I can see that this badge was awarded to 354 members so far. I have the same badge from different community.

And as I find it inacceptable for a christian to bear the name of a person practicing black magic, witchcraft and occult I tried to get rid of it. It's impossible to remove the badge from profile. My request to Stack Exchange team to remove it manually was declined.

As suggested by some members I requested to rename the badge to something more neutral: Rename the Necromancer badge

But as it gets expectedly downvoted it looks like a person once earned is forced to bear this offensive badge and has no means to solve the issue. Or is it only me who thinks Christianity is incompatible with this kind of terminology? If you feel the same you could also support my linked request.

  • I think your reservation is a valid one. What it comes down to is how many on the site are actually believers versus those who are simply looking for a good discussion? I say you are spot on, and the beauty, supposedly, of a site that is in the creative commons licensing is the ability to change nearly every aspect imaginable. Am I right? Yes, it should be done. Many things would not fit, and they should have no place. Saltwater mixing with fresh, ...etc.
    – user31124
    Oct 5 '16 at 22:49

I think the answer you got to this request sums it up pretty well. If you're going to be so sensitive over terminology of a badge than not just this one but all of them would have to go. Frankly if this worries you, this might not be the site for you in the first place, because we have much bigger problems than our badge labels. This is a place where heresies get the same scoping rules as orthodox doctrine.

Rather than ask SE to rename everything, I would ask you to re-evaluate language and its many varied uses and contexts. Nobody is suggesting any users here are related to witchcraft because of the badges they have or don't have.

The NT teaches moderation in all things, yet I have a fanatic badge on this site. I guess I'll get off for a while now...


Yes, I'm perfectly comfortable with the term and always have been. Yes, the term is a word for a practitioner of the dark arts, but you have to realize what kind of culture spawned this site, and all the other SE sites: Tech geeks. And with that comes an affection for the strange and obscure and an affinity to consider everything in life analogous to leveling up in a game of D&D. Generally, the people participating on SE sites like these kinds of names. However, I think you'll find a high percentage of them think that the idea that it is real is a load of bollocks.

If SE already told you they won't remove it from your profile, then they won't do anything of a larger scale. The issue is precedence. They don't want any change they might make because of your request to influence the sway a future request may have. It's a slippery slope argument, but it's a real issue. I'm afraid you'll have to get used to this kind of response from SE.

In the meantime, you can still participate. I think we'll be hard pressed to find a community member who will look down on you for having the badge. I mean, it's a badge; it's your flair. Everyone here is trying to get badges.

Also, as Caleb suggests, I also suggest that you reconsider your approach to words and labels. You are your own person, not what is arbitrarily assigned to you. No one is calling you a necromancer or claiming that the badge is given because you've proven some kind of proficiency in dark arts. In fact, it's very clear that it's just a pithy name for having "brought a post back to life". And if gram-gram would flip a lid over the name of a badge, well, don't bother her with that detail then.


It's a joke.

One of the key features of internet culture regardless of a site or its format is how jokes and memes spread and "take" which leads me to my more important point.

Use of figurative language part 1: irony and humor

When people make ironic references while cracking a joke (whoa, you raised that question from the dead (nobody touched it for three years! -- wow, that's necromancy) they are using figurative language for humorous intent.

Use of figurative language part 2: insults

When someone is angry with me and calls me a son of a b***h, it is a figurative pejorative term, not a literal assertion that I am somehow begotten of a canine. (Pro Tip: the genetic material is not compatible).

Assigning literal meaning to figurative speech

If you do that with humorous intent, goodonya. If you are going to get serious about trying to assert that figurative language is improper and only literal meanings and definitions apply, then the joke's on you when using the internet as a medium of communication. Welcome to the Internet, spreading (fill in the blank_____) at the speed of electricity for about 30 years.

To quote Sergeant Helka in Stripes

Lighten up. We all attract more people to our witness or experience with Christ, and will attract more people to our PoV or our belief, by using a light touch when using the internet as the medium of communication. Even though this site is by its nature more academic, the simple act of sharing how we believe can be a form of evangelization (indirectly) or at least good will.

Jesus wept, sure, but being human, He also laughed. I don't need scripture to tell me so to believe that. All I have to know is that He was among us in human form for 30+ years, and to be frank with you, we can be (unintentionally) hilarious and humorous simply by being ourselves. He loves us anyway.

  • Thanks for your answer. I'd like to underline that I totally agree about importance of humor in life and particularly on the net. Meanwhile I can't accept that every topic is equally good for humor. This can go far and you could find a lot of vocabulary, normally inacceptable, tolerated for the sake of a joke. I hope I don't have to remind in this community what the power of word is. And when I see I don't need scripture to tell me it usually means there's nothing in the Bible that can prove this point's validity. AFAIK, everything related to occult is very seriously taken in Scripture.
    – hypers
    Sep 16 '16 at 6:24
  • @hypers is it your assertion that because the Bible does not say Jesus laughed that he didn't? It doesn't mention him doing a lot of simple thing, like using the bathroom. Are we then to assume that Jesus didn't do that? In Scripture, there are years of no record. Does that mean Jesus simply "wasn't" for his late teen and early adult years before he began his ministry? No. Best wishes to you, in any case. Sep 16 '16 at 11:51
  • I never said Jesus didn't laugh. I didn't say something is false if this exact fact is not in the Bible. This is your interpretation. I just shared my empirical observation. Too often when people said it wasn't in the Bible but still was true (not even having being asked about it) showed a lot of internal doubt. Similar to people trying to convince themselves before explaining something to others. I though it was clear enough. This logic is useless for most situations.
    – hypers
    Sep 16 '16 at 15:48
  • You can take any phrase and bring it to "Well, it's not in the Bible but it's true. Because He laughed and it's not in there either". I just don't consider this as an argument, sorry. Instead there're tons of warnings about having something to do with occult. A lot is said about words are not just words (as most of the users here try to explain in vain). The words have power. And if we agree with words we enforce them with our belief. Is it in the Scripture? Yes. Is it less true, because the Bible doesn't say Jesus laughed? Not at all.
    – hypers
    Sep 16 '16 at 15:48
  • I recommend to focus on context instead of presence or absence of a particular fact. Feel the deepest sense of words from what God teaches, not from modern culture impregnated by occult. I hope this explains my motivation and my real concerns (which are neither implied offence nor inability to tell humor from serious value).
    – hypers
    Sep 16 '16 at 15:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .