h a l f b a k e r y
Veni, vidi, teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
We all know that the Bible denounces witches. The definition
of witch, however, is what?
From the Old Testament (KJV):
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or
his daughter to pass through the
fire, or that useth divination,
or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
Deuteronomy 18:11
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard,
or a necromancer.
Deuteronomy 18:12
For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord:
and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive
them out from before thee.
1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is
as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word
of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
1 Samuel 28:7
Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a
familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and inquire of her.
And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that
hath a familiar spirit at Endor.
2 Kings 9:22
And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said,
Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long
as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts
are so many?
2 Chronicles 33:6
And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley
of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments,
and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with
wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke
him to anger.
Micah 5:12
And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt
have no more soothsayers:
Nahum 3:4 (regarding city of Nineveh)
Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot,
the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms,
and families through her witchcrafts.
-------------------------
Notice how the prohibition agains witches is stated long before any
semblance of a definition is provided. And even then, while some of
this matches the traditionally-described Halloween type of witch,
what of that "pass through fire" thing? Firewalking counts as
witchcraft??? Furthermore, there appears to be a tendency to make
claims without accompanying descriptions (Jezebel is called a whore
and a witch, but on what grounds, precisely? Just because the dude
doing the name-calling says so, that does not make it so).
What we seem to have in the Bible is a degree of specifics mixed with
enough arbitrariness that lets whoever-is-in-charge make arbitrary
claims, just to maintain personal power. Kind of like the definition
of a "traitor" used to be (and may still be, some places) just about
anybody the ruler(s) didn't like.
As a digression, consider how precise the Bible is, with respect
to defining a prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:18
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,
and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that
I shall command him.
Deuteronomy 18:19
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words
which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Deuteronomy 18:20
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name,
which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name
of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deuteronomy 18:21
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the
Lord hath not spoken?
Deuteronomy 18:22
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not,
nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken,
but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
------------------------------------
That almost sounds like the Scientific Method! (Note that the ancient Greek prophetess, Cassandra, cannot be called a witch....) Anyway, one of the things
worth noting about witches, is that basically they might be categorized
as "just another religious philosophy/practice". History has shown that
whenever some Group A obtains any amount of power, be it military, social,
economic, political, religious, etc., that Group usually tries to grow at
the expense of any and all other Groups. Religions spent millenia fighting
each other, and whether they admit this aspect of "cause of conflict" or not,
it remains true that the victors ended up with more power than the vanquished.
No other reason than that (anticompetitive tendencies of priests) suffices
to explain the Biblical stand against witches.
Nowadays, of course, we claim to have Freedom of Religion, and one
particular religious group, calling themselves the Wiccans, are often more identified with the Biblical definition than most, and perhaps there is some reason for it. However, partly because the Bible is a little arbitrary,
and partly because of today's Freedom, suppose we created a brand new
and very specific definition, for witchcraft?
I shall suggest this: "Anyone who has power of any sort, and deliberately
uses it to the detriment of others, shall be deemed to be a witch, for
which the penalty can be death, depending on details of the offense."
By this definition, many people who might be CALLED witches simply aren't.
When Glinda of Oz asked Dorothy, "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?",
she knew exactly how important the distinction was! Yet, on the other
hand, there are/have-been many people in positions of power, completely
unassociated with the supernatural, who actually prove(d) themselves to
be as evil as is claimed of "traditional" witches.
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Togo of Japan, and Benito Mussolini, for example. The two dudes who "took
the Fifth" with respect to the WorldCom scandal, for another. And so on.
Maybe THAT will finally end corporate and other corruption!
The Church and School of Wicca
http://www.wicca.org/
One of many. They do not "claim to be more identified with the Biblical definition". [angel, Jul 16 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Wot witches is.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=witch
Well I never. It weren't nearly so complicated when I was a lass. [WickedWitch]
Do ya feel lucky, ya punk witch?
http://www.cnn.com/...now.reut/index.html
Disney preps martial arts 'Snow White' [WickedWitch, Jul 16 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Witches and Salt
http://www.northveg...k/religious013.html
The origins of European myth surrounding witchery -- when you consider the effect of stupidity on history in 500 years, imagine the distortions wrought over 5000 years. [reensure, Jul 19 2002]
(?) Do ya feel lucky, ya punk witch?
http://www.cnn.com/...now.reut/index.html
Disney preps martial arts 'Snow White' [Ander, Sep 24 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
The definition of a witch
http://www.halfbake...leusmaleficarum.org
Handbook for running an Inquisition [lolo, Oct 04 2004]
The definition of a witch
http://www.halfbake....malleusmaleficarum
Handbook for running an Inquisition [lolo, Oct 21 2004]
Annotation:
|
| |
I believe you're missing the essential word "unnatural" somewhere in your definition. |
|
| |
P.S. They used to burn gays, too - you want to redefine homosexuality as well? |
|
| |
...and the sad part is that he didn't used to be that way (or at least he didn't come off that way to me). |
|
| |
Forgive me...I don't quite understand. So witchcraft isn't explained in the bible...and people have suffered from (wrongful) religious persecution by christians after being labelled a witch. Stalin was evil and fits your new definition of witch. Whats your point? There should be justice so that evil doers are punished and do-gooders aren't? Has that actually got anything to do with witchcraft? |
|
| |
Matthew 7 "Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you,"
Luke 10:27 "...'love your neighbour as you love yourself." |
|
| |
Right back into the Middle Ages...YEAH!!!
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition |
|
| |
Blissmiss and Phoenix: What did Vernon say that you have found offensive? |
|
| |
Vernon: how is this different from the system we have now of punishing those who use there powers ot the detriment of others, with the exception that you seem to wish for higher penalties, and use the word witch as a substitute for criminal. |
|
| |
I agree with you on one thing though, large corperations shouldnt be above the law or punished with mere fines. It amazes me that a person can go to jail for life for selling drugs, and yet the cigarette industry has knowingly caused thousands of deaths and yet all they get is heavy taxation and the occasional lawsuit. |
|
| |
Vernon, I liked you better when your ideas were confusing enough that no-one knew what you were talking about. |
|
| |
In this instance it appears to be just you. |
|
| |
How about you go back to suspending gravity, or generating Cerenkov radiation from the gambolling of mating toy poodles, or something equally incomprehensible? |
|
| |
DrCurry, what is the definition of "unnatural"? Do Acts of God qualify? Or does God exist/operate within a larger definition of Nature than the merely physical Universe that we know? If the second, the NO kind of "supernatural" phenomenon can truly be labelled "unnatural", can it? |
|
| |
blissmiss, I apologize. It is just that a few days ago I saw some bumper stickers on a van implying that the occupant was both a Wiccan AND someone who wanted to be identified with the Biblical definition (such as it is). I'm sure they simply being boldly blatant, for effect, but as a result I temporarily neglected to recall other things I had read about Wicca. I have adjusted the main text. |
|
| |
phoenix, you should answer the questions I left for you over in "Mongrels Uber Alles". They are not hardly silly. |
|
| |
Jinbish, the idea behind this idea is to give a new label to those ordinary evildoers of today (who get away with too much), simply so that more people will be repulsed, and more prosecutions will occur. The Religious Right has got to be good for SOMETHING! |
|
| |
Saruman, most of the people RUNNING the Spanish Inquisition should have been executed for witchcraft, in my opinion. |
|
| |
bobofthefuture, I think I've answered your questions above. |
|
| |
UnaBubba, while I do know that technical ideas are preferred here on the HalfBakery, even technical ideas fundamentally depend on definitions. So, here has been proposed a nice specific definition, and the consequences that (technically, heh heh) should follow. |
|
| |
the words of the Bible are confusing the matter because the reader often interprets the words as he / she wishes and of course the language / text has been translated and changed and meanings evolved. a complex matter indeed. |
|
| |
I think she was trying to get at exactly who you are, between those brackets. |
|
| |
I dont know Vernon, It might repulse people that associate the word witch with evil, but when others think of the word witch, they imagine an unfairly prosecuted person. |
|
| |
Why not use the word demon, or devil instead, as devils are seen as almost universally bad. |
|
| |
But the problem with making a conection between one thing and another like that is you begin to judge people ineffectively negatively associating atributes from one on to the other unfairly. |
|
| |
[], the key to success and happiness at the Halfbakery is to say nothing unless you have something worthwhile to say. |
|
| |
"Anyone who has power of any sort, and deliberately uses it to the detriment of others, shall be deemed to be a witch" |
|
| |
In the best case scenario, somebody wielding power will make an informed decision on how to use that power based on the _greater_ good. No decision will ever be good for absolutely everybody; therefore merely using that power will be to the detriment of others. Are you therefore suggesting that anybody with any power is a witch? |
|
| |
[this may be better suited to pseudodictionary.com] |
|
| |
The Exodus 22:18 quote was originally "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live", so I have read. As for the rest, I can't see where witches come into it, other than the fact that you seem to want to hijack their name as a substitute for "evil-doer". Also, grossly misinformed as to the nature of modern Wicca.
Sorry, [Vernon]; utter bollocks. |
|
| |
There are several thousand words and commonly-used phrases for evildoers (of which "witch" is in certain contexts one). And Vernon wants to standardise on one word, which isn't even the best word? Why not use the word "goat" or "polytheist" or "polynomial"? All these express similar ideas of evil. And would we be still allowed to use other words like "vagabond", "rogue", "scofflaw" and "mountebank" to describe evildoers, or would they henceforth be forbidden? |
|
| |
Is the only goal of this idea to retroactively justify the Bible (rather like the people who attempt to explain the creation story by arguing that 6 days could equal 4500million years)? Because otherwise I fail to see how it could have any point whatsoever. |
|
| |
Is this idea anything other than "Succulent" for evil? |
|
| |
"suppose we created a brand new and very specific definition, for witchcraft?"
Good idea, young 'un. How about "Witchcraft is wot witches do."? |
|
| |
But that would make everyone who sleeps or breaths a witch. A simpler deffinition would that a witch is one identifies themselves as a witch. I t can work for all classifiers and catagisers |
|
| |
Vernon, so the definition is "Anyone who has power of any sort, and deliberately uses it to the detriment of others, shall be deemed to be a witch, for which the penalty can be death, depending on details of the offense." This doesn't sit too well with "...most of the people RUNNING the Spanish Inquisition should have been executed for witchcraft, in my opinion." Y'know, because those that burned the Inquisitors as witches would be, by your definition, witches. |
|
| |
And your definition does not deal with harm that is caused by ommission of an act of power. |
|
| |
Finally, fishbone for the "death penalty" requirement. |
|
| |
//Anyone who has power of any sort, and deliberately uses it to the detriment of others//
All power is used to somebody's detriment. That's what power is. An example that springs easily to mind is that of the judge and jury. If they conspire to send a criminal to prison then that is using power to the detriment of the defendant. Are you suggesting that the judge and jury should all become instantly branded as 'witches'? Sorry Vernon, but you've got much too broad a definition at the moment - though perhaps a new word to encompass your definition might be appropriate. |
|
| |
What witch has used his power to post this idea, which has detrimentally corroded my positive attitude this morning? |
|
| |
Just kidding, of course. Seriously, though, Vernon, you seem to be reading the Bible with the purpose of looking for problems (though if that's the way you approach it, there are certainly more interesting problems than the lack of a definition for "witch"). |
|
| |
Does it not occur to you that the term may not have been defined because the writers considered no definition necessary? How many newspapers in the U.S. define the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" when reporting political news? And the text about the prophet is obviously not to define the term so that people would know what a prophet was, but to establish a test for weeding out people falsely claiming to be prophets (evidently not a problem with "witches" [or, as po points out, whatever the original term meant before cultural changes and translations]). |
|
| |
I'm not trying to require of you an intimate familiarity with doctrine; to me the above explanations seem to be those that would occur to a reasonable reader long before your concern that the term is left undefined for the purposes of allowing greater freedom in persecuting the innocent. |
|
| |
calum don't you find it creepy talking to an empty shell? |
|
| |
I want to know if the sea can hear me. |
|
| |
bobofthefuture, while the Wiccans have become associated with traditional witches, this is more because of Standard Church than because of the Wiccans. The Wiccans should be able to defend themselves to some extent by taking every opportunity to state, "We are Wiccans, not witches. All who say otherwise are both liars and violators of their own Ninth Commandment." (Exodus 20:16: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.) Also, the problem with "demon" or "devil" is that those critters are entirely supernatural, while witches are human. As for the judgement thing, well, the stereotypical witch is considered to be bad simply because of having power (power corrupts, they say -- really? always? instantly?). Why should the kind of power make a difference? On the other hand, the misuse of power is indeed always a sign of corruption. So, in effect, I merely want to change some "traditional logic" ffrom the unprovable "All who are witches are corrupt" to the more sensible "All who are corrupt are witches". (Naturally, every corrupt person will object, but I don't care!) |
|
| |
angel (regarding link), I swear I edited that phrase last night. I'll try again, after finishing this annotation. Regarding poisoner, well, how often has that thing called a "witches brew/potion" been considered to be healthful? Not often enough, to be sure! |
|
| |
alx, a military commander sometimes has to deliberately sacrifice one group of soldiers to save many others. Seldom is this deliberate act considered to be an abuse of power, so the implication is that "the greater good" can (ut again, not always) allow for things that the narrowminded would consider to be abuse. |
|
| |
pottedstu, I don't ever recall encountering the word "polynomial" anywhere outside of mathematics. In what context does it refer to evildoings? Anyway, I do see your point about consolidating all evils under one word. After all, a pickpocket is an abuser of the power of sleight-of-hand and misdirection. The uninitiated might call such manipulations witchcraft, but should we? It is possible that some minimum amount of power must be abused, before the abuser becomes worthy of the label "witch". On the other hand, to head off arguments about how to define that minimum amout of power, the already-suggested definition might be left intact, and all those other words simply be allowed to become synonyms with varying amounts of witchcraft. A pickpocket is still a thief, and also a lesser witch, for example. |
|
| |
WickedWitch, I suspect you are enjoying all this. I don't mind! However, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, if you really indentify with your handle, you might sometime consider reforming. Excess selfishness seldom pays off in the long long run. As for your defintion, it's old. ("Science Fiction is what science fiction editors buy." --John W. Campbell, Jr. 1930-something). Not to mention too vague to be useful. |
|
| |
sctld, the problem with your definition is that few people who deserve the label will consciously identify with it. |
|
| |
calum, it is a historical fact that much of the Spanish Inquisition was just an excuse to rob the Jews of the day, who happened to be richer than most other folk. Which means the Inquisitors were abusing their power, and so deserved to be punished. Note that my proposed definition does not make death penalties mandatory. As for omission of an act of power, that is a good thought. I do think that it is possible to misuse power by not using it when one obviously should. Perhaps that word "uses" in my proposed definition should be changed to "abuses", so as to encompass all types of mis-use. |
|
| |
blissmiss, see my note above to angel. I don't know at the moment how the change I thought I made last night did not get into the system. |
|
| |
DrBob, yes, so see what was written to calum. |
|
| |
beauxeault, nice try, but no cigar. Only you are responsible for how you choose to respond to various stimuli in the morning -- especially verbal stimuli. Otherwise you are in essence claiming to have no free will, to be nothing more than a mere animal stimulus/response machine. As for the contextual aspect of Biblical writings, that is a very good point, indeed! However, for the reasons cited in the original post (the known lust-for-power by priests, and similarly well-used lack-of-precise-definition of "traitor"), I think it more logical to conclude that the vagueness regarding "witch" is deliberate. That the Bible was written to specifically benefit the priests is obvious. Moses was creating a theocracy, after all, in those first five books. |
|
| |
I don't think its thecase of deserving being called a witch. We're not trying to brand them. If someone want to identify themselves as a witch, then fair enough. If they don't, then does head count really matter? At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether or not we think someones a witch, its wether or not they know they're a witch. We're hardly going to prosecute someone for practiceing a religion diffirent from ones own. |
|
| |
Vernon, I know the death penalty reference is not mandatory, I just don't like that it's even an option, not least of all because the definition of the punishable act is incredibly wide. If the death penalty is to be imposed (and I would rather it wasn't) the scope of it's application must be defined and interpreted narrowly. |
|
| |
Perhaps the definition should be: "Anyone who deliberately abuses (either through action or inaction) their power where that abuse leads to harm against others, where that harm is either a self evident or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the action or inaction in question." |
|
| |
In my opinion, Vernon has still failed to explain the purpose or advantage of this idea. We already devote a significant range of expressive language to characterising and delineating evil, antisocial and undesireable behaviour. |
|
| |
The word "witch" has a long and complex history, relating to concepts running from pre-christian Celtic religion to modern attempts to reconstruct a more gynocentric and ecological religion, with a bizarre sideline in medieval paranoia (which may have been associated with heretics or non-Christian cultists as well as being politically motivated). Also, witches have important roles in fairy tales and other literature. (How does Vernon propose to re-write Hansel and Gretel?) |
|
| |
Depriving language of this context and history also deprives us of a lot of information of the way women have been treated by Christianity and have sought to define themselves. Detaching words from their historical context and assigning them to arbitrary concepts is a totalitarian project that can only be intended to change the way people think and reduce the expressivity of their language, as with George Orwell's Newspeak. |
|
| |
I guess Vernon can choose to use language how he pleases; he reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in many ways. But I don't think anyone, not even the government, has the authority to decide how words should be used by other people. |
|
| |
Oh and I'm still not convinced this is a Halfbakery idea at all: if it is just a word definition, it should be on pseudodictionary.com |
|
| |
By the way, is this idea for reforming only the English language? Because if Vernon's issues are with the bible, surely he should be aiming to reform Hebrew (or Aramaic and whatever other languages were originally used). All bible translation involve interpretation; I imagine when Shakespeare was producing the King James Bible* he could have used another word instead of 'witch' if he felt it was closer to the intended meaning. Therefore, this idea really calls for the modification of the meanings of words of one or more semitic languages as spoken 2500-3500 years ago, and not a change to English at all. |
|
| |
sctld, what one deserves to be called depends both on one's actions and on the definitions of words. This idea is to define "witch" so that practically all evildoers will deserve the label. I THOUGHT it was a good idea, simply because there is so much existing default association of "witch" with "evildoer", that, well, WHY NOT make it a precise match?
(pottedstu brings up a worthy point, which I'll get to in a bit.) |
|
| |
calum, I think you are missing some of the logic behind choosing to mention the death penalty in the definition. The reason actually has little to do with the historic pronouncement in Exodus, and instead relates to the proposed all-encompassing defintion of "witch", such that it will include such criminal power-abusers as a child-rapist/torturer/mutilator/murderer/eater. As long as there is just one crime punishable by death, and IF the definition of "witch" encompasses that crime, then the range of possible punishments for "witchcraft" must include the death penalty. Simple logic. And if you assume that because the punishment is allowed, it may be abused, well, remember that the abusers will then be guilty of witchcraft! |
|
| |
pottedstu, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought it was only in fairly recent times that traditional witchery gained any recognition as being some semblance of religious practice. During most of history such witchery was just a bunch of banned actions, due to the claims/assumptions that only evil intentions were involved. The question, then, is, during those same millenia, did the traditionally-described witches think they were exercising religion, or did they think they were doing something else? (Keep in mind that these days Science qualifies as a major "something else", yet brewing potions in a chem lab can have a certain aura to it....) It is actually my understanding that those people thought they were exercising some sort of direct control over Nature, possibly not unlike a circle of rain-dancing Amerinds. This is a distinct thing from ordinary religious practice, in which one or more non-human intermediaries is asked to exercise control over Nature, on behalf of the human worshippers. Therefore we might ask a few interesting questions: (1) Is the claimed jelousy of God so great that no direct human control of Nature is acceptable, and THAT is why witches were condemned, irrespective of any religious connotation? (2) Why has today's Science been allowed to persist, if the answer to (1) is Yes? (3) What if the simple answer is true, that the priests just didn't want any sort of competing power, religious or otherwise, to exist? (4) If one of today's widespread religions, Hinduism, has existed throughout Canaan when the Israelites invaded, do you suppose the goal of slaughtering all the inhabitants would have been any different? |
|
| |
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is the idea that there may be no great need to believe there was some significant connotation of religious practice in traditional witchery. As mentioned, only in modern times has such a connotation arisen, and that can be traced to the Wiccans, who ARE religiously motivated, but who do not exercise traditional witchery. I suspect it all comes down to a confusion of similarity of labels, such as when Schiaparelli (sp) noted markings on Mars, and called them "canali" in his native Italian. The actual Italian meaning is rather different from the meaning of the similar English word! |
|
| |
And so, the goal of the preceding is to try to show that the traditional association of "witch" with "evildoer" COULD remain intact, and even be vigorously promoted. For those who do various traditionally witchy things, yet are not motivated by either evil or religion, there are, as you have noted, other words: "medium", "spiritualist", "herbalist", etc. |
|
| |
Why do we even need to define the word 'Witch'? A witch is only a witch in comparison to other witches, just like a table is only a table in comparison to ther tables. Lat people classify themsleves the way they wish, do away with the shackles of being 'White' or 'American', become 'Green' and 'Squebledorfians', do away with definitions and become your own trackledoer! |
|
| |
//re-write Hansel and Gretel?//
And so, after wandering through the woods in search of the polling station, Hansel and Gretel arrived, exhausted at the gates of a great mansion. On the wall outside were beautifully illustrated posters of a utopian world, all their's for the taking if only they would cast their vote for the wicked witch. Timidly they rang the bell.
[Later] How much longer must they endure this terrible ordeal? Time and again the wicked witch had threatened them with economic chaos and enticed them with low inflation and free education but they were still unsure about which way to vote. And now things seemed about to take an even grimmer turn. Through the bars of their cage they watched in fear and trepidation as the wicked witch wheeled in the old telephone battery. |
|
| |
sctld, why do we need precise definitions for any word? To prevent confusion during communication. Did you know that simply because the word "treason" was so vague in meaning, and so abused throughout History, that the writers of the U.S. Constitution deliberatly included a precise definition, just to keep that word from being abused by American leaders? |
|
| |
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. |
|
| |
Similarly, the ability to make accusations of witchcraft has for hundreds of years been equally abused, and so I do indeed think that a precise definition is warranted. |
|
| |
DrBob, that was moderately funny, but unnecessary. After all, the witch of Hansel and Gretel is described as doing things (putting kids in oven, for example), that quite clearly allow her to still be called a witch, in accordance with my proposed definition. No changes to the story are necessary. |
|
| |
However, some things would indeed be affected by that definition. One Samantha Stevens of a TV show called "Bewitched" would likely fail to qualify! (Her cousin Serena, however, and possibly her parents....) |
|
| |
Vernon, putting kids in an oven doesn't make one a witch. It does, however, go a long way towards making one a torturer and likely a cannibal. We usually reserve the term "Monster" for perpetrators of such behaviour, but they are simply working with a different set of values to the rest of us, I think. |
|
| |
Wicked Witch of the West, Glinda the Good Witch, Flying Monkeys. |
|
| |
There's always going to be witches, some good, some bad. Even flying monkeys every so often... |
|
| |
The Biblical God acts to the detriment of others, more so by unnatural means as well!
Is God therefor a witch?
On a more serious note - remember separation of church and sate. The justice system should keep a safe distance from anything that smells of personal belief. It truly benefits _both_ state justice and religous justice, on the account that the latter doesn't violate the former.
I can give an example of how things are done in Israel:
"Witchcraft" is indeed a crime(not what you think, read on), but not due to religious values, but rather only in the specific context of someone extorting someone else by threats of... well... witchcraft.
In this case, "witchcraft" is really a misnomer for exploitation of other people's superstitions, and that is all witchcraft can ever be - a misnomer.
In my atheistic view, there is a fine line between religion and witchcraft - aside from exploitation of superstitions (as well as promoting them), religion (on good days) also supplies a person with a nurturing and supportive community, and (on good days) a well adjusted mindset and sense of crude morality.
</BR>
The notion of witchhunting is exactly where religion-derived sense of morality failed you my friend :) |
|
| |
Definition of witchcraft: 1. One who has children before marriage, especially when they are under 21. 2. An old fart who goes out with a bimbo that is young enough to be his daughter. |
|
| |
UnaBubba, the witch of Hansel and Gretel was not described as doing any "ordinary" witchy thing. But she was called a witch all the same. One might argue that WITHOUT my proposed definition, she should NOT be called a witch! |
|
| |
dag, I do understand that there are always going to be good people and bad people. It is only because the definition of "witch" was imprecise that one could start with the word, and adjectivize it with "good". With the precise definition I'm proposing, there could be no such thing as a "good witch". In terms of being consistent, witches of any sort would not exist if all people were good people. So, what should we call good people who might manage to do things like fly around on broomsticks? "Wizards", perhaps.... |
|
| |
Here I might digress and mention the traditional name, "warlock", for a male witch. Personally, I am unsure that we need this word. If a "coven of witches" happens to include a warlock, the group is still called a "coven of witches", after all. So, just because it is traditional to have two different words for basically the same type of person, only on account of sex, that is no reason to HAVE to perpetuate it, in a world of equality. But when types of people differ in more important ways, such as with respect to good and evil, then it may make a lot of sense to have and use two different words. Thus, all bad people might be called witches, and all witches would be known to be bad people -- and good people might or might not be called wizards, probably depending on how much power they have. |
|
| |
nadavwr, you raise a couple of interesting issues. Concerning God, regardless of God's existence, there is the definition of a god as being significantly different from an ordinary person. It may be that God cannot be called a witch simply because witches are all people, first and foremost. Next, regarding separation of church and state, the definition proposed here is actually a strictly secular thing. Did you actually read all the annotations before posting your own? Next, your description of witchcraft in Israel is, if you think about it, just another example of people misuing power. (If I have some Truth while you have Superstition, then I have more power than you, and so....)
Finally, no, all this is not about witchhunting in any traditional sense. This is about identifying bad people in such a way that every good person will want to make them stop, somehow. |
|
| |
//The justice system should keep a safe distance from anything that smells of personal belief//
nadavwr, one person's justice is another's personal belief. The law is merely a codification of personal beliefs.
Vernon, I thought that the story illustrated your point nicely, i.e., that anyone who misuses power (in this case a politician) would be called a witch. Sorry if I've misunderstood. |
|
| |
Clearly its simple .. Justic for witches is this .. if they are suspected of being a witch, then they must be weighed, and if they are the same weight of a duck and thus a piece of wood they must be burnt and it shall be "a fair cop" otherwise they are mearly harmless individuals subjected to the gnashings of an angry moib and should be set on their way... and apologised to... fairly even handed justice there I feel...... |
|
| |
Things must be hard for you Vernon, whenever one of my ideas doesn't go well I either lose confidence in the quality of my idea or worse, I feel that i must be out of touch with what drives society, and there basic wants and needs. You must be incredibly strong to consistently post such intricate, lengthly and well thought out ideas on how to improve society and to always have them recieved poorly. |
|
| |
I cannot give you a croisant for this idea. but i shall give you my equally desirable thumbs up for your determination. |
|
| |
DrBob, there is nothing wrong with a story that illustrates my point, but there simply was no need relate such a story to Hansel and Gretel. |
|
| |
The Englisman Abroad, no, I cannot agree with the idea of judging someone who is merely "suspected" of witchcraft. We have this "innocent until proved guilty" think here, and most people seem to think it its generally a nice thing to have on your side, when needed. |
|
| |
bobofthefuture, thanks, sort-of :) Maybe I'll post an idea in the HalfBakery subsection about how no voting should be allowed for the first week after an idea is posted. By then there should be annotations enough for the voter to get a better picture of what the idea is about. |
|
| |
Clearly you need to watch more Monty Python. Maybe I should have used some <flippant> </flippant> chappies. |
|
| |
She turned me into a newt! |
|
| |
DrBob, there is nothing wrong with a story that illustrates my point, but there simply was no need relate such a story to Hansel and Gretel. |
|
| |
The Englisman Abroad, no, I cannot agree with the idea of judging someone who is merely "suspected" of witchcraft. We have this "innocent until proved guilty" thing here, and most people seem to think it its generally a nice thing to have on your side, when needed. |
|
| |
bobofthefuture, thanks, sort-of :) Maybe I'll post an idea in the HalfBakery subsection about how no voting should be allowed for the first week after an idea is posted. By then there should be annotations enough for the voter to get a better picture of what the idea is about. |
|
| |
"it is a historical fact that much of the Spanish Inquisition was just an excuse to rob the Jews of the day" |
|
| |
"and so I do indeed think that a precise definition is warranted." |
|
| |
To refute quote 1 and aid in the definition requested in quote 2 a reading of Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witchcraft) (see Link) might be in order. The original text is rather lengthy and in Latin but modern translations are a little more accessable. |
|
| |
Vernon I think this text may make this idea baked in the sense that this is a clear definition of witchcraft and witches |
|
| |
Regarding // the pass through the fire // reference: |
|
| |
The ancient neighboring religions, for instance Baal worship, would require child sacrifices. The verse in Exodus was written to condemn this practice, as Moses had to continually deal with the influence of outside religious practices which he considered idolatrous. |
|
| |
Anything else you'd like to know? |
|
| |
(long-winded rant)
//The book of one faith can't be used as a benchmark to assess people of a different belief.//
This is true if all faiths are equally true. However, given the exclusive nature of truth, all faiths cannot be equally true (unless all faiths are false); to attest otherwise is nonsensical. Ultimately, the Bible has proven itself reliable through manuscript evidence, historical correlation, and fulfilled prophecy. As such, it makes a rather good benchmark to assess competing belief systems.
//And FYI, Wicca is comparatively new...a milder form of the Old Religion.//
And Islam as practiced by a US citizen is likely a milder form of the Islam practiced by the Taliban. Doesn't change the fact that it's still Islam.
// A traditional witch knows that there is no black or white magick, only magick, and is guided by this:' whatsoever you do, shall come back threefold'. I've never read a Bible, but I gather from Xtian friends that it says something similar but uses more words.//
I'm afraid you've gathered incorrectly. There is nothing of that sort in the Bible whatsoever. The closest I can think of off the top of my head is the "do unto others" passage. However, "Do what ye will an ye do no harm" is *not* the same as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The first looks to no authority higher than the self, limited only by a subjective precept (what qualifies as "harm"?). The second is an objective standard handed down by a divine authority.
The word rendered as "witch" in the passages cited was commonly known at the time as "any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, ... Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer" (as noted in the Deutoronomy passage quoted. And before you say that that comes after the prohibition against witchcraft in the above-quoted Exodus passage, it should be noted that Exodus, Deutoronomy, and Leviticus were written concurrently).
I see a lot of objections raised against Old Testament prescriptions and prohibitions due to its prescription of capital punishment for violators of certain precepts. The punishment (death) for said violators may seem quite harsh by today's standards, but one should keep in mind that these prescriptions were written for use by the theocratic nation of Israel which existed at the time. While the response to vilations of these precepts has changed in our modern world, the underlying principles that undergird them has not. The proposed redefinition of "witch" in this topic serves to water down the actual meaning, and can serve no worthwhile purpose.
(/long-winded rant) |
|
| |
My understanding is that what we now know as stage magic was used by early priests and witches and passed off as real magic. |
|
| |
There is the passage where Moses confronts Pharaonic priests who evidently used the changing-a-staff-into-a-snake trick to wow the faithful. Descriptions of the Delphic Oracle are very reminiscent of 19th century mediums and modern fakers like Blake Edwards. Many other modern stage tricks were probably likewise passed off as real magical power in those days (well, maybe not the ones involving television cameras). |
|
| |
All this witch stuff is fakery, whatever they call themselves. |
|
| |
//All this witch stuff is fakery, whatever they call themselves.//
Agreed, for 95%+ of the cases, though I don't preclude the possibility that a fraction of "supernatural occurances" could be legitimate. |
|
| |
<<biting tongue and walking away>> but, just for the record: http://w3.iac.net/~moonweb/archives/LM/Marassa1.html |
|
| |
<more browbeating on the topic>
Furthermore, the Old Testament is not the book of *one* faith only. I can think of at least 5 that use it in some degree. |
|
| |
And finally, the discussion shouldn't be about 'faith brand x vs. faith brand y,' as if there was some level playing field assumed and a consumerist mindset adopted, but an objective study of the precepts those faiths contain, and the evidences presented for their case. To believe that all religions are created equal is to make a mockery of things, IMHO.</mb> |
|
| |
[WMA], "do what ye will an ye do no harm" (translated to modern English: do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone) is a common precept/admonition among modern witches. I can't give you an original source on this, because it's been oft-repeated througout magickal literature. I brought it up because it's often (mistakenly) equated to the "do unto others" passage. |
|
| |
Umm... klaatu, barada, nikto. |
|
| |