Wicca [Archive] - JREF Forum

20th November 2004, 11:35 PM

Yep, basically, Wicca is a hodge-podge of beliefs - in fact, Wicca isn't any one belief system, but rather any belief system that accepts the 'Rede' (short form). Thus, there are Christian Wiccans, Jewish Wiccans, etc.

Crowley and Gardner may have popularized Wicca, but some familial traditions have lasted for hundreds (not likely thousands) of years. There has never been a centralized, organized faith called 'Wicca', nor is there ever likely to be one.

Goddess-worshipping traditions are, of course, quite old, but as a sub-culture of polytheistic religion. For the most part, the practices and beliefs of modern Wiccans can be best summed up by 'An it harm none, do what you will' and 'If it feels good, do it'.

For me, Wicca is a convenient label to cover the fact that I believe Deity takes on many forms (probably better to say people think of Deity in many forms). I dress up my practice with Native American, Chinese, and Celtic trappings, but certainly there's never been a religion that comes from those three cultures combined, nor is there very much in common between the three cultures. My wife follows Correllian Wicca, which is more a framework of worship and study than an actual faith; she dresses it up with plenty of Celtic and Faerie trappings. I know a fellow who 'founded' his own 'church' based on Roman beliefs with a strong leaning toward Roman Catholic practices. A lady I know prefers 'Techno-Wicca' and refers to Science as her Goddess, and does her rituals in cyberspace.

Anyway, hope that helps enlighten a bit...

BTW - Woo is optional, but pretty damned common.

Ratman_tf

21st November 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A lady I know prefers 'Techno-Wicca' and refers to Science as her Goddess, and does her rituals in cyberspace.

Technomage? (http://www.infinicorp.com/VEX/organizations/technomages.htm)

Anders

21st November 2004, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

[snip]
A lady I know prefers 'Techno-Wicca' and refers to Science as her Goddess, and does her rituals in cyberspace.
[snip]
She has played way to much Mage (http://www.whitewolf.com/Games/Pages/MageHome.html), the Role Playing Game!

Dancing David

21st November 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
One of these geniuses tried to make me feel guilty in a chatroom once, talking about how witches are persecuted. She brought up Salem and "the Burning Times" in medieval Europe. There wasn't a single witch ever executed in Salem, and I have very little doubt that I could count the number of real "witches" ever burned in medieval Europe on one hand and still have enough fingers left to play a clarinet.

Methinks that thou has made an overbroad statement, the burning of witches was used as an excuse for seizing property and there are enough cases where names are mentioned and the like to mean you would need a lot of fingers!

I use the ten percent rule myself when looking at the figures, even if you use a one percent rule, there would still be at least 3,000 executed for witchcraft. Many of these case carried on into the elightenment and also involved the wars of 'reformation'.

So yes scepticism should be used on the 'three million' claim but there were witch burnings. On the Salem thing, Giles Corey(?) was pressed to death but found innocent because he didn't confess.

Remember as well that most societies, except for the US have a blend of religion and folk magic, and that such traditions continue in Africa where there are riots over hexed soccer fields.

Checkmite

21st November 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Methinks that thou has made an overbroad statement, the burning of witches was used as an excuse for seizing property and there are enough cases where names are mentioned and the like to mean you would need a lot of fingers!

I use the ten percent rule myself when looking at the figures, even if you use a one percent rule, there would still be at least 3,000 executed for witchcraft. Many of these case carried on into the elightenment and also involved the wars of 'reformation'.

So yes scepticism should be used on the 'three million' claim but there were witch burnings. On the Salem thing, Giles Corey(?) was pressed to death but found innocent because he didn't confess.

Remember as well that most societies, except for the US have a blend of religion and folk magic, and that such traditions continue in Africa where there are riots over hexed soccer fields.

You miss my point. I know that many were hanged, burned, executed for being "witches". I have serious doubts that the number of actual witches ever executed for the charge of witchcraft has more than 2 digits. The vast overwhelming majority of them were actually Christians.

21st November 2004, 04:47 PM

That's exactly right - most 'witches' that were murdered or otherwise persecuted during the 'burning times' were just regular folks, many of whom practiced old folk traditions, but many of whom were simply disliked by one person or another. Very few, if any, were actually 'witches', per se.

Dancing David

23rd November 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
You miss my point. I know that many were hanged, burned, executed for being "witches". I have serious doubts that the number of actual witches ever executed for the charge of witchcraft has more than 2 digits. The vast overwhelming majority of them were actually Christians.

You didn't make your point, I didn't miss it.

For someone who likes anthropology you seem to be unaware of the nature of folk magic in Mexico or Haiti. The vast majority of 'brujas i brujos" in Mexico are Xian practioners of folk magic, Mexican folk magic occurs within the context of Catholicism and borrows very heavily from it. The same is true of Voodoo traditions, except that it includes an african component. So I would assume that some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft. And even in the USA and the modern 'witch' tradition many 'white witches' are Xians they are not pagans. Shock and gasp, I know I was shocked when I met people who claimed they were witches and were just preformimng the catholic mass.

I already stated somewhere that the executions were mainly to seize property but I believe that the catholic church had strong reasons to shut down anybody dispensing god's grace without a license. So I feel that the execution met three goals, the destruction of temporal power, the seizure of property and the limiting of non church sources of Xian 'folk medicine'.

Cleon

23rd November 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp04242002.shtml

One of my favorite comics, S*P, and one of my favorite strips.... :D

(Though he left out the fact that nobody was "burned at the stake" in Salem. The Puritans preferred hanging.)

drkitten

23rd November 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

For someone who likes anthropology you seem to be unaware of the nature of folk magic in Mexico or Haiti. The vast majority of 'brujas i brujos" in Mexico are Xian practioners of folk magic, Mexican folk magic occurs within the context of Catholicism and borrows very heavily from it. The same is true of Voodoo traditions, except that it includes an african component. So I would assume that some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft. And even in the USA and the modern 'witch' tradition many 'white witches' are Xians they are not pagans. Shock and gasp, I know I was shocked when I met people who claimed they were witches and were just preformimng the catholic mass.

We may be running a risk of starting off on a "No True Scottish Witch" fallacy discussion, but I think that comparing syncretic Haitian folk religions with 17th century European beliefs is a non-starter. There's very little evidence to support the idea of a substantial hold-over or practice of pagan (or even obviously syncretic) beliefs in "core" Europe between about 1300 and the neo-pagan revivals of the 20th century. The modern earthy-crunchy neopagan witch simply did not exist in Europe, and you can look for her in vain.

The definition of "witch," therefore, has shifted over the centuries. In the 17th century, it was akin to "Satanist" or "demonologist," specificially a person who consorted with acknowlegedly evil spirits within the ontological framework of the Christian church. The idea that this was somehow a method of assuring religious orthodoxy or a power struggle between the folk religionists and the church hierarchy is ludicrous at several levels. FIrst, it's the reason there is no "save the dodo's" ecological movement -- there are no dodo's left, and similarly, there were no folk religionists left by the 17th century. Second, there was a genuine power struggle going on at the time between the Catholic and Protestant churches -- there was a well-established method of dealing with assuring religious orthodoxy and establishing power, specifically under the guise of dealing with heretics. Heresy and witchcraft are, and were, radically different crimes. Third, most of the witchcraft events were not related to the church hierarchy (one of the differences between witchcraft and heresy), but were produced almost entirely as a local, political, and largely lay dispute. The areas of Europe where the church was the strongest were, almost ironically, the areas with the least amount of witchcraft hysteria.

On a strict reading of the definition of "witch," there were by definition no witches, as evil spirits don't exist. On a slightly less strict reading, your "assumption" that "some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft" (meaning people who self-admittedly attempted to consort with evil spirits) is at best a very tenuous assumption, and really doesn't fit the available evidence. Just to start out with,.... the church wasn't the organization that burned witches. If an accused witch was executed, it was typically done by the burgermasters of Bad Shoeshein, in response to a public accusation raised by the citizenrly, and over the protests of the local clergy.....

Checkmite

23rd November 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
. If an accused witch was executed, it was typically done by the burgermasters of Bad Shoeshein...

:D

Also important here is the fact that Mexico and the Caribbean nations never experienced a "spate" of witch trials and execution the way Europe did. Folk magic in Latin America is irrelevant - the argument here is against the supposition that witches were persecuted in the manner claimed by Wiccans and other new agers. To support drkitten's explanation, I will reiterate that Wiccans are rather hostile toward the "stereotype" of a witch - the black clothes, brooms, evil spells, familiars, and the like - which they hold as complete nonsense; and that therefore it makes no sense for them to be protesting the church's crusade against witches of that stereotype. One can only assume that when these modern day "witches" insist that "witches were persecuted in medieval Europe", they must be using the same definition of witch that they apply to themselves. And of those types of witches, there were very few at most, and quite likely none at all, in that place at that time.

TillEulenspiegel

23rd November 2004, 11:33 AM

New drkitten has it about right.

Wicca is older then Christianity and was based on "The Old Religion" which was pagan, usurped then co-opted by Christian mythos..under grave penalty if One was caught practicing the beliefes...Look out, The Priests would suffer no rival.

It was basically not a worship of nature but the representative god and goddess. The Goddess a symbol of fecundity in nature.. This centered around the seasons and planting cycles based on the moon ( which as we know is not woo-woo). The spring or rebirth of nature was seen for what it was a kind of reawakening or resurrection of nature. Sound familiar ? -Easter The God was more Bacchanalian with a Pan like character, goat hooves horns like character later "The Green Man". He was turned in to the Devil. Christmas replaced Samhain the winter soltice which existed back to the druids again BCE.

The goddess was done away all together as Male monotheism dominated. First in Judaism with women not allowed in temple or to pray with men later Christians reintroduced the goddess in the form of Mary- but they knocked her down a notch. She was seen as an intercessionary not an equal. Still farther to Islam where woman are chattel ( not that the rest of the world didn't take this view at one time or another) and live under excruciatingly strict rules.

Bottom line is it's been around for ever and like all religions has morphed into something the original practitioners wouldn't recognize, like the various flavors of Judaism and Christianity and Islam.

Checkmite

23rd November 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
New drkitten has it about right.

Wicca is older then Christianity and was based on "The Old Religion" which was pagan, usurped then co-opted by Christian mythos..under grave penalty if One was caught practicing the beliefes...Look out, The Priests would suffer no rival.

Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

CFLarsen

23rd November 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

Cue: The Beautiful People? (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/beautifulpeople.htm)

Nyarlathotep

23rd November 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

I have to agree with JK on this one, especially that last senetence. Truthfully, very little is known about the ancient religions that Wiccans claim to be the inheritors of. Most of the Wiccans I have met claim that their ceremonies are Celtic in origin. The problem I have with that is that very little is known of the ancient Celtic religion. The Romans pretty sucessfully stomped it out by the end of the 1st century A.D. while recording very little of it. The Celts themselves didn't record it either, what with them having no written language and all. So I am pretty dubious about anyone who claims to have knowledge of Celtic ceremonies. This includes almost every "witch" I have ever met.

TillEulenspiegel

23rd November 2004, 01:15 PM

No I agree with You both . I just pointed out the pre-cursors , not that any particular practice or sect as identical to it's progenitor. Like the Reformed movement in Judaism or the Catholic-Protestant schism, or Sunni VS Shiia'.

They all had common roots and yet share a particular trait of " My Religion is the True Religion", I'm agnostic and believe none.

I thought that was plain in My last paragraph.

drkitten

23rd November 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
New drkitten has it about right.

Well, thank you, but....

Wicca is older then Christianity

No,
and was based on "The Old Religion" which was pagan,

No,

usurped then co-opted by Christian mythos

No,

..under grave penalty if One was caught practicing the beliefes

No,
...Look out, The Priests would suffer no rival.
and,... No.

All of these statements are twentieth-century myths made up by the neopagans.

As is essentially the entire following paragraph:

It was basically not a worship of nature but the representative god and goddess. The Goddess a symbol of fecundity in nature.. This centered around the seasons and planting cycles based on the moon ( which as we know is not woo-woo). The spring or rebirth of nature was seen for what it was a kind of reawakening or resurrection of nature. Sound familiar ? -Easter The God was more Bacchanalian with a Pan like character, goat hooves horns like character later "The Green Man". He was turned in to the Devil. Christmas replaced Samhain the winter soltice which existed back to the druids again BCE.

In fact, very little in your entire post can be historically supported; among the few "facts" that you got right is that Judaism predated Christianity. But as a history, or as a description of the "pre-cursors," it's slightly less accurate than Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is as a description of England of the fourth century CE. The precursors you describe never existed, either as a unified set of "Goddess worshippers" or even as local sects.

23rd November 2004, 08:10 PM

Let me just reinforce this a bit:

I am a qualified Wiccan priest - inasmuch as any Wiccan tradition has a right to claim 'qualified' priests. I've actually taken a formal course of study to achieve my credentials... And I will agree that modern Wicca owes more to Gardner and Crowley than it does to ancient Celtic rituals or Norse mythology. However...

Crowley and Gardner were not the first to put forth concepts such as the Wiccan Rede and some of the ritual forms. Family traditions with roots in medeival (sp? I never get that one right) Europe have existed in scattered pockets throughout the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking world. Granted, there are also many people making false claims about 'family traditions' - but at least a few have internal documentation that can be verified. Many of these, in turn, borrowed ideas from pre-Christian mythos... But just as no modern Christian faith can claim to be the same as the faith started in the early years after Christ, so too can no modern form of Paganism claim to be the same as its early ancestors.

Now, Dr. K, it IS true that the early Christian church usurped many Pagan rituals and practices in order to gain more control over local cultures. However, there was never One Olde Religion - rather, polytheistic worship has existed in a thousand forms for a very long time. It is also true that many attributes commonly associated with the modern concept of the Devil were deliberate twistings by the Catholic church to turn good Pagan deities into evil Christian demons - though not directly by the Church itself, but more appropriately by the artisans and writers who associated with the Church.

Anyway, Modern Wicca is itself not a singular religion either - like Christianity, most folks are hard-pressed to define Wicca in such a way as to include all sects of Wicca. Nor is Neopaganism synonymous with Wicca - more like Neopaganism is the broad group, while Wicca is a more selective sub-grouping. But a lot of folks forget that Paganism also includes groups that do not follow the Wiccan Rede as well as any non-Abrahamist faith, essentially, depending on definition. Buddhists would be Pagans too, IIRC.

Nex

23rd November 2004, 09:24 PM

As a sidenote, Wicca and witchcraft in modern Western civilisation are two different things. The first is a religion, the second a practice (whether real or imaginary). Wicca is a polytheistic faith, mostly, though there are a couple sects that focus on the goddess or the god exclusively. Witchcraft is basically a practice of superstition, psi, and magic-with-or-without-the-K.

Some will find this site amusing. (http://www.whywiccanssuck.com) Some will not. It's informative in its own snarky way.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Crowley and Gardner may have popularized Wicca, but some familial traditions have lasted for hundreds (not likely thousands) of years.

No, I'm pretty sure Gardner thought it up with Crowley's help. Gardner said some lady named "Dorothy Clutterbuck" taught it to him, but there's no record of this woman ever existing within his lifetime. Traditional Gardnerian practice and ceremony so closely resembles Ceremonial Magic practices, it is thoroughly reasonable to conclude he based it almost entirely off of Crowley's information of the Golden Dawn and other oathbound ceremonial traditions of the early twentieth century.

Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950's-- there's no way there could be familial traditions handed down over even a hundred years, let alone thousands. There may be tiny bits and pieces of old European traditions wedged into it, but as a whole it is quite modern.

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.
http://www.parkbull.com/forum/images/smiles/applause.gif http://www.parkbull.com/forum/images/smiles/applause.gif http://www.parkbull.com/forum/images/smiles/applause.gif
Exactly.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Buddhists would be Pagans too, IIRC.
Buddhists are not Pagan. Even Tibetan Buddhism, which lays claim to many gods, goddesses, demons, and devils, openly admits that all these entities are "in your head." Each entity symbolises a fear, desire, hatred, or other imperfection of soul. Buddhists do not worship Buddha, but revere him as a mentor.
At least, that's what I've come to understand it as. (My first-year philosophy of religions prof was Buddhist.)

Checkmite

23rd November 2004, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Cue: The Beautiful People? (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/beautifulpeople.htm)

Thank you. :D

crimresearch

23rd November 2004, 11:10 PM

The dictionary makes the non-Abrahamist distinction for pagans, but I think Buddhism is too heirachical and heavily doctrinaire to really be Pagan.

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
but at least a few have internal documentation that can be verified.

So, let's.

Where can I see this documentation?

richardm

24th November 2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
There wasn't a single witch ever executed in Salem, and I have very little doubt that I could count the number of real "witches" ever burned in medieval Europe on one hand and still have enough fingers left to play a clarinet.

Hang on. While I'm quite happy to accept that they weren't really witches, the reason given for executing them was that they'd participated in witchcraft. Although I can see your point, saying "There wasn't a single witch ever executed in Salem" is a misleading statement, I think, because 25 people went to their graves on the basis of accusations of witchcraft.

Ditto the burning in Europe. There were lots of people burned for witchcraft. Yes, the huge majority of them weren't really witches even if they said they were, but ostensibly that was the reason they were executed.

24th November 2004, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Nex
No, I'm pretty sure Gardner thought it up with Crowley's help. Gardner said some lady named "Dorothy Clutterbuck" taught it to him, but there's no record of this woman ever existing within his lifetime. Traditional Gardnerian practice and ceremony so closely resembles Ceremonial Magic practices, it is thoroughly reasonable to conclude he based it almost entirely off of Crowley's information of the Golden Dawn and other oathbound ceremonial traditions of the early twentieth century.

Pretty common misconception. Whether or not Dorothy Clutterbuck ever existed (most of us are very skeptical of that) the fact remains that what Gardner pushed off as 'Wicca' was, as you have properly surmised, a form of practice based largely on ceremonial magic as practiced by Crowley and his Golden Dawn group... but Wicca (in practice, not so much in name) precedes Crowley by quite a bit.

Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950's-- there's no way there could be familial traditions handed down over even a hundred years, let alone thousands. There may be tiny bits and pieces of old European traditions wedged into it, but as a whole it is quite modern.

No, the name of Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950s. Various families have had traditional practices passed down for generations, and while verifying exactly how MANY generations the practices went through is difficult at best, at least two that I am personally familiar with {appear to} have reasonable documentation of Wiccan practice well before the 1950s.

(Mind, I'm boiling 'Wicca' down to the core essential - "An it harm none, do what thou will" - with a general faith in a non-Christian deity/deities.)

Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged.

Buddhists are not Pagan. Even Tibetan Buddhism, which lays claim to many gods, goddesses, demons, and devils, openly admits that all these entities are "in your head." Each entity symbolises a fear, desire, hatred, or other imperfection of soul. Buddhists do not worship Buddha, but revere him as a mentor.
At least, that's what I've come to understand it as. (My first-year philosophy of religions prof was Buddhist.)

According to most definitions of 'Pagan' I've ever seen, the only non-Pagan faiths are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and related faiths. Buddhism (core teachings) are Pagan, in that they do not refer to the God of Abraham. Likewise, Taoism, Shinto, etc. are all Pagan faiths. Paganism has absolutely nothing to do with whether the gods are 'in your head' or not, nor about organization or hierchy or doctrination, but about whether or not they worship Abraham's Sky Daddy.

Larsen, I won't lie to ya - I don't personally have any resources that specifically prove pre-1950's Wiccan beliefs. I have seen resources, but I haven't seen those resources tested or verified. Like I said, those family bibles and records might well have been forged to add an air of legitimacy to the whole shebang. Or they might well be authentic. Certainly, Wicca is no more or less true than any other faith! And at least Wiccans aren't knocking at your door at 8:00 AM on Saturday morning trying to get you to convert!

For my own part, I'm not concerned with legitimacy of family traditions or anything else. I don't practice any of Gardner or Crowley's creative embellishments. I follow a modified form of the Rede - which, essentially, is a core teaching common to most faiths, reworded endlessly, and often ignored - and I generally think of myself more as an eclectic Christian/Taoist/Shamanic/Buddhist/Pagan/Wiccan, since I have beliefs and practices from each of these faiths fully intertwined within my system of worship. Now - show me how long this combination of faith has existed and tell me again just how it stacks up against any other faith?

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents. As far as I'm concerned, Wicca didn't exist until I discovered it in 1993, Episcopaleanism until 1989, and Christianity in general until 1978. (Since only those things I am aware of really exist... )

-- ugh, I've been arguing with lifegazer for too long...

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

No, no, no. This is a cop-out, also used by other believers: We can only see the evidence, if we are "really, honestly" interested in it.

Problem is, once believers find out that the people asking for the evidence are skeptics, we are told that we are not "really, honestly" interested. And the door is slammed shut.

Either put the evidence forth, with no conditions whatsoever, or shut up.

24th November 2004, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no. This is a cop-out, also used by other believers: We can only see the evidence, if we are "really, honestly" interested in it.

Problem is, once believers find out that the people asking for the evidence are skeptics, we are told that we are not "really, honestly" interested. And the door is slammed shut.

Either put the evidence forth, with no conditions whatsoever, or shut up.

No reason to get so ugly, Larsen. I'm not copping out - I'm telling you I don't have any evidence myself, and am not really interested in it one way or another. I'm not claiming you can only see evidence if you already believe it, nor am I slamming any doors shut - I have no doors to slam.

Anyway, read what I wrote, instead of leaping down my throat like you do to every other believer. I wasn't giving you conditions by which I would present evidence; I was suggesting who you, yourself, might contact to gain such evidence (if it exists) for yourself.

Really, CF, have some java. You're waaaay too strung out this morning!

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No reason to get so ugly, Larsen.

It's not about getting ugly or being high strung. It's about evidence. Either you can produce it, or you cannot.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm not copping out - I'm telling you I don't have any evidence myself, and am not really interested in it one way or another. I'm not claiming you can only see evidence if you already believe it, nor am I slamming any doors shut - I have no doors to slam.

"If you are really, honestly, interested". Your words, not mine. That's a cop-out. If not, why the condition?

Why are you not in the least bit interested in whether or not there is evidence?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Anyway, read what I wrote, instead of leaping down my throat like you do to every other believer. I wasn't giving you conditions by which I would present evidence; I was suggesting who you, yourself, might contact to gain such evidence (if it exists) for yourself.

Really, CF, have some java. You're waaaay too strung out this morning!

Why do you think I should treat you different from anyone else with claims (they can't back up)?

crimresearch

24th November 2004, 07:25 AM

Paganism has absolutely nothing to do with whether the gods are 'in your head' or not, nor about organization or hierchy or doctrination, but about whether or not they worship Abraham's Sky Daddy.

I should have been more specific...

The dictionary makes the Abrahamist distinction because of common *usage* and a Western bias.

The word itself has nothing to do with Abraham, and actually refers to village/rural religions, and neither Buddhism, nor Confucianism, or later (non-shamanistic) versions of Taoism, can be properly called Pagan.

Unless you are seriously proposing that everyone from Asia is an uncivilized hick.

Dancing David

24th November 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
We may be running a risk of starting off on a "No True Scottish Witch" fallacy discussion, but I think that comparing syncretic Haitian folk religions with 17th century European beliefs is a non-starter. There's very little evidence to support the idea of a substantial hold-over or practice of pagan (or even obviously syncretic) beliefs in "core" Europe between about 1300 and the neo-pagan revivals of the 20th century. The modern earthy-crunchy neopagan witch simply did not exist in Europe, and you can look for her in vain.

The definition of "witch," therefore, has shifted over the centuries. In the 17th century, it was akin to "Satanist" or "demonologist," specificially a person who consorted with acknowlegedly evil spirits within the ontological framework of the Christian church. The idea that this was somehow a method of assuring religious orthodoxy or a power struggle between the folk religionists and the church hierarchy is ludicrous at several levels. FIrst, it's the reason there is no "save the dodo's" ecological movement -- there are no dodo's left, and similarly, there were no folk religionists left by the 17th century. Second, there was a genuine power struggle going on at the time between the Catholic and Protestant churches -- there was a well-established method of dealing with assuring religious orthodoxy and establishing power, specifically under the guise of dealing with heretics. Heresy and witchcraft are, and were, radically different crimes. Third, most of the witchcraft events were not related to the church hierarchy (one of the differences between witchcraft and heresy), but were produced almost entirely as a local, political, and largely lay dispute. The areas of Europe where the church was the strongest were, almost ironically, the areas with the least amount of witchcraft hysteria.

On a strict reading of the definition of "witch," there were by definition no witches, as evil spirits don't exist. On a slightly less strict reading, your "assumption" that "some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft" (meaning people who self-admittedly attempted to consort with evil spirits) is at best a very tenuous assumption, and really doesn't fit the available evidence. Just to start out with,.... the church wasn't the organization that burned witches. If an accused witch was executed, it was typically done by the burgermasters of Bad Shoeshein, in response to a public accusation raised by the citizenrly, and over the protests of the local clergy.....

It is a form of the True Scotsman to argue that only pagans(non-Xians) are witches, which is what I am pointing out. Anytime(exageration) that there is an established church that has the trappings of mysticism I believe that you will have the co-occurent rise of folk magic, so ergo, there were some minority of people burned during the witch trial who were practioners of non approved folk magic. I don't think you can argue that folk magic just 'went away' the hexes of the Pennsylvania dutch would be a good example of Xian folk magic that came from Europe in the 16 and 17 century.

On a slightly less strict reading, your "assumption" that "some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft" (meaning people who self-admittedly attempted to consort with evil spirits) is at best a very tenuous assumption, and really doesn't fit the available evidence.

You are setting your own defintion of witch there to make the arguement, witches are people who call themselves witchs or are reffered to by other people as witches. Are you saying that you exclude 'brujas y brujos' or the 'strega'?

I beleive that I am making a statement that the church had reason to try to remove practioners of folk magic and that a certain number of them would call themselves witches.

You will find that I already grant as assume that most of the witches that were incinerated were executed to profit the temporal lords and the coffers of the church. I am merely pointing out that the church would have had very good reasons to persecute practioners of folk magic that would style themselves as witches.

Dancing David

24th November 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
:D

Also important here is the fact that Mexico and the Caribbean nations never experienced a "spate" of witch trials and execution the way Europe did. Folk magic in Latin America is irrelevant - the argument here is against the supposition that witches were persecuted in the manner claimed by Wiccans and other new agers. To support drkitten's explanation, I will reiterate that Wiccans are rather hostile toward the "stereotype" of a witch - the black clothes, brooms, evil spells, familiars, and the like - which they hold as complete nonsense; and that therefore it makes no sense for them to be protesting the church's crusade against witches of that stereotype. One can only assume that when these modern day "witches" insist that "witches were persecuted in medieval Europe", they must be using the same definition of witch that they apply to themselves. And of those types of witches, there were very few at most, and quite likely none at all, in that place at that time.

Most definitly , the 'three million' figure is a gross exageration and was taken on as a banner by the radical feminist movement in the seventies, I myself have never beleived that modern wicca is in any way associated with the ancient folk religions.

There is another feminist myth that appears to be even more pervasive about the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb', I don't have acsess to the OED to check it out.

Some of the old texts of witches don't portray them in the robes but naked on the broom stick. I thought the stereotype came from the wizrd of OZ. As I have stated before I feel that the vast majority of witches in europre were most likely Xians.

Dancing David

24th November 2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I have to agree with JK on this one, especially that last senetence. Truthfully, very little is known about the ancient religions that Wiccans claim to be the inheritors of. Most of the Wiccans I have met claim that their ceremonies are Celtic in origin. The problem I have with that is that very little is known of the ancient Celtic religion. The Romans pretty sucessfully stomped it out by the end of the 1st century A.D. while recording very little of it. The Celts themselves didn't record it either, what with them having no written language and all. So I am pretty dubious about anyone who claims to have knowledge of Celtic ceremonies. This includes almost every "witch" I have ever met.

Especialy since the only records we have of modern witchcraft would indicate that it was started by the Gardners with help from Crowley.

The prime witch goddess of the sixties and seventies is Aradia and obvious latin word.

Isn't celt a roman word. And the celtic provinces are the ones that adopted the roman ways the most!

Some druids feel that the religion was stomped out when the romans sacked the holy isle of albion.

24th November 2004, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's not about getting ugly or being high strung. It's about evidence. Either you can produce it, or you cannot.

I never claimed I could produce it, nor even that it was accurate evidence. Read what I wrote.

"If you are really, honestly, interested". Your words, not mine. That's a cop-out. If not, why the condition?

How is that a condition? I'm telling you to contact these people if you're really interested; if you aren't, then why bother? To re-word it, if you're interested in what evidence families may have of a pre-1950s Wiccan faith, these are two people that would most likely have such evidence - if it exists. (Really, honestly are just my emphasis - they aren't conditions.)

C'mon, do you think I was trying to say, "If you're not honestly interested in the evidence, don't talk to these people"? Really, Larsen, I can't figure out your problem with the sentance.

Here - let me quote exactly what I said, again:

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

Now, let's analyze this a bit - first, remove the personal note:

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

and the intro

Try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

Now, how is this sentence a cop-out? I'm telling you that, if such evidence exists, these would be two people who could show it to you. I don't have such evidence - I got into Wicca in the 90s, not back in the 50s or 20s or any time prior. My mom was Roman Catholic and my father was a pragmatist. I'm not claiming hereditary witchcraft - but there are people who DO make these claims, and these are two individuals who might be able to help you out, if you're really interested in seeing the records. (If you weren't really interested, you won't bother trying to contact them, will you?)

Really, Larsen, who crawled up your socket and died today?

Why are you not in the least bit interested in whether or not there is evidence?

Because I didn't become Wiccan on the basis of how long the faith has been around; I didn't become Wiccan based on whether it existed in one family or another, whether it existed in the 1500s or only last week, or whatever. I really don't care when the traditions started, or who first wrote the Rede, or what authority figures claim to have had a part in writing the rituals, etc. That doesn't matter one whit to me, and is one reason I generally steer clear of book-faiths, seeing as they're all about trying to one-up each other on the authority and legitimacy issues. I really don't care whether Ann Moira's grandmother stole their practice of witchcraft from Crowley or whether she learned it at her grandmother's knee, etc. It doesn't change things for me one whit. If you came to me next week with a new religion cut from whole cloth, as the expression goes, and it made sense to me, I might join it. (Good luck, though, as even the faith I practice doesn't entirely make sense to me.)

Why obsess over who created a religion, for Pete's sake? None of them are any more or less legitimate than any other - does Judaism deserve some special respect for having existed for thousands of years longer than, say, B'nai Brith? Are the members of the Olympian Reconstruction Temple to be applauded for returning to actual Greek worship practices of ancient times, more so than those who just whisper quick prayers to their deity of choice today?

Now, as I said before (you're welcome to verify my post), Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged. Note, I'm not claiming this as fact, only that I've seen these records and doubt that every instance was forgery. My belief. Not fact, per se. Not truth, but opinion.

Why do you think I should treat you different from anyone else with claims (they can't back up)?

I'm not making claims - I'm repeating claims made by others, and offering two names of people from whom you can yourself find out more about these claims. All I'm claiming is that I've seen these records. I even admit they could be faked or forged. Do you actually read posts, or do you just attack anyone who posts who has faith in anything?

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I never claimed I could produce it, nor even that it was accurate evidence. Read what I wrote.

Yeah, let's.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
but at least a few have internal documentation that can be verified.

Now this verifiable evidence is not accurate? Do I detect a certain amount of waffling here?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
How is that a condition? I'm telling you to contact these people if you're really interested; if you aren't, then why bother?

It is a condition we have seen before: When asked for evidence, people will say "No, you are not really interested, so I won't show you the evidence..."

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
C'mon, do you think I was trying to say, "If you're not honestly interested in the evidence, don't talk to these people"? Really, Larsen, I can't figure out your problem with the sentance.

I find it very interesting that, when questioned, you go from "verifiable evidence" to "didn't mean it was accurate".

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Really, Larsen, who crawled up your socket and died today?

I am being consistent. If that is a problem to you, then too bad.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Because I didn't become Wiccan on the basis of how long the faith has been around; I didn't become Wiccan based on whether it existed in one family or another, whether it existed in the 1500s or only last week, or whatever. I really don't care when the traditions started, or who first wrote the Rede, or what authority figures claim to have had a part in writing the rituals, etc. That doesn't matter one whit to me, and is one reason I generally steer clear of book-faiths, seeing as they're all about trying to one-up each other on the authority and legitimacy issues. I really don't care whether Ann Moira's grandmother stole their practice of witchcraft from Crowley or whether she learned it at her grandmother's knee, etc. It doesn't change things for me one whit. If you came to me next week with a new religion cut from whole cloth, as the expression goes, and it made sense to me, I might join it. (Good luck, though, as even the faith I practice doesn't entirely make sense to me.)

How can you possibly reconcile that with the claims of ancient knowledge in paganism?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Now, as I said before (you're welcome to verify my post), Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged.

Ah, the old "I've seen fake mediums, but I can't believe that every medium is fake" argument. Sorry, doesn't cut any slack around here.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Note, I'm not claiming this as fact, only that I've seen these records and doubt that every instance was forgery. My belief. Not fact, per se. Not truth, but opinion.

"Verifiable evidence" turns to "opinion" - when challenged.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm not making claims - I'm repeating claims made by others, and offering two names of people from whom you can yourself find out more about these claims. All I'm claiming is that I've seen these records. I even admit they could be faked or forged. Do you actually read posts, or do you just attack anyone who posts who has faith in anything?

This is bull, OK? First you claim "verifiable evidence", then you merely "repeat claims made by others", and that this "verifiable evidence" could now be faked.

It's the same old manure: When challenged, the claims dwindle into nothing.

crimresearch

24th November 2004, 12:31 PM

"...Do you actually read posts, or do you just attack anyone who posts who has faith in anything?"

Rest assured that 1inClaus has no need to actually read your posts to attack them.

He can just use his amazing mind reading abilities to take a few select words from your posts and magically create meanings that you were completely unaware of believing yourself.

And he has demonstrated this technique on skeptics, atheists, and progressives alike...no need for him to discriminate on the basis of faith...

As a result he has become the cult leader for a growing group of anti-skeptics who employ the same techniques whenver they see an opening...all great good fun, as long as the basic Clausian cult mission of disrupting discourse on JREF is accomplished.

24th November 2004, 12:46 PM

Claus, there is a distinction to be made between 'verifiable evidence' and 'verified evidence'. When I say some have 'verifiable evidence' that does not preclude the possibility that it is falsifiable evidence. That merely means they possess evidence which can be verified/corroborated with other sources. Since I have not, myself, done the exhaustive research necessary to either verify or falsify such evidence means I personally have no right to claim that the evidence is 'true' or 'false' - only that it is verifiable.

This is to differentiate it from non-verifiable evidence - such as individual records that are not in any way cross-referenced anywhere.

I really think you're stretching things if you are claiming I'm refusing evidence on the grounds that you're not interested. Rather, I'm offering you contacts with those who might have evidence.

Frankly, your own statements on the history and origins of Wicca shows that you, yourself, have done very little research into the development and history of Wicca beyond what little is being passed around by the Gardnerians and Dianics. Have you ever done the research on family traditions? On the claims of Strega or the history of Voudon? What, exactly, is your basis for making such statements about witchcraft in general and Wicca specifically?

OF course, the burden of proof is not yours if we're discussing what Wiccans are claiming - but in this case, YOU have made a claim about Wicca, and now I am calling you on the burden of proof.

I merely claimed that some families have evidence that can be verified. But, consider, even the most outlandish Bible stories can be 'verified' - doesn't make them true, either.

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Rest assured that 1inClaus has no need to actually read your posts to attack them.

He can just use his amazing mind reading abilities to take a few select words from your posts and magically create meanings that you were completely unaware of believing yourself.

And he has demonstrated this technique on skeptics, atheists, and progressives alike...no need for him to discriminate on the basis of faith...

As a result he has become the cult leader for a growing group of anti-skeptics who employ the same techniques whenver they see an opening...all great good fun, as long as the basic Clausian cult mission of disrupting discourse on JREF is accomplished.

Have an Antacid.

You are of course always more than welcome to file a formal complaint to JREF, if you really think that I am that much of a liability to skepticism.

CFLarsen

24th November 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Claus, there is a distinction to be made between 'verifiable evidence' and 'verified evidence'. When I say some have 'verifiable evidence' that does not preclude the possibility that it is falsifiable evidence. That merely means they possess evidence which can be verified/corroborated with other sources. Since I have not, myself, done the exhaustive research necessary to either verify or falsify such evidence means I personally have no right to claim that the evidence is 'true' or 'false' - only that it is verifiable.

This is to differentiate it from non-verifiable evidence - such as individual records that are not in any way cross-referenced anywhere.

I really think you're stretching things if you are claiming I'm refusing evidence on the grounds that you're not interested. Rather, I'm offering you contacts with those who might have evidence.

Frankly, your own statements on the history and origins of Wicca shows that you, yourself, have done very little research into the development and history of Wicca beyond what little is being passed around by the Gardnerians and Dianics. Have you ever done the research on family traditions? On the claims of Strega or the history of Voudon? What, exactly, is your basis for making such statements about witchcraft in general and Wicca specifically?

OF course, the burden of proof is not yours if we're discussing what Wiccans are claiming - but in this case, YOU have made a claim about Wicca, and now I am calling you on the burden of proof.

I merely claimed that some families have evidence that can be verified. But, consider, even the most outlandish Bible stories can be 'verified' - doesn't make them true, either.

Now, "verified" does not mean "true".

Spin away. It is most amusing to observe.

24th November 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now, "verified" does not mean "true".

Spin away. It is most amusing to observe.

Spin yourself. I'm no master of language, nor have I ever claimed to be. You clearly misunderstood me, thereby requiring me to further explain my statement, which I have.

Now, how am I obfuscating your quest for truth?

Checkmite

24th November 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by richardm

Ditto the burning in Europe. There were lots of people burned for witchcraft. Yes, the huge majority of them weren't really witches even if they said they were, but ostensibly that was the reason they were executed.

Yes, but again...the types of "witches" that were charged and executed in Europe were alleged to be of the set that modern-day Wiccans decry as an inaccurate and "offensive" stereotype. That Wiccans try so hard to seperate themselves from that image, yet many still claim historical "persecution" because of the witch trials, is the problem; it's self-contradiction and they don't realize it, because they don't really know what they're talking about.

24th November 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Yes, but again...the types of "witches" that were charged and executed in Europe were alleged to be of the set that modern-day Wiccans decry as an inaccurate and "offensive" stereotype. That Wiccans try so hard to seperate themselves from that image, yet many still claim historical "persecution" because of the witch trials, is the problem; it's self-contradiction and they don't realize it, because they don't really know what they're talking about.

Very good point, and very well made.

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of folks on both sides and elsewhere who equate 'Wicca' with 'Satan-worship' - and for many church-goers, anything that is non-(fill-in-the-faith) is 'Satan-worship' and worthy only of death. I don't know how many times I've had to repeat myself that Wiccans don't worship Satan!

Nex

24th November 2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Pretty common misconception. Whether or not Dorothy Clutterbuck ever existed (most of us are very skeptical of that) the fact remains that what Gardner pushed off as 'Wicca' was, as you have properly surmised, a form of practice based largely on ceremonial magic as practiced by Crowley and his Golden Dawn group... but Wicca (in practice, not so much in name) precedes Crowley by quite a bit.
So you're saying there's two types of Wicca? The one Gardner invented, and some other unverified "ancient" faith?

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, the name of Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950s. Various families have had traditional practices passed down for generations, and while verifying exactly how MANY generations the practices went through is difficult at best, at least two that I am personally familiar with {appear to} have reasonable documentation of Wiccan practice well before the 1950s.
I haven't denied or argued that there were some traditions that were incorporated into Wicca. There are still more being incorporated every day, whether old traditions or newly made up stuff.
However, I find it extremely doubtful that anyone anywhere has any solid proof of Wiccan practice dating before 1951. Wicca, as a whole belief system, did not exist before 1951. Little bits and pieces of old pagan beliefs that have been incorporated into Wicca surely did, but these are few and far between.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
(Mind, I'm boiling 'Wicca' down to the core essential - "An it harm none, do what thou will" - with a general faith in a non-Christian deity/deities.)
Then the "Wicca" you're speaking of is just generalized New Age paganism, and not Wicca at all.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged.
I doubt they were all forged as well, but that doesn't make these familial practices "Wiccan."
The fact that the word "Wicca" was taken from the root word "wicce" isn't going to help you here. Correlation is not causation-- the wisdoms may have been called "wicce," but that still does not make them Wiccan.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I do think you're getting a little too creative with the history of your religion.

crimresearch

24th November 2004, 08:32 PM

Lots of religions, martial arts, healing traditions, etc. have their 'origination myths', its just that some of them have had longer than others to refine them.
;)

24th November 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Nex
So you're saying there's two types of Wicca? The one Gardner invented, and some other unverified "ancient" faith?

No, I'm saying that there are hundreds of types of Wicca. Gardnerian Wicca just happens to be one of them.

Now, let me say that, yes, technically, the faith that is named Wicca started with Gardner as organized as such, but familial witchcraft, complete with variations of everything that Gardner tried to standardize, have existed in some families to some extent for hundreds of years.

I haven't denied or argued that there were some traditions that were incorporated into Wicca. There are still more being incorporated every day, whether old traditions or newly made up stuff.
However, I find it extremely doubtful that anyone anywhere has any solid proof of Wiccan practice dating before 1951. Wicca, as a whole belief system, did not exist before 1951. Little bits and pieces of old pagan beliefs that have been incorporated into Wicca surely did, but these are few and far between.

Actually, as a whole, similar systems of belief (as I have been led to believe) have existed within certain families or cultures for a very long time, but 'Wicca' is now a convenient and legal label. Rather than having each and every Wicca-like faith try to fight for legitimacy on its own, a lot of these traditions are falling in line under the 'Wicca' blanket for convenience' sake.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I do think you're getting a little too creative with the history of your religion.

Actually, I think you're taking what I say a little out of context. All I'm saying is, that some form of witchcraft which is like what Gardner opted to name Wicca has existed for a very long time in some families, according to some evidence I have seen but do not myself possess.

Frankly, though, whether Wicca is a thousand years old or twenty doesn't really matter (to me).

Nex

24th November 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
No, I'm saying that there are hundreds of types of Wicca. Gardnerian Wicca just happens to be one of them.

Now, let me say that, yes, technically, the faith that is named Wicca started with Gardner as organized as such, but familial witchcraft, complete with variations of everything that Gardner tried to standardize, have existed in some families to some extent for hundreds of years.
Yes, but witchcraft and Wicca are two different things. The terms aren't synonymous.

I see what you're saying, and I do agree that some forms of witchcraft (Strega etc.) have existed within families for generations. That's something I haven't argued, and if you go back to my first post in this thread, I had pointed these facts out already.

You just can't make the mistake of assuming that older familial witchcraft traditions are automatically some early form of "Wicca." They're not.

I do invite you to read some medieval grimoires if you get the chance. Not only are they utterly fascinating, you'll see by the spells and prayers alone that they were so far from Wicca it's amazing some would confuse them for it. Granted, these books are hard to find, but worth it, especially if you want a good background on the magical practices of today. ;)

24th November 2004, 10:02 PM

Granted and agreed - apologies for the misunderstandings.

Nonetheless, since modern Wiccans consider themselves 'witches' (for whatever reason), and since humans tend to oversimplify their labels, it's easy to see why Wiccans fear the 'Burning Times' and over-estimate the effects of those times.

The problem I'm currently facing is dealing with the distinction between 'Christian Witch' and 'Wiccan Christian'. We're getting a lot of this sort of debate within Pagan circles lately, and it's gettin' kinda messy... :D

crimresearch

24th November 2004, 10:09 PM

And I was just getting ready to bring up the other neo-Pagans...like the Wodinists...
:D

24th November 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
And I was just getting ready to bring up the other neo-Pagans...like the Wodinists...
:D

EEK! I have had a lot of personal trouble with Wodinists... I know I'm stereotyping, but every single Wodinist or anyone even close to one seems to be a bigoted, self-serving, dangerous fool!

... ok, Rev. T... breathe... breathe...

Sorry, had to vent that! :D

Nex

24th November 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
EEK! I have had a lot of personal trouble with Wodinists... I know I'm stereotyping, but every single Wodinist or anyone even close to one seems to be a bigoted, self-serving, dangerous fool!

... ok, Rev. T... breathe... breathe...

Sorry, had to vent that! :D
Funny, that's my experience too.

Crazy Wodinists. :D

Nex

24th November 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Granted and agreed - apologies for the misunderstandings.
Right back atcha. ;)

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Nonetheless, since modern Wiccans consider themselves 'witches' (for whatever reason), and since humans tend to oversimplify their labels, it's easy to see why Wiccans fear the 'Burning Times' and over-estimate the effects of those times.
Fear does weird things to people, I agree. Especially in the political/religious climate of the USA right now... :eek:

But... fear breeds the "victim-mentality" that we see a lot of in the more, erm, devout circles of Paganism and Witchcraft. Lots of people there that seem happy to be demonised and persecuted...

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
The problem I'm currently facing is dealing with the distinction between 'Christian Witch' and 'Wiccan Christian'. We're getting a lot of this sort of debate within Pagan circles lately, and it's gettin' kinda messy... :D
I don't envy you in the slightest. *blech* One would think the "Wiccan Christian" is an oxymoron... you know, first commandment and all. Hmm.

crimresearch

24th November 2004, 10:37 PM

I learned about Wodinism when tracking hate groups and white supremacists led me into looking at prison religions...not my cup of tea at all, at all.

CFLarsen

25th November 2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Nex
I doubt they were all forged as well, but that doesn't make these familial practices "Wiccan."
The fact that the word "Wicca" was taken from the root word "wicce" isn't going to help you here. Correlation is not causation-- the wisdoms may have been called "wicce," but that still does not make them Wiccan.

Heck, I've met believers who claimed that they were skeptics, and that I was a "pseudo-skeptic"! :D

Originally posted by Nex
I'm not calling you a liar, but I do think you're getting a little too creative with the history of your religion.

Isn't that a necessity for Wiccans? They point to ancient knowledge, but have a hard time backing it up with evidence. I can't find much in Wicca that is truly ancient.

Perhaps our resident Wiccan can clarify? (With concrete verifiable examples, of course)

Checkmite

25th November 2004, 01:36 AM

What the heck is a Wodinist?

bjornart

25th November 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
What the heck is a Wodinist?

Just from the name I'd expect it to be some sort of pseudo-norse worship of Odin (aka Wodan, Wotan, etc.). And I'd guess they're either "might makes right" or "do what you want" type nitwits.

25th November 2004, 05:17 AM

And generally Aryanists, too... Nothing like faith in the 'master race' to get you going!

Claus, other than a few borrowed terms, some Deity names, and an occasional ritual or sigil, most of the practices of Wicca are fairly new. Within Family trads of witchcraft (such as I've observed), I wouldn't call their practices 'ancient' per se - at most, a few of these practices hailed back to Europe, not much further back than medeival times. I am aware of one family that claims to perform ceremonies modeled after temple ceremonies of Classical Greece, but I got the feeling (watching their ceremonies) that they were more inspired by 'Clash of the Titans' than actual historical Greece. I dunno.

Heck, I've met believers who claimed that they were skeptics, and that I was a "pseudo-skeptic"!

See, I admit to being a believer and a demi-skeptic, and that works for me. Most of the time.

Nex

25th November 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Heck, I've met believers who claimed that they were skeptics, and that I was a "pseudo-skeptic"! :D
Yes, I've gotten that too. In fact, I recently lost two close friends because they insisted on behaving that way every time we spoke to each other, and subsequently annoying the cr@p out of me.

Luckily, I don't tolerate that kind of behavior from anyone. Does that make me intolerant? :D

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Isn't that a necessity for Wiccans? They point to ancient knowledge, but have a hard time backing it up with evidence. I can't find much in Wicca that is truly ancient.
Wicca as a whole belief system has only been around since 1951. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Wiccans, at least here in the States, are teenaged girls, and not very predisposed to learning anything, let alone history. They hear something passed off as fact, and repeat it like it's written in stone. :rolleyes:
There's not much there that is ancient, in any way, shape, or form-- just a deity name or two, like Zaayrdragon said, and a couple superstitious practices. Some people just like to claim it's all "ancient Celtic knowledge" or whatever. I think it makes them feel special.

*edited to add a point and for typos*