Africa's Witch Menace

[Pai Geacademe]

You're getting dumber by the second. "Dark arts" would have only been suspected if there were witnesses and/or other evidence that withstood the scrutiny of a thorough investigation.

Yes, you and Pix have said this a lot. I get it. You guys aren't explaining how murder via dark arts would be verified, though. What kinds of questions would the lawyer ask the witnesses? What kinds of answers would indict the accused?

PG: I don't see anything that indicates murder via the dark arts. How was that proved, exactly?

MM: Put away the reefer and start paying attention, dumbass.

I’m fairly certain an inner prompting told you not to say that. The only drug I had today is Budweiser. It's beechwood aged.

I gave you an explicit example of Israelite jurisprudence: They sought out multiple witnesses and proved the case with a thorough investigation.

Two or three witnesses, you mean. And there was no mention of a "thorough investigation." What do you mean by "thorough investigation"? Those Nigerian Christians thought their investigations quite thorough.

PG: Put yourself in these people’s sandals. Here we have a people with explicit ties to Canaanite culture. And, if you believe your Bible, they were also enslaved for centuries by another sun- and idol- worshiping cult. If one of these Hebrew women succumbed to her former practices...

MM: Yeah, and there were laws on the books that specifically forbade those practices and the Israelite people were intimately familiar with them. They knew full well that if they "succumbed to [their] former practices" that they were breaking the law of God and that their lives were forfeit if they were discovered. It had nothing to do with superstition and everything to do with obeying Yahweh.

Again, put on their sandals, MM. If what you say is true, no one in his right mind, after seeing the astonishing theophanies described in the Torah, would do what you described. Even if they were smoking reefer, they’d know who The Boss was. I mean, think about it: theophanies of such magnitude would the religionist's wet dream.

Folklore reserves the right to be unbelievable, remember. 1,000 Philistines didn’t really line up single-file to get pummeled with the jawbone of an ass. That’s folklore. Nor did Hebrews eschew the living god—who they could see, feel, and hear—for carved stone. And if it were true, they wouldn’t be in their right mind. People not in their right mind don’t deserve to be brutally killed by a howling, bloodthirsty mob, do they? Would you stone a schizophrenic for thinking himself Jesus? (Don't answer that.)

(Oh, and that "The Bible's Buried Secrets" program is a joke. It was discussed recently in this thread.)

Thanks for the link. I just read five pages of it. Both sides seem to have to no clue how to not call each other “stupid" (perhaps explaining why you thought it had merit).

Maybe we can discuss it later, but for now I find the documentary quite scholarly and convincing. Moving on.

PG:...that person gets killed by a howling bloodthirsty mob.

MM:Excuse me? "Howling, bloodthirsty mod"? I'm guessing you took another bong hit and thought you saw that in the Bible, too, right next to the passage where Moses ordered that witches be stoned without a trial.

So a group of self-righteous Jews…tasked with executing a woman…would throw their stones kindly and gently? Have you ever read about the adulterer and the angry mob? Bloodlust factors in to these ugly affairs. Stonings were as much a violation of human rights in Moses' time as they were in Jesus' time, and, in fact, the very one who instituted it roundly condemns it later. That's morality in flux.

I’ll concede on the howling, though. The bloodlust is wicked enough.

PG: There is nuance and subtext here. Here we have a jealous God who despises idolatry commanding Moses to associate salvation with the serpent—a deity they have worshipped for centuries. Again, put yourself in their sandals. Go the extra step and consider the intelligence of imbuing the serpent with salvific power while condemning idol worship at the same time. Does that make sense to you? (Cite the Calvary connection at your own peril. I have some pointed questions about that, too.)

MM: O.K., dum-dum, where in the text does it say that the people thought the bronze serpent was healing them, or that they were expected to worship it?

You’re being fundamentalist in taking everything literally. I mentioned nuance and subtext for a reason.

The Hebrews were told to look at their former god to live. Hence, God reinforces the powerful idea that the snake is something very special. Moses held up a graven image for them. They didn’t just see bronze; they saw their former God, who still was very attractive to them. These people had a really hard time letting go of the idea that figurines made of metal, wood, and stone didn’t have consciousness. They were addicted to this idea, which, if your folklore is true, explains why itty bitty statues took precedence over terrifying miles-high pillars of fire. =P

Again, we’re talking about folklore. Give it the dignity it deserves and allow it to be unbelievable. Fer criminy, give God some dignity, too! He isn’t stupid enough to reinforce the very behavior He concurrently condemns.

Believing folklore to be true creates these kinds of cognitive problems. Despite what Jonathon Edwards and Billy Sunday told your grandmother, you were never commanded to take these stories literally! Only inculcation and enculturation have told you this.

No wonder you abandoned Christianity. With your train wreck theology, apostasy was inevitable.

It’s funny. When reading Numbers at the peak of my commitment, I remember fighting back thoughts of “Why would You tempt the Jews with that powerful archtype—a former god they had worshipped for centuries—when they needed to look on YOU to be saved?” It was one of those many moments as a Christian when you think Wormwood is whispering these things in your ear. Silly, I know. In reality, I had been learning about symbolism in ancient cultures. Symbols and fetishes were like drugs to them (kind of like reefer, in fact).

The question that came to my mind was healthy cognitive dissonance. Invisible spirit beings had nothing to do with it. Your mind is wired to perform these "smell tests."

When I think about the countless questions you’ve suppressed and dismissed over the years, thinking Wormwood responsible, I get sad. You’ve got a good mind there, MM. It’s just waiting for permission to really think.

I love you, brother. Here’s my youtube channel if you want to know my testimony. PM me if you want to chat on the phone.

Pi

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, you and Pix have said this a lot. I get it. You guys aren't explaining how murder via dark arts would be verified, though. What kinds of questions would the lawyer ask the witnesses? What kinds of answers would indict the accused?

Poisioning can't be confirmed?

[Pai Geacademe]

Poisioning can't be confirmed?

You've moved from the supernatural to the tangible. Clearly you meant the "dark arts" to mean spells and such.

[FormerFundy]

Funny... I've read that people who used herbs for meds (or for poisions) where often seen as doing sorcery thoughout history. In fact, those who did just that in midde age europe, where accused as being witches.

Yes if it was connected to some type of spell or incantation.

I see you can't read, I said nobody is 100% sure what the term means or what the context of the word is. Even that link you gave made it quite clear that nobody is all that sure what it is refering to, but it was believed that the powers these people called off from where not from God, but there is no specifics about what these powers are and are not.

They are clear on what the word means. You said it refered to someone who KILLED another person by use of dark arts. That is not correct. It is just simply the use of dark arts or magic or sorcery or whatever you want to call it. Can you admit you were wrong?

And Sorcery is a pretty loose term that can mean almost anything.

No it can't. In the Bible, its clear that it refers to someone who believes in supernatural powers (other than Yahweh) and tries to manipulate those powers to impact humans. Try doing some study.

[FormerFundy]

I keep hearing MM and Pixie talk about a "trial" and a "thorough investigation", etc. Please show this from Scripture. You are trying to read modern day American jurisprudence back into the Biblical times. Its not the same.

All the Bible says is that there needs to be two or three witnesses. It doesn't tell us anything about their testimony. Does it have to be eyewitness? What about the credibility of the witnesses? We know that sometimes people will collaborate against someone they don't like. How are you going to judge the truthfulness of the witnesses?

We know from the Bible itself that 2 witnesses may lie. See 1 Kings 21:1-14.

What a fair trial!!!!

The accused is not even allowed to defend himself or cross examine the witnesses.

In addition, the practice of stoning is one of the most barbaric methods of capital punishment known to man. Yet it is the method that Yahweh prefers.

Stoning is a brutal and outdated practice that is kept alive only by Muslims under Sharia rule. Although it has been practiced since biblical times, every other culture has systematically ceased the practice in favor of more humane forms of punishment. The torturous sentence leaves the victim in agony. David Hearne, in his book Hulagu's Web, shows us how painful it can be. “Terror ripped through her mind…then suddenly the first stone smashed into her…” (Hulagu's Web, 64) The only solitude the punished has is that they will soon die.

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64)

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fact-to-Fi...oning&id=11574

[MaxVel]

I keep hearing MM and Pixie talk about a "trial" and a "thorough investigation", etc. Please show this from Scripture. You are trying to read modern day American jurisprudence back into the Biblical times. Its not the same.

All the Bible says is that there needs to be two or three witnesses. It doesn't tell us anything about their testimony. Does it have to be eyewitness? What about the credibility of the witnesses? We know that sometimes people will collaborate against someone they don't like. How are you going to judge the truthfulness of the witnesses?

We know from the Bible itself that 2 witnesses may lie. See 1 Kings 21:1-14.

What a fair trial!!!!

The accused is not even allowed to defend himself or cross examine the witnesses.

I'll leave this part to MM and LPOT...

In addition, the practice of stoning is one of the most barbaric methods of capital punishment known to man. Yet it is the method that Yahweh prefers.

Stoning is a brutal and outdated practice that is kept alive only by Muslims under Sharia rule. Although it has been practiced since biblical times, every other culture has systematically ceased the practice in favor of more humane forms of punishment. The torturous sentence leaves the victim in agony. David Hearne, in his book Hulagu's Web, shows us how painful it can be. “Terror ripped through her mind…then suddenly the first stone smashed into her…” (Hulagu's Web, 64) The only solitude the punished has is that they will soon die.

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64)

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fact-to-Fi...oning&id=11574

Here you're talking about stoning under Sharia law.

It appears that the actual process was quite different (and considerably more humane) as practiced by the Jews:

Sorry for the source...

There are only scarce mentions of such a punishment being actually legally inflicted. There are three cases in the Bible (see list below) in which a person was stoned to death as a punishment. But there are also five or six cases where someone was stoned by a mob, or not in a legal fashion. A detailed recorded case of stoning occurs in the Book of Joshua (7, 24) when a man named Achan (עכן) was found to have kept loot from Jericho, a conquered Canaanite city, in his tent.

As manifest also in Jewish sources contemporary with and prior to early Christianity, particularly the Mishnah, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the morality of capital punishment in general and stoning in particular. For example, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the time when the religious courts had authority over capital punishment, a court that executed more than 1 person in 70 years was a "bloody court".[1] In the following centuries the leading Jewish sages imposed so many restrictions on the actual implementation of capital punishment - especially, many difficult to fulfill conditions for a testimony to be admissible (Sanhedrin) - as to make the imposition of capital punishment virtually impossible in practice.

The Talmud limits the use of the death penalty to Jewish criminals who: (a) while about to do the crime were warned not to commit the crime while in the presence of two witnesses (and only individuals who meet a strict list of standards are considered acceptable witnesses); and (b) having been warned, committed the crime in front of the same two witnesses.


The Talmudic method of how stoning is to be carried out differs from mob stoning such as implied by the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John. According to the Jewish Oral Law, after the Jewish criminal has been determined as guilty before the Great Sanhedrin, the two valid witnesses and the sentenced criminal go to the edge of a high place. From there the two witnesses are to push the criminal off. After the criminal has fallen, the two witnesses are to drop a large boulder onto the criminal - requiring both of the witnesses to lift the boulder together. If the criminal did not die from the fall or from the crushing of the large boulder, then any people in the surrounding area are to quickly cause him to die by stoning with whatever rocks they can find.

Any form of capital punishment is, by it's very nature, not going to be particularly pleasant, and especially so in those times where anesthetics etc were unknown.

The Jewish form of stoning seems relatively humane to me: it's quite likely that the victim was stunned or even knocked out by the initial fall, and the subsequent impact of a rock which took two people to lift would probably be almost immediately fatal.

[Lili]

Formerfundy, you are right. Sorcery means imposing one's will on supernatural beings such as angels, demons, or human spirits in order to impact humans or other beings. Some are surprised to know that It was actually forbidden in some polytheistic religions, too, because it is an act that shows extreme hubris. It is absurd for a mere human to think they have to power to control powerful, supernatural (and sometimes, dangerous) beings.

[rogue06]

Hope it isn't too late to offer a possible answer

I'm just trying to get my mind around "a person who kills using the dark arts." How exactly is that accomplished, and how exactly is that verified? It's also precisely what many of those children were accused of in Nigeria. Whole villages nodded assent to the banishments and killings, citing perceived "evidence."

Considering that many cultures deem the use of poison to be witchcraft or practicing the ‘dark arts’ (including several in Africa IIRC), I would say that accusations of poisoning could account for at least some of the charges of witchcraft.

[FormerFundy]

Here you're talking about stoning under Sharia law.

It appears that the actual process was quite different (and considerably more humane) as practiced by the Jews:

Sorry for the source...

Wow! A humane form of stoning? Its amazing to what lengths believers will go to try to "tone down" the barbaric nature of their religion.

What you are quoting from is how stoning came to be practiced by the Jews during the time of Jesus and a few hundred years before. We don't know how frequently it was practiced before that. We also don't know the exact nature of how it was done since the biblical God did not see fit to tell his people how to do it exactly.

Whether it was practiced frequently or not does not change the barbaric nature of the act.

The Jewish form of stoning seems relatively humane to me: it's quite likely that the victim was stunned or even knocked out by the initial fall, and the subsequent impact of a rock which took two people to lift would probably be almost immediately fatal.

You're idea of humane is different than mine and most of the civilized world.

[rogue06]

Well I see the making and use of poison has already been mentioned as a form of witchcraft. Support for this linkage can be seen in the one incident where the word “witchcraft” is used in the NT – at Galatians 5:20. In this case the Greek word used is “pharmakeia” (the root word for pharmacy), a reference to a potion and poison maker. Strong’s even lists it as being derived from “pharmakeus,” which means poison.

In Europe, poisoner and witch were virtually synonymous as can be seen in the trial of Marie-Madeleine-Marguerite d'Aubray, Marquise de Brinvilliers in France during the 1670s, as well as the fact that the witches of Shakespeare’s MacBeth were brewing a poison:

A dark Cave. In the middle, a Cauldron boiling. Thunder. Enter the three witches.
1 WITCH. Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
2 WITCH. Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin'd.
3 WITCH. Harpier cries:—'tis time! 'tis time!
1 WITCH. Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.—
Toad, that under cold stone,
Days and nights has thirty-one;
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot!
ALL. Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

It seems that those accused of poisoning were routinely charged with witchcraft as well.

Finally, many of the plants and herbs associated with witches are highly toxic including certain toadstools and mushrooms of the Amanita family, mandrake, hemlock, belladonna and aconite (i.e., wolfsbane or monk’s hood). I’m sure there is more but these are what immediately come to mind.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes if it was connected to some type of spell or incantation.

So you're saying it's impossible to prove that a person was poisoned or that somebody gave a spell or incantation upon them?

They are clear on what the word means. You said it refered to someone who KILLED another person by use of dark arts. That is not correct. It is just simply the use of dark arts or magic or sorcery or whatever you want to call it. Can you admit you were wrong?

Got to be right on those minor points, eh?

No it can't. In the Bible, its clear that it refers to someone who believes in supernatural powers (other than Yahweh) and tries to manipulate those powers to impact humans. Try doing some study.

And again, I specifically said that, get yourself some reading comprehension and read my words. For whining about me not admitting when I am wrong, you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that. I said that right from the beginning, but I also said we are not sure if it was referring to a specific event or action or if it's a general action. Something about that you can't understand?

[lilpixieofterror]

I see we have more arguments from emotion from the great 'biblical scholar' former fundy, who really is just yet another blow hard who tries to cover up his emotional arguments and pretend they are rational. Below I will expose just how bad his 'argument's are and how little he actually thought when he wrote this rant.

I keep hearing MM and Pixie talk about a "trial" and a "thorough investigation", etc. Please show this from Scripture. You are trying to read modern day American jurisprudence back into the Biblical times. Its not the same.

Here FF just whines and screams that the OT does not give 100% specifics on every case, which really... why should it? Really, this is just pure emotion and his ranting that he doesn't like the process when in reality, was the rest of the world any better in it's justice system? Not at all, in fact, it was above what you see in the rest of the world, this is simply him trying to puff out his chest and look like he's an expect, when he isn't.

All the Bible says is that there needs to be two or three witnesses. It doesn't tell us anything about their testimony. Does it have to be eyewitness? What about the credibility of the witnesses? We know that sometimes people will collaborate against someone they don't like. How are you going to judge the truthfulness of the witnesses?

Do you really think these ancient people were too stupid to know what a reliable witness was and wasn't? Again... it seems we have another argument of, "Duh! Ancient people were stupid!" and not much else, however it seems FF is not done yet selectivly reading what he wants to hear and ignore what he doesn't because next he rants with:

We know from the Bible itself that 2 witnesses may lie. See 1 Kings 21:1-14.

We also know that lying in a trial is not only against the 10 commandments, but there are a couple of verses that tell them what to do with liars (hint Leviticus 6:2-4, Leviticus 19:10-12), but FF is not interested in these verses, he just want to whine and scream like a little baby so he can make his argument from emotion look valid, when it isn't. More emotionalism from the fundy side.

What a fair trial!!!!

It's funny how you don't actually give specifics and completely ignore Leviticus 6:2-4 when a person is found to be a liar. For whining about others adding in things, you sure do a great job of it yourself as I'll show below.

The accused is not even allowed to defend himself or cross examine the witnesses.

Wow, you just showed us all how dishonest you really are because I found that Deuteronomy 22:13-19 does give an example with just that, a person brings up a statement and the person who is accused is allowed to defend herself, in fact I'll show you the verse:

"...then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate."
Deuteronomy 22:15

So did you miss this verse when you were in school or did you ignore it so you can make an argument from emotion? There you go, you are wrong, admit to your error please or show us all that you can't admit to a single error.

In addition, the practice of stoning is one of the most barbaric methods of capital punishment known to man. Yet it is the method that Yahweh prefers.

Stoning takes a few minutes to do the deed, while crucifixion takes hours or even days to do the job, so really... stoning really is not all that 'barbaric' compared to some other methods we find around the ancient world, of course all this argument is (yet again) is an argument from emotion. Was God suppose to introduce lethal injection so people don't suffer or perhaps it a sign of the nomadic practice of this group of people who did not regularly carry around instruments to execute people painlessly? Again, more emotion and nothing actually of substance.

[lilpixieofterror]

You've moved from the supernatural to the tangible. Clearly you meant the "dark arts" to mean spells and such.

Poor little boy, so frustrated that he was shown in error that he needs to make up things in order for his argument to work. I made no such comment, you just added that little part in so you can keep ignoring what you don't want to hear. I see your fundy days are showing themselves yet again.

[Pai Geacademe]

Poor little boy, so frustrated that he was shown in error that he needs to make up things in order for his argument to work. I made no such comment, you just added that little part in so you can keep ignoring what you don't want to hear. I see your fundy days are showing themselves yet again.

It's like every one of your posts has the same tone and content.

[lilpixieofterror]

It's like every one of your posts has the same tone and content.

You're more then welcome to refute it, so far you can't... can you? I have that tone when I deal with stupid people or whiners, which you and FF tend to fit a little of both (although you're more on the stupid scale while FF is more of the whiner scale). Try to grow a brain and you'll find a change in my tone.