Wiccan on Buffy
Algomeysa
The occasional reference to Willow and Tara as Wiccans.
They're not "wiccans", if you regard that as a true religion. They're tv
witches.
They're no more Wiccans than if a rabbi showed up on BUFFY who could shoot
lightning bolts out of his ass, it wouldn't be a realistic portrayal of a
Jew.
Or a Catholic priest who could teleport himself.
Referring to these characters who can do actual, demonstrable magic as
members of Wicca is nonsense.
Julie Carrigon
"Algomeysa" <algomeys...@mindspringNOPESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:abuusa$2dt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
I'm Wiccan and I am not offended by your post. I happen to agree. True
magick doesn't work that way. But it's Hollyweird, so what do you expect?
The special effects make it more interesting. I mean, how kewl would Willow
have looked in Villains if she just read those books instead of absorbing
them into her skin? But, I do get sick of how Hollyweird portrays Wiccans.
Like Willow just HAD to be gay, like all Wiccans are gay. Yeah, right.
Wicca is not a Goddess worshipping religion. It's a polytheistic religion,
we worship BOTH halves of the whole, not one side. To a true Wiccan, only
worshipping a Goddess would be lopsided, just as lopsided as Christianity or
any of the other monotheistic religions. But you just have to overlook the
writer's stupidity and try and enjoy the rest of the show.
Carrigon
--
http://www.geocities.com/juliean130/index.html
Visit my homepage for midis, game walkthrus, tarot and other interesting
tidbits!
<(ŠżŠ)> @>---
Amy
to the black arts - wiccans should be offended
"Algomeysa" <algomeys...@mindspringNOPESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:abuusa$2dt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Sara
Algomeysa <algomeys...@mindspringNOPESPAM.com> wrote in message
news:abuusa$2dt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
all like what they show on television. It makes people afraid when you have
books of spells.
Aethelrede
Sara wrote in message ...
It would only make me afraid if they were books of spells that WORKED.
As long as it's still down at the Dungeons and Dragons level, it's no
problem.
Shuggie
Thing is it's no more nonsense than the way they use computers on the show. It
niggles me that it's not accurate but you learn to ignore it and treat it as
fantasy - normal rules do not necessarily apply.
>
>
>
>
Allison Delacroix
> Ok, I'm not trying to offend any Wiccans, but this bugs me:
>
> The occasional reference to Willow and Tara as Wiccans.
>
> They're not "wiccans", if you regard that as a true religion. They're tv
> witches.
>
> They're no more Wiccans than if a rabbi showed up on BUFFY who could shoot
> lightning bolts out of his ass, it wouldn't be a realistic portrayal of a
> Jew.
I was wondering about that myself. The show has a pretty wierd stance on
religion in general. They have the vampires-repeled-by-crosses rule, but
I've never seen a story take a stance on Christianity's role in the
Buffyverse. Are we to assume that they fear God? If we do, that leaves a
lot of open questions. I don't think the Watchers or the Slayers have
anything to do with a particular religion. They usually aviod religious
references. Even when Buffy returns from "Heaven", the term is pretty
lose. It was a place she felt happy and safe. That doesn't really imply
a specific religion (for all we know it could have been Nirvana or
Sivaloka or some happy Buffyverse place).
They do have a different stance when it come to their uses of the words
Wicca and Wiccan. In this case, they redefine the words to suit their TV
version of witchcraft. They have them looking through fictional books
and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
old yet.
They're vague about the state of other religions in the Buffyverse, yet
Wicca is actively misrepresented. I know it's for entertainment value,
but it is misrepresentation none the less.
--
===========================================
Allison Delacroix
allydel...@mac.com
You know what to remove to get to me... ;)
Algomeysa
news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
> I was wondering about that myself. The show has a pretty wierd stance on
> religion in general. They have the vampires-repeled-by-crosses rule, but
> I've never seen a story take a stance on Christianity's role in the
> Buffyverse. Are we to assume that they fear God? If we do, that leaves a
> lot of open questions. I don't think the Watchers or the Slayers have
> anything to do with a particular religion. They usually aviod religious
> references. Even when Buffy returns from "Heaven", the term is pretty
> lose. It was a place she felt happy and safe. That doesn't really imply
> a specific religion (for all we know it could have been Nirvana or
> Sivaloka or some happy Buffyverse place).
Yeah, the fear of crosses and the effectiveness of blessed Holy Water does
seem to imply some validity of the Christian/Catholic religion, but, as you
say, its all kept pretty vague.
Even when we have "Monks" and "Crusaders" and things, like those
Glory-Watchers, they were very carefully non-specific denomination.....
I was surprised on a recent ANGEL episode of them making a big deal about
Judas, equating Wesley with Judas for betraying Angel. It was just odd to
see them referencing an actual religion, rather than The Books Of
I-Just-Made-It-Up....
Julie Carrigon
news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
>They have them looking through fictional books
>and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
>old yet.
Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
ancient Egyptians.
Rain
"Julie Carrigon" <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
>
> >They have them looking through fictional books
> >and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
> >old yet.
>
> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before
the
> ancient Egyptians.
>
> Carrigon
MM Carrigon,
No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's idea.
Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
Rain
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/02
Cernunnos
"Rain" <webn...@nospamprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:wQRE8.6279$Mg1.18...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Julie Carrigon" <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
> >
> > >They have them looking through fictional books
> > >and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
> > >old yet.
> >
> > Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
> > were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before
> the
> > ancient Egyptians.
> >
> > Carrigon
>
>
> MM Carrigon,
>
> No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's
idea.
> Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
> do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
wicca is sort of like a demoniation of the real deal. its like catholics or
pentacostals of the christians.
Don Sample
<carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
> "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
>
> >They have them looking through fictional books
> >and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
> >old yet.
>
> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
> ancient Egyptians.
>
> Carrigon
Except for the bit where it was invented during the last century.
--
Don Sample, dsa...@synapse.net
Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Shawn Hill
: Ok, I'm not trying to offend any Wiccans, but this bugs me:
: The occasional reference to Willow and Tara as Wiccans.
: They're not "wiccans", if you regard that as a true religion. They're tv
: witches.
Willow, yes. Tara, it's more arguable. She does seem to respect the forces
she works with.
: They're no more Wiccans than if a rabbi showed up on BUFFY who could shoot
: lightning bolts out of his ass, it wouldn't be a realistic portrayal of a
: Jew.
Real witches also believe they alter the world with their spells.
: Or a Catholic priest who could teleport himself.
How about one who can perform an exorcism?
: Referring to these characters who can do actual, demonstrable magic as
: members of Wicca is nonsense.
Buffy isn't the real world. "Wiccan" also refers to lesbianism half the
time on this show as well. None of it is meant to be literal, all of it is
meant to be evocative. Relax a little.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Tiny Spoily for Villains below:
: Like Willow just HAD to be gay, like all Wiccans are gay. Yeah, right.
: Wicca is not a Goddess worshipping religion. It's a polytheistic religion,
: we worship BOTH halves of the whole, not one side. To a true Wiccan, only
All Wiccans aren't the same, and they accentuate some apsects over others.
I do worship a Goddess primarily, as part of my Craft. The God is a lesser
diety. Wicca is used to symbolize gayness in direct rebuttal of the
Christian/Father God/Patriarchy/heterosexual tradition. If it's opposite,
then it becomes Goddess/Matriarchy/homosexual.
Buffy turns things around. It's like they're saying "yes, look at these
witches, these dykes, these women that have been persecuted and executed
for centuries. They're beautiful, and now they're the HEROES!"
Well, except for this week. :)
: worshipping a Goddess would be lopsided, just as lopsided as Christianity or
: any of the other monotheistic religions. But you just have to overlook the
: writer's stupidity and try and enjoy the rest of the show.
It's not stupidity. ME has no obligation to do a documentary on modern
witchcraft. It's very purposeful symbolism.
Shawn
~~***~~*~*~*~*~*~~~~*~~*~*~~~**~*~*~*~*~*~**~**~*
"this is no time to wrestle,
you're going to burst a blood vessel"
---kristin hersh
sh...@fas.harvard.edu*~*~**~~*~*~**~*~*~**~*~**~*
Shawn Hill
: Good point - wiccans practice white magic and willow is constantly refering
: to the black arts - wiccans should be offended
As the story is about how Willow has been corrupted by her misguided
practice, I see no reason to take offense.
Shawn
: "Algomeysa" <algomeys...@mindspringNOPESPAM.com> wrote in message
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
Dave Paisley
Cernunnos wrote:
>
> "Rain" <webn...@nospamprodigy.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Julie Carrigon" <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote
> > > "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote
> > >
> > > >They have them looking through fictional books
> > > >and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
> > > >old yet.
> > >
> > > Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
> > > were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
> > > ancient Egyptians.
> > >
> > No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's idea.
> > Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
> > do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
>
> wicca is sort of like a demoniation of the real deal.
Now there's an interesting typo...
At first i thought you just missed out a "z", but I think you meant
"denomination".
Those pesky m's and n's keep getting mixed up in this ng :-)
(And let's not even mention the p's and q's...)
dave
Shawn Hill
: Algomeysa wrote:
: They do have a different stance when it come to their uses of the words
: Wicca and Wiccan. In this case, they redefine the words to suit their TV
: version of witchcraft. They have them looking through fictional books
: and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
: old yet.
It isn't? The one I practice predates Christianity. Paganism and all.
: They're vague about the state of other religions in the Buffyverse, yet
: Wicca is actively misrepresented. I know it's for entertainment value,
: but it is misrepresentation none the less.
Witches generally object to ignorant representations like the buffoons put
on by Bette Midler, Kathy Nijimy, and Sarah Jessica Parker in Hocus Pocus.
These women were unattractive, driven by urges to do evil, and were shown
to be examples of Salem witches, ie, a site where "witches" were actually
executed. They had no redeeming qualities. The repulsive species played by
Angelica Huston in "The Witches" might qualify, too, though with story by
Dahl and film by Roeg that movie at least is justified by artistic
quality.
Willow and Tara are attractive good guys who, in Willow's case, have
entered an unfortunate dark period defined as self-abusive. What's the
bad? Wicca on Buffy is about as offensive as Samantha Stephens' version.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
:> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before
: the
:> ancient Egyptians.
: No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's idea.
: Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
: do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
As practised, they might as well be. I call on ancient gods and goddesses,
I attune myself to the seasons and the moon, and I work spells with herbs
as old as culture. No one person has cornered the market on defining Wicca
for everyone else.
And some witches carry on practices of healing and caretaking that extend
back through ancient family lineages. "Oh, you know Grandmother, she had
the sight."
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: In article <ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, Julie Carrigon
: <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
:> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
:> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
:> ancient Egyptians.
: Except for the bit where it was invented during the last century.
It's all going to become semantics from here on in, I can see. Was it
"invented" or revived? And what sources were used at the time? You can see
a break or you can trace a continuity, as you can with many events in
history. Nothing is born anew out of the ether, especially not as recently
as "100 years ago."
Was homosexuality "invented" by doctors in the 19th century, who
identified it as a medical and not a moral problem? Or have gay people
existed throughout time? It's useful to take both positions for different
purposes, I think.
My Wiccan sources are more than Gardnerian, and rife with personal
superstition as well. Wicca is about individuality, ultimately, not
conformity. It's organized to increase personal dominion, not to lessen it
as in a Christian Mass, for example. It's a totally different relationship
to the spiritual.
And while I was once annoyed that Willow jumped so frequently to "darkest
magicks" as the most powerful, I now see how much that unwariness has cost
her.
Shawn
Kali Magdalene
Allison Delacroix wrote:
>
> They do have a different stance when it come to their uses of the words
> Wicca and Wiccan. In this case, they redefine the words to suit their TV
> version of witchcraft. They have them looking through fictional books
> and casting ancient spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years
> old yet.
Clearly, this isn't true in the Buffyverse. When you have vampires,
demons, and slayers, why is historical accuracy a requirement in this
regard?
> They're vague about the state of other religions in the Buffyverse, yet
> Wicca is actively misrepresented. I know it's for entertainment value,
> but it is misrepresentation none the less.
Not really. There were some more Wiccan-esque witches in the episode
Willow meets Tara. It's clear that Willow and Tara are not doing your
standard witchcraft, and it's also clear you don't need to be Wiccan to
do the magic they do. So...they're Wiccan, and they do this magic.
Speaking as a Wiccan, people here are really taking this a bit more
seriously than necessary.
--
E. D. Brooks | res0...@verizon.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "No turning on the lights in the evil room,
dammit!" | -- http://www.sluggy.com
Allison Delacroix
>Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. >We
>were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here
>before the
>ancient Egyptians.
That's a fairly common myth, but I don't think that's the position held
by the majority of Wiccans. If that view is part of your faith, it's
silly to argue about your belief, but there isn't any historical link or
proof. You may wan't to try some of these URLS as a starting point on
the topic of Wicca:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_hist.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/index.htm
Allison Delacroix
>
>
> Clearly, this isn't true in the Buffyverse. When you have vampires,
> demons, and slayers, why is historical accuracy a requirement in this
> regard?
>
>
Absolutley not. It's all a fantasy world. They've had African masks that
turn the Buffy house into Night of the Living Dead, and they have their
theatrical versions of Wicca. I don't think anyone should take it too
seriously.
>
> Not really. There were some more Wiccan-esque witches in the episode
> Willow meets Tara. It's clear that Willow and Tara are not doing your
> standard witchcraft, and it's also clear you don't need to be Wiccan to
> do the magic they do. So...they're Wiccan, and they do this magic.
>
That was a pretty funny episode when they went to the college wicca
meeting. :) But while the show does portray non Wiccans doing magic,
Willow does refer to her studdies as Wiccan, which is a
misrepresentation of the religion.
Allison Delacroix
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> : In article <ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, Julie Carrigon
> : <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>
> :> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
> :> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
> :> ancient Egyptians.
>
> : Except for the bit where it was invented during the last century.
>
> It's all going to become semantics from here on in, I can see. Was it
> "invented" or revived? And what sources were used at the time? You can see
> a break or you can trace a continuity, as you can with many events in
> history. Nothing is born anew out of the ether, especially not as recently
> as "100 years ago."
>
From a strictly theological perspective you're right. I can't agrue
with you about what you belive or practice, but speaking within a
sociological or historical context, there's just nothing to back that
up. Personally, I think linking the modern practice to Wicca to
historical, ancient religions is disrespectful to the original
practitioners and the practice. It isn't right to appropriate some other
culture's history to validate an new veiw or even a reinterpretation.
Also, while it makes perfect sense to work within a theological system
that is the continuation or branch of a mythological perexisting,
prehistorical religion, such assertions don't have meaning in a
historical context.
Allison Delacroix
>
> Thing is it's no more nonsense than the way they use computers on the show. It
> niggles me that it's not accurate but you learn to ignore it and treat it as
> fantasy - normal rules do not necessarily apply.
>
I'm glad that I'm not the only one that gets to! I'm no computer whiz,
but I know you can't click a button here or there, type nonsense, then
tap into the geek camera network! I try not to let it get to me, but for
the few moments I see that in an episode, my suspention of disbelief is
out the window :)
Shuggie
<allydel...@mac.com> wrote:
>Shuggie wrote:
>>
>> Thing is it's no more nonsense than the way they use computers on the show. It
>> niggles me that it's not accurate but you learn to ignore it and treat it as
>> fantasy - normal rules do not necessarily apply.
>>
>
>I'm glad that I'm not the only one that gets to! I'm no computer whiz,
>but I know you can't click a button here or there, type nonsense, then
>tap into the geek camera network! I try not to let it get to me, but for
>the few moments I see that in an episode, my suspention of disbelief is
>out the window :)
I work in software and I can tell you that you definitely couldn't do
the things Willow does.
But the thing is 99% of all TV/film portrayal of computers is wrong
and/or silly. So you get used to ignoring it.
--
Shug
Snyder: There're some things I can just smell. It's
like a sixth sense.
Giles: No, actually that would be one of the five.
Shuggie
Couldn't you say the same thing about the more 'mainstream' (for want
of a better word) religions though? Or does the fact that they have a
continuity of tradition - albeit usually an evolving tradition - mean
that you're not "appropriating someone other culture's history" and
being "disrespectful to the original practitioners"?
I mean how much in common does the Christianity practised in the
affluent West of 2002 have in common with that in the Middle-East of
the 1st century?
This is a genuine question because it sounds like you've either
studied religion in general or Wicca/Paganism in particular.
--
Shug
Fire bad, tree pretty
Allison Delacroix
> But the thing is 99% of all TV/film portrayal of computers is wrong
> and/or silly. So you get used to ignoring it.
That's not true. Matthew Broderick could so break into norad... well
maybe not broadway Matthew.
David Cheatham
> "Julie Carrigon" <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>> "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
>>
>> >They have them looking through fictional books and casting ancient
>> >spells when the Wicca religion isn't even 100 years old yet.
>>
>> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
>> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here
>> before
> the
>> ancient Egyptians.
>>
>> Carrigon
>
>
> MM Carrigon,
>
> No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's
> idea. Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts do stem from Witchcraft. They
> are not the same.
Don't taunt the Wiccas, even if they don't know anything about their
own religion's history.
I'm still reeling from the time I mentioned Crowley to one and got a
'Huh?'. I mean, it's one thing to deny he was important to Wicca, and
pretend it all came from Sanders and Gardner, because of Crowley's (mainly
to cause a head-trip) Satanism. I understand them wanting to distance
themselves from anything that has the slightest wiff of Satanism, because
of morons who think they are Satanists, but they should at least *know*
of him, even if just to claim he didn't really have anything to do with
Wicca.
But there are plenty of Christians who think Jesus spoke English. There
are equally stupid people in all religions, and the best thing to do is
to just ignore them.
A *real* rant follows about the claims, the fairly common ones Wicca
makes, made in this post. You made the mistake of agreeing the
'precursor' of Wicca was older than Christianity, which was too much:
'witchcraft' isn't any older than Christianity as in the precursor to
Wicca. (Which it isn't. but it's claimed it is.) There are various
'goddese religions', but Diana didn't even exist, until, duh, the Roman
empire, certainly long after the Egyption patheon existed, and long after
the origins of YHWH.
Even if they're counting her existence as Artemis, she *still* isn't older
than YHWH or Egyptian deities.
If they're just pretending 'any goddess worship' is Wicca, not only are
they being fairly stupid, but I'll wager that god worship came at almost
the exact same time as goddess worship in pre-history. And if any goddess
worship is Wicca, any god worship is Christianity.
However, practitioners of 'witchcraft' didn't worship Diana anyway! They
didn't worship anything, it was simply training and spells, it wouldn't
really be correct to call it a 'religion'. It was, duh, a craft, aka, an
art or a skill. ;) It probably has its basis in midwifery and other types
of healing. It's as old as humanity, we've always had 'doctors', and it's
found all over the world, whether they are 'medicine men' or 'witch
doctors' or 'healers'. You had to have someone do the healing, and
without a lot of facts, you get a lot of vagueness.
Anyone who claims that *anything* that would be even in the slightest way
recognizable as Wicca, or even recognizable as a precursor of it, before
the 20th centuary, is either misinformed or a liar. Roman Diana worship
wouldn't be (Aka, *hunting* animals for a virgin goddess), and witchcraft
was about magic potions of herbs and childbirth, with a whole lot of
superstition thrown in.
Of course, I've also seen Wicca claim that they are 'nature worshippers',
which is promoting me to ask if there is a need for some sort of
certification process, maybe with a test at the end.
Look at that, I started off saying not to taunt them, then I did it. How
hypocritical.
Allison Delacroix
>
> Couldn't you say the same thing about the more 'mainstream' (for want
> of a better word) religions though? Or does the fact that they have a
> continuity of tradition - albeit usually an evolving tradition - mean
> that you're not "appropriating someone other culture's history" and
> being "disrespectful to the original practitioners"?
>
I don't think you could say the same thing of more mainstream religion.
I'm far from a expert on Chritianity, but I think in spite of all the
variants and interpretations of Christianity, that the core of the
religion is still based on the same axioms, beliefs, and practices. In
the case of a religion with continuity, the actual religion changes, but
retains its historical root.
Both Islam and Judaism are great examples of this. Both religions keep
traditional practices that have very definite historical and theological
precursors.
In the case of Islam, you still have scripture being read in the same
language in which it was recorded.
If I were to start worshiping Athena, today with my own interpretation
of that particular deity, and my own rituals, I could not claim that my
religion was a continuation of the classical worship of that particular
goddess. I have no link to the people who worshiped her, I don't know
the language, I have no accurate way to recreate the rituals as they
were performed. This is what I mean by appropriation of history. I could
start my new Athena religion right now, but it would be a new religion.
It would be irresponisble to link it to traditional greek paganism with
any certainty.
> I mean how much in common does the Christianity practised in the
> affluent West of 2002 have in common with that in the Middle-East of
> the 1st century?
>
> This is a genuine question because it sounds like you've either
> studied religion in general or Wicca/Paganism in particular.
Thanks for not screamin' or flamin' me Shug ;) I'm by far NOT an expert,
and these are just my views.
It's difficult to claim continuity in most any religion. Take the
Christian bible for example. It's been translated several times from a
couple different languages before it came to English. How can I know
what shades of meaning the words have lost? I can never really be
certain. But in the case of Christianity, there is a consistent practice
that exists and has existed. Generations of people have practiced a real
coherent system of belief. There is a verbal tradition, a historical
record, and a literary tradition. I can't say with any certainty that
the Christianity practiced today is the same as it was in antiquity, but
as a living, evolving religion, it is the same system.
In the case of Wicca, there is no well documented or recognised linkage
to older systems. From a strictly academic standpoint, it's hard to
trace it back further than the 1950's. Individuals can claim knowledge
of an older system via familial practice, divine revelation, or perhaps
other means, but as an outside viewer, I have no way of knowing any of
this with any measure of certainty.
The fact that Wicca is a newer system doesn't detract from it in any
way. It gets trickier because it is such a nacent system, that it's very
hard to pin down as a coherent system. I'm not suprised that people who
have responded to posts have different interpretations. Given that this
is the case, it's very hard to establish any kind of root for the belief
system. From a theological perspective, one of faith, I have no right or
cause to challenge the assertions of Wicca's link to a prehistorical or
ancient religions. I hope that I'm not offending anyone, as I think
religion is very important.
But when you examine things in a profane matter, strictly a historical
analysis, Wicca has no verifiable link to older practices as you would
find in Budhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judiasm, Islam, Taosim,
Shito, etc.
Shuggie
<allydel...@mac.com> wrote:
>Shuggie wrote:
>> But the thing is 99% of all TV/film portrayal of computers is wrong
>> and/or silly. So you get used to ignoring it.
>
>That's not true. Matthew Broderick could so break into norad... well
>maybe not broadway Matthew.
You picked the one example I could think of that was actually
realistic. Actually War Games was based on real events - some kids
around that time did hack into DoD computers. What wasn't so realistic
was the A.I. - they could certainly program a computer to play games
and to learn from it's mistakes - but to generalize the lessons
learned from tic-tac-toe into an abstract idea (sometimes the only
winning move is not to play) and apply it to a completely different
game - that's not possible now, never mind 1982 or whenever.
I'm trying to think of other realistic examples
- all the more recent ones where a computer is used as a word
processor - but that's fairly mundane.
- Hackers was ok - but the main characters were way too cool,
attractive and well clean, to be real hackers.
- Office Space is spot on about the hum-drum nature of most real
software jobs - but the actual computer scene is inacurrate - but only
cos they use a Mac.
Past that I'm drawing a blank.
Some of my favourite 'Hollywood computing' is -
- Weird Science - computers as magic - Willow would enjoy.
- Superman 3 - it wants to live!
- Independence Day - writing a virus on a Mac laptop that will run
on an Alien spaceship computer? Now that's some fancy network
programming.
I could go on but I think I'm starting to rant.
--
Shug
Cameron: Ferris my father loves this car more than life itself.
Ferris: A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn't deserve such
a fine automobile.
--
Shug
Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into to her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane
Don Sample
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. All religions are human inventions. Christianity was invented in
the 1st century, and drew on Judaism, which had been invented earlier,
drawing on various mesopotamian mythologies. Islam is a little younger
and drew on Judaism, and Christianity.
Wicca, as it is practiced today was a 19th and 20th century invention.
Shuggie
<allydel...@mac.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>Thanks for not screamin' or flamin' me Shug ;) I'm by far NOT an expert,
>and these are just my views.
>
Well you're welcome - but I suspect it's easier for me - a
non-believer to not get offended than a devotee who feels their belief
system is being attacked.
For what it's worth I think you've communicated your opinions in a way
that's not disrespectful to anyone's beliefs.
<SNIP>
>The fact that Wicca is a newer system doesn't detract from it in any
>way. It gets trickier because it is such a nacent system, that it's very
>hard to pin down as a coherent system. I'm not suprised that people who
>have responded to posts have different interpretations. Given that this
>is the case, it's very hard to establish any kind of root for the belief
>system.
I know what you mean.
Some people appear to be quite dogmatic about what is and isn't Wicca
- for example criticizing the show for associating particular
statements, actions or practices of Tara or Willow as not consistent
with 'real Wicca'.
That's fine - I've no particular desire to defend the show in this
respect as I'm sure that they use Wicca in a fictionalized way.
It's just that there seems to be another group of people laying claim
to the Wicca label who view it as much more inclusive - without a
rigid - or to my mind, and as you say, coherent - system of beliefs.
From the little I've picked up it seems that there's lots of
interpretations of what 'Wicca' is. In that respect it reminds me of
the so-called New Age Movement - less of a codified belief system and
more of a banner under which a lot of disparate elements with similar
sensibilities are willing to march.
Don Sample
<allydel...@mac.com> wrote:
> Shuggie wrote:
> >
> > Couldn't you say the same thing about the more 'mainstream' (for want
> > of a better word) religions though? Or does the fact that they have a
> > continuity of tradition - albeit usually an evolving tradition - mean
> > that you're not "appropriating someone other culture's history" and
> > being "disrespectful to the original practitioners"?
> >
>
> I don't think you could say the same thing of more mainstream religion.
> I'm far from a expert on Chritianity, but I think in spite of all the
> variants and interpretations of Christianity, that the core of the
> religion is still based on the same axioms, beliefs, and practices. In
> the case of a religion with continuity, the actual religion changes, but
> retains its historical root.
And it was invented by a bunch of jewish guys (and a roman or two) in
the first century.
> Both Islam and Judaism are great examples of this. Both religions keep
> traditional practices that have very definite historical and theological
> precursors.
Judaism was invented by a bunch of Babylonian slaves, as a way to
maintain a cultural identity.
> In the case of Islam, you still have scripture being read in the same
> language in which it was recorded.
Islam was invented by a guy who went off and wrote a book in a cave.
Jason Shankel
> >
> >Ok, I'm not trying to offend any Wiccans, but this bugs me:
> >
> >The occasional reference to Willow and Tara as Wiccans.
> >
> >They're not "wiccans", if you regard that as a true religion. They're tv
> >witches.
> >
> >They're no more Wiccans than if a rabbi showed up on BUFFY who could
shoot
> >lightning bolts out of his ass, it wouldn't be a realistic portrayal of a
> >Jew.
> >
> >Or a Catholic priest who could teleport himself.
> >
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis/EA
s h a n k e l "at" p o b o x . c o m
Play rich, creamery OpenTrek at www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
"Oh, Grasshopper, you are SO SCREWED!" - John Crichton
Rowan Hawthorn
"David Cheatham" <da...@creeknet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.05.16.23...@creeknet.com...
Well, since the earliest (identified) god representations wore stag's
antlers, I'll bet the Christians will disagree with you there.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
David Cheatham
> "Allison Delacroix" <allydel...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE397AA...@mac.com...
>
>> I was wondering about that myself. The show has a pretty wierd stance
>> on religion in general. They have the vampires-repeled-by-crosses rule,
>> but I've never seen a story take a stance on Christianity's role in the
>> Buffyverse. Are we to assume that they fear God? If we do, that leaves
>> a lot of open questions. I don't think the Watchers or the Slayers have
>> anything to do with a particular religion. They usually aviod religious
>> references. Even when Buffy returns from "Heaven", the term is pretty
>> lose. It was a place she felt happy and safe. That doesn't really imply
>> a specific religion (for all we know it could have been Nirvana or
>> Sivaloka or some happy Buffyverse place).
>
> Yeah, the fear of crosses and the effectiveness of blessed Holy Water
> does seem to imply some validity of the Christian/Catholic religion,
> but, as you say, its all kept pretty vague.
>
> Even when we have "Monks" and "Crusaders" and things, like those
> Glory-Watchers, they were very carefully non-specific denomination.....
>
> I was surprised on a recent ANGEL episode of them making a big deal
> about Judas, equating Wesley with Judas for betraying Angel. It was
> just odd to see them referencing an actual religion, rather than The
> Books Of I-Just-Made-It-Up....
Yeah, but they didn't claim Judas *actually* did anything, or that he
really ended up in hell. (Which the Bible doesn't actually say, but it
would be a logical assumption.)
It was really about Faust's interpetation of stuff. There wasn't anything
in there anyone could get upset about, that *is* what Faust said
happened, and that's all she said.
Aethelrede
Shawn Hill wrote in message ...
And none of it does anything.
How many of these wiccans, based on a cult "older than Egypt" can
actually levitate a number 2 pencil? Reliably, repeatably, in front of
witnesses and on video?
At a guess, none.
Exactly the same as the number of devout christians who can reliably,
etc. raise the dead by prayer.
Religions, as practised, are usually about power for the hierarchy
running them (ask those molested by Catholic Priests, the lascivious
beasts), not about a relationship between gods and people.
Wicca? A recent cult, or a miss-spelling of a common basket making
material.
Darren Lochinvar
> Tiny Spoily for Villains below:
>
> news:abuusa$2dt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > The occasional reference to Willow and Tara as Wiccans.
> >
> > They're not "wiccans", if you regard that as a true religion. They're tv
> > witches.
> >
> > They're no more Wiccans than if a rabbi showed up on BUFFY who could shoot
> > lightning bolts out of his ass, it wouldn't be a realistic portrayal of a
> > Jew.
> >
> > Or a Catholic priest who could teleport himself.
> >
> > members of Wicca is nonsense.
> >
>
> magick doesn't work that way. But it's Hollyweird, so what do you expect?
> The special effects make it more interesting. I mean, how kewl would Willow
> have looked in Villains if she just read those books instead of absorbing
> them into her skin? But, I do get sick of how Hollyweird portrays Wiccans.
> Like Willow just HAD to be gay, like all Wiccans are gay. Yeah, right.
> Wicca is not a Goddess worshipping religion. It's a polytheistic religion,
> we worship BOTH halves of the whole, not one side. To a true Wiccan, only
> any of the other monotheistic religions. But you just have to overlook the
> writer's stupidity and try and enjoy the rest of the show.
>
I agree, as much as I like "Buffy", the way that Wicca and Witchcraft
are protrayed on the show is absurd. It is the charisma of the Willow
character and the chemistry of the Willow and Tara characters together
that made the difference for me. It helped me overlook the writer's
stupidity and enjoy the show.
Lets be clear on this, the whole magic is addictive thing is bogus.
Power is the addictive culprit for Willow. Life its self is magic,
the very fact that life can exist on this material plane is and act of
magic.
Also Wicca is not the only religion that gets a distorted in movies
and TV. For example, anyone noticed how Catholic priests have been
stereotyped in the media recently.
D. Lochinvar
Allison Delacroix
>
>
> Judaism was invented by a bunch of Babylonian slaves, as a way to
> maintain a cultural identity.
>
>
>
>
These are matters of faith that I don't think are so easily answered.
You can claim that Islam was inveted by some guy in a cave and someone
else can say it was invented by someone in a cave who had an audience
with Gabriel. I don't think that either answer is unreasonable and are
unfortunately untestable as it stands right now. But taking Islam as an
example again, the act of Muhamed communing with the divine in that cave
is a very real, indesputable truth to a lot of people and this truth has
shaped the world that we all live in.
Shawn Hill
: On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:17:16 -0400, Rain wrote:
: 'witchcraft' isn't any older than Christianity as in the precursor to
: Wicca. (Which it isn't. but it's claimed it is.) There are various
: 'goddese religions', but Diana didn't even exist, until, duh, the Roman
: empire, certainly long after the Egyption patheon existed, and long after
: the origins of YHWH.
And YHWH is Christian exactly how? He's Jewish, which also predates
Xianity.
: Even if they're counting her existence as Artemis, she *still* isn't older
: than YHWH or Egyptian deities.
: If they're just pretending 'any goddess worship' is Wicca, not only are
: they being fairly stupid, but I'll wager that god worship came at almost
: the exact same time as goddess worship in pre-history. And if any goddess
: worship is Wicca, any god worship is Christianity.
"Wagering" isn't quite enough. Xianity specifically tried over the
course of the last 2000 years to wipe out all traces of Paganism, or
coopt them. Many of them were Goddess worshippers. Some scholars are
quite confident that goddess worship preceded god worship, at least
in European territories.
: However, practitioners of 'witchcraft' didn't worship Diana anyway! They
: didn't worship anything, it was simply training and spells, it wouldn't
: really be correct to call it a 'religion'. It was, duh, a craft, aka, an
: art or a skill. ;) It probably has its basis in midwifery and other types
: of healing. It's as old as humanity, we've always had 'doctors', and it's
: found all over the world, whether they are 'medicine men' or 'witch
: doctors' or 'healers'. You had to have someone do the healing, and
: without a lot of facts, you get a lot of vagueness.
And you also have people with faith and spirituality doing that
healing.
: Anyone who claims that *anything* that would be even in the slightest way
: recognizable as Wicca, or even recognizable as a precursor of it, before
: the 20th centuary, is either misinformed or a liar. Roman Diana worship
: wouldn't be (Aka, *hunting* animals for a virgin goddess), and witchcraft
: was about magic potions of herbs and childbirth, with a whole lot of
: superstition thrown in.
Superstition differing from religion, at the time, exactly how?
: Of course, I've also seen Wicca claim that they are 'nature worshippers',
: which is promoting me to ask if there is a need for some sort of
: certification process, maybe with a test at the end.
Why?
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shuggie wrote:
:>
:> Couldn't you say the same thing about the more 'mainstream' (for want
:> of a better word) religions though? Or does the fact that they have a
:> continuity of tradition - albeit usually an evolving tradition - mean
:> that you're not "appropriating someone other culture's history" and
:> being "disrespectful to the original practitioners"?
: what shades of meaning the words have lost? I can never really be
: certain. But in the case of Christianity, there is a consistent practice
: that exists and has existed. Generations of people have practiced a real
: coherent system of belief. There is a verbal tradition, a historical
: record, and a literary tradition. I can't say with any certainty that
: the Christianity practiced today is the same as it was in antiquity, but
: as a living, evolving religion, it is the same system.
But doesn't that record exist in part because of the dominance of
Xianity over the last two millenia?
: In the case of Wicca, there is no well documented or recognised linkage
: to older systems. From a strictly academic standpoint, it's hard to
: trace it back further than the 1950's. Individuals can claim knowledge
: of an older system via familial practice, divine revelation, or perhaps
: other means, but as an outside viewer, I have no way of knowing any of
: this with any measure of certainty.
As it's not a religion that needs churches, or writings except those
done by individual practioners for their own use, and was a part of
non-Xian culture which was actively persecuted, ignored,
appropriated, or outlawed, I'd say those that revive it are heroes
digging up a buried, damaged text. It may not be right or "accurate,"
but it's persistence in the face of all that damage speaks volumes.
: The fact that Wicca is a newer system doesn't detract from it in any
: way. It gets trickier because it is such a nacent system, that it's very
: hard to pin down as a coherent system. I'm not suprised that people who
: have responded to posts have different interpretations. Given that this
: is the case, it's very hard to establish any kind of root for the belief
: system. From a theological perspective, one of faith, I have no right or
: cause to challenge the assertions of Wicca's link to a prehistorical or
: ancient religions. I hope that I'm not offending anyone, as I think
: religion is very important.
To our society, it's still subversive. I'd say those links did exist,
but were broken on purpose. And of course it's not a religion that
needs anything more than personal belief, as it doesn't exist within
organized communities of worship or along the lines of other faiths.
: But when you examine things in a profane matter, strictly a historical
: analysis, Wicca has no verifiable link to older practices as you would
: find in Budhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judiasm, Islam, Taosim,
: Shito, etc.
Which is maybe part of the lasting attraction.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote in message ...
:>Rain <webn...@nospamprodigy.net> wrote:
:>
:>:> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
:>:> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before
:>: the
:>:> ancient Egyptians.
:>
:>: No. Actually that would be the Craft itself. Wicca is Gerald Gardner's
: idea.
:>: Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
:>: do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
:>
:>As practised, they might as well be. I call on ancient gods and goddesses,
:>I attune myself to the seasons and the moon, and I work spells with herbs
:>as old as culture. No one person has cornered the market on defining Wicca
:>for everyone else.
:>
:>And some witches carry on practices of healing and caretaking that extend
:>back through ancient family lineages. "Oh, you know Grandmother, she had
:>the sight."
: And none of it does anything.
Sure it does. Faith, of course, is a big part of it.
: How many of these wiccans, based on a cult "older than Egypt" can
: actually levitate a number 2 pencil? Reliably, repeatably, in front of
: witnesses and on video?
: At a guess, none.
: Exactly the same as the number of devout christians who can reliably,
: etc. raise the dead by prayer.
: Religions, as practised, are usually about power for the hierarchy
: running them (ask those molested by Catholic Priests, the lascivious
: beasts), not about a relationship between gods and people.
Wiccans have no hierarchy.
: Wicca? A recent cult, or a miss-spelling of a common basket making
: material.
Or a revival of a lot of things that have been here all along.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill wrote:
:> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
:> : In article <ac0ogh$rak$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>, Julie Carrigon
:> : <carr...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
:>
:> :> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
:> :> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before the
:> :> ancient Egyptians.
:>
:> : Except for the bit where it was invented during the last century.
:>
:> It's all going to become semantics from here on in, I can see. Was it
:> "invented" or revived? And what sources were used at the time? You can see
:> a break or you can trace a continuity, as you can with many events in
:> history. Nothing is born anew out of the ether, especially not as recently
:> as "100 years ago."
:>
: From a strictly theological perspective you're right. I can't agrue
: with you about what you belive or practice, but speaking within a
: sociological or historical context, there's just nothing to back that
: up. Personally, I think linking the modern practice to Wicca to
: historical, ancient religions is disrespectful to the original
: practitioners and the practice. It isn't right to appropriate some other
: culture's history to validate an new veiw or even a reinterpretation.
It may not be "right," but it is pretty much how culture operates.
: Also, while it makes perfect sense to work within a theological system
: that is the continuation or branch of a mythological perexisting,
: prehistorical religion, such assertions don't have meaning in a
: historical context.
If the continuity is correct and the sources accurate, why not? There
are traditions there to be revived, there is something to be gained
by re-affirming those lost arts and perspectives. I see the return of
Wicca as a symptom of Xianity finally losing it's hegemony over
Western culture, as a pendulum swing away from patriarchal
mono-theism.
Paganism is a part of Western history, too.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Kali Magdalene wrote:
:>
:>
:> Clearly, this isn't true in the Buffyverse. When you have vampires,
:> demons, and slayers, why is historical accuracy a requirement in this
:> regard?
:>
:>
: Absolutley not. It's all a fantasy world. They've had African masks that
: turn the Buffy house into Night of the Living Dead, and they have their
: theatrical versions of Wicca. I don't think anyone should take it too
: seriously.
:>
:> Not really. There were some more Wiccan-esque witches in the episode
:> Willow meets Tara. It's clear that Willow and Tara are not doing your
:> standard witchcraft, and it's also clear you don't need to be Wiccan to
:> do the magic they do. So...they're Wiccan, and they do this magic.
:>
: That was a pretty funny episode when they went to the college wicca
: meeting. :) But while the show does portray non Wiccans doing magic,
: Willow does refer to her studdies as Wiccan, which is a
: misrepresentation of the religion.
That's the interesting thing, though. Willow doesn't seem to "know"
that. And look what happened!
Shawn
Edward John Schoenfeld
> From: David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:50:58 -0400
> Subject: Re: Wiccan on Buffy
I really hope the show referred to Dante (an author who wrote a description
of Hell), not Faust (a fictional character in works by several authors)
Ed
Allison Delacroix
>
> But doesn't that record exist in part because of the dominance of
> Xianity over the last two millenia?
>
I would say that the record exists simply because the religion existed,
not due to some planed or conspired plot to create the history. You'll
find evidence of Taoism is China thought the ages even though there were
periods of time where Confucianism or Budhism were favored. There is a
history an Anamistic practice in the Middle East even after the
widespread acceptance of Islam. The Tibetan vein of Budhism has been
supressed by the Chinese government and there is still a record and
continuous practice simply because there are those who practice it.
> : In the case of Wicca, there is no well documented or recognised linkage
> : to older systems. From a strictly academic standpoint, it's hard to
> : trace it back further than the 1950's. Individuals can claim knowledge
> : of an older system via familial practice, divine revelation, or perhaps
> : other means, but as an outside viewer, I have no way of knowing any of
> : this with any measure of certainty.
>
> As it's not a religion that needs churches, or writings except those
> done by individual practioners for their own use, and was a part of
> non-Xian culture which was actively persecuted, ignored,
> appropriated, or outlawed, I'd say those that revive it are heroes
> digging up a buried, damaged text. It may not be right or "accurate,"
> but it's persistence in the face of all that damage speaks volumes.
>
But we do know something about Celtic legends, Druids, traditional Norse
religions, Egyptian Religions, Greek, Babylon, etc. You can go to a
bookstore and buy a translation of the myths of Innana, perhaps the
oldest mythology we can study. Surely Wicca is a religion, but do you
really think that it has a real link to any of these older systems?
There is simply nothing to suggest it. To attempt to claim this does an
injustice to the ancient followers of these faiths and their beliefs. To
link Wicca to an ancient unspecified religion, from a historical context
has no meaning.
You can refer to Wicca as a revival, but it is a new system and a new
point of view. I can pick any deity I want and worhip it in any way I
choose, but that does not allow me to inherit any historical
significance of prior systems.
And to claim a linkage to people's individual views or beliefs without
any knowledge of them is again meaningless. Who are these former
practitioners? What are their names? What did they believe and how did
they live? What bearing does that have on Wicca?
>
> To our society, it's still subversive. I'd say those links did exist,
> but were broken on purpose. And of course it's not a religion that
> needs anything more than personal belief, as it doesn't exist within
> organized communities of worship or along the lines of other faiths.
>
No religion needs anything more than personal belief. Inside the context
of personal belief, you can make any claim you wish about anything.
That's not debatable. When you talk about Wicca as a religion or as a
cultural movement, there's just nothing to back up your claims. There
are plenty of religions that have no centralized structure such as
Taoism or Budhism. Is there a central church in either of these systems?
I'm sure you can find a Budhist temple, but you don't havge to ever have
seen one t o be a Budhist. Likewise, some Wiccans form covens, go to
mass gatherings and do organise themseves. This does not preclude them
from being Wiccans.
Allison Delacroix
>
> If the continuity is correct and the sources accurate, why not? There
> are traditions there to be revived, there is something to be gained
> by re-affirming those lost arts and perspectives. I see the return of
> Wicca as a symptom of Xianity finally losing it's hegemony over
> Western culture, as a pendulum swing away from patriarchal
> mono-theism.
>
Te funny thing about your arguments is that you seem preoccupied with
Christianity when the discussion is about Wicca. There comes a point
when cultures change and older practices are simply lost. You can't just
decide to jump start an acient religion any old day of the week. We
don't know the language, or the language has evolved and the religion
was not adapted with suble changes in word meaning. Often there is no
specific record left to explain the beliefs system or rituals in the
detail required to recreate or participate in them. There are no
practitioners left to explain them.
You can claim that you have some personal knowledge of ancient tradition
that you came to know through divinity, esoteric teachings, or secret
practitioners. But that's only good for you. For the rest of us, who do
not have the luxary of observing a belief system from the context of
that system, we have nothing to go on. There is no link that can be
proven or sustantiated.
> Paganism is a part of Western history, too.
>
Well when you look at the common definition of the word pagan:
pa·gan Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a
worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
You can see that it is a term that describes people by their lack of
inclusion in Christianity, Islam, or Judiasm. So I beleive you can say
that the perception from which we have classical pagans in by the
definition of the word is the direct result of describing people from
the position of Christianity, Islam, or Judiasm.
Sean Daugherty
> Allison Delacroix <allydel...@mac.com> wrote:
> : Algomeysa wrote:
>
> : They do have a different stance when it come to their uses of the words
> : Wicca and Wiccan. In this case, they redefine the words to suit their TV
> : version of witchcraft. They have them looking through fictional books
> : old yet.
>
Problem is that "paganism" isn't really much of a definition for a
religion. Historically, it was a term used by people to describe a
wide and disparate variety of faiths that they themselves did not
adhere to. It's roughly equivalent to describing the religion of every
person who is not Jewish as "gentile." There are some similarities
between historical pagan faiths, but they shouldn't be seen as the
same religion.
Wicca draws a lot from a variety of pagan sources, but it's in no way
a universal heir to any one specific pagan faith. In the same way,
both Christianity and Islam rely extremely heavily on Judaism, but few
people try to date the formation of these faiths back as far as the
creation of Judaism.
> Willow and Tara are attractive good guys who, in Willow's case, have
> entered an unfortunate dark period defined as self-abusive. What's the
> bad? Wicca on Buffy is about as offensive as Samantha Stephens' version.
I can see why it would upset people, though. It's presenting a highly
fictionalized version of an actual religion with seemingly little
knowledge, or interest, in reality. I can easily understand why this
would seem disrespectful, even if the portrayal in question isn't
notably negative in and of its own right.
Prince Charon
> Good point - wiccans practice white magic and willow is constantly refering
> to the black arts - wiccans should be offended
Notice how Tara doesn't do that? Willow's been psyching herself since S3 to
get corrupted.
Shawn Hill
: But we do know something about Celtic legends, Druids, traditional Norse
: religions, Egyptian Religions, Greek, Babylon, etc. You can go to a
: bookstore and buy a translation of the myths of Innana, perhaps the
: oldest mythology we can study. Surely Wicca is a religion, but do you
: really think that it has a real link to any of these older systems?
I do, but I am planning to check out those websites you listed to learn
more.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ac0u47$lfj$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
: adhere to. It's roughly equivalent to describing the religion of every
: person who is not Jewish as "gentile." There are some similarities
: between historical pagan faiths, but they shouldn't be seen as the
: same religion.
Fair enough.
: Wicca draws a lot from a variety of pagan sources, but it's in no way
: a universal heir to any one specific pagan faith. In the same way,
: both Christianity and Islam rely extremely heavily on Judaism, but few
: people try to date the formation of these faiths back as far as the
: creation of Judaism.
Makes sense.
:> Willow and Tara are attractive good guys who, in Willow's case, have
:> entered an unfortunate dark period defined as self-abusive. What's the
:> bad? Wicca on Buffy is about as offensive as Samantha Stephens' version.
: I can see why it would upset people, though. It's presenting a highly
: fictionalized version of an actual religion with seemingly little
: knowledge, or interest, in reality. I can easily understand why this
: would seem disrespectful, even if the portrayal in question isn't
: notably negative in and of its own right.
Well, the points they've touched on the actual worship (briefly in
Gingerbread, Willow's contact with demons, the sense that Tara has a
respect for what she's doing) have been brief. Mostly it's been used as a
super-power, and as a metaphor for other "subversive" or repressed
lifestyles. So, I think, technically, even if it's as wrong as can be,
emotionally, it's been pretty positive. Witches have had to deal with the
"ugly old crone" stereotype for so long in pop culture. The fact that
we've got young pretty heroines called witches is very significant.
I'd say the same thing about the lesbian aspect of Tara/Willow ... the
timid way they approached the subject annoyed some viewers, but
Tara/Willow became the strongest, most nurturing couple on the show, and
have been one of the most positive and liberated portrayals of lesbian
desire EVER seen on television.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Well when you look at the common definition of the word pagan:
: pa톑an Pronunciation Key (pgn)
: n.
: 1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a
: worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
: 2. One who has no religion.
: 3. A non-Christian.
: 4. A hedonist.
: 5. A Neo-Pagan.
: You can see that it is a term that describes people by their lack of
: inclusion in Christianity, Islam, or Judiasm. So I beleive you can say
In a dictionary produced by a Xian culture.
: that the perception from which we have classical pagans in by the
: definition of the word is the direct result of describing people from
: the position of Christianity, Islam, or Judiasm.
I think there's a verb or something missing there, but I think I agree
with you here. The Xians are writing the texts, why wouldn't it be from
their perspective? But the word also refers to those religions you
referenced as being pre-Xian. And as you said, we do know something about
them, enough I think to use them as sources for Wicca.
Shawn
Paco
>
You may want to learn more about Wicca before you make claims like
that. IN SPITE of the offensive choice of domain name, this isn't a
bad site to check out:
http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/
YO SOY PACO FUERTE!
Mike Jackson
> : Wicca is not a Goddess worshipping religion. It's a polytheistic
religion,
> : we worship BOTH halves of the whole, not one side. To a true Wiccan,
only
>
> I do worship a Goddess primarily, as part of my Craft. The God is a lesser
> diety. Wicca is used to symbolize gayness in direct rebuttal of the
> Christian/Father God/Patriarchy/heterosexual tradition. If it's opposite,
> then it becomes Goddess/Matriarchy/homosexual.
This is in no way meant to belittle your beliefs, but this reply struck me
as so funny. It comes across as a debate between Baptists and Presbyterians
or something -- you believe the same thing, yet have to quibble over the
small details.
Christians and Wiccans: not much different :)
:) mike
Mike Jackson
> software jobs - but the actual computer scene is inacurrate - but only
> cos they use a Mac.
The interface is a purposeful hybrid of Macs and MS-DOS, which I found very
amusing.
> - Independence Day - writing a virus on a Mac laptop that will run
> on an Alien spaceship computer? Now that's some fancy network
> programming.
Maybe they just caused a simple stack overflow...? Imagine that: aliens
travel all that way, and have the secure programming ability of Microsoft.
:) mike
Shawn Hill
: Julie Carrigon wrote:
: >Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. >We
: >were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here
: >before the
: >ancient Egyptians.
: http://www.geraldgardner.com/
: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_hist.htm
: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/index.htm
From the second of those sites:
"Depending upon how you look at Wicca, it is either one of the newest or
one of the oldest religions in the world:
1) Wicca is a recently created, Neopagan religion. The various branches of
Wicca can be traced back to Gardnerian Witchcraft which was founded in the
UK during the late 1940s. 2) Wicca is based on the symbols, seasonal
days of celebration, beliefs and deities of ancient Celtic society. Added
to this material were Masonic and ceremonial magickal components from
recent centuries. In this respect, it is a religion whose roots go back
almost three millennia to the formation of Celtic society circa 800 BCE."
Obviously we're all on different places on this spectrum in this thread.
But it does make me ponder just exactly how BtVS represents (or
misrepresents) Wicca the Religion.
I don't think it does. Willow is described in next week's tvguide as a
"socrceress," not quite the same thing as a witch. And her spells have
always been about power, about communing with Ancient gods, and performed
with alchemical (ie, quasi or pseudo scientific) aims; she wants to
reorder the physical world to her liking. The ancient texts the Scoobies
refer aren't really identified as Wiccan texts, but as magickal tomes.
In fact, I'm not clear that Willow regularly "worships" any diety, Wiccan
or Jewish. She just makes use of them.
That "wiccan" college group she briefly joined wasn't about power, but
about PC female empowerment, and she quickly lost interest. One senses
that Tara was more serious about the group and the "New Agey" rituals they
preferred, but she was ostracized by her stutter and their rudeness.
Willow was someone who treated her well, and seemed like a key to a more
exciting life. Tara, like a true Wicca, didn't try to impose her own
beliefs, and in fact seems to have kept them to herself. Except when
Willow's dangerous transgressions began to threaten everyone, Tara stayed
out of it, or participated to the extent that she chose.
Shawn
Topher Scott
"Kali Magdalene" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CE42A4A...@verizon.net...
> Speaking as a Wiccan, people here are really taking this a bit more
> seriously than necessary.
And yet I've had people in my office come ask me, as the resident "out of
the broom closet" pagan, if I'm not worried about becoming addicted to doing
magic. Like, seriously. There are people whose only exposure to "what Wicca
is" is stuff like BTVS. So when they hear about Wiccans in the real world,
they assume we're calling on demons and reading books of "darkest magick"
and getting the shakes if we haven't cast a spell in a while. I've read
about people losing their jobs, losing their kids, being expelled from
school, being beaten, being *killed* - because of their religion, in a
country that is supposed to protect our right to practice that religion. Not
that that has anything to do with BTVS per se, but BTVS is adding to the
misunderstandings.
I posted this in another thread, but it's worth repeating: if the ad for
next week had said "Hell hath no fury like a Jew scorned" (a much more
accurate ad, actually, as Willow is a Jew, not a Wiccan), would folks be
saying, "oh, calm down, Jewish people, it's just a TV show, and it doesn't
matter if it misrepresents the religion you practice" ?
Topher
(giving ME some credit, Tara was a good example of a real Wiccan - albeit
with super-powers)
Sean Daugherty
> Well, the points they've touched on the actual worship (briefly in
> Gingerbread, Willow's contact with demons, the sense that Tara has a
> respect for what she's doing) have been brief. Mostly it's been used as a
> super-power, and as a metaphor for other "subversive" or repressed
> lifestyles. So, I think, technically, even if it's as wrong as can be,
> emotionally, it's been pretty positive. Witches have had to deal with the
> "ugly old crone" stereotype for so long in pop culture. The fact that
> we've got young pretty heroines called witches is very significant.
Oh, I definitely agree that the portrayal of the characters has been
generally positive, and I really don't have any major problems with
anything. It's just that the sort of timid and indecisive way they
have been dealing with the term, which *is* an actual religion, with
actual beliefs, is slightly bothersome to me. It leads me to believe
they either don't particularly care what the term means (quite
possible, but then I'm not sure *using* the term is a good idea), or
that they haven't been bothered to look it up. Neither is particularly
flattering.
So it's not that I find it *offensive* so much as very mildly
embarassing....
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
: http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/
Historical data is one thing. How you interpret it and apply it is
another.
Shawn
Darren Lochinvar
Good discussion, a book that might be helpful is Charles Godfrey
Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches" that was published in 1890s.
It is an ethnographic account of the practice of Stregheria or Italian
Witchcraft in the Tuscan region of the Italian peninsula. Diana is the
Goddess that is mentioned in this text and Aradia is her daughter.
D. Lochinvar
Shawn Hill
: Good discussion, a book that might be helpful is Charles Godfrey
: Leland's "Aradia, Gospel of the Witches" that was published in 1890s.
: It is an ethnographic account of the practice of Stregheria or Italian
: Witchcraft in the Tuscan region of the Italian peninsula. Diana is the
: Goddess that is mentioned in this text and Aradia is her daughter.
I'll look for it. I wish the Gardner books were more widely
available. This has been the most informative thread on this group in
ages! So much reading to do!
Shawn
Shawn Hill
:> I do worship a Goddess primarily, as part of my Craft. The God is a lesser
:> diety. Wicca is used to symbolize gayness in direct rebuttal of the
:> Christian/Father God/Patriarchy/heterosexual tradition. If it's opposite,
:> then it becomes Goddess/Matriarchy/homosexual.
: This is in no way meant to belittle your beliefs, but this reply struck me
: as so funny. It comes across as a debate between Baptists and Presbyterians
: or something -- you believe the same thing, yet have to quibble over the
: small details.
: Christians and Wiccans: not much different :)
I'll give you that one. :)
Shawn
Jim Shaffer, Jr.
> I wish the Gardner books were more widely available.
There are some on eBay as often as not.
David Cheatham
> : On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:17:16 -0400, Rain wrote:
>
> : 'witchcraft' isn't any older than Christianity as in the precursor to
> : Wicca. (Which it isn't. but it's claimed it is.) There are various
> : 'goddese religions', but Diana didn't even exist, until, duh, the Roman
> : empire, certainly long after the Egyption patheon existed, and long after
> : the origins of YHWH.
>
> And YHWH is Christian exactly how? He's Jewish, which also predates
> Xianity.
YHWH *is* the Christian God, and the Muslim God too, so I don't know
why you're asking that first question. He's not commonly *called* that
in Christianity or Islam, but that's still his name.
And, duh, it would be really had to base a religon off another
religion without that religion existing first, it's rather obvious
that Judaism predates Christianity. It's not like it's some secret.
I'm not really sure what your complaint is. The precursor of
Christianity, Islam, and Judaim, aka, YHWH worship, is older than the
precursor of 'Wicca', as there wasn't any 'Diana' worship until the
Greeks, and YHWH dates back to Abraham.
> : Even if they're counting her existence as Artemis, she *still* isn't older
> : than YHWH or Egyptian deities.
>
> : If they're just pretending 'any goddess worship' is Wicca, not only are
> : they being fairly stupid, but I'll wager that god worship came at almost
> : the exact same time as goddess worship in pre-history. And if any goddess
> : worship is Wicca, any god worship is Christianity.
>
> "Wagering" isn't quite enough. Xianity specifically tried over the
> course of the last 2000 years to wipe out all traces of Paganism, or
> coopt them. Many of them were Goddess worshippers. Some scholars are
> quite confident that goddess worship preceded god worship, at least
> in European territories.
What's this 'European' crap? I'm talking about deep pre-history, when
Gods and Goddesses were invented. I said I believe that they were
invented at roughly the same time.
I doubt you're trying to make the claim that scientists know who
Cro-Magnon men worshipped.
The real point of this is that, obviously, all goddess worship is
*not* some mystical precursor to Wicca. As I run into people trying to
make that claim all the time to 'prove' Wicca is older than dirt, so
my standard defense is that, if all goddess worship is Wicca, all god
worship is Christianity, and thus they're about the same age, dating
back into the dawn of time.
In reality, of course, the concept that all goddess worship is Wicca
is completely bogus.
And what 'Christianity' did over the last 2000 years doesn't really
have anything to do with anything.
> : However, practitioners of 'witchcraft' didn't worship Diana anyway! They
> : didn't worship anything, it was simply training and spells, it wouldn't
> : really be correct to call it a 'religion'. It was, duh, a craft, aka, an
> : art or a skill. ;) It probably has its basis in midwifery and other types
> : of healing. It's as old as humanity, we've always had 'doctors', and it's
> : found all over the world, whether they are 'medicine men' or 'witch
> : doctors' or 'healers'. You had to have someone do the healing, and
> : without a lot of facts, you get a lot of vagueness.
>
> And you also have people with faith and spirituality doing that
> healing.
You certainly can. I don't see what that has to do with anything, the
idea of those peple worshipping Diana is a bit silly.
> : Anyone who claims that *anything* that would be even in the slightest way
> : recognizable as Wicca, or even recognizable as a precursor of it, before
> : the 20th centuary, is either misinformed or a liar. Roman Diana worship
> : wouldn't be (Aka, *hunting* animals for a virgin goddess), and witchcraft
> : was about magic potions of herbs and childbirth, with a whole lot of
> : superstition thrown in.
>
> Superstition differing from religion, at the time, exactly how?
Heh, you think you've 'caught' me in some bias, but I have a pretty
clear line, and, FWIW, Wicca is clearly a religion.
A superstition is a belief, or system of beliefs, that explain
something about the way things work. In common parlance, it is
incorrect and/or simplistic, but that's a bit egotistical of people.
It *is* a bad idea to walk under ladders, and chicken soup has been
proven to help fight off a cold.
A religion is a belief, or a system of beliefs, that explain
*everything* about the way things work, or at least claims it does.
This usually involves a creation story, some sort of afterlife, an
entity besides human beings, etc, though religions are not required to
have one of those. I can believe 'Everything exists simply because I
am imagining it.', and that's a religion, though not a very fun one
for other people, especially when I make 16 ton weights appear over
their head.
A superstition doesn't have any sort of all-encompassing background. A
black cat crossing your path and giving you bad luck doesn't not
explain Why Are We Here?(TM).
Neither does, as an example of a made-up, but actually somewhat useful
superstition that I'm sure some healer came up with in the thousands
of years before 'modern medicine', 'You must pour wine on a wound to
replace the bad blood with the good.'. That's clearly not a religion,
it doesn't tell you what's good or bad, how to live your life, what it
all means, or anything.
> : Of course, I've also seen Wicca claim that they are 'nature worshippers',
> : which is promoting me to ask if there is a need for some sort of
> : certification process, maybe with a test at the end.
>
> Why?
Well, we have people calling themselves something they don't know
anything about, and who apparently think there is no defination of.
Meanwhile, there is the perfectly good word 'pagan' to describe their
belief system. Or 'neo-pagans', or, heck, druids. (Though that doesn't
have a lot in common with the old Druids, but there aren't any of them
around to care.)
It's basically the same objection I have to dentists who call
themselves firefighters.
And, no, I've already gone into the 'how dare I try to define someone
else's religion!' with both Judaism and Christianity. However, I
refuse to accept the Humpty-Dumpty 'Words mean exactly what I mean
them to mean' argument. If you're using a word that no one else thinks
it means what you think it mean, then it is *you* who are using it
wrong. And words describing religions don't have some sort of magical
exception to this.
David Cheatham
> "David Cheatham" <da...@creeknet.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2002.05.16.23...@creeknet.com...
> > If they're just pretending 'any goddess worship' is Wicca, not only are
> > they being fairly stupid, but I'll wager that god worship came at almost
> > the exact same time as goddess worship in pre-history. And if any goddess
> > worship is Wicca, any god worship is Christianity.
>
> antlers, I'll bet the Christians will disagree with you there.
Well, yeah, that's kinda my entire point. Just because the deity is
the same gender as an existing one doesn't make them the same diety.
;)
Itchy
news:95a6780.02051...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> Well, since the earliest (identified) god representations wore stag's
>> antlers, I'll bet the Christians will disagree with you there.
>
> Well, yeah, that's kinda my entire point. Just because the deity is
> the same gender as an existing one doesn't make them the same diety.
> ;)
>
Why does God need genitalia? Who is He or She going to fuck?
Shawn Hill
: da...@creeknet.com (David Cheatham) wrote in
: news:95a6780.02051...@posting.google.com:
The universe, so s/he can create all life.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On 19 May 2002 04:36:18 GMT, Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
:> I wish the Gardner books were more widely available.
: There are some on eBay as often as not.
I'll look, thanks.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ac23du$c8j$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
:> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
:> : On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:17:16 -0400, Rain wrote:
:>
:> : 'witchcraft' isn't any older than Christianity as in the precursor to
:> : Wicca. (Which it isn't. but it's claimed it is.) There are various
:> : 'goddese religions', but Diana didn't even exist, until, duh, the Roman
:> : empire, certainly long after the Egyption patheon existed, and long after
:> : the origins of YHWH.
:>
:> And YHWH is Christian exactly how? He's Jewish, which also predates
:> Xianity.
: YHWH *is* the Christian God, and the Muslim God too, so I don't know
: why you're asking that first question. He's not commonly *called* that
: in Christianity or Islam, but that's still his name.
Xianity is based, I would assume just from the name, on Christ. And
the Islam on the words of Muhammed. Those texts (the teachings of
their prophets) are what differentiate the religions from Judaism.
: And, duh, it would be really had to base a religon off another
: religion without that religion existing first, it's rather obvious
: that Judaism predates Christianity. It's not like it's some secret.
It's also obvious that they're not even roughly the same thing.
: I'm not really sure what your complaint is. The precursor of
: Christianity, Islam, and Judaim, aka, YHWH worship, is older than the
: precursor of 'Wicca', as there wasn't any 'Diana' worship until the
: Greeks, and YHWH dates back to Abraham.
Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave paintings
and burial grounds.
:> "Wagering" isn't quite enough. Xianity specifically tried over the
:> course of the last 2000 years to wipe out all traces of Paganism, or
:> coopt them. Many of them were Goddess worshippers. Some scholars are
:> quite confident that goddess worship preceded god worship, at least
:> in European territories.
: What's this 'European' crap? I'm talking about deep pre-history, when
: Gods and Goddesses were invented. I said I believe that they were
: invented at roughly the same time.
Yes. I believe the Goddess came first.
: I doubt you're trying to make the claim that scientists know who
: Cro-Magnon men worshipped.
In fact, I am.
: The real point of this is that, obviously, all goddess worship is
: *not* some mystical precursor to Wicca. As I run into people trying to
: make that claim all the time to 'prove' Wicca is older than dirt, so
: my standard defense is that, if all goddess worship is Wicca, all god
: worship is Christianity, and thus they're about the same age, dating
: back into the dawn of time.
Patriarchal monotheistic God-worship doesn't seem to go quite that
far back. Goddess worship and polytheism preceded it.
: In reality, of course, the concept that all goddess worship is Wicca
: is completely bogus.
As it's a matter of faith, bogus doesn't really enter into it.
: And what 'Christianity' did over the last 2000 years doesn't really
: have anything to do with anything.
Except for historical fact, of course.
:> And you also have people with faith and spirituality doing that
:> healing.
: You certainly can. I don't see what that has to do with anything, the
: idea of those peple worshipping Diana is a bit silly.
Some always see breaks where others see connectedness. Wicca doesn't
have to worship Diana specifically to worship the Goddess, or Gaea,
or whatever mythology is used.
:> Superstition differing from religion, at the time, exactly how?
: Heh, you think you've 'caught' me in some bias, but I have a pretty
: clear line, and, FWIW, Wicca is clearly a religion.
: A superstition doesn't have any sort of all-encompassing background. A
: black cat crossing your path and giving you bad luck doesn't not
: explain Why Are We Here?(TM).
Superstitions have deep social and cultural roots, and are as
characteristic of a people as their skin color or art. And religion
quite often overlaps.
: Neither does, as an example of a made-up, but actually somewhat useful
: superstition that I'm sure some healer came up with in the thousands
: of years before 'modern medicine', 'You must pour wine on a wound to
: replace the bad blood with the good.'. That's clearly not a religion,
: it doesn't tell you what's good or bad, how to live your life, what it
: all means, or anything.
Wicca, specifically, however, contains healing "superstitions" as
part of it's lore.
:> : Of course, I've also seen Wicca claim that they are 'nature worshippers',
:> : which is promoting me to ask if there is a need for some sort of
:> : certification process, maybe with a test at the end.
:>
:> Why?
: It's basically the same objection I have to dentists who call
: themselves firefighters.
: And, no, I've already gone into the 'how dare I try to define someone
: else's religion!' with both Judaism and Christianity. However, I
: refuse to accept the Humpty-Dumpty 'Words mean exactly what I mean
: them to mean' argument. If you're using a word that no one else thinks
: it means what you think it mean, then it is *you* who are using it
: wrong. And words describing religions don't have some sort of magical
: exception to this.
No. In this thread already we've proven we don't agree on what Wicca,
Xianity, or the word God itself means. Is someone actually right and
everyone else mistaken, or is their a plurality of truths?
Shawn
Demon Prince of Absurdity Snarky
asked, in alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, and "Mike Jackson" answered:
The day there's a Wiccan Inquisition, or Wiccans burning *heretics* at the
stake, or even a Wiccan *Crusade*, _then_ Wiccans just /might/ be *not much
different* than Xians...Still, it'd be a stretch. The Rede is _really_
simple...
--
__________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! Kallisti!!!
Lola, called Snarky, Queen of the Snarks of AErisia
ICQ: 135930147 E-mail: feetofclayatshawdotca
Akemi = Rancid, Lying, Two-Faced, Manipulative Bitch.
Demon Prince of Absurdity Snarky
>Aethelrede wrote:
>: Shawn Hill wrote...
>:>Rain wrote:
>:>
>:>:> Excuse me, but...........Wicca is the OLDEST religion on the planet. We
>:>:> were here BEFORE Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam. We were here before
>:>: the
>:>:> ancient Egyptians.
>:>
>: idea.
>:>: Though Wicca's roots/main thoughts
>:>: do stem from Witchcraft. They are not the same.
>:>
>:>As practised, they might as well be. I call on ancient gods and goddesses,
>:>I attune myself to the seasons and the moon, and I work spells with herbs
>:>as old as culture. No one person has cornered the market on defining Wicca
>:>for everyone else.
>:>
>:>And some witches carry on practices of healing and caretaking that extend
>:>back through ancient family lineages. "Oh, you know Grandmother, she had
>:>the sight."
>
>: And none of it does anything.
>
>Sure it does. Faith, of course, is a big part of it.
What's _she_ got to do with it???
;-{P}
Snarky, who won't even _talk_ about *Hope*
Demon Prince of Absurdity Snarky
>Shawn Hill wrote:
>>
>> : In the case of Wicca, there is no well documented or recognised linkage
>> : to older systems. From a strictly academic standpoint, it's hard to
>> : trace it back further than the 1950's. Individuals can claim knowledge
>> : of an older system via familial practice, divine revelation, or perhaps
>> : other means, but as an outside viewer, I have no way of knowing any of
>> : this with any measure of certainty.
>>
>> As it's not a religion that needs churches, or writings except those
>> done by individual practioners for their own use, and was a part of
>> non-Xian culture which was actively persecuted, ignored,
>> appropriated, or outlawed, I'd say those that revive it are heroes
>> digging up a buried, damaged text. It may not be right or "accurate,"
>> but it's persistence in the face of all that damage speaks volumes.
>
>But we do know something about Celtic legends, Druids, traditional Norse
>religions, Egyptian Religions, Greek, Babylon, etc. You can go to a
>bookstore and buy a translation of the myths of Innana, perhaps the
>oldest mythology we can study. Surely Wicca is a religion, but do you
>There is simply nothing to suggest it. To attempt to claim this does an
>injustice to the ancient followers of these faiths and their beliefs.
They're dead. <Kai, ex-Divine Assassin> The dead do not care. </Kai> ;-{)}
>To link Wicca to an ancient unspecified religion, from a historical context
>has no meaning.
However, there is also the POV which says, "History is bunk." <repeat
emoticon>
--
__________________________________________________________
Loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and
Silliness, Demon Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of
Absurdity; GGGHD; HCNB. All hail the Dark One!
BITCH PRIDE! ICQ: 135930147; E-mail: feetofclayatshawdotca
Paco
(bullshit clipped)
Man, you are the quintessential fluffbunny aren't you? Persecution
complex, Christian bashing, total revisionist view history, and a
desire to make it all up as you go along. Get over yourself man. Wicca
is a new religion. Get over it. Or maybe give Scientology a go. I hear
that's ancient too.
YO SOY PACO FUERTE
Shawn Hill
:>: And none of it does anything.
:>
:>Sure it does. Faith, of course, is a big part of it.
: What's _she_ got to do with it???
Well, if it got really scary and tried to attack, she could probably kill
it!
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ac23mh$c8j$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
: (bullshit clipped)
I've got nothing to get over. I'm quite comfortable with other
perspectives, while knowing my own truth.
Shawn
Bob
> "How could you use a barking toy parrot to take over the world?"-- Goldenpi
> asked, in alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, and "Mike Jackson" answered:
>
> >> : Like Willow just HAD to be gay, like all Wiccans are gay. Yeah, right.
> >> : Wicca is not a Goddess worshipping religion. It's a polytheistic
> religion,
> >> : we worship BOTH halves of the whole, not one side. To a true Wiccan,
> only
> >>
> >> All Wiccans aren't the same, and they accentuate some apsects over others.
> >> I do worship a Goddess primarily, as part of my Craft. The God is a lesser
> >> diety. Wicca is used to symbolize gayness in direct rebuttal of the
> >> Christian/Father God/Patriarchy/heterosexual tradition. If it's opposite,
> >> then it becomes Goddess/Matriarchy/homosexual.
> >
> >This is in no way meant to belittle your beliefs, but this reply struck me
> >as so funny. It comes across as a debate between Baptists and Presbyterians
> >or something -- you believe the same thing, yet have to quibble over the
> >small details.
> >
> >Christians and Wiccans: not much different :)
>
> The day there's a Wiccan Inquisition, or Wiccans burning *heretics* at the
> stake, or even a Wiccan *Crusade*, _then_ Wiccans just /might/ be *not much
> different* than Xians...Still, it'd be a stretch. The Rede is _really_
> simple...
Along those lines.... do wiccans rape young boys too?
Rev. Cyohtee - O'kōhome Ehohatse
Um, while the Gardenarian Sect may be relatively new, pagan worship
much like the modern wiccan practices, do go back thousands of years.
To claim that nobody worshiped the goddess or the forced of nature
before a hundred years ago is ludicrous to the extreme. "Wicca" was
around before Gardener revised and popularized it, and will most
likely still be around long after Gardner and his followers are long
forgotten. Sure, there are a lot of Wiccans who practice Gardenarian
Wicca, there are also a very large contingent of Wiccans who think
Gardener is a joke and an abomination on true Wiccan traditions. I
don't even want to get into the debates that go on in just the few
Chicago area Pagan groups I have been around in the last 10 years or
so, and I don't even want to get my wife started on Gardener and his
perversions of the traditions and sexist attitudes (nothing worse than
getting a United Methodist Christian Pagan Sociologist Psychologist
Feminist started on Gardenarian Tradition and what it did to Pagan
worship and rituals).
--
Cyo cyo...@ucan.foad.org
http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org
Martin Riggs: I don't make things difficult. That's the way they get, all by
themselves.
David Cheatham
> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> : Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ac23du$c8j$4...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> :> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> :> : On Thu, 16 May 2002 13:17:16 -0400, Rain wrote:
>
> :> : 'witchcraft' isn't any older than Christianity as in the precursor to
> :> : Wicca. (Which it isn't. but it's claimed it is.) There are various
> :> : 'goddese religions', but Diana didn't even exist, until, duh, the Roman
> :> : empire, certainly long after the Egyption patheon existed, and long after
> :> : the origins of YHWH.
> :>
> :> And YHWH is Christian exactly how? He's Jewish, which also predates
> :> Xianity.
>
> : YHWH *is* the Christian God, and the Muslim God too, so I don't know
> : why you're asking that first question. He's not commonly *called* that
> : in Christianity or Islam, but that's still his name.
>
> Xianity is based, I would assume just from the name, on Christ. And
> the Islam on the words of Muhammed. Those texts (the teachings of
> their prophets) are what differentiate the religions from Judaism.
My point remains that the 'precursor' of Wicca, being Diana worship
(However inaccurate the 'precursor' label is), isn't any older than
the precursor of Christianity. And Christianity is a lot more
obviously decended from Judaism than Wicca is decended from any
Athenian polythesism.
> : And, duh, it would be really had to base a religon off another
> : religion without that religion existing first, it's rather obvious
> : that Judaism predates Christianity. It's not like it's some secret.
>
> It's also obvious that they're not even roughly the same thing.
Judaism and Christianity do have a lot in common. Identical
'pre-history' accounts of eden, the gread flood, the major and minor
phophets, etc.
But I never claimed they were the same thing, I said Christianity was
based on Judaism. (With, of course, a healthy dose of Zoroastrianism
thrown in.)
Wicca, on the other hand, is based on 19th century mythicism, with a
bunch of other stuff thrown in.
> : I'm not really sure what your complaint is. The precursor of
> : Christianity, Islam, and Judaim, aka, YHWH worship, is older than the
> : precursor of 'Wicca', as there wasn't any 'Diana' worship until the
> : Greeks, and YHWH dates back to Abraham.
>
> Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave paintings
> and burial grounds.
Yes, we all know that. So does 'god' worship. So does animal worship.
And goddess worship is not Diana worship, either in the ancient
Roman/Greek sense or the modern Wicca sense.
> :> "Wagering" isn't quite enough. Xianity specifically tried over the
> :> course of the last 2000 years to wipe out all traces of Paganism, or
> :> coopt them. Many of them were Goddess worshippers. Some scholars are
> :> quite confident that goddess worship preceded god worship, at least
> :> in European territories.
>
> : What's this 'European' crap? I'm talking about deep pre-history, when
> : Gods and Goddesses were invented. I said I believe that they were
> : invented at roughly the same time.
>
> Yes. I believe the Goddess came first.
Well, fine, believe whatever you want. I certainly don't have any
evidence what gender the first god was that poked its way into some
pre-human's consciousness.
I suspect that, once the idea of gods came about, humanity, or that
little tribe of them, suddenly got about thirty of them, of all
different genders, in charge of dfferent things, so 'which came first'
is arguing a span of literally months, and, when you look at tens of
thousands of years, that's not really important, and pretty
unknownable anyway.
> : I doubt you're trying to make the claim that scientists know who
> : Cro-Magnon men worshipped.
>
> In fact, I am.
Do you have some evidence of this?
> : The real point of this is that, obviously, all goddess worship is
> : *not* some mystical precursor to Wicca. As I run into people trying to
> : make that claim all the time to 'prove' Wicca is older than dirt, so
> : my standard defense is that, if all goddess worship is Wicca, all god
> : worship is Christianity, and thus they're about the same age, dating
> : back into the dawn of time.
>
> Patriarchal monotheistic God-worship doesn't seem to go quite that
> far back. Goddess worship and polytheism preceded it.
I'm willing to bet polytheism is older than everything else put
together. ;)
And I'm somewhat baffled by this attempt to prove that Wicca is older
than Christianity. It's really not. It's not some iffy thing. Goddess
worship may well be older than god worship, but that doesn't have
anything to do with the actual religions of Christianity and Wicca.
The reason I'm baffled by this is...I don't care which is older. The
age of a religion has nothing to do with its validity, or how 'good'
it is. I'm just rather annoyed by this misinformation being spread.
Neither does, FWIW, where a religion came from.
> : In reality, of course, the concept that all goddess worship is Wicca
> : is completely bogus.
>
> As it's a matter of faith, bogus doesn't really enter into it.
A matter of faith that the worship of Ishtar and Artemis were of the
same beings? That all female goddesses are somehow interchangable, and
worship of them is, in fact, the same thing?
That seems vaguely insulting to all the people who believed in their
particular goddess, and were willing to go to war over Her.
Not to mention that a goodly number of those goddesses were the female
conterparts of equally powerful male gods, and you'd have to explain
where those went in Wicca.
> : And what 'Christianity' did over the last 2000 years doesn't really
> : have anything to do with anything.
>
> Except for historical fact, of course.
I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean. The fact that
Christianity has, since the begining of its history, been used for all
sorts of evil people, does't really have any bearing on the age of
Wicca.
Now, if you want to *condemn* Christianity for that, go right ahead, I
won't stop you. But that does't change the age of Wicca.
> :> And you also have people with faith and spirituality doing that
> :> healing.
>
> : You certainly can. I don't see what that has to do with anything, the
> : idea of those peple worshipping Diana is a bit silly.
>
> Some always see breaks where others see connectedness. Wicca doesn't
> have to worship Diana specifically to worship the Goddess, or Gaea,
> or whatever mythology is used.
I knew this would turn into 'Wicca is nature worship.'.
Which, of course, basically means that Wicca isn't even 100 year old,
it's a lot less.
> :> Superstition differing from religion, at the time, exactly how?
>
> : Heh, you think you've 'caught' me in some bias, but I have a pretty
> : clear line, and, FWIW, Wicca is clearly a religion.
>
> : A superstition doesn't have any sort of all-encompassing background. A
> : black cat crossing your path and giving you bad luck doesn't not
> : explain Why Are We Here?(TM).
>
> Superstitions have deep social and cultural roots, and are as
> characteristic of a people as their skin color or art. And religion
> quite often overlaps.
Yes, I know. Many religions have included 'superstitions', which
people who don't believe in the religion also follow. This is
especially true when a religion is practiced by the largest majority
of a culture. Even non-believers will start believing the
superstitions, even without believing the religion.
> : Neither does, as an example of a made-up, but actually somewhat useful
> : superstition that I'm sure some healer came up with in the thousands
> : of years before 'modern medicine', 'You must pour wine on a wound to
> : replace the bad blood with the good.'. That's clearly not a religion,
> : it doesn't tell you what's good or bad, how to live your life, what it
> : all means, or anything.
>
> Wicca, specifically, however, contains healing "superstitions" as
> part of it's lore.
Don't put "superstitions" in quotes. I'm not trying to imply that
something that's a superstition is somehow worse, or stupider, or
anything, than a religion. It's simply not as encompassing. Religions
claim to have all the answers, superstitions do not. That's the entire
difference.
> :> : Of course, I've also seen Wicca claim that they are 'nature worshippers',
> :> : which is promoting me to ask if there is a need for some sort of
> :> : certification process, maybe with a test at the end.
> :>
> :> Why?
>
> : It's basically the same objection I have to dentists who call
> : themselves firefighters.
>
> : And, no, I've already gone into the 'how dare I try to define someone
> : else's religion!' with both Judaism and Christianity. However, I
> : refuse to accept the Humpty-Dumpty 'Words mean exactly what I mean
> : them to mean' argument. If you're using a word that no one else thinks
> : it means what you think it mean, then it is *you* who are using it
> : wrong. And words describing religions don't have some sort of magical
> : exception to this.
>
> No. In this thread already we've proven we don't agree on what Wicca,
> Xianity, or the word God itself means. Is someone actually right and
> everyone else mistaken, or is their a plurality of truths?
Huh? No, we haven't proven any such thing. About the only thing we
disagree with is what it means to have a religion 'based on' another
religion.
Anyway, I've got to go watch Angel.
Shawn Hill
:> Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave paintings
:> and burial grounds.
: Yes, we all know that. So does 'god' worship. So does animal worship.
: And goddess worship is not Diana worship, either in the ancient
: Roman/Greek sense or the modern Wicca sense.
And all Wiccans don't worship Diana. So your point ... ?
: Well, fine, believe whatever you want. I certainly don't have any
: evidence what gender the first god was that poked its way into some
: pre-human's consciousness.
: I suspect that, once the idea of gods came about, humanity, or that
: little tribe of them, suddenly got about thirty of them, of all
: different genders, in charge of dfferent things, so 'which came first'
: is arguing a span of literally months, and, when you look at tens of
: thousands of years, that's not really important, and pretty
: unknownable anyway.
Well, fine, "suspect" whatever you want.
:> : I doubt you're trying to make the claim that scientists know who
:> : Cro-Magnon men worshipped.
:>
:> In fact, I am.
: Do you have some evidence of this?
The earliest sculptures I know of represent fertile female forms.
: And I'm somewhat baffled by this attempt to prove that Wicca is older
: than Christianity. It's really not. It's not some iffy thing. Goddess
: worship may well be older than god worship, but that doesn't have
: anything to do with the actual religions of Christianity and Wicca.
If it's got something to do with one, it's got something to do with
the other.
: Neither does, FWIW, where a religion came from.
What we're talking about here is whether Wicca, like Xianity, has a
basis and a history older than the past hundred years. I think it
does.
:> : In reality, of course, the concept that all goddess worship is Wicca
:> : is completely bogus.
:>
:> As it's a matter of faith, bogus doesn't really enter into it.
: A matter of faith that the worship of Ishtar and Artemis were of the
: same beings? That all female goddesses are somehow interchangable, and
: worship of them is, in fact, the same thing?
That's how religion has always been, with you calling her Mary and me
calling her Cybele and somebody three thousands years ago calling her
too clicks and a gulp and a hiss. Looked at as archetypal
psychological forms (which is where I think religion comes from and
why I link it with superstition and intuition and all sorts of other
non-rational/non-scientific practices), they ARE quite
interchangeable.
: That seems vaguely insulting to all the people who believed in their
: particular goddess, and were willing to go to war over Her.
Why are you worried about insulting people who are dead and gone? How
is that possible? Wicca as I know it is based on and understood from
the perspective of Western Culture, just like Xianity, and that
includes a variety of religions over time.
: Not to mention that a goodly number of those goddesses were the female
: conterparts of equally powerful male gods, and you'd have to explain
: where those went in Wicca.
Why, are they gone? People in this thread have testified to the
primacy of Gods in their Wiccan faiths.
:> : And what 'Christianity' did over the last 2000 years doesn't really
:> : have anything to do with anything.
:>
:> Except for historical fact, of course.
: I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean. The fact that
: Christianity has, since the begining of its history, been used for all
: sorts of evil people, does't really have any bearing on the age of
: Wicca.
I posit that the two have been intertwined, and oppositional, since
Xianity came to be.
: Now, if you want to *condemn* Christianity for that, go right ahead, I
: won't stop you. But that does't change the age of Wicca.
Wicca exists in the context of Xianity, the previously (but less and
less so) dominant faith of the past 2000 years.
:> Some always see breaks where others see connectedness. Wicca doesn't
:> have to worship Diana specifically to worship the Goddess, or Gaea,
:> or whatever mythology is used.
: I knew this would turn into 'Wicca is nature worship.'.
: Which, of course, basically means that Wicca isn't even 100 year old,
: it's a lot less.
To me, that's what underlines how old it is? What did prehistoric man
worship besides the natural world she lived in?
:> Superstitions have deep social and cultural roots, and are as
:> characteristic of a people as their skin color or art. And religion
:> quite often overlaps.
: Yes, I know. Many religions have included 'superstitions', which
: people who don't believe in the religion also follow. This is
: especially true when a religion is practiced by the largest majority
: of a culture. Even non-believers will start believing the
: superstitions, even without believing the religion.
Maybe the superstitions even came first, and are adopted by the
religion striving for hegemony and acceptance in the region.
:> Wicca, specifically, however, contains healing "superstitions" as
:> part of it's lore.
: Don't put "superstitions" in quotes. I'm not trying to imply that
: something that's a superstition is somehow worse, or stupider, or
: anything, than a religion. It's simply not as encompassing. Religions
: claim to have all the answers, superstitions do not. That's the entire
: difference.
I'll quote what I feel like, big boy.
:> No. In this thread already we've proven we don't agree on what Wicca,
:> Xianity, or the word God itself means. Is someone actually right and
:> everyone else mistaken, or is their a plurality of truths?
: Huh? No, we haven't proven any such thing. About the only thing we
: disagree with is what it means to have a religion 'based on' another
: religion.
Well, I'm glad that's what you disagree on, but my list is longer! :)
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: Out of the ether pacof...@yahoo.com (Paco) rose up and issued forth:
:>Shawn Hill <sh...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ac23mh$c8j$5...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
:>(bullshit clipped)
:>
:>
:>Man, you are the quintessential fluffbunny aren't you? Persecution
:>complex, Christian bashing, total revisionist view history, and a
:>desire to make it all up as you go along. Get over yourself man. Wicca
:>is a new religion. Get over it. Or maybe give Scientology a go. I hear
:>that's ancient too.
:>
: Um, while the Gardenarian Sect may be relatively new, pagan worship
: much like the modern wiccan practices, do go back thousands of years.
I love you, Reverend, but I'm just a crazy persecuted fluffbunny, so
what do I know?
: so, and I don't even want to get my wife started on Gardener and his
: perversions of the traditions and sexist attitudes (nothing worse than
: getting a United Methodist Christian Pagan Sociologist Psychologist
: Feminist started on Gardenarian Tradition and what it did to Pagan
: worship and rituals).
Christian Pagan is a scary term (to just take part of your
intimidating adjectival string). Though I guess I'm that too, as
Wicca is something I taught myself about, but Jesus was somebody I
grew up with in family and culture, and he still likes to help out
when I let him. :)
The Goddess doesn't seem to mind.
Shawn
Wayne
True, however one of the distinguishing points of modern paganism is the
recognition of different aspects of the god(dess). In other words, the
goddess has been called Isis, Diana, Artemis, Freya, Cerridwen, etc,
depending on what region of the world the particular worshippers originated.
Each has characteristics in common with the others, but some differences as
well. Similar to the way that the Triple Goddess - maiden, mother, crone -
is seen as three different aspects of the same deity, not as three truly
separate deities.
And in fact, when you get down to basics, I personally don't see a whole
lot of difference between pantheons - it's still mostly one primary being
and a vast number of lesser beings whether you refer to them as Odin and his
Aesir, Zeus and the Olympians, or Yahweh and the heavenly host.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
David Cheatham
Yeah, those wacky pagans, ready to lump all goddesses into one, and all
gods into one for that matter. ;)
Next thng you know some of them will start claiming that all people are
really one consciousness, nature itself is one consciousness, and that it
is one with the gods/goddesses. ;)
Paganism: You only have to believe in one thing, but it's really really
big and complicated. ;)
> And in fact, when you get down to basics, I personally don't see a
> whole lot of difference between pantheons - it's still mostly one
> primary being and a vast number of lesser beings whether you refer to
> them as Odin and his Aesir, Zeus and the Olympians, or Yahweh and the
> heavenly host.
Hey, it makes sense to me. We've got too many Gods and Goddesses running
around anyone, let's search for duplicates and merge.
But, you see, the problem is that what you're talking about applies
perfectly well to paganism (In fact, there is a hardly a believe you can
state that some pagan, somewhere, doesn't believe. But what you're
talking about is a 'normal' pagan belief), it doesn't really work with
Wicca.
Paganism is much too diverse a religion to try to figure out the 'history'
of, either, it would be akin to trying to figure out the history of
clothing. The subset of paganism known as Wicca, however, is very simple
to pin down.
Dave Paisley
<snip>
> > And in fact, when you get down to basics, I personally don't see a
> > whole lot of difference between pantheons - it's still mostly one
> > primary being and a vast number of lesser beings whether you refer to
> > them as Odin and his Aesir, Zeus and the Olympians, or Yahweh and the
> > heavenly host.
I kinda liked Buddy Holly and the Crickets, personally.
dave
Shawn Hill
: On Mon, 20 May 2002 13:51:45 -0400, Wayne wrote:
: Yeah, those wacky pagans, ready to lump all goddesses into one, and all
: gods into one for that matter. ;)
but also more than willing to acknowledge their different apsects, too.
: Next thng you know some of them will start claiming that all people are
: really one consciousness, nature itself is one consciousness, and that it
: is one with the gods/goddesses. ;)
sounds good to me.
: Paganism: You only have to believe in one thing, but it's really really
: big and complicated. ;)
What you just described sounds extremely simple, actually.
: Paganism is much too diverse a religion to try to figure out the 'history'
: of, either, it would be akin to trying to figure out the history of
: clothing. The subset of paganism known as Wicca, however, is very simple
which, of course, there are books and books about (clothing).
: to pin down.
tell that to all us witches who practice differenlty.
Shawn
David Cheatham
> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
>
> :> Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave paintings
> :> and burial grounds.
>
> : Yes, we all know that. So does 'god' worship. So does animal worship.
>
> : And goddess worship is not Diana worship, either in the ancient
> : Roman/Greek sense or the modern Wicca sense.
>
> And all Wiccans don't worship Diana. So your point ... ?
They all worship some form of her, or a goddess that they claim Diana is
a form of. (Yes, that sentence makes sense.)
> : Well, fine, believe whatever you want. I certainly don't have any
> : evidence what gender the first god was that poked its way into some
> : pre-human's consciousness.
>
> : I suspect that, once the idea of gods came about, humanity, or that
> : little tribe of them, suddenly got about thirty of them, of all
> : different genders, in charge of dfferent things, so 'which came first'
> : is arguing a span of literally months, and, when you look at tens of
> : thousands of years, that's not really important, and pretty
> : unknownable anyway.
>
> Well, fine, "suspect" whatever you want.
Well, at least I'm not pretending I know which came first. And it really
only makes sense. Once you get a sun god, you get a moon god, a fire god,
a river god, then it's a quick hop to abstract things like a hunting god
and a fertility god. (Make any of these gods whatever gender you want.)
I can't imagine someone inventing a mother goddess of everything and not
any other gods.
> :> : I doubt you're trying to make the claim that scientists know who
> :> : Cro-Magnon men worshipped.
> :>
> :> In fact, I am.
>
> : Do you have some evidence of this?
>
> The earliest sculptures I know of represent fertile female forms.
And the earliest cave paintings I know of represent humans hunting
animals, so clearly there was a hunting god. Except that's just being
silly.
The existence of a sculpting of something important to pre-historic
people doesn't mean it was a goddess. It could very easily be sympathatic
magic, no supernatural beings involved at all. Or it could just be to
say 'this is the ideal human form'. Maybe it's the pre-history equilivent
of Vogue, showing the 'ideal woman'. (Maybe ancient thin women protested
in front of the statue claiming it was an unreasonable ideal.;) )
> : And I'm somewhat baffled by this attempt to prove that Wicca is older
> : than Christianity. It's really not. It's not some iffy thing. Goddess
> : worship may well be older than god worship, but that doesn't have
> : anything to do with the actual religions of Christianity and Wicca.
>
> If it's got something to do with one, it's got something to do with the
> other.
Well, yeah. But Christianity doesn't have anything to do with ancient god
worship. (Though a better example would be how much Judaism does, it
actually dating from that time. It's been pretty much rewritten though.)
Wicca incorperates things from those religions. However, it got its
terminology from, ironically, Christian heretic seekers, and its magic
practices from the Golden Dawn and other occult sources. And, apparently,
they pulled their history out of thin air. (Of course, all religions do
this, but most were clever enough to set it in pre-history times as part
of creation.)
> : Neither does, FWIW, where a religion came from.
>
> What we're talking about here is whether Wicca, like Xianity, has a
> basis and a history older than the past hundred years. I think it does.
All religious beliefs have a 'history' older than 100 years, except maybe
Scientology, whcih can't really be traced back to anything except science
fiction and psychology, both of which are very new in human terms. However,
the actual history that Wicca has past 100 years is Christian occultism,
secret lodges like Freemasonry and, of course, the OTO, and Satanism. (Not
LeVey Satanism, obviously.)
As most Wicca don't want to talk about those, I tend to just ignore them.
Wicca doesn't have any 'history' with regard to either practitioners of
'witchcraft', who were usually either somewhat 'bad' Christians who kept
pagan practices alive while having Christian beliefs, or just Satanists,
or any history with regard to ancient Goddess worship, except using the
same names and attributes for them.
It does, obviously, has some history, but it's not what some people are
claiming.
> :> : In reality, of course, the concept that all goddess worship is
> :> : Wicca is completely bogus.
> :>
> :> As it's a matter of faith, bogus doesn't really enter into it.
>
> : A matter of faith that the worship of Ishtar and Artemis were of the
> : same beings? That all female goddesses are somehow interchangable, and
> : worship of them is, in fact, the same thing?
>
> That's how religion has always been, with you calling her Mary and me
> calling her Cybele and somebody three thousands years ago calling her
> too clicks and a gulp and a hiss. Looked at as archetypal psychological
> forms (which is where I think religion comes from and why I link it with
> superstition and intuition and all sorts of other
> non-rational/non-scientific practices), they ARE quite interchangeable.
Me calling who Mary?
Oh, you mean the holy mother in Catholic mythology. I am aware she is an
archtype of a Goddess.
But don't assume I'm Catholic, or even Christian.
This is the problem with trying to tell people things about their own
religion, they automatically assume you're a member of the 'other'
religion out to discredit them. I don't care what religion people have, I
don't care how old a religion is, I don't care about any of this.
All I care about is people, any people, trying to spread misinformation.
If a Christian claims Wicca is Satanism, I'll argue with them, too. Of
course, they'll assume I'm a Wicca.
Frankly, my archtype of the Goddess is Marilyn Monroe. ;)
> : That seems vaguely insulting to all the people who believed in their
> : particular goddess, and were willing to go to war over Her.
>
> Why are you worried about insulting people who are dead and gone? How is
> that possible? Wicca as I know it is based on and understood from the
> perspective of Western Culture, just like Xianity, and that includes a
> variety of religions over time.
These people built nice, complicated mythos, and if you want to borrow
some aspects of it, go ahead. However, that doesn't mean that *they*
worshipped what *you* worship, any more than Jews are 'really'
worshipping The Father in Christianity.
> : Not to mention that a goodly number of those goddesses were the female
> : conterparts of equally powerful male gods, and you'd have to explain
> : where those went in Wicca.
>
> Why, are they gone? People in this thread have testified to the primacy
> of Gods in their Wiccan faiths.
Are there some other people in this thread I'm unaware of? I see you, me,
and Rowan over there.
Anyway, you're right, there are traditions of Wicca that have a male god
almost equal or even equal to a female one. But that doesn't explain
where he went in traditions that don't have him, ie, Dianic Wicca.
> :> : And what 'Christianity' did over the last 2000 years doesn't really
> :> : have anything to do with anything.
> :>
> :> Except for historical fact, of course.
>
> : I can't even imagine what this is supposed to mean. The fact that
> : Christianity has, since the begining of its history, been used for all
> : sorts of evil people, does't really have any bearing on the age of
> : Wicca.
>
> I posit that the two have been intertwined, and oppositional, since
> Xianity came to be.
What? Witchcraft and Christianity? Paganism and Christianity?
You are aware that historical 'witches' don't have anything to do with
modern Wicca, right? That there are witches in almost all cultures,
thoughout the world. It's just someone who practices ritual magic. There
are witches in Africa, in American Indian religions, all over the place.
They can be 'pagans', or not. There are Christian witches. (In fact,
Christianity has a rather large amount of ritual magic in it, though it's
not called such.) Witchcraft is a *craft*, it's a skill/art, it's not a
religion.
The witches that the Christian church hunted were usually either secret
pagans (or, at least, had some pagan gods in addition to YWHW), secret
Satanists, or (usually) just suspiscious looking characters who had nice
houses.
And, I'll certainly agree that paganism and Christianity have been at odds
thoughout their history, though Christianity has usually been simply used
as a way to control populations, and even kings, and sometimes just as a
rather nonsensical excuse. (Witness the re-Christianing of Ireland,
after it was already Christian.)
But I'm not here to make excuses for Christianity, I'm here to talk about
the start of Wicca. Which doesn't have anything to do with witches.
> : Now, if you want to *condemn* Christianity for that, go right ahead, I
> : won't stop you. But that does't change the age of Wicca.
>
> Wicca exists in the context of Xianity, the previously (but less and
> less so) dominant faith of the past 2000 years.
Well, okay. It's certainly valid to claim that the emergence of Wicca is
in response to Christianity patriarchical dominance, and that happens to
be something rather close to what I believe.
I don't know what that has to do with the age of anything, though.
Goddess worship has existed almost forever, and Wicca has existed for
about 50 years. Wicca is a reinterpetation of Goddess worship for
a...um...softer world, I guess. A different world, certainly.
> :> Some always see breaks where others see connectedness. Wicca doesn't
> :> have to worship Diana specifically to worship the Goddess, or Gaea,
> :> or whatever mythology is used.
>
> : I knew this would turn into 'Wicca is nature worship.'.
>
> : Which, of course, basically means that Wicca isn't even 100 year old,
> : it's a lot less.
>
> To me, that's what underlines how old it is? What did prehistoric man
> worship besides the natural world she lived in?
Sadly, we already have a perfectly good word for *that* religion. And
it's 'pagan', not Wicca. Wicca is not some generic nature worship. It's
Goddess worship of a specific type, with specific beliefs and rituals,
which were made up in the 1940s.
And I must say, trying to co-opt the name of a religion that's not even
half a century old is...rather silly. While religions do change over
time, 50 years isn't long enough for Wicca to turn into general paganism.
Maybe in 200 years, they'll be basically the same thing, but, good grief,
this is jumping the gun a bit. You haven't even had time for the first
generation practitioners to die off yet.
> :> Superstitions have deep social and cultural roots, and are as
> :> characteristic of a people as their skin color or art. And religion
> :> quite often overlaps.
>
> : Yes, I know. Many religions have included 'superstitions', which
> : people who don't believe in the religion also follow. This is
> : especially true when a religion is practiced by the largest majority
> : of a culture. Even non-believers will start believing the
> : superstitions, even without believing the religion.
>
> Maybe the superstitions even came first, and are adopted by the religion
> striving for hegemony and acceptance in the region.
Well, of course. That happens all the time. Witness almost any Christian
holiday.
> :> Wicca, specifically, however, contains healing "superstitions" as
> :> part of it's lore.
>
> : Don't put "superstitions" in quotes. I'm not trying to imply that
> : something that's a superstition is somehow worse, or stupider, or
> : anything, than a religion. It's simply not as encompassing. Religions
> : claim to have all the answers, superstitions do not. That's the entire
> : difference.
>
> I'll quote what I feel like, big boy.
Well, just don't pretend I'm using it as an insult. It's not an insult.
It's like comparing a wristwatch to a computer. A computer is a general
purpose tool, and a wristwatch is designed to do one thing. A
religion is the end-all and be-all of everything, and superstition just
tells you one thing to do or not to do.
> :> No. In this thread already we've proven we don't agree on what Wicca,
> :> Xianity, or the word God itself means. Is someone actually right and
> :> everyone else mistaken, or is their a plurality of truths?
>
> : Huh? No, we haven't proven any such thing. About the only thing we
> : disagree with is what it means to have a religion 'based on' another
> : religion.
>
> Well, I'm glad that's what you disagree on, but my list is longer! :)
I disagree you disagree with me about more than that. ;)
--
da...@creeknet.com
Jim Quinn
"Wayne" <cwa...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:acbdh4$qkb$1...@nd.eastky.net...
>
>
>
> And in fact, when you get down to basics, I personally don't see a whole
> lot of difference between pantheons - it's still mostly one primary being
> and a vast number of lesser beings whether you refer to them as Odin and
his
> Aesir, Zeus and the Olympians, or Yahweh and the heavenly host.
>
>
The reason you can't see any difference is because your an idiot. With logic
like that I suppose there is no real difference between anything. Well
Venus is 500 degrees hotter than earth, doesn't have a moon has an
atmospheric pressure 8 or 9 times that around here, but hey it is round
isn't it? Sounds similar to me.
Rowan Hawthorn
"Jim Quinn" <jqu...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TZAG8.114532$Q42.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> "Wayne" <cwa...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:acbdh4$qkb$1...@nd.eastky.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > And in fact, when you get down to basics, I personally don't see a
whole
> > lot of difference between pantheons - it's still mostly one primary
being
> > and a vast number of lesser beings whether you refer to them as Odin and
> his
> > Aesir, Zeus and the Olympians, or Yahweh and the heavenly host.
> >
> >
>
> The reason you can't see any difference is because your an idiot.
And you are a most excellent debater???? I didn't say I saw "no
differences," I said I didn't see "a whole lot of difference." But of
course, you saw this. It *may* have been beyond your comprehension, but you
*saw* it.
With logic
> like that I suppose there is no real difference between anything. Well
> Venus is 500 degrees hotter than earth, doesn't have a moon has an
> atmospheric pressure 8 or 9 times that around here, but hey it is round
> isn't it? Sounds similar to me.
>
>
It is also a planetary mass which revolves around the earth's sun in an
elliptical orbit, it's composed of much the same minerals as the earth, and
very nearly the same size as the earth. Yes, that *does* sound "similar."
Not "exact," but similar. Maybe you should look up the word "similar" in
the dictionary before you call someone else an idiot.
My point is that all of these pantheons involve (as I already mentioned) one
primary being ("God," "All-father," etc) and a number of lesser beings
("minor gods," "angels," etc.) There are differences in the specific
mythos, but there are also differences between Greek and Roman mythos,
although their pantheons are roughly the same - making them "similar," but
not identical.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
Shawn Hill
[snipped helpful info about Venus, not called Earth's "sister" planet
for nothing]
: My point is that all of these pantheons involve (as I already mentioned) one
: primary being ("God," "All-father," etc) and a number of lesser beings
: ("minor gods," "angels," etc.) There are differences in the specific
: mythos, but there are also differences between Greek and Roman mythos,
: although their pantheons are roughly the same - making them "similar," but
: not identical.
And it's not just the primary being and lesser ones. Many pantheons
also share gods of related functions: Gods of death, of love, of
commerce, of the harvest, of the hearth, of war, music, etc., etc.
Which makes sense, as humans need them to look after those very human
concerns, across cultures.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:45:13 -0400, Shawn Hill wrote:
:> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
:>
:> :> Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave paintings
:> :> and burial grounds.
:>
:> : Yes, we all know that. So does 'god' worship. So does animal worship.
:>
:> : And goddess worship is not Diana worship, either in the ancient
:> : Roman/Greek sense or the modern Wicca sense.
:>
:> And all Wiccans don't worship Diana. So your point ... ?
: They all worship some form of her, or a goddess that they claim Diana is
: a form of. (Yes, that sentence makes sense.)
But it also undoes itself. Diana being a form of something isn't the
same thing as worshipping Diana. The earth mother could be one thing,
and Diana just one of her agents. Pantheons have hiearchies.
:> Well, fine, "suspect" whatever you want.
: Well, at least I'm not pretending I know which came first. And it really
: only makes sense. Once you get a sun god, you get a moon god, a fire god,
: a river god, then it's a quick hop to abstract things like a hunting god
: and a fertility god. (Make any of these gods whatever gender you want.)
Why start with the sun? Why not start with the earth?
: I can't imagine someone inventing a mother goddess of everything and not
: any other gods.
But what we're talking about is which comes first. Mother Goddess =
Mother of All.
:> The earliest sculptures I know of represent fertile female forms.
: And the earliest cave paintings I know of represent humans hunting
: animals, so clearly there was a hunting god. Except that's just being
: silly.
: The existence of a sculpting of something important to pre-historic
: people doesn't mean it was a goddess. It could very easily be sympathatic
: magic, no supernatural beings involved at all. Or it could just be to
Sympathetic magic doesn't necessarily deny calling on spirits or
supernatural forces.
: say 'this is the ideal human form'. Maybe it's the pre-history equilivent
: of Vogue, showing the 'ideal woman'. (Maybe ancient thin women protested
: in front of the statue claiming it was an unreasonable ideal.;) )
Most of what I read about stressed it's fertility symbolism, which is
the same reason one might posit a fertile goddess giving life to the
world.
:> If it's got something to do with one, it's got something to do with the
:> other.
: Wicca incorperates things from those religions. However, it got its
: terminology from, ironically, Christian heretic seekers, and its magic
: practices from the Golden Dawn and other occult sources. And, apparently,
: they pulled their history out of thin air. (Of course, all religions do
: this, but most were clever enough to set it in pre-history times as part
: of creation.)
Isn't that exactly what I'm trying to do?
:> What we're talking about here is whether Wicca, like Xianity, has a
:> basis and a history older than the past hundred years. I think it does.
: All religious beliefs have a 'history' older than 100 years, except maybe
: Scientology, whcih can't really be traced back to anything except science
: fiction and psychology, both of which are very new in human terms. However,
: the actual history that Wicca has past 100 years is Christian occultism,
: secret lodges like Freemasonry and, of course, the OTO, and Satanism. (Not
: LeVey Satanism, obviously.)
Wise women and men have, healers and midwives and healers and
witches, are part of that history, too.
: As most Wicca don't want to talk about those, I tend to just ignore them.
Wiccans talk about Judeo-Christian occultism all the time.
: Wicca doesn't have any 'history' with regard to either practitioners of
: 'witchcraft', who were usually either somewhat 'bad' Christians who kept
: pagan practices alive while having Christian beliefs, or just Satanists,
: or any history with regard to ancient Goddess worship, except using the
: same names and attributes for them.
: It does, obviously, has some history, but it's not what some people are
: claiming.
It's more than others claim, too. And it's often been predicated
(unlike big sturdy Xian churches and their paraphenelia) on not
writing things down, on burning things like Books of Shadows at a
witches death, and on passing on oral lore. Just because it's harder
to track than other religions doesn't mean it wasn't there.
: Me calling who Mary?
: Oh, you mean the holy mother in Catholic mythology. I am aware she is an
: archtype of a Goddess.
: But don't assume I'm Catholic, or even Christian.
It was a turn of phrase, a generic you, not you specifically.
: This is the problem with trying to tell people things about their own
: religion, they automatically assume you're a member of the 'other'
: religion out to discredit them. I don't care what religion people have, I
: don't care how old a religion is, I don't care about any of this.
I've assumed no such thing, so we don't have a problem.
: All I care about is people, any people, trying to spread misinformation.
: If a Christian claims Wicca is Satanism, I'll argue with them, too. Of
: course, they'll assume I'm a Wicca.
Paranoid much?
: Frankly, my archtype of the Goddess is Marilyn Monroe. ;)
She's a very good one. Think of all the trouble she could cause with
the Hamburger Loa, for example!
: These people built nice, complicated mythos, and if you want to borrow
: some aspects of it, go ahead. However, that doesn't mean that *they*
: worshipped what *you* worship, any more than Jews are 'really'
: worshipping The Father in Christianity.
Aren't you the one who's gone on and on about how YHYW is Xian?
:> Why, are they gone? People in this thread have testified to the primacy
:> of Gods in their Wiccan faiths.
: Are there some other people in this thread I'm unaware of? I see you, me,
: and Rowan over there.
Yes, the thread has included about 15 people thus far I believe. I
still can see it all when I log in.
: Anyway, you're right, there are traditions of Wicca that have a male god
: almost equal or even equal to a female one. But that doesn't explain
: where he went in traditions that don't have him, ie, Dianic Wicca.
Usually, he's the lover (or one of many) of the Goddess. If by Dianic
you mean lesbian, well, that's making the same conflation of witch
and dyke that Buffy makes for fun.
:> I posit that the two have been intertwined, and oppositional, since
:> Xianity came to be.
: What? Witchcraft and Christianity? Paganism and Christianity?
: You are aware that historical 'witches' don't have anything to do with
: modern Wicca, right? That there are witches in almost all cultures,
: thoughout the world. It's just someone who practices ritual magic. There
: are witches in Africa, in American Indian religions, all over the place.
I see Wicca as intimately connected to, and derived from, those sorts
of practitioners.
: They can be 'pagans', or not. There are Christian witches. (In fact,
: Christianity has a rather large amount of ritual magic in it, though it's
: not called such.) Witchcraft is a *craft*, it's a skill/art, it's not a
: religion.
We agree. Exactly what it was before Wicca came to be is what we're
talking about. For many of those pagans, worship was a part of their
craft.
: The witches that the Christian church hunted were usually either secret
: pagans (or, at least, had some pagan gods in addition to YWHW), secret
: Satanists, or (usually) just suspiscious looking characters who had nice
: houses.
Different story altogether, though part of it, true.
: But I'm not here to make excuses for Christianity, I'm here to talk about
: the start of Wicca. Which doesn't have anything to do with witches.
Gardner wasn't a witch?
: I don't know what that has to do with the age of anything, though.
: Goddess worship has existed almost forever, and Wicca has existed for
: about 50 years. Wicca is a reinterpetation of Goddess worship for
: a...um...softer world, I guess. A different world, certainly.
You say reinterpretation, I say revival.
:> To me, that's what underlines how old it is? What did prehistoric man
:> worship besides the natural world she lived in?
: Sadly, we already have a perfectly good word for *that* religion. And
: it's 'pagan', not Wicca. Wicca is not some generic nature worship. It's
: Goddess worship of a specific type, with specific beliefs and rituals,
: which were made up in the 1940s.
It's more encompassing than that I'm afraid. There are Wiccans that
know or care nothing about Gardner.
: And I must say, trying to co-opt the name of a religion that's not even
: half a century old is...rather silly. While religions do change over
: time, 50 years isn't long enough for Wicca to turn into general paganism.
: Maybe in 200 years, they'll be basically the same thing, but, good grief,
: this is jumping the gun a bit. You haven't even had time for the first
: generation practitioners to die off yet.
It doesn't matter. It has grown that much. That's it's done it so
quickly is testament to it's already extant pervasiveness. And to the
Age of Aquarius and all that.
:> I'll quote what I feel like, big boy.
: Well, just don't pretend I'm using it as an insult. It's not an insult.
: It's like comparing a wristwatch to a computer. A computer is a general
: purpose tool, and a wristwatch is designed to do one thing. A
: religion is the end-all and be-all of everything, and superstition just
: tells you one thing to do or not to do.
It'd have to be a pretty smart wristwatch.
:> Well, I'm glad that's what you disagree on, but my list is longer! :)
: I disagree you disagree with me about more than that. ;)
But, see, you're wrong! :)
Shawn
Rowan Hawthorn
Exactly. And, as in the case of the Greco/Roman, they are in many cases so
close as to be all but identical. My Classical Mythology is a little rusty,
but I believe the Romans actually borrowed at least part of the Greek
pantheon to add to theirs.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
David Cheatham
> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> : On Mon, 20 May 2002 22:45:13 -0400, Shawn Hill wrote:
>
> :> David Cheatham <da...@creeknet.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :> Goddess worship dates back to pre-historic figurines, cave
> :> :> paintings and burial grounds.
> :>
> :> : Yes, we all know that. So does 'god' worship. So does animal
> :> : worship.
> :>
> :> : And goddess worship is not Diana worship, either in the ancient
> :> : Roman/Greek sense or the modern Wicca sense.
> :>
> :> And all Wiccans don't worship Diana. So your point ... ?
>
> : They all worship some form of her, or a goddess that they claim Diana
> : is a form of. (Yes, that sentence makes sense.)
>
> But it also undoes itself. Diana being a form of something isn't the
> same thing as worshipping Diana. The earth mother could be one thing,
> and Diana just one of her agents. Pantheons have hiearchies.
Well, yes. That's what I was saying. All Wicca is not 'Diana' worship,
it's worship of someone who 'was' Diana (and, yes, possibly others).
The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't a forward and backward
link, there's just a backwards one. If you want to claim that your
Goddess is Diana, alright. But Diana, in Rome, was not your Goddess, and
the rituals used to worship her are not the same as the ones used to
worship yours.
Your religion says one thing. Theirs said another. Yours says your
Goddess is their Goddess, but theirs does not say that, and they would
not agree with you.
> :> Well, fine, "suspect" whatever you want.
>
> : Well, at least I'm not pretending I know which came first. And it
> : really only makes sense. Once you get a sun god, you get a moon god, a
> : fire god, a river god, then it's a quick hop to abstract things like a
> : hunting god and a fertility god. (Make any of these gods whatever
> : gender you want.)
>
> Why start with the sun? Why not start with the earth?
I dunno. I was thinking of a 'the fish don't notice the water' type
thing. Was there really a conception of 'the earth' as a whole back then?
Sure, soil and dirt and even mountains, but 'the earth' is a rather large
and somewhat pointless concept to come up with. Where else would you be?
And it's not really important, once you get one, I don't see why others
wouldn't follow almost immediately.
> : I can't imagine someone inventing a mother goddess of everything and
> : not any other gods.
>
> But what we're talking about is which comes first. Mother Goddess =
> Mother of All.
No, we're talking about which is older. In a talk about which is older
that reached back ten thousand years, two concepts that were invented
within weeks or months of each other, the first isn't 'older' in any
meaningful sense of the word. It's rather like talking about which twin
is older. One may have been first but they are, functionally, the same
age. When we *don't* *know* which came first, the whole things becomes
absurd to even talk about.
The conception of Gods and Goddesses is lost to pre-history. They're
probably older than the wheel. Talking about which is 'older' is crazy,
especially since, as I said above, once you've come up with 'events of
type X are controlled by a being more powerful than us', it's fairly easy
to invent other beings who control other events and things, and thus that
will follow very soon.
> :> The earliest sculptures I know of represent fertile female forms.
>
> : And the earliest cave paintings I know of represent humans hunting
> : animals, so clearly there was a hunting god. Except that's just being
> : silly.
>
> : The existence of a sculpting of something important to pre-historic
> : people doesn't mean it was a goddess. It could very easily be
> : sympathatic magic, no supernatural beings involved at all. Or it could
> : just be to
>
> Sympathetic magic doesn't necessarily deny calling on spirits or
> supernatural forces.
But it doesn't require it, either.
> : say 'this is the ideal human form'. Maybe it's the pre-history
> : equilivent of Vogue, showing the 'ideal woman'. (Maybe ancient thin
> : women protested in front of the statue claiming it was an unreasonable
> : ideal.;) )
>
> Most of what I read about stressed it's fertility symbolism, which is
> the same reason one might posit a fertile goddess giving life to the
> world.
All of which is entirely plausible. Fertility was immensely important
when, to make up a random number, 75% of all people died before
procreating. It's not that far to decide someone is in charge of what
women have children.
I don't have any problems with some cultures creating a fertility goddess
and then stopping for a bit, then later coming up with other gods, or
just one other god. (Well, I have a small problem in that who would get
the fertility god pregnant, but religions often don't make sense.)
But I don't see what to stop a culture from creating a sun god first, or
a wild boar god, or whatever, all of which were also important.
We simply don't know, and no pot can tell us that. We don't even know how
close the invention of religion was to the invention of pottery, it's
possibly some people has already gone though three entirely seperate
religions before inventing pots.
> :> If it's got something to do with one, it's got something to do with
> :> the other.
>
> : Wicca incorperates things from those religions. However, it got its
> : terminology from, ironically, Christian heretic seekers, and its magic
> : practices from the Golden Dawn and other occult sources. And,
> : apparently, they pulled their history out of thin air. (Of course, all
> : religions do this, but most were clever enough to set it in
> : pre-history times as part of creation.)
>
> Isn't that exactly what I'm trying to do?
Isn't what exactly what you're trying to do? Make up history out of thin
air? Stick your religious origins in the creation story?
You did read where I said other religions *pulled their history out of
thin air and set it in pre-history*, right? That I don't personally
believe those stories about the start of their religion?
Much like I don't believe yours.
Now I'm really confused. Are you taking potshots at yourself? Your history
is as believable as theirs, but theirs is a *lie*, so that doesn't really
prove anything.
> :> What we're talking about here is whether Wicca, like Xianity, has a
> :> basis and a history older than the past hundred years. I think it
> :> does.
>
> : All religious beliefs have a 'history' older than 100 years, except
> : maybe Scientology, whcih can't really be traced back to anything
> : except science fiction and psychology, both of which are very new in
> : human terms. However, the actual history that Wicca has past 100 years
> : is Christian occultism, secret lodges like Freemasonry and, of course,
> : the OTO, and Satanism. (Not LeVey Satanism, obviously.)
>
> Wise women and men have, healers and midwives and healers and witches,
> are part of that history, too.
No, they aren't.
> : As most Wicca don't want to talk about those, I tend to just ignore
> : them.
>
> Wiccans talk about Judeo-Christian occultism all the time.
I meant talk about it as part of their own history. Even Gardner freely
admited that most of the actual magic rituals had been 'lost', and that
most were pulled from random occult sources.
> : Wicca doesn't have any 'history' with regard to either practitioners
> : of 'witchcraft', who were usually either somewhat 'bad' Christians who
> : kept pagan practices alive while having Christian beliefs, or just
> : Satanists, or any history with regard to ancient Goddess worship,
> : except using the same names and attributes for them.
>
> : It does, obviously, has some history, but it's not what some people
> : are claiming.
>
> It's more than others claim, too. And it's often been predicated (unlike
> big sturdy Xian churches and their paraphenelia) on not writing things
> down, on burning things like Books of Shadows at a witches death, and on
> passing on oral lore. Just because it's harder to track than other
> religions doesn't mean it wasn't there.
And because some guy wrote a book claiming it existed doesn't mean it was
there.
> : All I care about is people, any people, trying to spread
> : misinformation. If a Christian claims Wicca is Satanism, I'll argue
> : with them, too. Of course, they'll assume I'm a Wicca.
>
> Paranoid much?
It's not really paranoia, it's happened to me, though with Buddhism
instead of Wicca. Trying to explain the religious beliefs of any group of
people, or trying to clarify a person's own religion's history,
automatically gets you classified, in some people's mind, as 'one of those
other people'. The nice ones just assume you're trying to promote some
other religion, the not-so-nice ones assume you're trying to active
destroy theirs, and no one seems to think you're just trying to get the
facts straight.
When religions enter into it, apparently all facts are meaningless, and
it's okay to claim anything as true, and heaven forbid if you try to
correct anyone.
> : These people built nice, complicated mythos, and if you want to borrow
> : some aspects of it, go ahead. However, that doesn't mean that *they*
> : worshipped what *you* worship, any more than Jews are 'really'
> : worshipping The Father in Christianity.
>
> Aren't you the one who's gone on and on about how YHYW is Xian?
No, I said the *name* of the Christian deity is YHWH, which it certainly
is, unless God renamed himself sometime in the past and didn't tell
anyone.. He's not the same deity as their deity from the Jewish point of
view, and he is the same deity from the Christian point of view. As this
is a religious belief, it's logical for two religions to differ on this.
Which is exactly what I said above, replacing Diana worship and Wicca with
Judaism and Christianity.
> : Anyway, you're right, there are traditions of Wicca that have a male
> : god almost equal or even equal to a female one. But that doesn't
> : explain where he went in traditions that don't have him, ie, Dianic
> : Wicca.
>
> Usually, he's the lover (or one of many) of the Goddess. If by Dianic
> you mean lesbian, well, that's making the same conflation of witch and
> dyke that Buffy makes for fun.
Wha? I didn't make up Dianic Wicca, you know, or even mention lesbianism.
I just picked a random example I know that doesn't have any male Gods.
A better example, of course, would be CoG's requirement of members, they
must believe the statement 'I worship the Goddess' or 'I worship the
Goddess and the Old Gods.'. CoG at least claims to recognize all Wicca,
and I haven't heard any objection to this. (On the other hand, I'm not
really in the know about this, and if CoG is insane please tell me.)
There are plenty of traditions of Wicca where a male counterpart is
seriously dimishened or absent. That was the point I was making with my
listing of a random one.
> :> I posit that the two have been intertwined, and oppositional, since
> :> Xianity came to be.
>
> : What? Witchcraft and Christianity? Paganism and Christianity?
>
> : You are aware that historical 'witches' don't have anything to do with
> : modern Wicca, right? That there are witches in almost all cultures,
> : thoughout the world. It's just someone who practices ritual magic.
> : There are witches in Africa, in American Indian religions, all over
> : the place.
>
> I see Wicca as intimately connected to, and derived from, those sorts of
> practitioners.
Yes, you, and most Wicca. If you want to claim some sort of spritual bond
to those people, go right ahead, and there certainly is a bond in that
you both practice magic.
But your religion didn't come from their religions.
> : They can be 'pagans', or not. There are Christian witches. (In fact,
> : Christianity has a rather large amount of ritual magic in it, though
> : it's not called such.) Witchcraft is a *craft*, it's a skill/art, it's
> : not a religion.
>
> We agree. Exactly what it was before Wicca came to be is what we're
> talking about. For many of those pagans, worship was a part of their
> craft.
And for many of those pagans, the craft was just a way to accomplish
something, and they worshipped Jesus.
And others were Satanists. Again, not LeVey Satanists, but gnomists and
whatnot, who believe things like YHWH being the devil who created the
material universe to blind us.
> : But I'm not here to make excuses for Christianity, I'm here to talk
> : about the start of Wicca. Which doesn't have anything to do with
> : witches.
>
> Gardner wasn't a witch?
Wait, I phrased that badly. The start of Wicca doesn't have anything to do
with what Christianity did to 'witches' *thoughout history*. It obviously
does have something to do with *modern* witchcraft, because that's about
all the witchcraft that's known, what Gardner pulled from other occult
sources.
> : I don't know what that has to do with the age of anything, though.
> : Goddess worship has existed almost forever, and Wicca has existed for
> : about 50 years. Wicca is a reinterpetation of Goddess worship for
> : a...um...softer world, I guess. A different world, certainly.
>
> You say reinterpretation, I say revival.
Much like the SCA is the revival of feudalism, I guess. Or WWII was the
revival of the War of 1812.
> :> To me, that's what underlines how old it is? What did prehistoric man
> :> worship besides the natural world she lived in?
>
> : Sadly, we already have a perfectly good word for *that* religion. And
> : it's 'pagan', not Wicca. Wicca is not some generic nature worship.
> : It's Goddess worship of a specific type, with specific beliefs and
> : rituals, which were made up in the 1940s.
>
> It's more encompassing than that I'm afraid. There are Wiccans that know
> or care nothing about Gardner.
Like I said, there should be some sort of test or something. And I'm only
halfway kidding about this.
Those Wicca are 'bad Wicca'. Not bad as in evil, bad in the sense that,
to get slightly back on topic, Angel is a 'bad vampire'.
There are, in fact, exactly who was being made fun of with the
social-circle Wicca on Buffy in season 4. (Though Willow, obviously,
wouldn't fit in very well with *real* Wicca either.)
Though Wicca in the Buffyverse, where magic clearly not only works, but
can have a corrupting influence on people, would be fairly different from
Wicca in this universe. Maybe Willow *would* fit into a real Wicca group
there, they would know how to handle people who discovered how well magic
worked and wanted to use it. (The Wicca in this universe, of course, have
to handle people who join just for magic, but they probably do it by
saying that magic spells probably won't work in the way that person
wants. In the Buffyverse, that is manifestly not true, assuming you can
find the right books.)
> : And I must say, trying to co-opt the name of a religion that's not
> : even half a century old is...rather silly. While religions do change
> : over time, 50 years isn't long enough for Wicca to turn into general
> : paganism. Maybe in 200 years, they'll be basically the same thing,
> : but, good grief, this is jumping the gun a bit. You haven't even had
> : time for the first generation practitioners to die off yet.
>
> It doesn't matter. It has grown that much. That's it's done it so
> quickly is testament to it's already extant pervasiveness. And to the
> Age of Aquarius and all that.
Or just to people thinking it sounds neat and joining up without doing
any learning about it whatsoever, then starting their own covens and
bringing in more people, and no one has the slightest idea what they're
talking about. It's like a giant game of telephone. Luckily that's been
limited to...well...frivolous people, but eventually, if you're not
careful, you're going to get some people out there who worship Pan, or at
the Christian interpetation of him, and start killing cats and practicing
ritual scarring, and then where will you be? If *anything* is Wicca, then
that certainly counts. Once you move away from the Goddess, where,
exactly, are you?
Say what you want about the Catholic church, but a top down heirarchy
does have some advantages. ;)
> :> I'll quote what I feel like, big boy.
>
> : Well, just don't pretend I'm using it as an insult. It's not an
> : insult. It's like comparing a wristwatch to a computer. A computer is
> : a general purpose tool, and a wristwatch is designed to do one thing.
> : A religion is the end-all and be-all of everything, and superstition
> : just tells you one thing to do or not to do.
>
> It'd have to be a pretty smart wristwatch.
I'm rather baffled by this. Why would it have to be a smart wristwatch?
> :> Well, I'm glad that's what you disagree on, but my list is longer! :)
>
> : I disagree you disagree with me about more than that. ;)
>
> But, see, you're wrong! :)
Damn. Alright, I agree, we disagree on more than that.
--
da...@creeknet.com
David Cheatham
> Exactly. And, as in the case of the Greco/Roman, they are in many cases
> so close as to be all but identical. My Classical Mythology is a little
> rusty, but I believe the Romans actually borrowed at least part of the
> Greek pantheon to add to theirs.
I think 'borrowed at least part of the Greek pantheon' is understating it
a bit. ;)
Almost the entire Greek pantheon was copied wholesale and just renamed.
--
da...@creeknet.com
Rowan Hawthorn
Yeah, well, like I said, my Classical Mythology is a bit rusty. :-/
Shawn Hill
:> And it's not just the primary being and lesser ones. Many pantheons
:> also share gods of related functions: Gods of death, of love, of
:> commerce, of the harvest, of the hearth, of war, music, etc., etc.
:>
:> Which makes sense, as humans need them to look after those very human
:> concerns, across cultures.
: Exactly. And, as in the case of the Greco/Roman, they are in many cases so
: close as to be all but identical. My Classical Mythology is a little rusty,
: but I believe the Romans actually borrowed at least part of the Greek
: pantheon to add to theirs.
Just as they did their art forms and architecture.
Shawn
Shawn Hill
: On Tue, 21 May 2002 23:54:26 -0400, Shawn Hill wrote:
: The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't a forward and backward
: link, there's just a backwards one. If you want to claim that your
: Goddess is Diana, alright. But Diana, in Rome, was not your Goddess, and
: the rituals used to worship her are not the same as the ones used to
: worship yours.
This I'm closer to conceding this, as I just read an article about an
ancient tranvestite (archeologists had been working on the remains for 20
years) who they believe was a Cybele worshipper. In his case a man who
castrated himself and adopted female clothing for his Goddess.
Definitely not on my "to-do" list, Wiccan though I be. :)
: Your religion says one thing. Theirs said another. Yours says your
: Goddess is their Goddess, but theirs does not say that, and they would
: not agree with you.
But, if they were here now, what would they be doing? Religions do evolve
and change over time.
:> : really only makes sense. Once you get a sun god, you get a moon god, a
:> : fire god, a river god, then it's a quick hop to abstract things like a
:> : hunting god and a fertility god. (Make any of these gods whatever
:> : gender you want.)
:>
:> Why start with the sun? Why not start with the earth?
: I dunno. I was thinking of a 'the fish don't notice the water' type
: thing. Was there really a conception of 'the earth' as a whole back then?
: Sure, soil and dirt and even mountains, but 'the earth' is a rather large
: and somewhat pointless concept to come up with. Where else would you be?
You could certainly notice whether your environment fed and clothed and
harbored you or not.
: And it's not really important, once you get one, I don't see why others
: wouldn't follow almost immediately.
As what we're talking about is the Earth-Mother, mommy coming first before
Son/sun and Moon does matter.
:> Most of what I read about stressed it's fertility symbolism, which is
:> the same reason one might posit a fertile goddess giving life to the
:> world.
: All of which is entirely plausible. Fertility was immensely important
: when, to make up a random number, 75% of all people died before
: procreating. It's not that far to decide someone is in charge of what
: women have children.
: I don't have any problems with some cultures creating a fertility goddess
: and then stopping for a bit, then later coming up with other gods, or
: just one other god. (Well, I have a small problem in that who would get
: the fertility god pregnant, but religions often don't make sense.)
Right, it could be a turtle or a plant or spontaneous, etc. etc.
: But I don't see what to stop a culture from creating a sun god first, or
: a wild boar god, or whatever, all of which were also important.
My studies suggest that the earliest creation myths were goddess based.
: Now I'm really confused. Are you taking potshots at yourself? Your history
: is as believable as theirs, but theirs is a *lie*, so that doesn't really
: prove anything.
Wow.
:> Wise women and men have, healers and midwives and healers and witches,
:> are part of that history, too.
: No, they aren't.
There haven't existed witches and healers over the centuries in Western
culture?
:> passing on oral lore. Just because it's harder to track than other
:> religions doesn't mean it wasn't there.
: And because some guy wrote a book claiming it existed doesn't mean it was
: there.
Were not going to get anywhere this way. It's all back to belief.
: When religions enter into it, apparently all facts are meaningless, and
: it's okay to claim anything as true, and heaven forbid if you try to
: correct anyone.
well, kinda. That's why the seperation of church and state is such a good
idea.
:> Aren't you the one who's gone on and on about how YHYW is Xian?
: Which is exactly what I said above, replacing Diana worship and Wicca with
: Judaism and Christianity.
So is Diana the same for Wiccans, just like YHWH is for Xians?
: There are plenty of traditions of Wicca where a male counterpart is
: seriously dimishened or absent. That was the point I was making with my
: listing of a random one.
repeated re-listing, actually.
:> : But I'm not here to make excuses for Christianity, I'm here to talk
:> : about the start of Wicca. Which doesn't have anything to do with
:> : witches.
:>
:> Gardner wasn't a witch?
: Wait, I phrased that badly. The start of Wicca doesn't have anything to do
: with what Christianity did to 'witches' *thoughout history*. It obviously
: does have something to do with *modern* witchcraft, because that's about
: all the witchcraft that's known, what Gardner pulled from other occult
: sources.
Of course it does. It exists as an alternative to Xianity. Why does
Xianity get to have all its history but Wicca is denied any?
: worked and wanted to use it. (The Wicca in this universe, of course, have
: to handle people who join just for magic, but they probably do it by
: saying that magic spells probably won't work in the way that person
: wants. In the Buffyverse, that is manifestly not true, assuming you can
: find the right books.)
It's still true. All that Willow wanted to do in Grave wouldn't have
worked for her at all, just as Wiccans would rather "do no harm" than
trigger the Threefold Law of reprisal.
:> It doesn't matter. It has grown that much. That's it's done it so
:> quickly is testament to it's already extant pervasiveness. And to the
:> Age of Aquarius and all that.
: careful, you're going to get some people out there who worship Pan, or at
: the Christian interpetation of him, and start killing cats and practicing
: ritual scarring, and then where will you be? If *anything* is Wicca, then
: that certainly counts. Once you move away from the Goddess, where,
: exactly, are you?
Luckily, Wiccans don't move away from the Goddess.
: Say what you want about the Catholic church, but a top down heirarchy
: does have some advantages. ;)
No comment.
:> : Well, just don't pretend I'm using it as an insult. It's not an
:> : insult. It's like comparing a wristwatch to a computer. A computer is
:> : a general purpose tool, and a wristwatch is designed to do one thing.
:> : A religion is the end-all and be-all of everything, and superstition
:> : just tells you one thing to do or not to do.
:>
:> It'd have to be a pretty smart wristwatch.
: I'm rather baffled by this. Why would it have to be a smart wristwatch?
Because othewise comparing it to a computer is meaningless.
: Damn. Alright, I agree, we disagree on more than that.
Very clever. I accept.
Shawn