume that, until it has passed a lot of checks.

Witchcraft is direction of spiritual energy towards a goal through means of use of raising energy through a physical conduit. That physical conduit is a person. Physical objects, known as tools, are used to help focus and boost that energy. However, the main tool of witchcraft always has been, and always will be, the person. Now, what "common understanding" of witchcraft there was came from religions specifically opposed to such things, not really knowing what they were, because of the connection with a religion it opposed.

What does the Bible, used to define many concepts, used by Shakespeare, who, as we have seen, associated witchcraft with evil powers, say on this subject? What does the Bible, used to define many concepts by many other authors, used by responsible people- politicians, judiciaries, medical experts, with whole populations who elect and are influenced by these influential people- say about witchcraft? Is it not reasonable to examine the majority definition of one's own surviving civilisation? Can any view that totally ignores the overwhelming majority definition of one's own civilisation really be worth reading?

No, it doesn't matter what the bible says about witchcraft, as I've already stated why. It is the conglomeration of myths used to support a religion that was, and is still, in direct opposition to other, more Earth and nature based, religions. In order to set itself apart and make that religion look better of course it will try to demonize that which it is in opposition to. To try to declare the open practice of another religion as "evil" and try to define for itself what is "good". The bible, as a measuring rule for morals and "right" and "wrong" has proven time and time again to be faulty. So why take its criticism of a natural practice as anything but slander in the first place?

The Bible says that a witch is a necromancer, one who consults departed spirits, or who practises sorcery. It does not specify a female in this activity, and a man who consults departed spirits is equally under consideration. And the testament of the Bible is that, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity is made, sorcery is out of the question. The obvious conclusion is that those who find divine commands too difficult will prefer the teachings of demons. It may be that sorcery is connected to demon possession. It may even be that demons teach that Christianity, that is famously opposed to witchcraft, is itself a form of witchcraft. That teaching would, if believed, effectively neutralise opposition to demon influence- somewhat obviously, one might add. So one must not only be wary, one must be seen to be wary.

In those circumstances, the Bible says, where explicit commitment to the commands of the deity has been made, sorcery is punishable.

'Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.' Dt 18:10-12 NIV

Of course, some have taken that precept out of context, and punished witches and sorcerers without any explicit commitment, without any authority but their own. That in no way invalidates the biblical view, and the consequent view that the occult as a whole- witchcraft, sorcery, ouija boards, etc.- is dangerous to mental health, jeopardising the stability of society, and is eventually sociopathic.

As for the rest of this drivel, you are basing your views on the slander of a practice by a particular mythology. Now, who do you think really knows better? The slanderous ill-informed ridiculous statements stemming from a religious scripture of a religion in direct opposition to other religions, or an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is?

 

[Villager]

The thing is, I consider myself an empiricist, first and foremost.

If that means that the supernatural is excluded as a possibility, it looks like petitio principii.

Existentialism seems more rational, imv, and includes the possibility of the supernatural.

The reason I go out harder against, say, the Abrahamic religions, is that they have a greater influence and more of an impact on society.

Like honesty, patience, willingness to forgive, generosity, usefulness, self-control and kindness? That's why some think that Abraham's religion (he was not schizoid) is the bee's knees.

 

[Villager]

Exactly what assistance is required?

Assistance to be less amusing.

If you have observed that generally atheists are less critical of witches then they are of mainstream religion it is likely because witches don’t tend to push their religious beliefs on others.

Who has been getting at atheists? They come here of their own accord.

 

[Villager]

the slander of a practice by a particular mythology.

Two words need to be supported here; 'slander' and 'mythology'.

Now, who do you think really knows better? The slanderous ill-informed ridiculous statements stemming from a religious scripture of a religion in direct opposition to other religions, or an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is?

Let's take the bias out, and insert reality.

Now, who do you think really knows better? The statements about the occult stemming from a scripture of a religion that has received the acknowledgement of monarchies, statesmen, the legal profession, the medical profession, universities, schools and businesses; or a poster claiming to be an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is, but who could easily be describing something quite different?

 

[Draka]

Two words need to be supported here; 'slander' and 'mythology'.

Slander - associating witchcraft with "evil", necromancy, demons, the "devil" and so on when it is simply not those things. It is done to try to detract people from following religions which openly use the practice.
Mythology - a set of religious stories and legends used as analogies and "messages" through use of classic archetypes to depict information and knowledge of the Collective Unconscious. Christianity fits this to a T along with just about every other religion in existence.

Next

Let's take the bias out, and insert reality.

Now, who do you think really knows better? The statements about the occult stemming from a scripture of a religion that has received the acknowledgement of monarchies, statesmen, the legal profession, the medical profession, universities, schools and businesses; or a poster claiming to be an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is, but who could easily be describing something quite different?

Hmm, the actual witch, as the religious scripture is just religious scripture. Wrong is wrong no matter how many people like the book it is contained in.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Two words need to be supported here; 'slander' and 'mythology'.

Let's take the bias out, and insert reality.

Now, who do you think really knows better? The statements about the occult stemming from a scripture of a religion that has received the acknowledgement of monarchies, statesmen, the legal profession, the medical profession, universities, schools and businesses; or a poster claiming to be an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is, but who could easily be describing something quite different?

Let's take more bias out and admit that the Church has always twisted views on other groups to bring them favor or ridicule.

 

[darkstar]

Two words need to be supported here; 'slander' and 'mythology'.

Let's take the bias out, and insert reality.

Now, who do you think really knows better? The statements about the occult stemming from a scripture of a religion that has received the acknowledgement of monarchies, statesmen, the legal profession, the medical profession, universities, schools and businesses; or a poster claiming to be an actual witch trying to inform you what witchcraft really is, but who could easily be describing something quite different?

Funny, witches were accepted by society long before Christianity. Many rulers and wealthy men and women also used the skills of witches in their lives, even after the rise of Christianity.

Christianity got to where it is in society by murdering those with different opinions, leaving their views as the only one accepted in most of Europe and many other areas of the world. When people came to America, what ideas they brought with them are the direct result of that. They proceeded to cheat and kill people that lived in America originally.

I'm not saying that Christians now will murder others for differing beliefs, it's against the law. BUT some Christians do all they can to discriminate against those with other beliefs.
Let's be fair here, your response was not taking bias out of the equation. It was using popularity to justify your own bias.

And you still haven't told me how you would feel if your religion and practices were undermined and attacked by another persons religious book. Especially if that religion was more popular than your own.