Wicca

[CFLarsen]

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

Yeah, let's.

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?

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..."

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".

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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]

"...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.

 

[Z]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Z]

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]

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.

 

[Z]

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]

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?

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.

(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.

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]

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.

 

[Z]

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]

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.

 

[Z]

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...

 

[crimresearch]

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

 

[Z]

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

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!

 

[Nex]

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!

Funny, that's my experience too.

Crazy Wodinists.

 

[Nex]

Granted and agreed - apologies for the misunderstandings.

Right back atcha.

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...

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...

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...

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]

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]

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"!

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]

What the heck is a Wodinist?