 |
 |
Ted, Certainly do agree in historical terms "witch" would have been used. As inaccurate historically as it is now, but given the time frame there were accusations of demonic possession not only by witches but within churches and convents. My understanding is the power rested within the Devil and not with the "witch" as to the possession. Witches certainly had the believed ability to enchant (bewitch) which may be the gist of what was originally asked. I am certainly not condemning you for your assessment of question! ----- Original Message ----- From: "MFN" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:52:30 PM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] opposite of an exorcist I am a modern practicing Witch and thought of writing 'a Witch' too for the same reason. (I just would have given it a capital W.) Interesting results though. FG On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Ted Hand < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have the discussion. It's just that there are a number of posts above that I'm having trouble not reading as ironic in the "mocking" sense, as attacking me as if I held or were endorsing or condemning certain of the ideas under consideration. I'm not interested in fighting with anybody, and I'm certainly not here to attack or impugn contemporary witches. However, I'm still confused as to how the relationship between "modern" and "historical" "witches" is understood in the contemporary scholarship. Has there been some finding that I'm not aware of in support of the Murray thesis or something? On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:26 AM, BJ Duncan < [log in to unmask] > wrote: <blockquote> I am quite aware of the ironic statement of "witch" as Ted is correct in that it would have been the knee jerk reaction statement made by anyone not understanding witchcraft. What I thought we were doing was have a discussion on why that wasn't the case. I know several "modern" witches who also understand the irony and was giving them a chance to voice opinion. From: "mandrake" < [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:38:38 AM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] opposite of an exorcist Ted I for one recognised the irony in your first post - but it just seemed like an interesting issue in its own right - not meant as a flame war - mogg On 22/07/2013 05:21, Ted Hand wrote: > Is it any wonder that serious participation in this group has dropped off? > I pointed out, in an attempt at irony, what I thought was the > uncontroversial fact that the term "witch" has been associated with demonic > activity, and apparently have been accused of all sorts of thought crimes. > I don't remember advocating child torture! It's amazing what can be read > into a term taken completely out of context. I wasn't making any of the > judgements that (some rightly, some bizarrely) are being attacked here. > Certainly had no intent of slinging any mud at contemporary witches--and > can somebody please explain how the situation of contemporary witches sheds > light on the historical use of the term? Anyway, keep up the good flames > everybody... > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Pitch313 < [log in to unmask] >wrote: > >> ** </blockquote>