Witch hunting

[rjs330]

The Bible plainly says to kill witches, and yet nearly all Christians not only refuse to obey the command but also do not even believe that witches exist.

Yes it does. But Christians don't follow the Old Law. We have a new Covenant established by Christ. I am sure you know that though so I don't know why you decided to post what you did. Just trying to take a poke?

 

[StTruth]

What do you think of the witch hunting that Christians practiced for centuries?

Supposedly, witches were condemned in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians no longer practice it?

Hi radhead,

Thanks for your interesting post. Here's my view as a devout Christian.

Witches are condemned in the Old Testament. The OT was written a very long time ago when people were ridiculously superstitious. The good thing about Christianity is the Church tries to keep up with morality as it evolves over time.

We all know slavery is an institution of the OT. God specifically tells us in the OT how a slave should be freed after so many years (if he's Jewish - that's the privilege of being a Jewish slave) but he will be released and will not be allowed to see his wife and children ever again. If he can't part with them, he can ask to be a permanent slave and God provides for the method of boring a hole in his ear as a sign that he is a slave for life.

Try doing that today and any parish priest will have you reported to the police. It's not just witch hunting that we Christians no longer practise.

But most Christians don't like to admit this truth. I am different. I believe truth is important and I practise my faith with honesty and truth. The way our Lord wants it.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[radhead]

We all know slavery is an institution of the OT. God specifically tells us in the OT how a slave should be freed after so many years (if he's Jewish - that's the privilege of being a Jewish slave) but he will be released and will not be allowed to see his wife and children ever again. If he can't part with them, he can ask to be a permanent slave and God provides for the method of boring a hole in his ear as a sign that he is a slave for life.

Try doing that today and any parish priest will have you reported to the police. It's not just witch hunting that we Christians no longer practise.

Maybe, but the thing is that witch-hunting was one of the most popular Christian practices for decades. The idea of witchcraft to me even seems evil and heretical, even though I don't really believe in it. That's why I thought that more religious believers might still have issues with it.

And I don't have problems with people who have more religious/superstitious beliefs than myself. I'm more concerned with how that belief affects what they actually do in practice.

Personally, I think that Christians still love slavery and witch hunting, but just in lesser degrees these days. They still want to oppress women. They still seem to be predominantly conservative and in favor of free markets which also oppress workers. Both these practices are still alive and well.

 

[ananda]

No one has as far as I know. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Yes - myself.

 

[rjs330]

Yes - myself.

Oh, you tried to kill someone because of that verse or someone tried to kill you because of it?

 

[rjs330]

Maybe, but the thing is that witch-hunting was one of the most popular Christian practices for decades. The idea of witchcraft to me even seems evil and heretical, even though I don't really believe in it. That's why I thought that more religious believers might still have issues with it.

And I don't have problems with people who have more religious/superstitious beliefs than myself. I'm more concerned with how that belief affects what they actually do in practice.

Personally, I think that Christians still love slavery and witch hunting, but just in lesser degrees these days. They still want to oppress women. They still seem to be predominantly conservative and in favor of free markets which also oppress workers. Both these practices are still alive and well.

This is such utter hogwash. We do not love slavery or witch hunting. Where do you have evidence that Christians today love slavery and want to hunt witches. Far more Christians die at the hands of unbelievers these days than the other way around.

 

[ananda]

Oh, you tried to kill someone because of that verse or someone tried to kill you because of it?

No, I stated "some can potentially interpret the verse to support a "Christian jihad" - like witch hunting" and I confirmed that I can interpret the verse in such a way - not that I believe or practice it.

 

[rjs330]

No, I stated "some can potentially interpret the verse to support a "Christian jihad" - like witch hunting" and I confirmed that I can interpret the verse in such a way - not that I believe or practice it.

But you don't interpret it that way do you? And neither does anyone else. You have no evidence that Christians are using that verse to kill people and claim that the verse tells them to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... a lot of our individual understanding of the Bible depends on what, if any, hermeneutical principles we each take with us into the reading process. Otherwise, if we don't keep this in mind, we'll have a hard time explaining why not one single early Christian depicted in the New Testament is reported as having ever slain a witch (or adulterer, or drunkard, or homosexual, or apostate, etc., etc., etc).

You know, it is really annoying that the all-knowing and infinitely intelligent creator of the universe decided to send his message in such a form that every other individual reading it, "interprets" it differently.

And that there are these "special" people who then need to do the interpreting for them.

No wonder there are thousands of different "denominations". Islam also seems to have this problem.

 

[radhead]

This is such utter hogwash. We do not love slavery or witch hunting. Where do you have evidence that Christians today love slavery and want to hunt witches. Far more Christians die at the hands of unbelievers these days than the other way around.

What's really hogwash is to equate American "Christianity" majority with some other form in a different country. Just because two groups both use the name of Jesus doesn't mean they are promoting the same things. As if American evangelicals can make themselves look better by attempting to associate themselves with an honorable group somewhere else. People can see through that. In American the word is predominantly used to describe those who are socially and fiscally conservative. Those who wish to oppress minorities and the weak.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know, it is really annoying that the all-knowing and infinitely intelligent creator of the universe decided to send his message in such a form that every other individual reading it, "interprets" it differently.

And that there are these "special" people who then need to do the interpreting for them.

No wonder there are thousands of different "denominations". Islam also seems to have this problem.

Oh, so you interpret the New Testament to "mean" that some apostle, or other figure depicted, actually slew a witch?

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that you're annoyed by the fact that, due to the peculiar epistemological situation that each individual human being finds himself/herself in, the art and science of hermeneutics may be needed when attempting to read and understand the Bible, just as it is when each of us reads any one of a billion other works of human literature.

You're annoyed by this, ay? Well, then, here's a presentation by one of those "special people" which may direct you as to how to lighten your cognitive load of annoyance ...

 

[rjs330]

What's really hogwash is to equate American "Christianity" majority with some other form in a different country. Just because two groups both use the name of Jesus doesn't mean they are promoting the same things. As if American evangelicals can make themselves look better by attempting to associate themselves with an honorable group somewhere else. People can see through that. In American the word is predominantly used to describe those who are socially and fiscally conservative. Those who wish to oppress minorities and the weak.

Once again hogwash. Christians do not want to oppressed minorities and the weak. That is decidedly not what Jesus taught and not what the apostles taught. It is not what Christians believe. Your anti-christian bias is showing.

 

[mark kennedy]

What do you think of the witch hunting that Christians practiced for centuries?

Supposedly, witches were condemned in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians no longer practice it?

This is a topic I spent some time researching, primarily because secularists bring it up as a typical example of how religion is dangerous. I found something quite different in the actuall history of this brief mania that spread like wildfire during the summer of 1692. It's actually a court case from our early history as a nation that calls into question rules of evidence. Now I doubt very seriously I'm going to encounter an argument that spectral evidence makes a compelling proof but I think it's important to know what went wrong.

On June 10, 1692 Bridget Bishop was executed for witchcraft and by September 22, 20 people had been put to death and over a hundred more imprisoned. The madness didn't stop until the wife of the governor overseeing the trials was accused. Subsequently the court prosecuting witchcraft cases was dismissed. On January 14, 1697, a day of fasting and repentance was set aside in remorse for the travesty. At that time many of the men responsible confessed their error and guilt. In 1711 Massachusetts paid 600 pounds in restitution for the sufferings inflicted during the summer of 1692.

In 1700 Robert Calef published a book about the witchunts of Salemtown. The trials and subsequent executions he said were a result of delusions and envy, hatred, pride, cruelty, and malice. In vivid satirical style the crowd is pictured as a bloody throng, the leaders as wolves among sheep. He insinuates that the ones who plead guilty were cowards. The countryside starting from Salemtown he paints as littered with the mangled remains of people victimized in a tragic infamous rampage. To my knowledge no one has successfully contradicted him except Cotton Mather who called it slander. The only thing in the way of a defense was based on interpretation of dreams. Otherwise known as spectral analysis.

Evidence and common law

Spectral evidence and the testimony of a group of rather disturbed teenage girls was the primary evidence offered. These girls had been involved with a woman named Tituba who practiced voodoo fortune telling. Sometime later the girls were supposedly afflicted by the Devil or maybe even possessed. Now weather or not they actually were is hard to say but if they were, why would someone rely on the testimony of people under the influence of the devil anyway? That's not just unchristian it's insane!

The whole thing was a complete travesty. A travesty not uncommon in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries where hundreds of thousands of people were put to death. It wasn't as bad in England because under common law it was just a misdemeanor for a long time. That changed in 1604 when death was prescribed but even then few were actually executed. Also common law provides certain to the accused. Not the least of which is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. In the rest of Europe burning witches was quite common while in England it was relatively rare. These common law are the forerunner of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The common law system of justice wasn't something we got rid of after the Revolution. If anything it was having the common law rights that people had become accustomed to, denied, that led to rebellion. Sometimes not just how people were prosecuted was bizarre but often who they accused.

A child as young as 4 or 5 was imprisoned. Now, first off, how much witchcraft could this baby have actually learned. They put 5 year old Dorcas Good not just in jail, but in chains! She was not released until he father paid for the cost of the shackles, this was obviously about money.


Mens Rea and Criminal Intent


In modern times we think of witch-hunts as nothing but superstition and fear but the motives were more deliberate. Remember that Bacan's Rebellion and the Trail of Tears were fomented by a desire for land. The law is often used by the status quo to subvert the rights of the less fortunate. The advent of slavery in the Americas was due in large part to the legal definition concerning what is called real property. People were reduced to the status of property and that excluded them from rights afforded other people. This resulted in 2% of the population of the antibellion south owning most of the land. This may seem like I’m begging the question a little but greed wasn't eradicated when the witch-hunts stopped.

Kai T. Erikson, a professor of sociology at Yale University had this to say; “The way in which a society defines and deals with criminality reveals much about the fundamental nature of that society. In his discussion of the political and social turmoil of the times he quotes John Josselyn who visited Boston in 1668. He observed that people were savagely factious, in their relations with one another and acted out of jealousy and greed then any sense of religious purpose.

The fact that they were Calvinists can account for the fact that they believed in the devil but had no idea how to deal with him. They had been taught that there was a devil but never allowed to expel the demon from people that were possessed. This is simply unbiblical. The fact that very little, if any, scripture was used to support witch trials is significant. However when the people from the jury and some of the magistrates later confessed their error and guilt in the matter. A well-ordered list of Biblical references was included, complete with book, chapter and verse (Implying authority). Cotton Mathers on the other hand makes a sting of disjointed general reference to biblical images and phrases in the opening section of More Wonders however, in his discussion about the trial he seems obsessed with spectral evidence. Neither the name of Christ or the authority of scripture is even suggested. I have to wonder if Mathers wasn’t dabbling in the occult himself. He seemed more fascinated with dream interruption then he did the Bible. The problem wasn’t religion it was greed and no judicial restraint for the prosecutors.

The Accused

Apparently people who confessed were not executed while people who were openly defiant were put to death. For instance Sarah Good was very poor and had to beg to help support her family. She was known to have an unpleasant disposition especially with people who refused to give her anything. The evidence against her was spectral evidence, and the deranged teenage girl’s testimony. There was also Sarah Osgood who had lived with her husband before they were married. She also had failed to attend for over a year. This sort of behavior made one real unpopular in Salemtown. And apparently, unpopular women were the earliest targets but not the only ones.

Martha Corey was considered respectable but was openly hostile toward the witch trials. Not only had she refused to attend the earlier trials but unsaddled her husband's horse and hid the saddle when her husband tried to go. At Corey's trial she even testified that she was a Christian (Gospel woman) and had nothing to do with witchcraft. The deranged teenagers said she was a witch and when it was your word against theirs you would lose.

Rebecka Nurse was a 71-year-old woman who denied the validity of the spectral evidence and questioned the authority of the court. Her sisters Sarah Cloyce and Mary Easty defended her as did 40 others who signed a petition that was submitted to the court all to no avail. Far from being an isolated incident there is a definite pattern here. While the trial was going on Samuel Parris preached a sermon suggesting that Nurse was guilty. Her sister, Cloyce got up and walked out, slamming the door behind her. It a couple of days they were accusing her of being a witch.

The spark that ignited the powder keg

Some five to ten miles from Salem there was established a community that became known as Salem Village. They were trying to establish independance from Salem but the authorities there didn't like the idea of giving up control of this valuable area, much less the tax revenue. You might remember that the Revolution, the Whiskey Rebellion and to some extent the Civil war was partly over taxes. Salem Village had managed to get a separate parish and over the next ten years they had three ministers, one of which was George Burroughs, who would later be hung as a witch.

Enter Samuel Parris, he had made some kind of an agreement by which he was to acquire full ownership of a two acre parsonage. This sparked a bitter controversy and it should be noted that it was scheduled to be completed in October of 1691.

"Robert Calef, would write of the parsonage dispute, "This occasioned great Divisions both between the Inhabitants themselves, and between a considerable part of them and their said Minister, which Divisions were but the beginning or Praeludium to what immediately followed." Slowly festering, the controversy continued to build until by October 1691 the opposition faction made its move. In the annual election of the Village Committee, the old committee made up of the minister's church supporters was ousted and a new committee composed of Joseph Porter, Francis Nurse, Joseph Putnam, Daniel Andrews, and Joseph Hutchinson, most if not all strong opponents of Parris, was installed. "

The Causes of the Salem Witch Hunts

Notice the name I bolded in the quote, Francis Nurse was the mother of Rebecca Nurse who would later be accused of being a witch had land disputes with the family of one of her accusers, John Putnam. Bear in mind That Rebecka Nurse was a well respected women and many in the community signed a petition for her to be acquitted, Parris had an ulterior motive for his part in the witch hunt. What is more his daughter and niece were among the disturbed teenagers making the accusations. The dispute that ignited this hysteria was over land, I think that is pretty clear.

 

[ananda]

But you don't interpret it that way do you? And neither does anyone else. You have no evidence that Christians are using that verse to kill people and claim that the verse tells them to.

Yes, actually I do interpret it that way. I see it as claiming that Jesus commands his servants to slay those who refuse to have him reign over them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, actually I do interpret it that way. I see it as claiming that Jesus commands his servants to slay those who refuse to have him reign over them.

Most of the witch hunts were not based on Scripture, Cotton Mathers based his witch hunt on something he called spectral analysis. His book, More Wonders of the Unseen World, hardly mentioned the Scriptures.

 

[radhead]

As far as the Calvinists not believing in exorcism, that makes perfect sense. The Calvinists represent conservatism. They know inherently that those who disagree with their views are not "possessed" by some evil spirit. They believe the person is evil and beyond hope. In other words, someone who is liberal or feminist is inherently "evil" and so, therefore, that person can never be cured.

In that sense they are correct. In my opinion, anyone who knows God will likely be more liberal and feminist than the average conservative Christian. Nothing can make a good person turn from their natural way easily. It is much easier to just kill them outright.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, actually I do interpret it that way. I see it as claiming that Jesus commands his servants to slay those who refuse to have him reign over them.

Really? Well you're the first. And of course you would be completely in error. You must think Jesus was a terrible hypocrite. Either that or he was terribly schizophrenic with his teaching.

 

[rjs330]

As far as the Calvinists not believing in exorcism, that makes perfect sense. The Calvinists represent conservatism. They know inherently that those who disagree with their views are not "possessed" by some evil spirit. They believe the person is evil and beyond hope. In other words, someone who is liberal or feminist is inherently "evil" and so, therefore, that person can never be cured.

In that sense they are correct. In my opinion, anyone who knows God will likely be more liberal and feminist than the average conservative Christian. Nothing can make a good person turn from their natural way easily. It is much easier to just kill them outright.

I am glad you tossed in "my opinion." Because the feminism and liberalism of today is certainly not biblical.

 

[ananda]

Really? Well you're the first. And of course you would be completely in error. You must think Jesus was a terrible hypocrite. Either that or he was terribly schizophrenic with his teaching.

I have not found one good interpretation otherwise.

 

[rjs330]

I have not found one good interpretation otherwise.

I already told you what it means. It's not that difficult really. You don't have to believe it of course, but you would be incorrect. Do you also believe Jesus is a schizophrenic teacher as well?