Are Native American "Dreamcatchers" Evil?

[johnstown_johnn]

Anyway, the best thing to do would to be to forsake the dreamcatcher and put a rosary or crucifix above the bed. It would be best to repel evil (or evil dreams) rather than to catch them.

Dreams do not come from God. Oftentimes nightmares are a result of a link with someone’s activities in a wakened state and is a convoluted form of dealing with it.

Too much emphasis is placed in dreams.

 

[Lori_Welch]

johnstown johnn stated: Dreams are not from God.

I say what about Matthew, Chapter 2-13
"When they had departed, behold, the ***angel of the Lord ***appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”
14 - Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.

A good thing that Joseph knew that dreams can be, indeed, from God.

 

[child_of_God85]

johnstown johnn stated: Dreams are not from God.

I say what about Matthew, Chapter 2-13
"When they had departed, behold, the ***angel of the Lord ***appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.”
14 - Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt.

A good thing that Joseph knew that dreams can be, indeed, from God.

I was about to say the exact same thing.

 

[RobinTruett]

(a bit of story about walking through the homes on site and watching the children sleeping…). As we watched the children sleeping, I though about the Lakota dreamcatcher and the important role you play in ensuring our youngsters have positive dreams filled with thoughts of bright futures (more about saving them from poverty and despair).

Your generosity brings them good dreams of bright futures as well-educated young adults with a purpose & strong values. You could be their dreamcatcher!

.

Wouldn’t a picture of a gardian angel be more christian and real? We all know we have one, Jesus said so. What does a dream catcher represent? a web? Some partcular mythical god? We have medals, pictures, statues, but these thing we call holy reminders. To remind us of people in heaven, people with God. How silly it would be for me to put a plaque over my be or hang from the mirror of my car of a tree with money on it in hopes it would bring alittle money my way.

 

[AleGenoa]

Taking some symbols from a culture makes sense only if there is no chance of mistaking the meaning of our action. When you put Easter eggs or Christmas trees in your house, no one thinks you are endorsing some sort of pagan alternative to Christianity. As I see it, some people may think instead that your using a dreamcatcher means you happen to believe in a New Age revival of a superstition. Here lies the difference.

In a neutral situation, I’d say it’s ok to keep them as an ornament where no one sees them other than that way.
Instead if you feel like a militant Christian, if you (like me) see challenges to the true faith in our society, you won’t use them for house decoration, and you won’t regret the aesthetic “loss”.
Native Americans need not worry, but a lot of prudence is to be exerted if some well educated priest is going to try to go the inculturation way: there’s a fine line between keeping good aspects of other cultures in order to help people to find their unique path to the Church, or instead encouraging a subculture of superstition to survive within our community.
Of course here heresy is not the problem with Native Americans; but it’s a form of heresy to incorporate New Age ideas into Christianity.

 

[mmortal03]

Taking some symbols from a culture makes sense only if there is no chance of mistaking the meaning of our action. When you put Easter eggs or Christmas trees in your house, no one thinks you are endorsing some sort of pagan alternative to Christianity. As I see it, some people may think instead that your using a dreamcatcher means you happen to believe in a New Age revival of a superstition. Here lies the difference.

In a neutral situation, I’d say it’s ok to keep them as an ornament where no one sees them other than that way.
Instead if you feel like a militant Christian, if you (like me) see challenges to the true faith in our society, you won’t use them for house decoration, and you won’t regret the aesthetic “loss”.
Native Americans need not worry, but a lot of prudence is to be exerted if some well educated priest is going to try to go the inculturation way: there’s a fine line between keeping good aspects of other cultures in order to help people to find their unique path to the Church, or instead encouraging a subculture of superstition to survive within our community.
Of course here heresy is not the problem with Native Americans; but it’s a form of heresy to incorporate New Age ideas into Christianity.

Why does it matter what others think? If they question you, you can use that opportunity to educate them. As long as you have good knowledge about these things you are doing, it shouldn’t matter. A lot of this stuff people are having a problem with are so legalistic, it is ridiculous. If some formed pieces of wood, string, and feathers are somehow aesthetically pleasing to people, then leave it at that. If they take the shape of something like a swastika, then it might be a different story, right? But maybe not. Even then, the symbol might mean something different to that person, and I think people need to quit always being so prejudiced, judgmental, and jump to conclusions whenever they see some symbol somewhere. If the issue is what is inside the person’s heart, than that is the thing that matters on this issue.

 

[Renton405]

I think it was the taking over their land that ruffled their feathers a bit (no pun intended), it would be like a group of people show up at your door and tell you to leave your home it is now belongs to them.

First off, the USA is for EVERYONE. Why is the land ONLY theirs?? did God declare this like the people of Israel??.. no one has the right to claim the US a whole country for themselves. It is for all of God’s children…There are always settlers comming to find new lands, and most of the America’s were uninhabited anyway… North America is multiculteral, and there are many people who live here… No one has the authority and the audacity to claim a whole continent as theirs and for their race only…

 

[anamchara]

The original name and purpose of what non-Natives call Dream Catchers is actually a story about the spider. Web imitates a spider web. The story reminds people that they have gone bad and have forgotten the way to live in peace. The lessons of the story about the Spider Web, in this case, can easily be translated as a Christian story – just as we have Christmas trees in Churches and many other former non-Christian symbols and practices that have, over centuries, been brought into local or universal Catholic practice.

In reading most of the posts on dream catchers, I advise the Non-Natives not to usurp Indigenous Cultural things and ways if they do not know what they are doing or if they have no authority from proper Tribal Elders to these things. Few know the real story of the Anishinabe Ojibwe Spider Web. Dream Catcher is an OK name, but it is not the origins of the story.

that’s really interesting my daughters have them hanging in their rooms. I don’t see anything wrong with them. Saying they are evil is ridiculous. They received them years ago before we even converted. They are lovely.

 

[anamchara]

You have sprayed this thread so liberally with your piousness, I believe I need to take anti-histimine to ward off it’s attack. I wouldn’t go as far to say you are prejudice…pious works better here. You have your opinions…others have theirs.

Hey Julianna, I see this thread caught your eye as well

 

[child_of_God85]

First off, the USA is for EVERYONE. Why is the land ONLY theirs?? did God declare this like the people of Israel??.. no one has the right to claim the US a whole country for themselves. It is for all of God’s children…There are always settlers comming to find new lands, and most of the America’s were uninhabited anyway… North America is multiculteral, and there are many people who live here… No one has the authority and the audacity to claim a whole continent as theirs and for their race only…

But thats what the white men actually did. Claimed the WHOLE country for themselves and booted the american Indians out.

 

[thechrismyster]

i’ve been working on my own version of a dreamcatcher… it’s almost ready for marketing…



for a bigger version click here …
tesladownunder.com/Tesla18Dalek10003Ft.jpg

and no, thats a real picture of a tesla coil in action. just wanted to share it with you all.

 

[Renton405]

But thats what the white men actually did. Claimed the WHOLE country for themselves and booted the american Indians out.

Are the Indians still living here in the US??

No one has true ownership of this country. This country is a democracy

Settlers came here and started building the beautiful nation as it is today… Nobody kicked anyone out… There was fighting, but not people being exported, there was enough land for everyone…but you can thank the settlers that came here that built the beautiful country as it is today…Im sure if Whites were the first people here in North America and claimed that only white people could settle there or else they will scalp them and kill them you would find that horribly discriminating. Why should it be different for anyone else??

 

[mmortal03]

Are the Indians still living here in the US??

No one has true ownership of this country. This country is a democracy

Settlers came here and started building the beautiful nation as it is today… Nobody kicked anyone out… There was fighting, but not people being exported, there was enough land for everyone…but you can thank the settlers that came here that built the beautiful country as it is today…Im sure if Whites were the first people here in North America and claimed that only white people could settle there or else they will scalp them and kill them you would find that horribly discriminating. Why should it be different for anyone else??

FYI,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
etc.

 

[Renton405]

FYI,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
etc.

Key word here

of the United States that sought to relocate American Indian (or “Native American”) tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river who resisted civilization or needed time to adapt

And it was a cherokee leader that signed the treaty giving the land over

Take a look:

The Treaty of New Echota was a removal treaty signed in New Echota, Georgia by officials of the United States government and several members of a faction within the Cherokee nation on December 29, 1835.

In the treaty, the United States agreed to pay the Cherokee people $4.5 million, cover the costs of relocation, and give them land in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) in exchange for the Cherokee reservation land in Georgia and Alabama.

The land was bought that the Indians agreed too…Where does the finger point? Must the settlers fight for land that they payed for??

 

[mmortal03]

Key word here

of the United States that sought to relocate American Indian (or “Native American”) tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river who resisted civilization or needed time to adapt

And it was a cherokee leader that signed the treaty giving the land over

Take a look:

The Treaty of New Echota was a removal treaty signed in New Echota, Georgia by officials of the United States government and several members of a faction within the Cherokee nation on December 29, 1835.

In the treaty, the United States agreed to pay the Cherokee people $4.5 million, cover the costs of relocation, and give them land in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) in exchange for the Cherokee reservation land in Georgia and Alabama.

The land was bought that the Indians agreed too…Where does the finger point? Must the settlers fight for land that they payed for??

You are defeating your own argument. One, no matter “who’s” land it is, you shouldn’t be able to just kick people off of it. If they don’t want your money, then tough luck. This is continually an issue in government: The question of, “Should the government be allowed to kick you off if they think they can use the land for a better cause?”

Two, What is this about paying for land? To pay for land, you have to own it, right?

Three, you are talking about “Indians” collectively…as if they all had one individual voice, with no disagreements among them.

So what if they weren’t kicking them out of the “United States”. A semantic argument isn’t going to fly here. And, if you want to go there, they actually were kicking them out of what was considered the US at the time.

I don’t disagree with the idea that certain modernizations applied to places can be a good thing, but you better have a heck of a lot more humane solution for the people you are slighting than what they had for the Native Americans.

 

[Aramis]

You are defeating your own argument. One, no matter “who’s” land it is, you shouldn’t be able to just kick people off of it. If they don’t want your money, then tough luck. This is continually an issue in government: The question of, “Should the government be allowed to kick you off if they think they can use the land for a better cause?”

Two, What is this about paying for land? To pay for land, you have to own it, right?

Three, you are talking about “Indians” collectively…as if they all had one individual voice, with no disagreements among them.

So what if they weren’t kicking them out of the “United States”. A semantic argument isn’t going to fly here. And, if you want to go there, they actually were kicking them out of what was considered the US at the time.

I don’t disagree with the idea that certain modernizations applied to places can be a good thing, but you better have a heck of a lot more humane solution for the people you are slighting than what they had for the Native Americans.

In some of the cases, the displacement was to parts beyond the then claimed boundaries of the US.

And, as for the right of the government to kick people out, it’s called immanent domain, and it’s been upheld recently in high US courts (Federal Appellate, and I don’t recall whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was denied or simply rejected without hearing it).

Sadly, much aboriginal art these days is done solely for obtaining money… and most so-called “dream-catchers” are just that.

But similar art forms exist in Alaska Native arts, with entirely different purposes. They are used as tools in story telling and dance (which, in most Alaska Native traditions & cultures, are intertwined highly).

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

No, they’re not evil.They are not Catholics, and what they’re doing is part of their religion,and is therefore a good thing for them.You should NOT throw them out(especially seeings how its really their country), and you should respect their faith.However, if they have never heard about Jesus then its good to teach them, but let them convert if they want, and do not force anything on them.

 

[Br_Joshua_Seidl]

Taking some symbols from a culture makes sense only if there is no chance of mistaking the meaning of our action. When you put Easter eggs or Christmas trees in your house, no one thinks you are endorsing some sort of pagan alternative to Christianity. As I see it, some people may think instead that your using a dreamcatcher means you happen to believe in a New Age revival of a superstition. Here lies the difference.

In a neutral situation, I’d say it’s ok to keep them as an ornament where no one sees them other than that way.
Instead if you feel like a militant Christian, if you (like me) see challenges to the true faith in our society, you won’t use them for house decoration, and you won’t regret the aesthetic “loss”.
Native Americans need not worry, but a lot of prudence is to be exerted if some well educated priest is going to try to go the inculturation way: there’s a fine line between keeping good aspects of other cultures in order to help people to find their unique path to the Church, or instead encouraging a subculture of superstition to survive within our community.
Of course here heresy is not the problem with Native Americans; but it’s a form of heresy to incorporate New Age ideas into Christianity.

Many thanks for such well put words. I have attended certain seminars or what ever kinds of meetings in which some non-Native Religious Sister, Brother or Priest starts explaining Native trditon and ceremony and attempts to make those of us in the group participate. I walk out. I am familiar with what they want to do - but it is obvious they do not know what they are doing.

I am well versed on my Indigenous ways and I must say these wanna-be folks are extremly off track. They do not have an incling of what they are talking about. They should not take our traditions without permission and without a minimum of 7 years training in these things. Chances are, if they knew the seriousness of what they are doing and the time truly needed to study this – they would end up not have the time for us Native People.

 

[mmortal03]

In some of the cases, the displacement was to parts beyond the then claimed boundaries of the US.

And, as for the right of the government to kick people out, it’s called immanent domain, and it’s been upheld recently in high US courts (Federal Appellate, and I don’t recall whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was denied or simply rejected without hearing it).

Isn’t that what I said?

Also, I know what imminent domain is, and it was exactly what I was talking about, I just didn’t call it by name. But just remember that just because the US government says something is law doesn’t mean that the law is right. We are getting way too off topic here, though, so I will leave it at that.

 

[Renton405]

You are defeating your own argument. One, no matter “who’s” land it is, you shouldn’t be able to just kick people off of it. If they don’t want your money, then tough luck. This is continually an issue in government: The question of, “Should the government be allowed to kick you off if they think they can use the land for a better cause?”

Two, What is this about paying for land? To pay for land, you have to own it, right?

Three, you are talking about “Indians” collectively…as if they all had one individual voice, with no disagreements among them.

So what if they weren’t kicking them out of the “United States”. A semantic argument isn’t going to fly here. And, if you want to go there, they actually were kicking them out of what was considered the US at the time.

I don’t disagree with the idea that certain modernizations applied to places can be a good thing, but you better have a heck of a lot more humane solution for the people you are slighting than what they had for the Native Americans.

The government payed 4.5 million to the Indians for that land. And the Cherokee chief said yes…

To pay for land you have to own it?? I don’t understand what you mean, and if that was really true then no civilation would get along and we would all be at war with each other. Provinces are made, settlements. What would you think if someone was in europe and planted down a flag and said “ALL of europe is mine”, of course not, there are other people in this world that deserve to settle their too, no one has the authority to claim a whole continent… The government payed for that land, the Cherokee chief took that deal… Its the Cherokees responsibility and their peoples to get along and agree with it, not the governments…If the Indian people want to get mad at someone, they should get mad at their cherokee chief, not go slaughtering settlers and children and scalping them…