Stigma of witchcraft

[awitch]

If you describe yourself as a practitioner of witchcraft that's all I need to know to not want to associate with you. Why do you think you are entitled to someone's friendship or respect?

Oh, I don't. I would never want to be friends with someone like you, for example.
But I am friends with other Christians and it's never been a problem, so when you explicitly call for additional stigma, I was confused why you would think our friendships are any of your business.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Usually Christians leverage the government to impose their will. If it were simply the question of free association I don't think there's really anything wrong with you choosing to disassociate from others but that typically is only the beginning. Mosaic law calls for the death penalty for both witchcraft and homosexuality, for example. Sure you can hand wave the OT but pastors take its commands very seriously.

Usually everyone leverages government to impose their will. Pagans did it. Christians did it. Atheists did it. Even Libertarians would do it.

 

[Zoness]

Usually everyone leverages government to impose their will. Pagans did it. Christians did it. Atheists did it. Even Libertarians would do it.

Which is why I offer that potentially Christians would look to return to a position of cracking down on people they find morally offensive. That would be an example of a way to go beyond mere stigmatization.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Oh, I don't. I would never want to be friends with someone like you, for example.
But I am friends with other Christians and it's never been a problem, so when you explicitly call for additional stigma, I was confused why you would think our friendships are any of your business.

The feeling is abundantly mutual.

Also, it's just advice and a response to a proposition. It seems to me your presence can only weaken their faith, make them think of spiritual forces beyond God and say, maybe those gods or spiritual forces aren't so bad after all. If there are only two spiritual forces as Christians traditionally believe, well it's not good to think that way. It will necessarily follow that Christianity isn't true.

Perhaps you think this a good thing. I consider this a bad thing. Comprende?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Which is why I offer that potentially Christians would look to return to a position of cracking down on people they find morally offensive. That would be an example of a way to go beyond mere stigmatization.

Who said anything about cracking down on anyone? I can concede that might actually happen if Christians ever get a cultural hegemony again (though I suspect that won't happen in the near future). Yet cracking down on one's opponents is what all those in power do and it depends on the strength and willingness of the community targeted in their ability to resist such a crackdown.

 

[Zoness]

I think due to demographic reality, mostly by chance many of my friends are Christian. Some of them use it for cultural identification and some go to church but they're overall pretty respectful of my beliefs and show genuine interest in them. It's a pretty self selecting group though, odds are an evangelical is not going to want to hang out with me because we share little similar interests in other areas of life; music, video games, media, political opinions, social networks. I've found that religion plays a smaller and smaller role in the friendships that I carry. Even in my family the traditional Catholics and Baptists both have mostly softened up to the changing reality of their son's and daughter's irreligiosity.

I know a big part of Christianity is euphemisms surrounding being "not of the world" and a separate people. However, I think Christians in general desire to build cross-cultural connections and they want to stay engaged in popular culture and as such that means exposure to ideas outside of a specifically curated worldview. It's challenging to sustain the very closed system of culture because you either have to censor a bunch of information (as parents, for example) or you need to create an entire parallel (often mediocre) culture a la Pureflix movies.

Witchcraft is more of an idle curiosity to the average person now, if you're pretty secular you're not going to believe it works and if you're deeply committed to your religion you're not going to be exploring it. I think most people fall in the middle of loosely being connected to their religion so they're just not that concerned about it.

 

[awitch]

It seems to me your presence can only weaken their faith, make them think of spiritual forces beyond God and say, maybe those gods or spiritual forces aren't so bad after all. If there are only two spiritual forces as Christians traditionally believe, well it's not good to think that way.

My mere presence is enough to endanger someone's soul? Neat.

Dang, why can't my D&D Druid character be that powerful? He can never even pass a stupid investigation check.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

My mere presence is enough to endanger someone's soul? Neat.

Dang, why can't my D&D Druid character be that powerful? He can never even pass a stupid investigation check.

I am actually being very serious here.

People are social creatures and depending on our associations we can change or be converted. Most people aren't philosophers or intellectuals either. Pagans for instance were gradually converted by the presence of a priest in the village when the Kings of Europe gradually accepted Christianity. A close acquaintance or friend can make views we once thought as bad, seem not so bad. It was CS Lewis' friendship with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson which I believe contributed to his eventual conversion to Christianity.

The same is true of the inverse, of any group actually, hence why some groups self-regulate in order to actually preserve their existence. Think of Hasidic Jews who are very strict as to who belongs or the Amish who likewise have firm expectations of their community members. Our relationships to other people matter in helping determining our outlook and if the goal is preserve faith in Christianity (which I consider a noble goal) there are some people that Christians shouldn't associate with.

Let's suppose you have an open community of witches. They invite a Christian, who invites another Christian and gradually in order to accommodate the Christian, the practices begin to change. Sooner or later you might start resembling a Church rather than an authentic coven. Some pagans might lament, there's not enough animal sacrifices. I miss the dear skull mask. I miss the sacred tree but we should be accepting and tolerating of our Christian brothers and sisters.

What I'm hinting at here is a sociological reality. Our relationships actually matter and if one views their faith as the most important thing, they will naturally limit their relationships.

 

[QvQ]

My mother is a devout Christian and has sometimes said that witchcraft is about control. Casting a love spell for example supposedly usurps the power of the person to choose a wife/husband.

I suspect the stigma of witchcraft comes mostly from the Bible's negative opinion of witches.

Another factor might be the stealthiness of witchcraft. A person might slip on a banana peel and break his leg and suspect that a witch cursed him. However there is no way to prove the claim. And the corollary is that there is no way to disprove the claim. So a bad harvest can be blamed on a witch and the witch can be burned at the stake with little evidence.

Witches, historically have used recreational drugs, Henbane, Spanish Fly, Peyote (Brujos). There are cases in Spanish Inquisition where men were paid to blight neighbor's fields using a "powder" provided by a witch. (biological warfare). Witches were also abortionist.

 

[awitch]

What I'm hinting at here is a sociological reality. Our relationships actually matter and if one views their faith as the most important thing, they will naturally limit their relationships.

World of difference between choosing to limit personal relationships and openly calling for the stigmatization of others.

If some Christians choose to live in a bubble, I'll respect that as long as their bubble is personal and they don't think it encompasses society in general.

 

[bekkilyn]

Jesus himself associated with all sorts of people, and if we are going to be like him, then we need to do so as well and not just exist within a safe Christian bubble. If simply being around someone of a different faith is a threat to our own, then what does it say about our faith and perhaps what we believe about God?

Also there is the fact that many witches do not practice witchcraft as a religion and thus belong to many different religions, including Christianity. Also keep in mind that the words in the bible translated as "witchcraft" meant something very different to what modern witches tend to practice today.

Most people are just people, regardless of religion or hobbies or whatever is they do in their day. They are still people created in the image of God and our commission is to love one another as Christ loved.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Jesus himself associated with all sorts of people, and if we are going to be like him, then we need to do so as well and not just exist within a safe Christian bubble. If simply being around someone of a different faith is a threat to our own, then what does it say about our faith and perhaps what we believe about God?

Also there is the fact that many witches do not practice witchcraft as a religion and thus belong to many different religions, including Christianity. Also keep in mind that the words in the bible translated as "witchcraft" meant something very different to what modern witches tend to practice today.

Most people are just people, regardless of religion or hobbies or whatever is they do in their day. They are still people created in the image of God and our commission is to love one another as Christ loved.

Spoken like a true United Methodist, utterly indifferent to hostile forces that set themselves against Christianity.

I find this sort of interpretation of Jesus to be trite. Who was Jesus? He was the incarnate second person of the Trinity. Did he associate himself with all sorts of people? Yes, to what end though? Was he friends with Pontius Pilate? Was he friends with the Prostitutes, just casually chatting and never admonishing them for their lifestyle? Or was he preaching to them, calling them to repentance and to walk with him and his way? He was at heart a subversive force within the Jewish community by convincing others to go with him instead of the Pharisees. This is why the Pharisees hated him.

It's not about living in a bubble, but it is about setting up safeguards for a community and any group that's smart will do this if they want to preserve themselves and their way of life. This goes for nations, this goes for clubs and it especially goes for religions. There's a reason why the Islamic world has successfully resisted Christianization, mainly because they persecute Christians and let them know of their subordinate status within Islamic society. There is a reason why the Romans weren't able to convert Christians to become decent Pagans, because Christians resisted becoming part of the mainstream. They didn't join the army, they didn't sacrifice to Caesar and they kept their communion and services limited to only baptized members of the community.

Now, if you want to pretend that setting up safe guards of appropriate behavior and associations is contrary to Christianity, then you'll be arguing against the entire history of the Church. It also would explain why the United Methodists are probably going to die out sooner or later. They are utterly unwilling to say no or have some line that cannot be crossed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

World of difference between choosing to limit personal relationships and openly calling for the stigmatization of others.

If some Christians choose to live in a bubble, I'll respect that as long as their bubble is personal and they don't think it encompasses society in general.

Well there likely isn't any chance of that happening in your lifetime. Maybe in the future when a robust Christianity free of secular humanist influence (that the so called progressive Churches) can reestablish itself against the insanity of the modern world, but not now.

I also don't see much of a difference between limiting certain relationships and stigmatization. Many Christians today who adhere to a traditional ethic are stigmatized in public and private institutions. They can lose their jobs and friends for simply saying the wrong thing or be targeted with lawsuits. The result is the same, social ostracization. If you had enough Christians practicing what I recommend, I dare say you would have a lot less friendships.

Still, it's not about bubbles. It's about preservation and continuing to survive. You better believe that if witches or pagans become a dominant force they will engage in the same behavior. Maybe have standards about not marrying Christians, something like that. It would be the smart thing to do.

 

[awitch]

Spoken like a true United Methodist, utterly indifferent to hostile forces that set themselves against Christianity.

You've jumped from discouraging mingling to declaring us hostile.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You've jumped from discouraging mingling to declaring us hostile.

Hostile in the sense that any belief counter to Christianity is hostile. Islam, Communism, New Atheism, Libertarianism and whatever else you can think about. These ideas all compete with each other for adherents. Only those who want to remain tolerant and not proselytize or insist on being true are doomed to die sooner or later.

 

[awitch]

Well there likely isn't any chance of that happening in your lifetime. Maybe in the future when a robust Christianity free of secular humanist influence (that the so called progressive Churches) can reestablish itself against the insanity of the modern world, but not now.

As long as it's understood that we exist and intend to fully participate in life and society as much as any Christian. If someone's delicate faith can't handle that, then that's not our problem, no matter how much you unjustly want to blame the world's problems on us like you just implied.

Many Christians today who adhere to a traditional ethic are stigmatized in public and private institutions. They can lose their jobs and friends for simply saying the wrong thing or be targeted with lawsuits.

How can you openly call for stigmatizing non-Christians one moment, and then complain that Christians are ostracized in the next? Do you have any examples of these laws that are only applicable to Christians or does getting specific make it harder to cry persecution? Let's not confuse debating policies and practices that affect the lives of other people with stigmatizing people based on the adjective they use to describe their personal beliefs.

Still, it's not about bubbles. It's about preservation and continuing to survive.

Variation and the ability to adapt are significant contributors to survival.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As long as it's understood that we exist and intend to fully participate in life and society as much as any Christian. If someone's delicate faith can't handle that, then that's not our problem, no matter how much you unjustly want to blame the world's problems on us like you just implied.

Never said it was your problem. I consider this more an internal problem within Christendom at the moment. thankfully I think the weaker Christian faiths is gradually die or give way to Universalist Churches. The mainline Churches here come to mind while conservative Churches will retain their Christian identity.

That you call the faith itself delicate shows you don't understand my position. Any number of people's faith in various religions or ideologies can be delicate, easily shattered. Most however would prefer to keep to their comfortable way of being rather than be challenged or have their worldview seriously altered.

I also don't recall blaming the world's problems on witches. Though I don't think your dealing with spiritual forces other than God helps anyone, yourself included.

How can you openly call for stigmatizing non-Christians one moment, and then complain that Christians are ostracized in the next? Do you have any examples of these laws that are only applicable to Christians or does getting specific make it harder to cry persecution? Let's not confuse debating policies and practices that affect the lives of other people with stigmatizing people based on the adjective they use to describe their personal beliefs.

Did I complain about it or merely observe it? I can only point to the growing tension within liberal America that sees no room for tolerance of traditional viewpoints, specifically on sexuality. Conservatives might be very hesitant to actually share their views in silicon valley or New York city. I know I don't share my views with average people around me on those issues.

But I'm not complaining about it. I think it unjust but only because the right thing is being targeted, not on liberal secular grounds. In another way isn't it what we as Christians were told by Christ to expect? If we're not being targeted in some fashion by the world, how do we know where we actually stand? The future is a test to overcome, not something to complain about in the effort of "Tolerance" or whatever liberal pieties you want to appeal to.

Variation and the ability to adapt are significant contributors to survival.

I agree.

 

[awitch]

Maybe in the future when a robust Christianity free of secular humanist influence (that the so called progressive Churches) can reestablish itself against the insanity of the modern world, but not now.

Now you've jumped from no mingling, to calling us hostile, to imaging a better world where our influence is eliminated. How long before you or some other Christian wants to make the next jump?

 

[Sparagmos]

What you described was insubordination, religious intolerance and an attack on the business with all of its employees. Surely, your company has rules about that. Perhaps "Mr. Nemisis" needs to be reminded of that.

But they didn’t describe what the employee said. You’re jumping to conclusions. Also, insubordination means something specific:failure to follow a direct order. No mention of that in this case.

 

[awitch]

I can only point to the growing tension within liberal America that sees no room for tolerance of traditional viewpoints, specifically on sexuality.

How much compromise has conservative Christianity been offering?