Talk:Christian views on magic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Miscellaneous

Clutch, I can't find an online version of the NWT and I'd REALLY like to have links to the Bible passages that we're quoting, can you help? --Dante Alighieri

Well, I Googled quite a bit, as I'm sure you did. The consensus is that the publishers have not put it online due to its, shall we say, controversial status. I'm sure one of their associates would be glad to visit you with a copy. I do love the translation: "You must not preserve a sorceress alive." Well, then, how am I to preserve her? --Nate 23:51 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure I could find a copy around somewhere... I just wanted to be able to link to it from the page. --Dante Alighieri


I hear that salt is a good preservative. -- Ram-Man
Preferably salt of the earth, and then shine the light of the world on her :) -phma

Would anyone mind if I changed the opening line from:


is a biblical passage in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament)

to

is a biblical passage in the Old Testament

? I don't like the flow and I question whether the link to Tanakh is truly necessary. --Dante Alighieri

I agree - Tanakh refers to the Hebrew Bible, and would be appropriate if the article was about Jewish views on witchcraft; Old Testament is the accepted term when referring to Christian usage. --Tim4christ17 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should find and add teh cockney rhyming slang version :-)

Interpreting a "verse" in isolation is hermeneutically suspect. Verse divisions were added to the Bible in the middle ages, and the idea that verses were in any way units of meaning is a modern innovation. Bible "verses" are a Christian invention: they were not used in reference to the Masoretic text of the Tanakh.

Picking a verse here and a verse there, or picking all verses in which a given word is used, etc. are bizarre, if popular, methods of divining meaning from the Bible. To talk of Exodus 22:18 without referencing its context (that is it part of the 18th section "mishpatim" of the division of the Law of Moses into 54 sections) results in overlooking the fundamental logic of the laws being given, which is to keep the religion of Yahweh's people distinct in its practices from those of the surrounding peoples. To give this specific verse its own link from Exodus unduly emphasizes it (you'd think it was as important as the other divisions of Exodus) and ought to be reconsidered. In fact, I'll move it myself<G>, and leave to others whether the link belongs in Exodus or, as I think, really only in witchcraft. -- Someone else

Fine, but rather than just COMPLAINING that it is being analyzed in isolation, without reference to it's position in a larger body, why not improve the article by adding the information you stated above? --Dante Alighieri
Because having ONE article devoted to ONE verse is a problem that can't be fixed by ADDING to the article! <G> -- Someone else 21:54 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC) (P.S.... it's not that I think the article is BAD, I think the article is a mistake.) -- Someone else
Look, I respect your intelligence and your point of view, so don't take our banter the wrong way. :) That being said, I must TOTALLY disagree with you. ;)
The article is necessary, and I'll explain why. The fact of the matter is, people labeled as "witches" have been horribly persecuted by Christians (and not just in modern times). You can say as much as you like about how the text SHOULD be interpreted and how it OUGHT to be understood. The problem is, that's not how some people HAVE interpreted it. There are people out there, and I think we BOTH agree that they are a little bit off, that insist that witches are an abomination to God and that they must be cleansed. Now, granted, most of the cleansing types lived a few centuries ago, but still, the point is that it is a real historical phenomenon. Now, as far as textual support in the Bible for this position, I can only find TWO passages. One is Exodus 22:18. The other is Deuteronomy 18:11-12. Now all these people who claim(ed) to find textual evidence for their insane persecutions must have been looking at one or both of these passages. Now I think that that very fact makes them relevant for inclusion in the Wiki. --Dante Alighieri
They should be included. Under witchcraft. Or Christianity. Or Views of Christianity on witchcraft. Not as separate articles whose titles are in and of themselves without meaning and which one interested in the subject matter would be unlikely to find. -- Someone else 22:16 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)
I agree that this should be rolled into a better-named article. The content is valid because people have historically taken single verses out of the Bible to support all sorts of bizarre arguments that don't logically follow from the context and meaning of the verses. In fact an article on that very subject would be great. But what to call it... --mav

I'm going to say this, as a practicing witch and a professional technical writer, and then I'm going to leave you guys to hash it out, because I don't really care: This "article" clearly belongs in the existing Witchcraft article, because it's duplicative of what's there. And picking out individual verses of the Bible for independent articles is ridiculous anyhow. -- isis 22:33 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Have you seen John 21 or Mark 16 ? CheeseDreams 01:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this could be put in Witchcraft, but if Witchcraft gets too long, Witchcraft in the Bible or something similar might be a good place for discussion. I have to say that the topic seems to invite non-NPOV interpretations. --Eloquence

My suggestion: Exodus 22:18 should 'become' Christian views on witchcraft. The text in the "Witchcraft" article that is pertinent should be incorporated in that article, and the witchcraft article linked to it. (There's no reason for the Witchcraft article to be dominated by other religions' views of it!) This article could then incorporate all the pertinent material (i.e., both of the verses cited, a discussion of the validity of "interpreting" isolated verses shorn of context, and a link to Biblical hermaneutics, which would need expansion)... Then Exodus could lose its link to 22:18, and the link to Christian views on witchcraft could go in Harry Potter instead of the Witchcraft and Exodus 22:18 links. If this sounds right to you, Dante, you could do it by moving Exodus 22:18 to Christian views of (or on?) witchcraft and requesting a deletion of Exodus 22:18. But I leave that for you, I'm voicing an opinion, not trying to force it on anyone. <G> -- Someone else

Although I agree with -- I think it is everyone except one person -- that this article should be folded into a more general article on witchcraft ofr Christian persecution of witchcraft, either way the text should be NPOV. I made a few minor changes: I placed the word "Christian" before "Old Testament," and changed "English speaking people" to "English speaking Christians." Alos, a word is not "defined" as witchcraft -- a word is translated as witchcraft and the word witchcraft itself must be defined. Slrubenstein

Dante Allighieri writes:

The fact of the matter is, people labeled as "witches" have been horribly persecuted by Christians (and not just in modern times). You can say as much as you like about how the text SHOULD be interpreted and how it OUGHT to be understood. The problem is, that's not how some people HAVE interpreted it.

which provides an eloquent reason for why this article should be deleted, or renamed. Clearly, the article is not "about" this Biblical verse; it is "about" the persecution of witches by Christians; it is "about" people who have interpreted a particualr Bibilical verse a particular way. Since the point of the article is not at all to be "about" the Biblical verse itself, it should not have this name. To quote this verse out of context is to be misleading -- a crime for an encyclopedia. And if the main authors of this article are concerned primarily with one context for the verse (Christian persecution of witches), well, then that shoulod be the title of this article. Slrubenstein

You're right, I suppose the article isn't really ABOUT Exodus 22:18. I'm not married to the name Exodus 22:18, but that seemed to be the early consensus on what the name ought to be. I certainly don't oppose changing the name. I'll go ahead and move the article to Christian views on witchcraft as suggested by Someone Else. Everyone, please hold off on more replies here until I can complete the change. --Dante Alighieri

Cumbersome phrase department:

Most Christians who believe in witchcraft believe that it derives its power from forces of evil - by a special pact or by an appeal to those forces, such as Satan, also called Lucifer, or "the devil". Another belief is that the practice of witchcraft is based on deception. Both of these views may be held together or separately.

I get tripped up by phrases like believe in witchcraft because it's not readily apparent whether that means:

  • approve of it, or
  • agree that it exists

I don't believe in deceiving people, for example, although I do concede that "many deceivers have come into the world, leading the people astray". --Uncle Ed E.g.

  • Jesus
  • Simon Magus
  • Irenaeus
  • Tertullian
  • Karl Marx
  • George Bush
  • Pied Piper of Hamlin

?CheeseDreams 01:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thou shalt not...

The line was originally "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" but it was changed to fit the "needs" of the people when they wanted to persecute the Pagans.

The line was "originally" not in English.... so, Anonymous, you need to specify the domain in which your comment is relevant. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The idea is that "witch" was originally a mistranslation of the Hebrew for "poisoner"... which appears to be a widely-spread urban legend. I think I ran into it first in Robert Heinlein's book Job, A Comedy of Justice. Here's a [sample article] debunking the mistranslation. dvgrn 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have also seen articles stating that it actually is a mistranslation (the suggested translation would be something like "someone who uses herbs to hurt people") so I guess the jury is out on that one. // Liftarn
In the absence of a decided jury we have some fairly authoritative sources to go on. We have various translations in use by Christians and Jews which have been thrashed to bits by scholars; we also have a clear explanation of why the "poisoner" translation is unlikely (oh and it was Reginald Scot who first advanced this theory in his 1584 Discoverie of Witchcraft, and the myth seems to have been circulating ever since). The only articles I've read supporting the "poisoner" translation fail to address the points raised in the article mentioned by Dvgrn above. In the absence of stronger evidence I think we have to take the "sorceress" translation as authoritative. It certainly wouldn't be the most barbaric law in the Bible... Fuzzypeg☻ 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV/Sourcing

Several POV/Sourcing issues here - I'm going to address a few of them at least.... --Tim4christ17 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone familiar with the Pentecostal movement would add a note to this section - also, I'm not sure that "mystic" is the correct term to be using in the first section with reference to the Pentecostal movement and the apostles Paul and John.
Also, I've added several templates asking for sources, using [verification needed] for the more serious/urgent needs and [citation needed] for the less important ones.
Finally, I sectioned off the last part of the article as "Analysis" and tagged it with a POV tag - it will probably have to be re-written at some point. --Tim4christ17 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a general historical introduction and a bibliography. I think the rest needs to be ordered more carefully, and different viewpoints represwented as far as possible. SteveH 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Jesus' and others' powers?

How do the powers of Jesus, or Joseph (prophetic dreams) factor in to Christian beliefs and attitudes as related to this topic? Why are their supposed supernatural abilities regarded as acceptable and holy while others are not? What makes turning water into wine "not magick"? Just because those people show up in their Bible or what?

Thats a good point. I dont understand Christians. Their faith, im my personal opinion, is so shunning and cold. ^.^

Remember this is a research discussion page. Let's leave our prejudices out of it. We'll achieve much more here if we all be nice to each other.
Now I believe (but am not an expert) that "magic" is often considered within Christianity to be achieved by illusion, deception or demonic aid rather than by the grace of God. Thus they don't term the miracles of Jesus and the Saints etc. as "magic", but as "miracles". Fuzzypeg☻ 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply, "magick" (in the Christian perspective) is the attempt to personally twist the fabric of reality for personal gain/desire (where the power comes from is immaterial, since if it was divine it would be a miracle, not "magick".) Miracles are not so much a "twisting" of reality for personal gain/desire (as "magick" is); they (miracles) are only possible when God (or "the divine" if that is more your liking) allows it. One is attempted from a personal perspective, and is unregulated by higher order (or at least is desired to be), the other is allowed only if it is in accord to this order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs)

That may be putting it simply, but it's also putting it from your personal point of view, which is not necessarily the perspective of all other Christians. I think it's worth saying too that according to the definitions you give of "magic(k)" and "miracle", the vast majority of Wiccans, neopagan witches, ceremonial magicians, vodouisants etc. etc. would consider themselves practitioners of "miracles" not "magic", since they don't claim that they have any power other than that given by God (or whatever you want to call that universal creator and source). Also, within the magical community it is widely believed that magic performed for personal gain/desire will either not work, or will lead to trouble, unless it serves for spiritual advancement and the greater good.
Now to examine this a little closer, in terms of Christian theology: According to your definition any miraculous event is a "miracle" if God allows it, and "magic(k)" if he doesn't. But to suggest that anything can occur without God "allowing" it is tantamount to heresy in the Christian faith, since it implies that he is not omnipotent. Ergo "magic(k)" (by your definition) can't exist in the normal Christian world-view. Of course "magic" as it is understood by most of its practitioners is impossible to distinguish from the "miracles" of Jesus and the saints, and as such is much easier to reconcile with common Christian world-views.
Oh, and remember to sign your posts by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment where you want your signature to go. That will turn into your name and the date/time, like so: Fuzzypeg☻ 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Need sources for a paper

I'm writing a paper on the origins of accusatoins against witches for my class. Seeing as how Wikipedia is kind of a tertiary source (compiles information from secondary sources), I was wondering where the info in this article comes from-- I notice some statemetns are unsourced but can anyone provide some sources I could use? Note, I do have a list of sources already, I'm just wondering what sources were used in this article. Kuronue 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why we try to get people to provide their sources right at the start, because later on it's anyone's guess what the sources were. I can give you two recommendations: Carlo Ginzburg's Ecstasies is an academically highly regarded book, and the first chapter deals with the form that accusations against witches took, and finds exactly the same accusations brought against lepers and then against jews in the century or two before the witch-hunts. Max Dashu is a slightly less well-known author who draws interesting comparisons with ancient Rome and the persecution of the Bacchantes, in which virtually identical accusations were brought against these revellers as were later brought against "witches". The two chapters of interest are [1] (provides background regarding the cult) and [2] (describes the Bacchic "witch hunt"). Unfortunately Dashu's book is not yet published, and the online excerpts provide partial inline references but not the expanded references one would find in the bibliography.
Both these sources are dealing with the form that accusations took pretty much regardless of what minority group was being accused. Hope these help... Fuzzypeg☻ 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bibliography, and the book by Charles williams, and the one by Cohn can help. SteveH 12:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is POV

This article's whole content smacks of POV issues. It uses the words most when describing the beliefs of Christian's far to often without any sort of sourcing to indicate that these beliefs are in fact normative of Christians. Indeed many seem normative specifically of fundamentalist and conservative Christian bodies. Among Liberal Christianity however more divergent views seem prevalent and few of these are in fact addressed. I did try to clean it up slightly but it needs some work. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Its very POV for many reasons. I tried to improve the first paragraph at least. The section labeled "Analysis" is the worst part. The first line in particular is clearly worded to influence the reader. I think the arguments made are perfectly valid, but they are not stated in an NPOV way and don't belong in the article to the extent that they are represented here. For instance, it is not a fact that "one must acknowledge that interpreting "verses" in isolation is hermeneutically suspect." It is one's opinion that such interpretations are hermeneutically suspect and that one must acknowledge it. It would be more acceptable to say that "So-and-so scholar argues that interpreting such verses in isolation is hermaneutically suspect [cite source]". I think too much time is spent on the analysis section anyway. The purpose of the article should be to report on the various Christian views of Witchcraft, not analyze the correctness of those views or the way the Bible is interpreted.

Also, the intro mentions that Christian views are influenced by sciptural, theological, and historical considerations. I think it would make sense to have subsections that discuss how each of those affect Christian views of this subject, linking to other articles when appropriate (especially for the historical considerations.Nimrand 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect one of the primary problems is the lack of referencing and thusly the near-impossibility of attributing ideas correctly to figure out which views have more weight :/. I fixed a few self-reference problems and one exhortation to the reader, but without references, I suspect this article will be difficult to fix :/. Homestarmy 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Fixing this Article

Ok, I think most of agree this article needs "fixing". But, what approach should we take? Clearly, we need references. But, what cleanup tag(s) should we add? Will a complete rewrite be necessary? What organization should the article have to ensure a more balanced and NPOV article? Please post your comments here. Nimrand 17:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I cut out the third subsection of the "Scriptures" section and refactored a more general discussion of terminology into the first subsection, which also has a citation (YaY!). This change takes out the comment about Strong's concordence defining witchcraft as anyone who casts spells. The statement, as written, just didn't seem inappropriate. And, pretty much the same information is conveyed, in a more NPOV form, in what is now the second paragraph of the first subsection. Nimrand 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I cut a major portion of the scriptures section. It just wasn't fixable in my view, especially without references. I think the section deserves to be fleshed out more, however, and will contribute what I can as I find sources. However, as others contribute, please keep in mind that virtually any inference from scripture is contentious. Unless its a fact that virtually anyone would agree is true (which almost never happens when interpreting scripture), it needs to be stated as a point of view of a notable person or a group. It should be accompanied by a citation as well. Furthermore, the focus should not be to lead the reader to conclusions regarding the "correct" interpretation of the scriptures, but rather to inform the reader in order to explain how those scriptures affect Christian views on witchcraft. Nimrand 02:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a stub section to discuss the theological thought behind Christian views on witchcraft. While this has some overlap with the first paragraph of the first section, this would be a good place to discuss the Christian distinction between spells and prayer, and what-not. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can go in there as well, provided good sources are available. Nimrand 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a historical introducetion and bibliography, and will try to do more work as time permits. I agree with most of the comments about problems with the article. SteveH 12:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential References

Here is a couple of articles I found that might serve as good resources. I haven't had a chance to read to them in detail just yet, but they looked the most promosing from the hits on Google. Feel free to add your own. (Nimrand)

The first one cannot be used. Personal sites hosted on geocities do not meet reliability requirements. The second looks good, though, as it has been published in two places. Frater Xyzzy 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if I'm reading it correctly, the first one has also been published "Hayes, Stephen. 1995. Christian responses to witchcraft and sorcery, in Missionalia, Vol. 23(3) November. Pages 339-354." If nothing else though, it has references to lots of other resources as well. Nimrand 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the first one, and it is a reproduction of an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and I've added some of the references in the bibliography. It does not, however, cover the whole of the topic. SteveH 12:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to add a second citation to a sentence if both sources verify the statement? Nimrand 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If you think an extra citation may be useful to a researcher who wants to verify the statement or find more information on the subject, then go ahead. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian mysticism and witchcraft For details on this subject see Francis Barrett's "The Magus" 1801 copyright 1967 by University Books, Inc. ISBN 0-8065-0462-5 Published by Citadel Press. See also "The great Grimoire of Pope Honorius" 1492 as well ISBN 1-879000-09-1. Trident Books copyright 1999 The main part of this system is much like the Goetia. Basicly invoking God to have the power to control Demons. It is a Christian take on king Solomons Magic which is basicaly the same system. Also the Moromons use Talismans from the Greater Key of Solomon. Why I have no idea besides possibly a Masonic influence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds interesting. I'll take a look at it when I have time to do some reading.  :-). Nimrand 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)