#by the way on the topic of whether devils r evil or not i think his existence proves theyre 'evil' even when they try not to be. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tinyshe · 3 years

Text

Witchcraft 101

by Michelle Arnold • 7/1/2008 Catholic Answers

What springs to mind when someone mentions “witchcraft“? Three hags sitting about a cauldron chanting “Double, double, toil and trouble”? A pretty housewife turning someone into a toad at the twitch of her nose? Or perhaps you think of Wicca and figure that it is witchcraft hidden beneath a politically correct neologism.

Witchcraft has become a hot topic in recent years. From J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books to self-described witches agitating for political and social parity with mainstream religious traditions, Christians have had to re-examine witchcraft and formulate a modern apologetic approach to it.

In an age of science and skepticism, it may be difficult to understand why intelligent people would be drawn to witchcraft, which encompasses both a methodology of casting spells and invoking spirits and an ideology that encourages finding gods and goddesses both in nature and within the self. In her “conversion story,” self-described Wiccan high priestess Phyllis Curott, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who was raised by agnostics, describes her journey from secular materialism to Wicca as a rejection of the idea that humans are made for mammon alone:

I discovered the answers . . . to questions buried at the center of my soul . . . How are we to find our lost souls? How can we rediscover the sacred from which we have been separated for thousands of years? How can we live free of fear and filled with divine love and compassion? . . . How can we restore and protect this Eden, which is our fragile planet? (Curott, Book of Shadows, xii)

These are indeed important questions that deserve answers, answers that can be found in their fullness in Christ and in his Church. In a homily then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave at the Mass just before his election to the papacy, he famously observed:

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves—flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth.

Witchcraft has been around for centuries, perhaps even millennia, but is emerging once more from the shadows as one answer to skepticism, to materialism, even to self-absorption. It is, so to speak, the wrong answer to the right questions; it is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “gravely contrary to the virtue of religion” (CCC 2117). Catholics should not discourage these questions but must be prepared to offer the only answer: Christ and his Church.

Witchcraft’s apologists like to claim that they are the misunderstood victims of centuries of religious prejudice. Unfortunately, all too many Christians make such claims credible when they misunderstand witchcraft and craft their rebuttals of it based upon those misconceptions. If someone you know is dabbling in witchcraft, here are five things you should know before starting a conversation with him.

Witches do not believe in Satan.

If there is one belief common to witches everywhere, it is that they do not believe in Satan and that they do not practice Satanism. Witchcraft’s apologists are quick to point this out.

Denise Zimmermann and her co-authors of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft emphasize, “Witches don’t believe in Satan! . . . The all-evil Satan is a Christian concept that plays no part in the Wiccan religion . . . Witches do not believe that negativity or evil is an organized force. . . . Neither do Wiccans believe there is a place (hell) where the damned or the evil languish and suffer” (13).

Christian apologists should acknowledge that witches do not consciously worship Satan and that they do not believe he exists. But this does not mean that Satan needs to be left entirely out of the conversation. A Christian apologist should point out that belief in someone does not determine that person’s actual reality.

One way to demonstrate this is to ask the witch if she believes in the pope. “No,” she’s likely to answer. “The pope is a Christian figure.” True, you concede. But there is a man in Rome who holds the office of the papacy, right? Your belief or disbelief in the papacy does not determine whether or not the papacy exists. Put that way, a person will have to acknowledge that something or someone can exist independently of belief in its reality. That’s when you can make the case that Satan exists and that he does not require belief to determine his reality or his action in someone’s life. In fact, disbelief in him can make it easier for him to accomplish his ends.

In the preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis notes that “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”

While it is true that witches do not directly worship Satan or practice Satanism, their occult practices, such as divination, and their worship of false gods and of each other and themselves—which they explain as worshipping the “goddess within”—can open them to demonic activity. To make the case though, it is imperative to present it in a manner that won’t be dismissed out of hand.

Witchcraft and Wicca are not synonyms.

Wicca, originally spelled Wica, is the name given to a subset of witchcraft by its founder Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. Although some claim the word Wicca means “wise,” in her book Drawing Down the Moon, Margot Adler states that it “derive[s] from a root wic, or weik, which has to do with religion and magic” (40). Adler also says that the word witch originates with wicce and wicca. Marian Singer explains the difference between Wicca and witchcraft this way: “Witchcraft implies a methodology . . . whereas the word Wiccan refers to a person who has adopted a specific religious philosophy” (The Everything Wicca and Witchcraft Book, 4).

Because witchcraft is often defined as a methodology and Wicca as an ideology, a person who considers himself a witch but not a Wiccan may participate in many of the same practices as a Wiccan, such as casting spells, divining the future, perhaps even banding together with others to form a coven. This can make it easy for an outsider to presume that both the witch and the Wiccan share the same beliefs. But, if someone tells you he is not a Wiccan, it is only courteous to accept that. The Christian case against witchcraft does not depend on a witch identifying himself as a Wiccan. (There are also Wiccans who reject the label “witch,” but this is often a distinction without a difference. Even so, use the preferred term to avoid alienating the person with whom you are speaking.)

Several strands of Wicca attract followings, including: Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and Georgian, which are named for their founders; Seax, which patterns itself on Saxon folklore; Black Forest, which is an eclectic hodgepodge of Wiccan traditions; and the feminist branch known as Dianic Wicca after the Roman goddess Diana. Knowing the distinctions among these traditions may not be important for the Christian apologist, but he should keep in mind that there are distinctions and that he should not make statements that start out with “Wiccans believe . . .” Rather, allow the other person to explain what he believes and then build a Christian apologetic tailored to that person’s needs.

Witches question authority.

When dealing with self-identified witches, remember that no two witches will agree with each other on just about anything. Witches are non-dogmatic to the extreme, with one witch apologist suggesting “[s]ending dogma to the doghouse” and claiming that “[r]eligious dogma and authority relieve a person of the responsibility of deciding on his or her own actions” (Diane Smith, Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, 32).

Generally speaking, witches prefer to give authority to their own personal experiences. Phyllis Curott, author of a book titled Witch Crafting, puts it this way: “Witches, whether we are women or men, experience the Goddess within us and in the world all around us. I love what Starhawk [witch and popular speaker and writer] said about this: ‘People often ask me if I believe in the Goddess. I reply, Do you believe in rocks?’” (121, emphasis in original). In other words, witches know “the Goddess” exists because they can experience her by at least one of their five senses. Faith in such a material deity calls to mind the demon Screwtape’s longing for hell’s “perfect work—the Materialist Magician” (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 31).

Throwing a bucket of cold water on a witch’s “personal experiences” will not be easy, particularly since one of the frightening.aspects of witchcraft is that some witches do have, and blithely report, extraordinary preternatural experiences. Incidents that could and should scare away many dabblers from playing with forces beyond their control are recounted by witchcraft’s apologists as affirmative of their path. Curott tells of a man who once dreamed of “being prey” of a monstrous creature; ultimately, in the dream, he was captured by the creature. Rather than taking this as a sign he should reconsider the path down which he was heading, he awoke “deeply transformed” by the dream’s ending because he believed “tremendous love” was felt for him by the creature. He eventually became a Wiccan priest (Witch Crafting, 154–155).

How can a Christian argue against a belief like that?

Ultimately, it may be that a Damascus-road moment might be necessary to sway someone that deeply entrenched in traffic with preternatural creatures. To those who are not as enmeshed, a Christian can point out that sometimes apologists for the occult have warned their readers not to be taken in by their experiences with spirits.

In a section of his book titled “Practicing Safe Spirituality,” author Carl McColman gives a checklist of “some common-sense precautions” occultists should be aware of “while meditating, doing ritual, reflecting on your dreams, or doing any other spiritual work that may involve contact with spirits.” The first item on the list is “Don’t automatically believe everything you hear. Just because a spirit says something doesn’t make it so” (The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Paganism, 129).

Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism.

Observers of witchcraft have claimed that it is remarkably similar to Catholicism. Catholic journalist and medievalist Sandra Miesel called it “Catholicism without Christ” (“The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002). Writer and editor Charlotte Allen noted that “Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity” (“The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001).

It’s easy to see why the assertion is made. Allen notes that as witchcraft cycles through its “liturgical year,” many of its adherents honor a goddess who births a god believed to live, die, and rise again. Fraternization with apparently friendly preternatural spirits is encouraged and eagerly sought. The rituals of witchcraft call to mind Catholic liturgies, particularly the libation and blessing ritual alternately known as “Cakes and Wine” and “Cakes and Ale.” Like Catholics collecting rosaries, scapulars, statues, and prayer books, witches have their own “potions, notions, and tools” as Curott calls them —some of which include jewelry, statues and dolls, and spell books and journals.

But to say that witchcraft has uncanny similarities to Catholicism is to understate the matter. Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism: Catholicism emptied of Christ and stood on its head. This is most readily seen in witchcraft’s approach to authority.

In his book Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn compares authority in the Church to a hierarchical pyramid with the pope at the top, with all of the members, including the pope, reaching upward toward God (46–47). With its antipathy to authority and its reach inward to the self and downward to preternatural spirits, witchcraft could also be illustrated with a triangle—every adherent poised at the top as his own authority and pointed down in the sort of “Lower Command” structure envisioned by Lewis’s Screwtape.

Witchcraft is dangerous.

In my work as an apologist, I have read a number of introductory books to various non-Catholic and non-Christian religions. Never before my investigation into witchcraft had I seen introductory books on a religion that warn you about the dangers involved in practicing it. The dangers that witch apologists warn newcomers about are both corporal and spiritual.

In her book, Diane Smith includes a chapter titled “Ten Warning Signs of a Scam or Inappropriate Behavior” (Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, chapter 23). Her top-10 list includes “Inflicting Harm,” “Charging Inappropriate Fees or Demanding Undue Money,” “Engaging in Sexual Manipulation,” “Using Illicit Drugs or Excessive Amounts of Alcohol in Spiritual Practice,” and “Breeding Paranoia.” Smith claims that such a need to be wary is common to religion: “[U]nscrupulous or unstable people sometimes perpetrate scams or other manipulations under the guise of religion, and this situation is as true for Wicca as for other religious groups” (317).

However true it may be that there can be “unscrupulous or unstable people” involved in traditional religions, most practitioners—Christian or otherwise—do not experience problems with these behaviors to such an extent that religious apologists see the need to issue caveats to proselytes. That Smith does so suggests that these problems are far more widespread in witchcraft than in traditional religion.

We noted one paganism apologist who warned his readers to “practice safe spirituality.” McColman goes on to caution that the “advice” of spirits “must be in accordance with your own intuition for it to be truly useful.” He goes on to say, “You remain responsible for your own decisions. Remember that spirit guides make mistakes like everybody else!” (Paganism, 128).

Catholics concerned about loved ones involved with witchcraft may not be attracted to witchcraft themselves, but there is danger for them in pursuing dabblers down the road to the occult in hopes of drawing them back. In preparing themselves to answer the claims of witchcraft, they may feel the need to read books like those mentioned in this article. If they are not fully educated and firm in their own faith, such Catholics may find their own faith under attack. Three suggestions are in order.

Not all are called to be apologists. If you are not intellectually and spiritually prepared to answer the claims of witchcraft, leave such work to others. Search out knowledgeable Catholics with whom your loved one can speak.

Prepare yourself. Common sense indicates that if you are about to rappel down a cliff, you do so with safety ropes firmly attached and in the presence of someone you trust who can help you if you are in danger. Don’t even think of rappelling down a spiritual cliff without seeking to fortify yourself intellectually and spiritually—particularly spiritually. Inform your confessor or spiritual director of your plans to study and answer the claims of witchcraft. Ask trusted Catholic friends to pray for your work. Regularly receive the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist. If you need to stop or take a break from this area of apologetics, by all means do so. And, most importantly:

Pray. Whether or not you are called to personally minister to those involved in witchcraft, the most fundamental thing you can do to help witches and other dabblers in the occult is to pray.

Saints whose intercession you can seek include Bl. Bartholomew Longo, the repentant former satanic priest who returned to the Church and spent the rest of his life promoting the rosary; St. Benedict, who battled pagans and whose medal is often worn in protection against the devil; St. Michael the Archangel (Jude 1:9), invoked especially by the prayer for his intercession commonly attributed to Pope Leo XIII. And, of course, there’s St. Paul, who reminds us: “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

SIDEBARS

The Catechism on Witchcraft

There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (CCC 1852)

God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility. (CCC 2115)

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others—even if this were for the sake of restoring their health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity. (CCC 2117)

Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Further Reading

Charlotte Allen, “The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001 (Available online: www.theatlantic.com)

C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (HarperCollins)

Sandra Miesel, “Who Burned the Witches?” Crisis, October 2001 (Available online: www.catholiceducation.org)

Sandra Miesel, “The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002

Catherine Edwards Sanders, Wicca’s Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality (Shaw Books, 2005)

Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism (Ignatius, 1991)

Alois Wiesinger, O.C.S.O, Occult Phenomena in the Light of Theology (Roman Catholic Books)

#catholicanswers #catholic answers

2 notes · View notes

dappercritter · 5 years

Note

You have been granted the oppurtunity to recast your favorite animated movie! The only catch is that each of the characters in said movie are animated characters from different shows/movies (X from show/movie is Bob, X from show/movie is Larry, ect.)

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boi. You have no idea what you’ve just unleashed, my friend!

Once long ago, before the Cringe Ages, I loved recasting my favourite and sometimes least favourite movies with characters from my favourite shows. But then I started taking storytelling more seriously and sentimentally and… art-y, and I started acting as if I was above the stuff somehow. To this day, I still don’t know whether to blame the masses or my own hubris.

But now! Now, the floodgates of my childish, innocent mind are open once more! And I have just the idea: The Nightmare Before Christmas but with Villainous and Batman* characters! (With a few CN villains on the side.) So, I guess you could call it…

The Villainous Nightmare Before Batman!

(No, wait. Uhhhhh…)

The Dark Knight Before Villainous!

Ok, yeah, that should do.

Now you’re probably asking yourself, “Dapper Critter, what are you doing this? Sure, Batman meets Villainous could work, but why are you bringing The Nightmare Before Christmas into this? It’s not even Halloween or Christmas! What are you thinking?!” Well, first of all, Christmas and Halloween aren’t just holidays, they’re states-of-mind. Second, I think it’s time you guys learned something important: I’m a big ol’ lowkey goth baby, baby! If it’s spooky or gothic, I’ll soak it up like a sponge in sink full of soapy water. And nothing says gothic like the hero of a city literally called “Gotham,” a show with a grotesque monster hiding behind the guise of a well-dressed man, and the classic story of Jack Skellington himself! What’s more, all three of these hold a special place in my heart, as they all played a huge part in helping me develop and realize my interest in gothic culture. Lastly, I can see the worlds of these three stories coming together quite easily. Behold, this plot pitch I just made!

“Another Halloween has come and gone in CN City, and another cheerful Christmas is on its way. Black Hat, unofficial master of all that is dark and evil, is thoroughly disgusted that the multiverse will soon be returning to it’s obnoxiously cheerful and wholesome state. He morosely tears a hole through time and space to talk a walk through reality, miserable that he’s stuck living in such a wonderful place. That is until he stumbles upon the city of Gotham, where no matter what time of year it is, the streets are filled with misery and malicious mayhem. Delighted, he sets out to celebrate Christmas his own way: by taking a certain caped-crusader out of the picture and making Gotham his very own holiday vacation home! Little does he know, there’s one special girl who thinks he can celebrate right where he is, as well as a certain clown who’s got his own sinister Christmas party in mind…”

So now that I’ve convinced you, I think it’s time we got down to the actual recasting! Let’s begin, my darling children of the Hot Topic night…

Black Hat as Jack Skellington: This couldn’t have been easier—they’re both creepy gentlemen with excellent taste in fashion. Yes, I know Black Hat is a lot less nice than our dear Pumpkin King, but let’s just say this story takes the odd liberty here and there. Not to mention, Black Hat could easily match Jack’s enthusiasm, intelligence, style, and obsessive inquisitions. Plus, he could totally pull off an evil Santa suit. (Though to be honest, I’m not sure if his snarling, slimy, cockney-accented voice could match Danny Elfman’s melodious singing.)

Demencia as Sally: A devoted, mildly ghoulish, and totally cute fangirl who’s always pining after their darling idol, and who may or may not have been made in a lab? It’s like this fancast is writing itself! Demencia might be a bit more proactive—and scary—in the plot, but I can see her a lot Sally’s dilemma in her as she tries to get Black Hat to notice her and not to abandon them in pursuit of a crazy dream. (Well, that I’m filthy Lizardhat trash.)

Dr. Flug as Dr. Finklestein: Flug, being the only mad scientist who’s employed by Black Hat, as well as the only to survive this, seems like a good pick. Sure, he’s not in a wheelchair and, no, he’s not as creepy as the bugger, but he could still work as our horrid hero’s right-hand man. Plus, since a big part of his canon character is putting up with Demencia’s BS (tell my family that means “baloney-sandwich”), he’d also do great as the one trying to keep the free-spirited love interest under control. Only here, it would be because he’s trying to keep Dem out of trouble so she doesn’t make his boss mad and try to kill him, as opposed to… whatever Finklestein’s problem is. And of course, he can still be menacing if need be. (Just watch the Lost Cases of Townsville and The Tree House…)

5.0.5. as Zero: A cute animal sidekick is a cute animal sidekick, I always say! And 5.0.5. was basically designed to be the ultimate cutesy animal sidekick. Therefore, he can be basically do anything Zero did. Try to cheer up Black Hat? Check. Pull Black Hate’s sleigh? Why couldn’t he? Yeah, he can’t be a flying ghost dog with a glowing nose, but I could just throw bedsheet on him (it was just after Halloween after all) and maybe say he swallowed that anti-gravity device.

Batman as Santa Claus: For Santa Clause, I needed someone who could be the absolute good guy in a world filled with bad guys and weirdos, much like Santa was in the movie. Likewise, since Jack kidnapped Santa to take over Christmas, Black Hat would need to kidnap the guy in charge of Gotham in order to take it for himself. So, of course he’s going to go after it’s #1 protector. I can also see Batman being the voice of reason in this madcap story. Not to mention that he could pull off a Santa suit even better than Black Hat! (In fact…)

The Joker as Oogie Boogie: This one I had some trouble with. I kept asking myself stuff like, “who would be brave enough to usurp Black Hat?,” “who could match Oogie’s siz—er, presence?” or “who would want to kidnap Santa Claus?,” and “Who would be into gambling and crazy funhouse stuff?” And then it came to me: The Joker. I mean, he’s got charisma, a sense of menace, he’s a cutthroat who loves to play with his enemies, and almost always has a big ol’ amusement park deathtrap on hand. Sure, he wouldn’t have the creepy demise like Oogie, but he could get a good beating and traumatizing from Black Hat and/or Demencia (who’d really hate being a damsel in distress, I imagine).

The Delightful Children from Down the Lane as Lock, Shock, and Barrel: At first, I thought of using other Batman villains or Shannon, Darrell, and Ernesto from OK K.O.!, but then I thought it would make more sense to have child villains from a CN show who could do bad things for slime-balls like Black Hat and Joker with pleasure. I instantly thought of these scheming, little monsters from Codename: Kids Next Door (an old favourite of mine). Although they’re usually talk and act in unison, they could have some comical bickering now and then. (After all, “Lenny is an idiot.”) Likewise, I can see Black Hat using Batman’s affinity for young people to get him while his guard’s down. They could make for great trick r’ treaters as well!

Lord Boxman as The Mayor: The mayor wasn’t a very important character, but he was definitely a memorable one, and the first character I thought of who could match his dual personality was Lord Boxman from OK K.O.! They both act like leaders but are really terrible at their jobs, suck up to better villains, and throw a whimpering tantrum like nobody else. (Also, I get to imagine Jim Cummings singing lines from The Nightmare Before Christmas songs, so that’s nice.)

Various CN Villains as The Citizens of Halloween Town: Like with The Mayor and the Trick R’ Treaters, I like to think that the various CN villains who cameoed in the Villainous Orientation series would show up as the denizens of the seedier side of CN City which—as you probably guessed—would be standing in for Halloween Town. Unfortunately, I do not have an encylcopediac knowledge of either Halloween Town residents, nor CN villains, so I’ll just list the ones I can remember and am the most proud of without offering any real justification.

Nohyas as Mr. Hyde: I couldn’t think of anyone besides Black Hat with a fancy hat or smaller versions of himself. Nohyas just so happens to have a suitable villain’s hat, and Handre (his hand puppet) could work in place of tiny clones living under his hats. (And yes, I like Mighty Magiswords. Deal with it.)

Zombozo as Clown with the Tear-Away Face: I don’t believe all creepy clowns look the same, but a ghoulish clown could easily stand in for another. Plus, I used to be a big Ben 10 fan, so I thought I ought to work something in.

Donny as Behemoth: This grass ogre from Adventure Time was more of an outright jerk than Behemoth, but he has a softer side so that would make him a great candidate for a resident gentle giant.

Loony Toons’ Dracula, Billy and Mandy’s Dracula, and Count Spankula as The Vampire Brothers: Do I really need to explain this one?

The Red Guy as Devil: I sure don’t need to elaborate on this one.

The Gangreen Gang as the Zombie Band: The Gangreens were basically based off edgy bands of the late 90’s, and thanks to Gorillaz, we know Ace can play the bass like a boss. Also, I can totally hear Ace saying, “Nice work, bone-daddy.”

Earl (AKA Dopey Black Hat) as Igor: Earl doesn’t get enough to do, inside or outside of Villainous canon.

The Beast as The Hanging Tree: Yeah, I know, I’m messed-up.

HIM as Harlequin Demon: Seriously, this one cast itself!

The Queen of the Black Puddle as Undersea Gal: I don’t watch Courage the Cowardly Dog much, but I remember seeing this villainess once before and I instantly thought she’d be a dead-ringer!

Morbidia and Gateaux as The Witches: Another natural casting derived from my soft spot for Mighty Magiswords. Although Gateaux is a male and a tall one at that, he’s perfect for being a huge suck-up. (I originally considered Miss Endive from Chowder and Duchess from Fosters’ Home for Imaginary Friends, but then I remembered that no matter what they dressed-up as, they’d be unlikeable.)

Monstrous Black Hat as The Monster Under the Bed: Like Earl and the other Black Hat clones, he doesn’t get enough love. (Though this may be a good thing, since he seems too nasty to receive or return it…)

Rob as The Melting Man: There aren’t a lot of CN villains who are melting, per se, but I figured this poor bad guy from Amazing World of Gumball and his unique media-mixed malformity could work.

Biowolf as The Wolfman: Because they’re both well designed wolfmen and I refuse to forget Generator Rex.

The Robins, Batgirl, and Alfred as the Elves: If Batman’s going to be Santa, then his support staff/family might as well be his helpers. Not to mention, they’d look great in cute little elf outfits happily working on Batman’s gadgets in preparation for the big Christmas crime wave.

The Justice League as The Army: Someone needs to show up to shoot-down Black Hat and his idea of Christmas at the end, and since he’s kidnapped Batman, I think it only makes sense that the Justice League would retaliate and come to clean up Black Hat’s mess. He’d also get a reminder that he isn’t just in Gotham City, he’s in the DC universe.

Unikitty as The Easter Bunny: I have my reasons. Them being, Unikitty is good at being sweet and innocent, the episode “Batkitty,” and her world is one of the few Black Hat has interacted with so far. I like to think that’s because he’s too repulsed by her cuteness to touch it. So imagine his reaction when the Delightful Children bring him to her by accident while she’s cosplaying as LEGO Batman or something.

And there you have it! I had a lot of fun making this recast. It was a great way to step out of my comfort zone and to have some fun. Not to mention, I had an excuse to listen to the Nightmare Before Christmas soundtrack early. I sincerely hope you like it as much as I do, @good-guy-is-alive!

Now I just need to make sure Black Hat himself doesn’t see this, or else he might find me and—

Oh no.

No, please, Mister Black Hat, sir, you don’t understand. I just was doing this for fun. I wasn’t trying to make you look—

OH NO.

NO!

NOOOOOOOOOOjglkajgflkjdshGH;LJF’W abfklghlfuGFARGTADS!!!#%RQ#@!

…

*Since DC changes their Batman shows like people change their socks, we’ll just say that this is your standard DCAU/Bruce Timmverse Batman.

#goodguy #goodguyisalive #critter asks #critter answers #the nightmare before christmas #villainous #batman #dc comics #cartoon network #self-indulgence #recast #fancast

3 notes · View notes

brentrogers · 4 years

Text

Conspiracy Theory Disorder: Understanding Why People Believe

Whenever something new happens — whether it’s a pandemic that grips the world, a rise in a disorder’s diagnosis, or a new technology being rolled out — people have theories. Specifically, conspiracy theories.

More often than not, such theories are based upon specious links between one or more unrelated events. Rarely do conspiracy theories have any scientific backing. And when they do, it’s often a lone article or white paper published online. Or maybe just a YouTuber who “was told by my friend who works at so-and-so.” Friend-of-a-friend-of-someone-who-knows (or works there, someone in law enforcement, or a “scientist”) is regularly offered as “proof.”

What drives conspiracy theories and their dramatic increase in the online world? And could people who adamantly believe such theories in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise suffer from a disorder?

Conspiracy theories have been with us as long as there have been conspiracies. The idea that there is a vast, insidious network of people who are perpetrating acts in order to forward their own sinister agenda is an old one (Goertzel, 1994). Whether it’s the multiple shooters theory of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the 9/11 bombings in the U.S. in 2001 being an “inside job,” whenever something significant happens in the world, there are a small but growing subset of people who believe it is happening for some insidious, evil reason.

More recently, people have also attributed the rise in autism rates with something having to do with either psychiatric medications or childhood vaccines. The novel coronavirus pandemic in early 2020 gave rise to the false belief that it was either a bioweapon engineered by the Chinese that accidentally escaped a lab, or due to the rise of the introduction of new 5G wireless towers.

Last year, a scientific study was published that examined what researchers know about conspiracy theories, and why they seem so prevalent in our online era (Goreis & Voracek, 2019).

Personality Traits Related to Conspiracy Theories

According to the researchers, “Fear and anxiety were reported as positive predictors of conspiracy beliefs. As people are anxious, fear a threatening situation, or have low perceived feelings of control over situations, they tend to conspiracies.” This was found to be especially true in people who have a need to exert control over their environment — they like the feeling of being in control at all times.

Conspiracy theories are a way of making sense out of events that oftentimes, at least initially, seem to make little sense.

That’s why the study also found that people who have a strong motivation to make sense of things also tended to be more likely to believe more. Because even if the explanations don’t make any scientific sense to the individual, their lack of highly-specialized knowledge in the subject matter makes it easier to believe them.

People who also believe in the paranormal were found to be more likely to believe conspiracy theories. Such people, unsurprisingly, also tend to doubt scientific knowledge.

All the internal biases humans use as thinking shortcuts — illusory correlations (“Full moons cause people to behave more wildly”), confirmation bias (“I believe smarter people are happier, and I see it in all the smart people I know”), and hindsight bias (“I knew it all along”) — seem to be stronger in people who believe in conspiracy theories. These cognitive biases offer an easy shortcut for our minds to make connections, even when they aren’t there.

People who have more narcissistic traits also tend to believe more: “Narcissism is positively associated with paranoid thinking, as narcissists are perceiving the actions of others intentionally targeted against themselves. [… Also,] conspiracies are appealing to people who lack confidence and excess self-promotional characteristics, such as self-esteem.”

Self-esteem instability resulting in self-uncertainty is also a characteristic associated with a greater likelihood to believe in conspiracy theories. People who don’t feel like they belong to any one group — a trait psychologists refer to as belongingness — are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories (van Prooijen, 2016).

Social & Political Factors Related to Conspiracy Theories

As modern society has become more complex and challenging to navigate, many people feel left behind in trying to keep up. Such people who feel alienation and disaffection from society are more likely to endorse these theories. It’s easier for them to blame some external factor for their own low socio-political or socioeconomic standing.

Any societal alienation appears to be connected to a higher belief in such theories. Whether it be unemployment, ethnicity, or even relationship status, many who suffer on the edge of society report stronger beliefs. Moulding et al. (2016) found that, “endorsement of conspiracy theories related […] with the alienation-related variables — isolation, powerlessness, normlessness and disengagement from social norms.”

Anything that may threaten the status-quo of society also appears related to these beliefs. Groups whose identity is tied up in traditional societal values and protecting the existing socio-political status quo are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. These are, unsurprisingly, often right-wing authoritarian groups and those with a social dominance-orientation (White supremacists, for example).

Rational thinking and intelligence are also tied to a lower belief in conspiracy theories. Those who aren’t as able to engage in analytical or logical thinking, as well as those of lower intelligence will often turn to the simple connections that these theories offer (Lantian et al., 2017).

Symptoms of Conspiracy Theory Disorder

Disorders are defined by a constellation of symptoms, symptoms that tend not to occur in similar patterns in the natural world, or in other disorders.

It’s not a stretch to consider that people who strongly believe in conspiracy theories may qualify for the proposed Conspiracy Theory Disorder (CTD). Taken from the research, the symptoms may be summarized as (6 or more needed for a diagnosis):

Feeling anxious or fearful all the time, for no particular reason

Inability to exert control (or feeling unable to control) the situation

A need to make sense of complex topics or unrelated events, even with little or no topical expertise or knowledge

A strong urge to make connections between a series of unrelated events or behaviors

A belief in paranormal explanations for scientific phenomenon

An overreliance on cognitive shortcuts, such as illusory correlations, confirmation bias, and hindsight bias

Low self-esteem and/or high self-uncertainty

A sense of not really belonging to any social group; isolation from others

A greater alienation, disengagement, or disaffection from society

A belief that the status-quo of society should be valued above all else

The presence of the symptoms significantly impacts the person’s ability to function in their daily life activities, such as socializing with friends, going to work or school, or relationships with their family and others

Is Conspiracy Theory Disorder real? Well, not yet. But give it time and who knows? It may just be a part of the conspiracy to keep this disorder out of the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

References

Goreis, A. & Voracek, M. (2019). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs: Field Characteristics, Measurement Instruments, and Associations With Personality Traits. Frontiers in Psychology. https://ift.tt/3czjCF2

Lantian, A., Muller, D., Nurra, C., & Douglas, K.M. (2017). ‘I know things they don’t know!’: The role of need for uniqueness in belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychology, 48, 160-173.

Moulding, R, Nix-Carnell, S, Schnabel, A, Nedeljkovic, M, Burnside, EE, Lentini, AF, Mehzabin, N. (2016). Better the devil you know than a world you don’t? Intolerance of uncertainty and worldview explanations for belief in conspiracy theories. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 345-354.

van Prooijen, J-W. (2016). Sometimes inclusion breeds suspicion: Self‐uncertainty and belongingness predict belief in conspiracy theories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 267-279.

Conspiracy Theory Disorder: Understanding Why People Believe syndicated from

0 notes

positivepsychologyinterventions · 4 years

Text

Conspiracy Theory Disorder: Understanding Why People Believe

Last year, a scientific study was published that examined what researchers know about conspiracy theories, and why they seem so prevalent in our online era (Goreis & Voracek, 2019).

Personality Traits Related to Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories are a way of making sense out of events that oftentimes, at least initially, seem to make little sense.

People who also believe in the paranormal were found to be more likely to believe conspiracy theories. Such people, unsurprisingly, also tend to doubt scientific knowledge.

Social & Political Factors Related to Conspiracy Theories

Symptoms of Conspiracy Theory Disorder

Disorders are defined by a constellation of symptoms, symptoms that tend not to occur in similar patterns in the natural world, or in other disorders.

Feeling anxious or fearful all the time, for no particular reason

Inability to exert control (or feeling unable to control) the situation

A need to make sense of complex topics or unrelated events, even with little or no topical expertise or knowledge

A strong urge to make connections between a series of unrelated events or behaviors

A belief in paranormal explanations for scientific phenomenon

An overreliance on cognitive shortcuts, such as illusory correlations, confirmation bias, and hindsight bias

Low self-esteem and/or high self-uncertainty

A sense of not really belonging to any social group; isolation from others

A greater alienation, disengagement, or disaffection from society

A belief that the status-quo of society should be valued above all else

References

Lantian, A., Muller, D., Nurra, C., & Douglas, K.M. (2017). ‘I know things they don’t know!’: The role of need for uniqueness in belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychology, 48, 160-173.

van Prooijen, J-W. (2016). Sometimes inclusion breeds suspicion: Self‐uncertainty and belongingness predict belief in conspiracy theories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 267-279.

from World of Psychology https://ift.tt/2VISkVN via IFTTT

#IFTTT #World of Psychology

0 notes

automatismoateo · 5 years

Text

It’s all gone. via /r/atheism

Submitted June 04, 2019 at 11:43AM by ChrisishereO2 (Via reddit http://bit.ly/2JUMYDq) It’s all gone.

I used to be a protestant christian until I came out as an atheist about one and a half years ago. I was raised in a christian home; went to christian schools; went to church every now and again; prayed every night; used to read apologetic responses to atheistic claims; used to make my own; and generally took it very seriously. My atheist friends used to make fun of me about it but I couldn’t care in the slightest.

Until the age of 16, I never questioned it, since I was told countless times that I must have blind faith. The idea of separation from god was thought to be influenced by the devil. I came to the age of 17 where I realised that a good god would understand my questioning and would allow it. Only the case of a celestial North Korea and an invisible dictator wouldn’t allow me to question my beliefs.

So I started asking my parents questions after questions after questions. When a new question popped up, I asked it, and I would say the success rate of getting a good answer per question asked was 20%. Overtime, more and more unanswered questions were piling up. Important ones, such as Why does the Bible disagree with proven science?; Why does an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good creator allow evil to exist?; What’s with a supposedly good god committing mass genocides; Why is an all-knowing, all-good creator homophobic?; etc.

It came to a point, during the start of 2018, where the pile of unanswered questions became so big, that I realised that I could not justify my beliefs. Why is it that a God who’s wants to communicate with us, chooses texts to do so? Texts which have been copied multiple times, translated, approved of, flooded with contradictions, etc. The least I can expect from ‘god’s word’ is self-consistency, which I don’t see in the bible. I then realised that I was wasn’t convinced anymore, and that no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn’t convince myself. It was around this time I openly came out as an atheist.

It then took reading the bible over and over; listening to debates about whether there’s a god; reading articles; going to church, to draw me further away from all of it. I was doing all this with an open mind. A willingness to have my mind changed. Nothing worked. I started talking to pastors, missionaries, even my old retired physics teacher, who believed in god, to find out something very warming and comforting about our different ways of thinking.

It mostly came about during my latest talk with an American missionary. The first bit of talking to him was about evolution, but I failed to open his eyes about that, since I’m no biologist. However, the other half of the talk was about the case against free will, which I’d known enough to write a book about.

Now, it was the second time I met up with this man. I’d asked him about this before, to which I received a response completely off-topic - but I wasn’t going to let it slide. My knowledge in the free will debate had grown stronger since then, so I told him the concept of it - that we’re not fully in control over our actions and beliefs. That we’re just a product of all merging factors, that are beliefs; past experiences and memories; physiology; and desires - none of which we have full control over. That we couldn’t have ever acted differently. That we are no more free than a rock falling off a cliff - conscious or not.

This post isn’t about free will, so I’m not going to go into depth with it, but let’s just say that I found his way of thinking to be very shallow. He didn’t think outside the box, or in any depth whatsoever. He was using excuses like, “because it’s the right thing to do”, or “because you can choose to make the decision”. However, it’s not nearly as simple as that. I knew that very well. My belief, or lack thereof, on free will, had become stronger. It was being challenged on the concept which forced me to think more and more about it and find new answers for it. I’d filled in many gaps in my knowledge about the whole thing.

I spoke to my mum about it a day after the meeting, to find the same shallowness of thinking. It was then when I found out that as long as I go through some kind of brain damage, resulting in a loss of my ability to think in such depth, I will never become a theist. It’s all gone. It was a fairly warming feeling that my position was safe. I was never this comfortable in my position.

I realised that I used to reinterpret the nature of god to suit the modern world. I used to believe that the christian god was some rational, all good, god. Now that I’m not a christian, I can read the bible without that innate need to reinterpret every questionable action that god has committed, call it immoral.

I can read it now just as I would read any other religious text. Finding that we only used religion to help us answer questions we so desperately wanted. To feel comfort, when in dark times. But most importantly, to control other people. I want to finish this off by quoting Richard Dawkins:

“When one suffers from a delusion, it’s called insanity. When many suffer from a delusion, it’s called religion.”

Thank you for reading.

#reddit

0 notes