# Unicorns?



## Puritan Sailor

Perhaps they do exist after all? 

FOXNews.com - Italians Spot 'Unicorn Deer' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News


----------



## Reformingstudent

Nah! Haven't ever heard the song?
You'll see green alligators and long-necked geese
Some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees
Some cats and rats and elephants, but sure as you're born
You're NEVER gonna see no unicorns


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Don't you remember the Lions ate the Unicorns on the Ark?


----------



## N. Eshelman

All good AV users believe in unicorns! 






Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9-10 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.


----------



## RamistThomist

Of course they exist. The main reason why we doubt is because we are good modernist Enlightenment Christians who have for too long listened to the secularists who tell us that magical creatures like unicorns don't exist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Of course they exist. The main reason why we doubt is because we are good modernist Enlightenment Christians who have for too long listened to the secularists who tell us that magical creatures like unicorns don't exist.



Jacob, you are turning into an "Enlightenment Conspiracy Theorist"


----------



## RamistThomist

Read _City of God_. Augustine talks about the reality of giants and one-legged deer. And other fantastical creatures, no doubt. Though I don't have the reference for it, Luther believed that goblins and demons haunted certain German forests.

Most of human history, biblical or pagan, believed in fantastical creatures. The early Christians saw reality participating in the divine. They could believe in different levels of reality. Irish theologians, for example, believed in fairies and had a somewhat developed theology to prove it. Many in the Celtic tradition believe in something called "thin space," where the dimension between our reality and the "other" is not as thick. I am down with it.


----------



## py3ak

According to the reports of a reliable man, there were little dwarves who used our neighbor's outdoor shower when we lived in Mexico. They get disoriented when you build something over their buried treasure. He really didn't mind them much. I didn't realize that dwarves/gnomes had a predilection for personal hygiene, but now that I know that I am just regretful that I didn't get to see them.


----------



## Heldveld

Now all they have to do is find the invisible pink unicorns, then the atheists will look (even more) foolish.


----------



## TimV

In Gill's commentaries he gives credence to an account of a Roman legion fighting a dragon and taking large numbers of casualties. But I doubt that it happened, and I know that there aren't any unicorns. I'd be cool, though.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

TimV said:


> In Gill's commentaries he gives credence to an account of a Roman legion fighting a dragon and taking large numbers of casualties. But I doubt that it happened, and I know that there aren't any unicorns. I'd be cool, though.



Do you have a citation for that? Just curious.


----------



## RamistThomist

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Gill's commentaries he gives credence to an account of a Roman legion fighting a dragon and taking large numbers of casualties. But I doubt that it happened, and I know that there aren't any unicorns. I'd be cool, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a citation for that? Just curious.
Click to expand...


Ditto, that is so awesome. I so believe that!


----------



## TimV

Sure, guys. It's in Gill's commentary on Job chapter 41, which is a bit of a laugh to us with our knowledge, but interesting as an insight to people of his time. But as to the dragon, it's in verse 34, which I'll type

particularly the dragon Atilius Regulus, the Roman general, killed near Bagrade in Africa, is a proof itself of almost all the above articles as Osorious has described it; nor is it any objection that the leviathan is represented as being in the sea, since the dragon, even the land dragon, will plunge into rivers, and is often found in lakes called seas and in maritime places, and will go into the sea itself, as Pliny and Philostratus relate. To which may be added, the this creature was found among the Troglodytes, who lived near the Red sea, and not far from Arabia, where Job dwelt, and so might be well known by him.....


----------



## RamistThomist

TimV said:


> Sure, guys. It's in Gill's commentary on Job chapter 41, which is a bit of a laugh to us with our knowledge, but interesting as an insight to people of his time. But as to the dragon, it's in verse 34, which I'll type
> 
> particularly the dragon Atilius Regulus, the Roman general, killed near Bagrade in Africa, is a proof itself of almost all the above articles as Osorious has described it; nor is it any objection that the leviathan is represented as being in the sea, since the dragon, even the land dragon, will plunge into rivers, and is often found in lakes called seas and in maritime places, and will go into the sea itself, as Pliny and Philostratus relate. To which may be added, the this creature was found among the Troglodytes, who lived near the Red sea, and not far from Arabia, where Job dwelt, and so might be well known by him.....



awesome.. all the proof I need.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Thanks, Tim. I did a little digging just because this intrigued me and found this episode cited by Livy and others referred to as "perhaps the most famous cryptozoological event in the records of the ancient world":



> It was in all probability, an enormous specimen of this serpent, which once threw a whole Roman army into dismay. The fact is recorded by Valerius Maximus, who quotes it from one of the lost books of Livy, where it was detailed at greater length. He relates, that near the river Bagrada, in Africa, a snake was seen of so enormous a magnitude as to prevent the army of Attilius Regulus from the use of the river; and which after having snatched up several soldiers with its enormous mouth, and killed several others by striking and squeezing them with the spires of its tail, was at length destroyed by assailing it with all the force of military engines and showers of stones, after it had withstood the attacks of their spears and darts. It was regarded by the whole army as a more formidable enemy than even Carthage itself.
> 
> The whole adjacent region was tainted with the pestilential effulvia proceeding from its remains, as were the waters with its blood, so as to oblige the Roman army to shift its station. The skin of this monster, measuring in length one hundred and twenty feet, was sent to Rome as a trophy, and was there suspended in a temple, where it remained till the time of the Numidian war. ” -- James G. Percival, _The Wonders of the World_ (1836), p. 421


----------



## ReformedSinner

Just for fun the Bible itself has a fantasy creature that no one really know what it is and the right translation.

leviathan ring anybells?


----------



## cih1355

ReformedSinner said:


> Just for fun the Bible itself has a fantasy creature that no one really know what it is and the right translation.
> 
> leviathan ring anybells?



Could it be a dinosaur?


----------



## RamistThomist

ReformedSinner said:


> Just for fun the Bible itself has a fantasy creature that no one really know what it is and the right translation.
> 
> leviathan ring anybells?



I always laughed when people said it was a crocodile.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I hope PA Deutch weighs in on this thread. He's a retired LtCol Marine friend of mine who loves crytpozoology.

For years, people in Wisconsin were reporting sightings of Kangaroos and nobody believed them but it was finally documented. He also had reports of a missionary from last century who sighted a dinosaur in Africa.

He also reports the story that Europeans didn't believe the Africans who were reporting "hairy men" that lived in the jungle. Until they saw gorillas for themselves, they didn't believe they existed.

Once a scientist verifies something, then it's true.


----------



## SRoper

Ivanhoe said:


> Read _City of God_. Augustine talks about the reality of giants and one-legged deer. And other fantastical creatures, no doubt.



Augustine also believed all sorts of tall tales concerning the magical properties of relics.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Semper Fidelis said:


> I hope PA Deutch weighs in on this thread. He's a retired LtCol Marine friend of mine who loves crytpozoology.
> 
> For years, people in Wisconsin were reporting sightings of Kangaroos and nobody believed them but it was finally documented. He also had reports of a missionary from last century who sighted a dinosaur in Africa.
> 
> He also reports the story that Europeans didn't believe the Africans who were reporting "hairy men" that lived in the jungle. Until they saw gorillas for themselves, they didn't believe they existed.
> 
> Once a scientist verifies something, then it's true.



I read up some on the Wisconsin Kangaroos. Amazing stuff. So strange! The first recorded sighting of kangaroos in that area was 1899 (51 years after it became a state). People really did not believe it, but sightings continues ALL OVER the state for the next 90 plus years. 

Then in the late 90s a farmer caught one! It now lives in the Madison Zoo and is named Roo. 

In 2000 a man hit one with his pickup truck and it is also documented. 

Very strange! It just goes to show that we do know all that we think we know!


----------



## Pilgrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids


----------



## ChristopherPaul

ReformedSinner said:


> Just for fun the Bible itself has a fantasy creature that no one really know what it is and the right translation.
> 
> leviathan ring anybells?



Herman Melville is pretty sure it is a large whale.


----------



## Ravens

Jacob,

I'd appreciate it if you clarified your position a bit. Seeing as this board is somewhat widely read nowadays, I think it is good to clarify exactly what is being said, and to distinguish it from what isn't being said, and shouldn't be said.

1)


> ...secularists who tell us that magical creatures like unicorns don't exist.



What is your definition of a "magical creature"? As far as I can see, there is no half-way house in the Scripture between a created kind of animal and a spirit or an angel. So either unicorns are animals, right along with tigers and horses, or else they are spirits. 

2)


> Read City of God. Augustine talks about the reality of giants and one-legged deer. And other fantastical creatures, no doubt. Though I don't have the reference for it, Luther believed that goblins and demons haunted certain German forests.



Well, references are always helpful in these discussions. That being said, I don't doubt that either men said those things. Once again, however, it would seem as if you are conflating many different categories. A one-legged deer would seem to be an animal (if it hypothetically existed), everyone must admit that giants of some stripe existed in the past, "goblins" needs to be defined (once again, is this a created kind, or is this a spirit; if it is a spirit, is it wicked or good), and "demons" are clearly spirits, and should have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of undiscovered animal species.

3)


> The early Christians saw reality participating in the divine.



Can you clarify and explain this statement? It seems as if you are making a merely poetic point, or trying to make a literal point with loose language. What is this "divine" in which "reality" participates? I'm not quibbling. I think it's dangerous to say things like this in order to prove "unicorns, goblins, and demons." If "divine" is an adjective that refers to God, Who is Personal, then what you have said is equivalent to saying, "Belief in unicorns, goblins, and demons is possible, plausible, and perhaps probable, because the created order "participates" in YHWH." Which statement, in my opinion, makes little sense, and the language of participating in YHWH seems to be dangerously loose.

4)


> Irish theologians, for example, believed in fairies and had a somewhat developed theology to prove it. Many in the Celtic tradition believe in something called "thin space," where the dimension between our reality and the "other" is not as thick. I am down with it.



This is one of the statements I disagree with the most. Clearly you are a man that loves his heritage. In the past few years I've seen you post things (probably humorously) about an ideal Celtic Republic in the South, or something to that effect. I myself appreciate my heritage, and can understand (I should hope) at least a little of that impulse. I was involved in Asatru before becoming a Christian, and have been interested in all things Celtic and Germanic in my life.

That being said, I think that you are giving your heritage a dangerous "benefit of the doubt", simply because it is your heritage, that none on this board would give, to say, practitioners of Voodoo. You are "down with" theologians working pre-Christian beliefs in spiritual beings into their theology and providing a justification thereof. 

What would you say if an Alchemist posted on these boards and used vague language about "reality participating in the divine" to justify elementals within a Christian worldview, saying he was "down with that." What would a missionary tell a converted African tribe when they wondered if there nature spirits could be favorably worked into a Christian worldview?

Most of the Irish/Christian treatments of fairies that I have read end up claiming that the _Sidhe_ were shut out of heaven and fallen, but not so wicked as to be classified as demons. I think anyone who has read on the subject would agree. Regardless of their treatment, there are two options.

1) The _Sidhe_ and _Tuatha de Danaan_ are neutral spirits made by the Creator.

2) The _Sidhe_ and _Tuatha de Danaan_ are either fallen, or elect, angels.

You, more than most, should know that 1) is impossible. There is no neutrality in a spiritual universe, and Scripture always and everywhere speaks only of evil spirits, and good spirits. There are no neutral nature spirits. Even if they are fallen, and not as wicked as others (think the parable of the empty house and eight returning occupants), let us not miss the point that fallenness to any degree would mean that the angels were fallen. 

If the _Sidhe _exist, to reiterate, they are either fallen angels, or elect angels. And I certainly hope you are not saying that they are elect.

And I very much hope you are not claiming that the _Sidhe_ of Ireland are angels. 

Many of the people of Ireland lived in fear of the _Sidhe_. Anyone who wants a good, readable study on the subject should pick up W.Y. Evans-Wentz's _The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries_. I am not saying that you are advocating this revamped notion of the fairy, Jacob, but many are: The notion of the modern, erotic, friendly fairy is almost completely absent from all the lore that I have seen, and many of the people of the time were afraid of these beings. 

The spirits kept the Celts in bondage. Why "fairies" should be advocated in this thread, when it was these same spirits and this same worldview that led to Celtic warriors sleeping with one another, and kings mating with horses, and babies being sacrificed, and sacrifical victims thrown into bogs, somewhat boggles my mind. Celts should glory that the gospel was shown to their people, and not reminisce about their previous captors.

I can see where you are coming from, or at least where I think you are coming from, but, seeing as this board is widely read, and our faith needs to be credible, I think some lines of thought in this thread should be further clarified.


----------



## Ravens

I accidentally thanked ChristopherPaul's post above, and can't figure out how to remove it. I just wanted to clarify (and chances are nobody even noticed) that I most assuredly do not believe that the leviathan of Job was "a large whale."


----------



## RamistThomist

JDWiseman said:


> Jacob,
> 
> I'd appreciate it if you clarified your position a bit. Seeing as this board is somewhat widely read nowadays, I think it is good to clarify exactly what is being said, and to distinguish it from what isn't being said, and shouldn't be said.
> 
> 1)
> 
> 
> 
> ...secularists who tell us that magical creatures like unicorns don't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your definition of a "magical creature"? As far as I can see, there is no half-way house in the Scripture between a created kind of animal and a spirit or an angel. So either unicorns are animals, right along with tigers and horses, or else they are spirits.
Click to expand...


I disagree it is either-or, but I will try to draw that out in the Irish theologians comment.




> Well, references are always helpful in these discussions. That being said, I don't doubt that either men said those things. Once again, however, it would seem as if you are conflating many different categories. A one-legged deer would seem to be an animal (if it hypothetically existed), everyone must admit that giants of some stripe existed in the past, "goblins" needs to be defined (once again, is this a created kind, or is this a spirit; if it is a spirit, is it wicked or good), and "demons" are clearly spirits, and should have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of undiscovered animal species.



No offense, but it appears you are engaging in special pleading. When I suggest a supernatural-ish animal, I am guilty of fuzzy terms and those animals are probably ordinary. I don't accept this burden of proof.




> Can you clarify and explain this statement? It seems as if you are making a merely poetic point, or trying to make a literal point with loose language. What is this "divine" in which "reality" participates? I'm not quibbling. I think it's dangerous to say things like this in order to prove "unicorns, goblins, and demons." If "divine" is an adjective that refers to God, Who is Personal, then what you have said is equivalent to saying, "Belief in unicorns, goblins, and demons is possible, plausible, and perhaps probable, because the created order "participates" in YHWH." Which statement, in my opinion, makes little sense, and the language of participating in YHWH seems to be dangerously loose.



This was not a poetic statement. It is a deeply philosophical one. Christian theology, for the large part, did not accept a Scotist view of God. Long story short, and while I could type more on this, countervailing presuppositions would stifle discussions, I hold to levels within our dimensions in which fairies and other stuff could exist. 




> This is one of the statements I disagree with the most. Clearly you are a man that loves his heritage. In the past few years I've seen you post things (probably humorously) about an ideal Celtic Republic in the South, or something to that effect. I myself appreciate my heritage, and can understand (I should hope) at least a little of that impulse. I was involved in Asatru before becoming a Christian, and have been interested in all things Celtic and Germanic in my life.
> 
> That being said, I think that you are giving your heritage a dangerous "benefit of the doubt", simply because it is your heritage, that none on this board would give, to say, practitioners of Voodoo. You are "down with" theologians working pre-Christian beliefs in spiritual beings into their theology and providing a justification thereof.



Read Milbank and Pickstock. Arguably the two most brilliant theologians in the English speaking world. Cambridge people. I really don't feel the need to defend their pedigree.



> What would you say if an Alchemist posted on these boards and used vague language about "reality participating in the divine" to justify elementals within a Christian worldview, saying he was "down with that." What would a missionary tell a converted African tribe when they wondered if there nature spirits could be favorably worked into a Christian worldview?



Careful with ridiculing my language. My language and philosophical background was in some ways normative (or at least quite accepted) until 1300. I simply reject a Scotist view of God.



> Most of the Irish/Christian treatments of fairies that I have read end up claiming that the _Sidhe_ were shut out of heaven and fallen, but not so wicked as to be classified as demons. I think anyone who has read on the subject would agree. Regardless of their treatment, there are two options.
> 
> 1) The _Sidhe_ and _Tuatha de Danaan_ are neutral spirits made by the Creator.
> 
> 2) The _Sidhe_ and _Tuatha de Danaan_ are either fallen, or elect, angels.
> 
> You, more than most, should know that 1) is impossible. There is no neutrality in a spiritual universe, and Scripture always and everywhere speaks only of evil spirits, and good spirits. There are no neutral nature spirits. Even if they are fallen, and not as wicked as others (think the parable of the empty house and eight returning occupants), let us not miss the point that fallenness to any degree would mean that the angels were fallen.
> 
> If the _Sidhe _exist, to reiterate, they are either fallen angels, or elect angels. And I certainly hope you are not saying that they are elect.
> 
> And I very much hope you are not claiming that the _Sidhe_ of Ireland are angels.
> 
> Many of the people of Ireland lived in fear of the _Sidhe_. Anyone who wants a good, readable study on the subject should pick up W.Y. Evans-Wentz's _The Fairy Faith in Celtic Countries_. I am not saying that you are advocating this revamped notion of the fairy, Jacob, but many are: The notion of the modern, erotic, friendly fairy is almost completely absent from all the lore that I have seen, and many of the people of the time were afraid of these beings.



Again, I simply reject it is that either-or.




> I can see where you are coming from, or at least where I think you are coming from, but, seeing as this board is widely read, and our faith needs to be credible, I think some lines of thought in this thread should be further clarified.



I think my original point is sound. Duns Scotus posited a flattened ontology which made being univocal. The contrary to that is a Christianized Platonic ontology in which reality participated in the Divine. If you don't like that, take it up with Plato, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, the Entire Eastern tradition, Iamblichus, Aquinass, the Medieval tradition, David Bentley Hart, John Milbank, and Catherine Pickstock.


----------



## RamistThomist

And on thin space, I claim world-renowned ethicist Oliver O'Donovan.


----------



## Ravens

With all due respect, I suppose that I will allow others to judge the posts in this thread. I feel that you just responded to my points with a lot of philosophical obfuscation and sophistry. In essence you just typed out a paragraph that included a whole bunch of names, appeals to "the Entire Eastern tradition", and other such broad sweeping charges.

I'm not the one obscuring things here. I'm asking for clarification. If you want to believe in unicorns, fine. I have no Biblical problem with that, necessarily. I'm simply asking for the Biblical basis for believing in, to use your words, a "magical creature"? At this point, I'd be happy with a definition of "magical creature", with or without a Biblical basis for believing in such.

My comment on Augustine and Luther was not special pleading. I wasn't justifying what they said, and condemning you. I was unclear for my part, and will rephrase it. I was saying that, in my opinion, and others are free to disagree, a one-legged deer would be an animal. That's my opinion, and I'll withdraw it, because it's not germane to any concern of mine.

Here are the next three statements I made:

1) A "goblin" would need to be defined, whether it is an animal, or a spirit? Do you disagree with that? How is that "special pleading"?
2) All Christians must believe in some form of "giants", as long as we accept Goliath, the Anakim, etc. This will only be debated if we are in the mood to mince words.
3) Demons are demons, which is so obvious it is tautological. 

Let's not miss the point. I'm simply saying that I would like for you to clarify your position on how distinguishes "magical creatures" and "goblins" (whatever they are), from animals, men, and spirits. I don't necessarily want a list of all of the theologians and entire traditions [sic] who support your view. I would just like your personal opinion.

My main point is being lost in piles of obfuscation. The thing that deeply bothers me is that you are advocating the Irish_ Sidhe_ on a Christian board, saying that they can be favorable worked into Christian theology, and that you are "down with that."

I don't know why more people aren't having a problem with that. Maybe they don't know much about pre-Christian Irish religion. Maybe this isn't a popular thread. Maybe because the _Sidhe _are Irish, and most of us are Caucasian, and we grew up with cute, a-historical ideas of "fairies", we don't see it as a big deal.

Which is why I said it would be more noticeable if it were from another tradition. If, say, Hopi Christians started working in their Kachinas into theology and Biblical teaching, or Navajo's/Dineh started importing their skinwalkers, or Cajun Christians various African spirits, then red flags would be up and all systems on alert.

My point is, that you can ascertain YHWH's attitude toward familiar spirits, divination, nature religions, etc., by reading His instructions to His people about what to do when encountering and living among these pagans. Words like "abomination" and concepts like capital punishment come to mind.

Which is why I said, people must not know much about the _Sidhe_. I gave you a chance to clarify your position on the _Sidhe_, and pointed out that they could not be neutral, and thus, were either fallen, or elect, spirits. 

You rejected that either-or. So you are publically saying that you are "down with" spirits that happen to be featured in pre-Christian Irish religion, and you reject that these must be what are typically and commonly known as "angels or demons."

I wonder how other Christians and pastors and elders don't see what I see here. Note, I don't think that you are pagan. I think that you are confused, and not quite aware of the ramifications of what you are advocating. And I know I am biased, but I doubt the fault is mine, in that you have conflated multiple categories and simply advocated a potluck of goblins, unicorns, _Sidhe_, etc., all of which very eminent, uncited theologians purportedly agree with, along with "the entire Eastern tradition." 

At the end of the day, you are advocating a neutral type of spirit that can be worked into a Christian worldview, with which we can be "down". Would Levites and priest have ever thought about working Canaanite nature spirits, and familiar spirits, into the instruction of the Law?

So once again, without a plethora of theologians and eminent ethicists, I'd simply like your definition of a magical creature, how it does or does not differ from animals, angels, men, and, apparently, the _Tuatha de Danaan_.

I realize I'm coming across as harsh, but this isn't a language game for me. I doubt you hold the position, deep down, that I think you are unknowingly advocating, but I am amazed that it is permitted to propagate such, pardon the language, outright foolishness, on the Puritan Board, especially when such outright foolishness is verging on friendliness with the occult.

And if you are going to advocate spirits associated with paganism on the Puritan Board, even if your position is different from what I now hold, I would think it should be done with a little more clarity than this thread contained.


----------



## RamistThomist

JDWiseman said:


> With all due respect, I suppose that I will allow others to judge the posts in this thread. I feel that you just responded to my points with a lot of philosophical obfuscation and sophistry. In essence you just typed out a paragraph that included a whole bunch of names, appeals to "the Entire Eastern tradition", and other such broad sweeping charges.



And I do not believe I was doing that. Yes, I was using language that, while dominant for 1300 years [1700 if we count Plato], is rather odd today. But I don't believe that is a fault with the language.



> I'm not the one obscuring things here. I'm asking for clarification. If you want to believe in unicorns, fine. I have no Biblical problem with that, necessarily. I'm simply asking for the Biblical basis for believing in, to use your words, a "magical creature"? At this point, I'd be happy with a definition of "magical creature", with or without a Biblical basis for believing in such.
> 
> My comment on Augustine and Luther was not special pleading. I wasn't justifying what they said, and condemning you. I was unclear for my part, and will rephrase it. I was saying that, in my opinion, and others are free to disagree, a one-legged deer would be an animal. That's my opinion, and I'll withdraw it, because it's not germane to any concern of mine.



I am not a Clarkian and I repudiate Scripturalism. For something to exist, I don't believe I have to give a biblical definition for it. But while we are at it, as you know the KJV routinely translates words as "unicorns." But that's contested. There is Leviathan in Job. I think the suggested crocodile by some translators is silly. I believe it is a monster. In the Psalms (reference later--I have it marked in my bible at home) it identifies many heads on one leviathan.

Here are the next three statements I made:


> 1) A "goblin" would need to be defined, whether it is an animal, or a spirit? Do you disagree with that? How is that "special pleading"?
> 2) All Christians must believe in some form of "giants", as long as we accept Goliath, the Anakim, etc. This will only be debated if we are in the mood to mince words.
> 3) Demons are demons, which is so obvious it is tautological.



Interesting. That actually supports my argument. I don't have a definition for goblin. Luther's the one who believes in them. Not me. I think it is in the Bainton biography, but I am not sure. I am not saying I believe in Goblins. I am saying Luther did and for most that is embarrassing on post-Newtonian grounds. 


> Let's not miss the point. I'm simply saying that I would like for you to clarify your position on how distinguishes "magical creatures" and "goblins" (whatever they are), from animals, men, and spirits. I don't necessarily want a list of all of the theologians and entire traditions [sic] who support your view. I would just like your personal opinion.
> 
> My main point is being lost in piles of obfuscation. The thing that deeply bothers me is that you are advocating the Irish_ Sidhe_ on a Christian board, saying that they can be favorable worked into Christian theology, and that you are "down with that."



I don't have a systematic theology of fairies. And that wasn't my point. I was trying to make teh connection between a Scotist ontology (and while that may be obscure, that is a very legitimate philosophical question to ask), Enlightenment views of reality, and the current disbelief in sentient beings that we can't really see with our eyes.


> I don't know why more people aren't having a problem with that. Maybe they don't know much about pre-Christian Irish religion. Maybe this isn't a popular thread. Maybe because the _Sidhe _are Irish, and most of us are Caucasian, and we grew up with cute, a-historical ideas of "fairies", we don't see it as a big deal.



see above.



> Which is why I said it would be more noticeable if it were from another tradition. If, say, Hopi Christians started working in their Kachinas into theology and Biblical teaching, or Navajo's/Dineh started importing their skinwalkers, or Cajun Christians various African spirits, then red flags would be up and all systems on alert.



I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying all of this is good. I am very close to New Orleans and would not for a moment simply dismiss it as "superstition." It is very much evil and very much real.


> My point is, that you can ascertain YHWH's attitude toward familiar spirits, divination, nature religions, etc., by reading His instructions to His people about what to do when encountering and living among these pagans. Words like "abomination" and concepts like capital punishment come to mind.



dude, I am not advocating seances. I was making a philosophical point/connection. And even pointing to the sacrificial pagan cults above mentioned, that doesn't prove that everything that is either not an animal nor a human is evil. It could be. That may even be my position at the end of the day. But that argument doesn't prove it since God was referring, not to all, but to some. 


> Which is why I said, people must not know much about the _Sidhe_. I gave you a chance to clarify your position on the _Sidhe_, and pointed out that they could not be neutral, and thus, were either fallen, or elect, spirits.



and I said I wasn't trying to give a systematic theology of fairies. See above points about philosophical connections and worldview.


> You rejected that either-or. So you are publically saying that you are "down with" spirits that happen to be featured in pre-Christian Irish religion, and you reject that these must be what are typically and commonly known as "angels or demons."



No, but for some reason I don't think you will find my no convincing. 



> I wonder how other Christians and pastors and elders don't see what I see here. Note, I don't think that you are pagan. I think that you are confused, and not quite aware of the ramifications of what you are advocating. And I know I am biased, but I doubt the fault is mine, in that you have conflated multiple categories and simply advocated a potluck of goblins, unicorns, _Sidhe_, etc., all of which very eminent, uncited theologians purportedly agree with, along with "the entire Eastern tradition."



If I were advocating what you are saying I am advocating, I would be worried, too.



> At the end of the day, you are advocating a neutral type of spirit that can be worked into a Christian worldview, with which we can be "down". Would Levites and priest have ever thought about working Canaanite nature spirits, and familiar spirits, into the instruction of the Law?



Caananite spirits weren't neutral.



> So once again, without a plethora of theologians and eminent ethicists, I'd simply like your definition of a magical creature, how it does or does not differ from animals, angels, men, and, apparently, the _Tuatha de Dannan_.



Since I didn't open my remark with a desire to commune with spirits, forgive me for not having a ready-definition from my fairy theology. I don't know. Maybe that would be interesting to find out.


> I realize I'm coming across as harsh, but this isn't a language game for me. I doubt you hold the position, deep down, that I think you are unknowingly advocating, but I am amazed that it is permitted to propagate such, pardon the language, outright foolishness, on the Puritan Board, especially when such outright foolishness is verging on friendliness with the occult.



You are right. I am not advocating what you think I am.


----------



## Ravens

Jacob,

I haven't read your reply yet, and I probably won't for a couple of days. For some reason (certainly partially due to my own sinfulness) it had me very hot under the collar. My apologies for my tone, and I'll return to the subject if I think I have the right temperament.

Take care.


----------



## RamistThomist

I understand why you might get angry now, but I didn't intend such. I never, ever (and if I did I would certainly get angry at myself) intended communicting with spirits or fairy dancing or whatever. You made a comment on my heritage. That might be true but not lately. I am more Italian than anything else. I didn't even have my Gaelic heritage in mind when I made that comment.

I have always been interested in worldview matters. I also believe the Enlightenment to be one of the darkest moments in Western history. I was simply trying to trace out why people do not believe such and such when educated people did believe such and such a few centuries earlier. My point was that given Enlightenment standards of rationality, people can't believe in supernatural. And while we are all committed Christians, we still retain elements of the Enlightenment in our minds.

That's it. I didn't intend anything else. I will be honest with you. I don't know much about Fairies. I don't know if I have ever read a book on them. I am not that interested. They were simply an illustration in a worldview argument. An illustration. That's it.


----------



## TimV

> I was simply trying to trace out why people do not believe such and such when educated people did believe such and such a few centuries earlier.



Because we are better educated and have more knowledge. Did you read the whole of Gill's commentaries on Job 41? Nowadays a stupid Western child has more understanding of natural history than he did, and much more than Augustine. And it's the same with Fairies. We don't believe in them or Unicorns because they don't exist. 

All primitive peoples believe in Kamis, Elves, Goblins, Kobolds etc.. and it drove me nuts in Africa. "Who beat you up?" "The Tokoloshi" "There's no such thing as a Tokoloshi, it was you boy friend, and I'm going to write him up or kick his butt myself" "No, boss, I saw it, it was a Tokoloshi".


----------



## py3ak

What's a Tokoloshi?


----------



## TimV

Little men that get blamed for everything bad, just like fairies, goblins, trolls, imps and the rest. There's no uniformity of belief as far as details. It was the same way in Europe before they had widespread literacy; every area had it's own contradictory view what they look like, what to do to make them stay away, etc....In one area you may have to carry around a secret potion, in another one local Black pastor claimed he bought the services of three Tokoloshis by giving them his grandfather's liver, and it goes on and on.


----------



## py3ak

Thanks. I'll know now to keep a little human liver on me when I'm in Africa.


----------

