Talk:Witches' Sabbath
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Sabbath
I believe this needs a very visible disambiguation-pointer-link-thingy that redirects the viewer to a Sabbath (Disambiguation) page. It has been remarked that Sabbath is indeed in the Bible as well, and thus the article (which REALLY needs to cite it's sources by the way) could be considered quite confusing. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Talk
"It is true that Satanism was and is practised..." That sentence must be removed. Satanism wasn't practiced when the witch-hunts occurred. Giving porridge to fairies, magic or such isn't Satanism. Satanism is a 20th century and later movement. [1] -Hapsiainen 18:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
...and is actually a (anti)-Christian sect characterized by reversal of traditional Christian beliefs and practices, more made up by paranoid Christians than by current practitioners.
- Don't feel like signing your comment? Satanism is Hedonism of either Realtistic or Materialistic approach. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Church of Satan are what you both are discussing. But they're not the only Satanists- see Theistic Satanism. No doubt a few people have worshipped Satan over the years- there's no limit to what people choose to worship and it's unlikely they only thought of worshipping Satan this century. The most likely historical example was at the court of King Louis- see Poison affair.
"Also involved in the scandal was Eustache Dauger de Cavoye, the eldest living son of a prominent noble family. De Cavoye was disinherited from by his family when, in an act of utter debauchery he choose to celebrate Good Friday with a black mass. Upon being disinherited he opened a lucrative trade in "inheritance powders" and aphrodisiacs."
So you see he was into sorcery- inheritance powders and so on, so it is perhaps true that he did a black mass. Of course in most cases of historical Satanism/witchcraft, we have no way of proving how much was made up and how much true. Merkin's mum 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A bot
Yes, and speaking of proving, it's ridiculous for us to include the claim that "these allogations [sic] have been proved to be untrue" on the basis of the fact that "Margaret Murray, as well as many other witches of the craft, have witnessed countless Withches' [sic] Sabbaths." What 20th-century participants in a revivalist/reconstructionist movement have witnessed or not witnessed (and I find it very easy to believe that they haven't witnessed the eating of babies or anything like that) has little bearing on the factuality of 16th- and 17th- century reports. Can we delete that paragraph?
65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Witchcraft is not about worshiping the devil.
You all people are crazy. Us witches do not worship the devil. I worship God, I have been saved, and babtised. I do not follow the devil. Christians have a sabbath. If you would actually read the bible you will see that God says that you should obey the sabbath. So if Christians have a sabbath and so do witches, does that mean that Christians worship the devil too? Think about it.
Lol, true... --Stikman 09:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
AH! But the Sabbaths described here are defined by those who think so; consequently, the article is not claiming that witches worship Satan, it is claiming that witches have been -called- Satan-worshipers by the opponents of the Witch-Sabbath. If you'd like to clarify the article a bit, then we can all talk here first, to work out the details.--24.107.9.33 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Binsfeld
- Commentarius de Maleficius (1622), by Peter Binsfeld...
This is not good Latin: it should be Commentarius de Malefico (or perhaps -a or -is). However, I didn't want to change the text without checking to see what the actual title of the book was first (maybe the error was deliberate or something). So I checked Worldcat, which is usually an excellent resource for these questions, but I didn't find this book. Binsfeld DID write a Commentarius in titulum iuris canonici De simonia (which is not about witchcraft), and a Tractatus de confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum (which is not called "Commentarius"). Am I missing something? --Iustinus 10:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] sources
I have tracked down a few and will find more in the coming days. Merkin's mum 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
