Views of witchcraft

[jarofthoughts]

Look again.

Sorry.
Couldn't find any evidence to support this.
Mind pointing it out since you apparently know where it is?

You must be unique among literati.

Surely not.

 

[Erebus]

The same as with any other form of magic: at best it is a novel method of meditation, at worst it is a waste of time. But in either case, who am I to tell people what to do with their time. As long as they don't bother anyone else with it I don't really care and I most certainly wouldn't seek out those who are into to it to "deconvert" them.
However, since this tread is about witchcraft, I thought I'd put in my two cents on the matter.

Sure. I just find it (as I said) amusing that people talk about concepts like this as if it is already decided that they are real and actually have meaning.
Seems a bit like putting the horse before the carriage to me. :sarcastic
The same goes for any number of concepts (crystal healing, angels, souls, auras, homoeopathy, gods, etc...) though, so I'm not out to 'get' practitioners of witchcraft. Witchcraft is just one of the many things I find nonsensical.

Oh, I'm not saying that the BELIEF in witchcraft isn't real and has a real effect on people's lives. It most certainly does. But just because I acknowledge that something (religion and the belief in gods is a very good example of this) has had a huge impact on our history and culture, that doesn't mean that whatever they believe(d) in is in any shape or form real.

Hope that clarified my stance on the matter.

Hi, sorry it took me a while to reply, dissertation work comes before RF unfortunately

I've trimmed your post down, not to try and ignore some of the points you've made (I'm quite impressed actually, you seem to have covered this topic more than many people) but to pick up on a few things I found interesting.

Firstly I'm a pragmatist rather than an empiricist and I feel many of the areas in which we depart in our opinions comes down to this difference in world-view. As such, to me it doesn't make sense to describe something as having an effect on people on the one hand and calling it nonsense or unreal on the other. It's my view that as an absolute minimum we can explain magic through psychology. Ignoring the possibility that there is more to it than this, magic is essentially the use of ideas, archetypes, superstitions and folklore in order to affect yourself and/or others for better or worse. In this sense it most certainly exists and can be very powerful.

Now, it's my opinion that anything beyond this use of placebo/nocebo effect is down to the individual practitioner to decide upon. I think most practitioners follow this ethic which is probably why (as has been mentioned) witches rarely proselytise. If it were discovered that there is a transfer of energy or some invisible lifeform causing magic to take effect I would agree with you that this would warrant empirical investigation.
Until that stage though I feel that magic is a tool for individual use. Considering that we can understand not only why it works psychologically, but also that in order for it to work well as a placebo a practitioner is well advised to inject mystery, fantasy and even danger into their rituals I find it quite unfair to simply call it nonsense.

Anyway, thankyou for clarifying your position, like I say I enjoy your posts and I was a little disappointed to see the post I replied to. I see now that I may have taken it the wrong way

 

[fantome profane]

It's my view that as an absolute minimum we can explain magic through psychology. Ignoring the possibility that there is more to it than this, magic is essentially the use of ideas, archetypes, superstitions and folklore in order to affect yourself and/or others for better or worse. In this sense it most certainly exists and can be very powerful.

I think this is exactly right, and more I think it applies to many aspects of religion that are not normally classified as magic. Prayers, rituals, ceremonies, sermons, masses, chants, hymns, even the art and architecture of religious buildings, all having real and powerful psychological impact.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Hi, sorry it took me a while to reply, dissertation work comes before RF unfortunately

I've trimmed your post down, not to try and ignore some of the points you've made (I'm quite impressed actually, you seem to have covered this topic more than many people) but to pick up on a few things I found interesting.

Firstly I'm a pragmatist rather than an empiricist and I feel many of the areas in which we depart in our opinions comes down to this difference in world-view. As such, to me it doesn't make sense to describe something as having an effect on people on the one hand and calling it nonsense or unreal on the other. It's my view that as an absolute minimum we can explain magic through psychology. Ignoring the possibility that there is more to it than this, magic is essentially the use of ideas, archetypes, superstitions and folklore in order to affect yourself and/or others for better or worse. In this sense it most certainly exists and can be very powerful.

Now, it's my opinion that anything beyond this use of placebo/nocebo effect is down to the individual practitioner to decide upon. I think most practitioners follow this ethic which is probably why (as has been mentioned) witches rarely proselytise. If it were discovered that there is a transfer of energy or some invisible lifeform causing magic to take effect I would agree with you that this would warrant empirical investigation.
Until that stage though I feel that magic is a tool for individual use. Considering that we can understand not only why it works psychologically, but also that in order for it to work well as a placebo a practitioner is well advised to inject mystery, fantasy and even danger into their rituals I find it quite unfair to simply call it nonsense.

Anyway, thankyou for clarifying your position, like I say I enjoy your posts and I was a little disappointed to see the post I replied to. I see now that I may have taken it the wrong way

I hope you don't mind that I reply to your post collectively.
I agree that our differing approaches to this (and probably other) topics may well be the reason for our differing opinions on the matter. As an empiricist I naturally feel that everything should be presented as accurately as possible to avoid misunderstanding and to avoid muddling the waters so to speak. Humanity suffer under a great deal of what I would call delusional beliefs, not in any way limited to religion by the way, and I am of the opinion that the more of these we can remove the better. As Carl Sagan might have put it, it is better to see the world for what it really is than through a veil of delusion and wishful thinking. A lot of this naturally comes down to somewhat evolutionary based cognitive shortcomings, such as confirmation bias, but through the use of the scientific method and a strict adherence to its principles we have been able to produce an ever increasing insight into how the world around us work. For me, the postulation of something for which we have no reason to think is real gets in the way of that process. Now, to be fair, witchcraft can hardly be said to be the main transgressor in this respect, but it fits into the same category when people see it as more than a psychologically based placebo/nocebo effect. True, the placebo effect is indeed real, which is why we take it into account when conducting trials of, say, new medical treatments, but that is still all it is. And it would be a far stretch to call that effect magic.

I mentioned earlier that I have known and know a few people claiming to be witches and practitioners of magic, and my general impression is that they use that to seem overly mystic and often attempt to make themselves and the things they say seem much more important than they really are. And for these people, an empiricist like myself is an 'enemy' who comes in and ruins their game by exposing and explaining their magic for what it really is. To me, their approach is basically an attempt to exploit the credulity of people around them, and I find it highly distasteful. Empiricism is a way of making sure that such exploits cannot take place since one would have to base one's assertions on evidence and checkable facts.

As I said earlier, I don't exactly go out of my way to 'hunt' these people down and 'deconvert' them. However, when the question is raised, like in this instance, or when they are fronting their views publicly (like at a party or similar) I am more than happy to rip their fancies of mysticism to shreds, knowing full well the extent of human credulity. As an example of this, I have at times, as a party trick, employed cold reading to make people believe that I am psychic, although I always explain what I have done afterwards and confess that I am, indeed, no psychic. It is however interesting that some of these people have, even after having the techniques explained to them, denied my confession and continued to uphold the notion that I am psychic...

So, in short, if we're talking about a placebo effect, let's call it what it is and stop pretending that it is something that it is not. And if someone publicly proclaims the existence of the supernatural and of magical powers, then I will demand that they back that claim up with empirical evidence. Some people might feel that I am being a terrible curmudgeon for doing that, but the long and the short of it is that there is absolutely no reason to think that magic, or witchcraft for that matter, is real.

 

[ratikala]

dear cassiopia

welcome to religious forum ,

stick with it , there are a lot of genuine people who would actualy like to discuss valid oppinions ,

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.

but unfortunately some words bringout the ....worst in some people .

I was actually hoping to learn something about how witchcraft is viewed and practiced in different religions.

me too that is why I read through it ,

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.

can we re start with some comparisons ?

coming originaly from a tibetan buddhist tradition I have found a lot of sympathies between some tibetan practices and beleifs of pagan 's I have met here .

were there any particular areas you were interested in ?

the interesting thing with the tibetans is that it is a more accepted phenomena which is quite interlaced with the buddhist faith , without conflict . divination , the use of the orical , medicine , protector deitys , the list goes on ,

allso I liked draka's comments , post 52 ,

so lets start with a subject , divination , is it used in whitch craft ?

 

[Erebus]

I hope you don't mind that I reply to your post collectively.
I agree that our differing approaches to this (and probably other) topics may well be the reason for our differing opinions on the matter. As an empiricist I naturally feel that everything should be presented as accurately as possible to avoid misunderstanding and to avoid muddling the waters so to speak. Humanity suffer under a great deal of what I would call delusional beliefs, not in any way limited to religion by the way, and I am of the opinion that the more of these we can remove the better. As Carl Sagan might have put it, it is better to see the world for what it really is than through a veil of delusion and wishful thinking. A lot of this naturally comes down to somewhat evolutionary based cognitive shortcomings, such as confirmation bias, but through the use of the scientific method and a strict adherence to its principles we have been able to produce an ever increasing insight into how the world around us work. For me, the postulation of something for which we have no reason to think is real gets in the way of that process. Now, to be fair, witchcraft can hardly be said to be the main transgressor in this respect, but it fits into the same category when people see it as more than a psychologically based placebo/nocebo effect. True, the placebo effect is indeed real, which is why we take it into account when conducting trials of, say, new medical treatments, but that is still all it is. And it would be a far stretch to call that effect magic.

I mentioned earlier that I have known and know a few people claiming to be witches and practitioners of magic, and my general impression is that they use that to seem overly mystic and often attempt to make themselves and the things they say seem much more important than they really are. And for these people, an empiricist like myself is an 'enemy' who comes in and ruins their game by exposing and explaining their magic for what it really is. To me, their approach is basically an attempt to exploit the credulity of people around them, and I find it highly distasteful. Empiricism is a way of making sure that such exploits cannot take place since one would have to base one's assertions on evidence and checkable facts.

As I said earlier, I don't exactly go out of my way to 'hunt' these people down and 'deconvert' them. However, when the question is raised, like in this instance, or when they are fronting their views publicly (like at a party or similar) I am more than happy to rip their fancies of mysticism to shreds, knowing full well the extent of human credulity. As an example of this, I have at times, as a party trick, employed cold reading to make people believe that I am psychic, although I always explain what I have done afterwards and confess that I am, indeed, no psychic. It is however interesting that some of these people have, even after having the techniques explained to them, denied my confession and continued to uphold the notion that I am psychic...

So, in short, if we're talking about a placebo effect, let's call it what it is and stop pretending that it is something that it is not. And if someone publicly proclaims the existence of the supernatural and of magical powers, then I will demand that they back that claim up with empirical evidence. Some people might feel that I am being a terrible curmudgeon for doing that, but the long and the short of it is that there is absolutely no reason to think that magic, or witchcraft for that matter, is real.

No problem at all, I find it much easier to do than faffing about with copy and paste

I can certainly see where you're coming from and while I don't share your empiricism (entirely) you've helped me better understand that position.
Oddly enough I've used cold reading in the exact same way and then explained the principles behind it. However I've also seen magic appear to take effect and find it difficult to explain away as sheer coincidence. Now perhaps I'm entirely mistaken and there really is nothing happening, but as a pragmatist I see no reason not to use it in case it genuinely does work (and for the psychological "mind tricks" I mentioned earlier).
This puts me in a somewhat odd position where I'll happily say I believe in magic, but won't say it exists/doesn't exist beyond placebo. The fact that I believe in it makes it work and yet I couldn't honestly say "yes magic is real" without qualifying that with "as the placebo effect as a minimum".

The mysticism you mentioned can in my opinion largely be explained three ways. Firstly, people often tend to have an inflated sense of importance and will exaggerate or even outright scam people. Secondly, drama and theatrics are important to "set the scene", for fun and to alter the manner in which we experience things. I believe this largely covers the question "why call it magic at all?" Finally, some of these things are genuinely incredibly difficult to put into words. For example, I'm agnostic on a philosophical level (I don't think we can know what exists ultimately) I express my opinions, values and beliefs through theism and yet at the same time I'm perfectly happy to view my beliefs through symbolism, archetypes and placebo. That's a difficult position to convey

Finally we come to the issue of the "burden of proof". Again I can understand your view that if there is a means to test for something we should do it. I also agree with that position. Where we differ again is that I don't view our surroundings, psyche, experiences etc as being entirely testable or constant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-science (I actually agree with many transhumanist ideas which some would argue is too pro-science and anti-ethics) but I do feel there is some truth in the old cliché "science can't answer everything". My response to this problem though isn't to replace science with a sacred text and believe that instead, but to supplement scientific discovery with our own experiences, ideas and coping mechanisms on an individual level (the underlined part being really quite important).

To sum up that last paragraph and hopefully make it a little more decipherable, we come again to the difference between empiricism and pragmatism. I see the value of empiricism, but find it incomplete with regards to it's application in day to day life. Considering this, I don't think it matters hugely if one's own beliefs are ultimately wrong, irrational or illogical, providing they are beneficial.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Just a few additional points I would like to make.

However I've also seen magic appear to take effect and find it difficult to explain away as sheer coincidence. Now perhaps I'm entirely mistaken and there really is nothing happening, but as a pragmatist I see no reason not to use it in case it genuinely does work (and for the psychological "mind tricks" I mentioned earlier).

While I understand your point of view, I still think this, in a sense, is an argument (for lack of a better term) from ignorance. In my view it is far better to just say that I don't know than to make up/accept an explanation at face value, especially one that flies in the face of what we currently know about how the universe works. As I believe Hitchens put it; what is more likely, that you have in fact witnessed an event that defies the laws of physics, or, that you have made a mistake? I know where I would put my money.

For example, I'm agnostic on a philosophical level (I don't think we can know what exists ultimately) I express my opinions, values and beliefs through theism and yet at the same time I'm perfectly happy to view my beliefs through symbolism, archetypes and placebo. That's a difficult position to convey

Indeed. However, I subscribe to the definition of atheism that states it as simply not believing in a god or gods, which means that I do not make the positive claim that there is no such thing, but that I see no reason to think that there is. Also, from a scientific point of view, the Null Hypothesis dictates that all concepts that have no positive evidence in favour of their existence are for all intents and purposes to be considered non existent. For instance, if someone develops a new medicinal cure, then the Null Hypothesis is that the treatment does not work. It is then up to the developers to empirically provide evidence to refute the Null Hypothesis. I feel this also applies to all other claims about reality, be it ghosts, auras or witchcraft.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-science (I actually agree with many transhumanist ideas which some would argue is too pro-science and anti-ethics) but I do feel there is some truth in the old cliché "science can't answer everything".

While I agree that science cannot answer everything (at least not yet, and perhaps it never will) I'm sure you'll agree that the scientific method is the most powerful idea we humans have come up with, and that while it may not be the only thing we have that actually produces results, the results it does produce far and beyond blow any other method of explanation out of the water.

My response to this problem though isn't to replace science with a sacred text and believe that instead, but to supplement scientific discovery with our own experiences, ideas and coping mechanisms on an individual level (the underlined part being really quite important).

Agreed. While I prefer to rely on scientific discoveries and facts to establish my view of reality, I have no personal need to convince everyone of this. But like I said, if they choose to voice their views in public, then I will have no regrets in pointing out what I see as errors in their reasoning and demanding evidence for their claims. I have a high degree of respect for people and do my best to help them and treat them well. Ideas, on the other hand, enjoy no such protection and they should be viciously attacked and criticised to see which of them stands up to scrutiny.

Considering this, I don't think it matters hugely if one's own beliefs are ultimately wrong, irrational or illogical, providing they are beneficial.

I suppose this, on some level, comes down to the age old chestnut of whether one would rather be happy or right. For the record, I prefer the latter.

 

[krsnaraja]

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?
I know some Christians have "problems" with it, but equally I know quite a few practicing Christian-Witches.
I am not quite sure how witchcraft is viewed by other religions these days.

Obviously since many (but not all) Pagans practice witchcraft in some form our views are usually less critical than some other religious views may be. But even within Paganism there is a lot of debate about the morals and ethics involved in using witchcraft and there is a wide diversity of opinions.

There`s an island Siquijor in the Philippines which is known to many here as the Voodoo island. People go to this island carrying with them pictures, hairs, anything related to the person they want to curse. There`s also in the island known as the herbolaryos who use mantras whatever to counter act the curse. Witchcraft is a business in the island because the Voodoo practitioners get a share from the herbolaryo the token of appreciation for being healed by the curse which the Voodooist himself has made on the gullible person.

The herbolaryo can`t cure the cursed one if the Voodoist don`t give the herbolaryo the antidote.

 

[Levite]

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?
I know some Christians have "problems" with it, but equally I know quite a few practicing Christian-Witches.
I am not quite sure how witchcraft is viewed by other religions these days.

Obviously since many (but not all) Pagans practice witchcraft in some form our views are usually less critical than some other religious views may be. But even within Paganism there is a lot of debate about the morals and ethics involved in using witchcraft and there is a wide diversity of opinions.

It looks like this is largely being directed to Christians, so I hope you'll forgive me putting in my two cents.

One of my fields of professional expertise is Jewish magic and mysticism, and I've actually written a bit on the problem of the textual tradition itself having contradictory views of magic.

The various words and practices prohibited in the Torah that are generally translated by very vague and general words meaning "people who practice magic" or "people who divine" are, in actuality, quite specific. The acts that are proscribed are certain methodologies of sorcery and divination, and do not include many of the kinds of magic and divination commonly used in the Ancient Near East, and even in other parts of the Ancient Western World.

Moreover, even those acts which the Torah does seem to explicitly prohibit, a careful reading of the Talmud reveals some interesting teachings by the Rabbis that actually narrow those prohibitions considerably, wherein they explain that actually, the Torah only prohibits certain kinds of divination on Shabbat (the Sabbath day), because they involve prohibited work; but the rest of the week, they are permitted. And many other kinds of magic are practiced by the Rabbis of the Talmud themselves.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Jews practicing types of magic and divination not forbidden to us. And since the Torah (Written and Oral) applies only to the Jewish People, and not to non-Jews, I see no reason that non-Jews cannot practice any kind of magic they like; although I confess I do not approve of necromancy at all, nor I am particularly supportive of the summoning of demons.

 

[Me Myself]

It looks like this is largely being directed to Christians, so I hope you'll forgive me putting in my two cents.

One of my fields of professional expertise is Jewish magic and mysticism, and I've actually written a bit on the problem of the textual tradition itself having contradictory views of magic.

The various words and practices prohibited in the Torah that are generally translated by very vague and general words meaning "people who practice magic" or "people who divine" are, in actuality, quite specific. The acts that are proscribed are certain methodologies of sorcery and divination, and do not include many of the kinds of magic and divination commonly used in the Ancient Near East, and even in other parts of the Ancient Western World.

Moreover, even those acts which the Torah does seem to explicitly prohibit, a careful reading of the Talmud reveals some interesting teachings by the Rabbis that actually narrow those prohibitions considerably, wherein they explain that actually, the Torah only prohibits certain kinds of divination on Shabbat (the Sabbath day), because they involve prohibited work; but the rest of the week, they are permitted. And many other kinds of magic are practiced by the Rabbis of the Talmud themselves.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Jews practicing types of magic and divination not forbidden to us. And since the Torah (Written and Oral) applies only to the Jewish People, and not to non-Jews, I see no reason that non-Jews cannot practice any kind of magic they like; although I confess I do not approve of necromancy at all, nor I am particularly supportive of the summoning of demons.

Incredibly interesting! Would you mind being a little more detailed about the specific forms of magic that are not allowed?

 

[Me Myself]

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?

Both sound equally unconvincing without real life experience.

And technically, you wouldn´t be able to disprove that witchcraft can be holy with real life experience, you can only prove that it can be unholy, which is not the same (because holy witchcraft might still exist)

Besides, it is easy to get everyone´s approval after you spent almost two millenia burning everyone that disapproves.

And you dare to slander somebody else´s beliefs on the basis that those human burners were "right"

 

[elmarna]

Witch craft = the art of enpowerment is a way of life devoted to supporting your service & considering the unknown in where you call upon the very aspects in life to find what you may not be able to obtain in the known world of which you percieve.
when dealing with the aspects of powers it is a line of thinking that does not satisfy those who believe in fate or support a view of not placeing ones sevice where something may happen they can not understand in the avenues taken that they have searched.
Forbidden knowledge is not likely what i would call it.
it is a formula that is cast in the darkness & fear of where those who do not understand it - place it.
" Magic" - ways & thinking was in ancient time lumped together with all that the common man did not understand. what we call science was indeed placed there ,but has since been removed.
Understanding the world of it does not mean it is for everyone.
I think the secretcy of it denotes to some not to trust or take it in lest be speaking or seeing in a sinful way. there are others while finding superstition in thier own ways - object to the world of it that places so much objectivity on concepts that they can not truly believe.
i have no way of calling the practice good or bad. it is a world where i do not place any importance. i do on the other hand realize it & respect those who follow it as working on what they believe . is it not what we all should be doing?

 

[blackout]

We all role play.

Witch, Emperor, Empirist...

 

[Levite]

Incredibly interesting! Would you mind being a little more detailed about the specific forms of magic that are not allowed?

I spoke a bit about that in these posts right here. If you have further questions, I would be glad to get into them.

 

[Cassiopia]

Some very interesting replies here.

were there any particular areas you were interested in ?

the interesting thing with the tibetans is that it is a more accepted phenomena which is quite interlaced with the buddhist faith , without conflict . divination , the use of the orical , medicine , protector deitys , the list goes on ,

allso I liked draka's comments , post 52 ,

so lets start with a subject , divination , is it used in whitch craft ?

Yes indeed some witches use various forms of divination, the best known of which might be tarot, but there are many other forms. I am sure not all people would even regard divination as witchcraft since it is practiced in various forms in many religions.

There`s an island Siquijor in the Philippines which is known to many here as the Voodoo island. People go to this island carrying with them pictures, hairs, anything related to the person they want to curse. There`s also in the island known as the herbolaryos who use mantras whatever to counter act the curse. Witchcraft is a business in the island because the Voodoo practitioners get a share from the herbolaryo the token of appreciation for being healed by the curse which the Voodooist himself has made on the gullible person.

The herbolaryo can`t cure the cursed one if the Voodoist don`t give the herbolaryo the antidote.

Interesting and whatever moral questions this form of witchcraft might bring up it is further proof of the reality of witchcraft in people's lives.

The various words and practices prohibited in the Torah that are generally translated by very vague and general words meaning "people who practice magic" or "people who divine" are, in actuality, quite specific. The acts that are proscribed are certain methodologies of sorcery and divination, and do not include many of the kinds of magic and divination commonly used in the Ancient Near East, and even in other parts of the Ancient Western World.

Moreover, even those acts which the Torah does seem to explicitly prohibit, a careful reading of the Talmud reveals some interesting teachings by the Rabbis that actually narrow those prohibitions considerably, wherein they explain that actually, the Torah only prohibits certain kinds of divination on Shabbat (the Sabbath day), because they involve prohibited work; but the rest of the week, they are permitted. And many other kinds of magic are practiced by the Rabbis of the Talmud themselves.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Jews practicing types of magic and divination not forbidden to us. And since the Torah (Written and Oral) applies only to the Jewish People, and not to non-Jews, I see no reason that non-Jews cannot practice any kind of magic they like; although I confess I do not approve of necromancy at all, nor I am particularly supportive of the summoning of demons.

Very interesting. Of course Kabbala (Qabala--however you want to spell it) is used as a basis for witchcraft in many Pagan traditions and methodology.

 

[Villager]

It looks like this is largely being directed to Christians, so I hope you'll forgive me putting in my two cents.

since the Torah (Written and Oral) applies only to the Jewish People, and not to non-Jews

'When Saul saw the Philistine army, he was afraid; terror filled his heart. He enquired of the Lord, but the Lord did not answer him by dreams or Urim or prophets. Saul then said to his attendants, "Find me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go and enquire of her."

"There is one in Endor," they said. So Saul disguised himself, putting on other clothes, and at night he and two men went to the woman. "Consult a spirit for me," he said, "and bring up for me the one I name." But the woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?" Saul swore to her by the Lord, "As surely as the Lord lives, you will not be punished for this."

Then the woman asked, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"

"Bring up Samuel," he said. When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out at the top of her voice and said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!" The king said to her, "Don't be afraid. What do you see?" The woman said, "I see a spirit coming up out of the ground."

"What does he look like?" he asked. "An old man wearing a robe is coming up," she said. Then Saul knew it was Samuel, and he bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground.

Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"'


1 Sa 28:5-15 NIV

 

[Cassiopia]

^^ Which just goes to show that even one of the most well known Christians used practices associated with witchcraft when it suited him.
Do you think this is evidence that Christians should perhaps be a little more open minded about these practices than some of them sometimes appear to be.

 

[Villager]

^^ Which just goes to show that even one of the most well known Christians used practices associated with witchcraft when it suited him.

Which well known Christian?

 

[Cassiopia]

Which well known Christian?

Apologies. My mistake. I read it as Paul. My bad.

 

[Rakhel]

St Paul. That's who your quoted biblical text is about.

Wrong Saul. The Saul he quoted was King Saul