Arcadia Discussion Zone

Yes, clar! Come back!

Back to the world of ley lines, magic circles, nude rites, hopeless psychic investigators and psychic entities with vampire-like characteristics!

You'll get peace of mind, here!

Arseangel Mickey,



So repeatedly editing your posts so they can contain more copy-n-paste stuff and pictures of pigs, after previously printing a personal picture (all the while hiding behind an angelic alias) is payback for...what? Pointing out that you're a plagiarist?

Get a grip!

Also, nice to see you provided the weblink for the Wikipedia article you took your (repeatedly) revised post. Why go to all your looney efforts if you coulda just avoided the plagiarism in the first place?

It certainly makes a mockery of your cyberstalking efforts.

Oh, and it's a shame you forgot to mention that your post on the equinox ("An equinox occurs twice a year, when the tilt of the Earth's axis is inclined neither away from nor towards the Sun, the centre of the Sun being in the same plane as the Earth's equator," etc.) was also plagiarised. Here's one of your sources.

Busted again, I'm afraid.

Tony, did I get this one right, Gorge sent ya that pig head photo in a pm, ten how did archy get it, ,unless archy is running 2 aliases simultaneously. I know archy could get it from george thru an e-mail .but if George got banned for this type of personal attack, that tells me archy's daze are numbered.

I am goin' thru a similar smear by bein' called an idiot, stupid, plus a few obscenities thrown in for good measure in other topics on this forum.

The moderator seems a bit lax in crackin' the whip it seems.

Dave,



I'd say it does, if he's trying to pass it off as his own writing.



Not really. In fact, it's a marked contrast between what you said earlier in this thread. You've gone from this...



...to now saying it's merely "based" on it. Of course, in light of your deceptive wordplay over the imaginary American Robin Hood book, this level of revisionism on your part isn't all that surprising.

See, even Gareth acknowledges that Wicca isn't an "ancient" religion. In fact, he makes the case that it was heavily influenced by the nineteenth century occultic group, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. The page I've linked to also acknowledges that "Concepts of magic and ritual at the center of contemporary traditions, such as Wicca and Thelema, were inspired by the Golden Dawn."

There's a significant difference from the fleeting glimpses of Celtic polytheism that Archy ripped off from elsewhere, between Wicca itself. For instance, bugger-all is actually known about the real ancient religion that Celts followed:



So the Wicca you know is actually more of a modern-day composition, which Gareth was alluding to in his post.

The primary justification for Wicca being an "ancient religion" rests with Margaret Murray. But, over time, her works have received a lot of criticism (including falsifying evidence).

Hugo,



No, George didn't send me the pig head pic in my inbox. He sent me a photo (and personal address). Archy posted the same photo on here. As you can see from the constant edits to Archy's post, however, chances are the Mod will miss it. No doubt Archy's intention, as he wants to cover his deceptive/stalky tracks. He really takes things to new depths when he says I'm the one "telling tales".

Shame (for him) that I saved the webpage before he made further edits to his post.

Now, I should clarify the George being banned thing. I was under the mistaken impression he was, because the Mod told me he had been "suspended" for his actions. Since that suspension was lifted,

As to Archy/George's identity, I've asked the Mod to check their IPs to see if they match. It's clear (on the presumption they're not the same person), that they've enjoyed some kind of correspondence. After all, how else could he have gotten the same picture? How would George have been able to acquire a personal address? Such mysteries boggle the mind.



Yeah, it is very worrying what certain people are allowed to get up to on here. I've been cautioned several times over relatively mild things...meanwhile, this other malicious stuff is allowed to pass through, unhindered. I certainly hope the Mod doesn't have a bias!

Dave,



So you won't bother to check his sources, but take his "word" (that is, copy-n-paste plagiarism) because they uphold your own views? No surprises there.



Again, there is no ancient Wicca. Wicca is a modern-day religion based on pagan traditions with heady doses of nineteenth and twentieth century occultism thrown in for good measure. Again, even your level-headed and informative mate, Gareth, acknowledged that.

Trying to align Wicca with actual ancient beliefs and practices because Wicca pilfers a few things from them, doesn't make Wicca itself ancient. Essentially, you're erroneously (at best) using retroactive nomenclature on diverse pagan religions and melding them under a single banner of "Wicca". This derives from (whether you're aware or not) Murray's writings on the so-called "Old Religion".

Here's more stuff on Murray's influence on the modern-day Wicca religion:



In other words, the concept of Wicca as an "ancient religion" dates no later than the twentieth century...from the incredibly flawed and erroneous works of Margaret Murray, no less.

Also, I thought you weren't even Wiccan anymore? Why are you going to such lengths to defend/uphold it?

Hi David--I agree its very irritating all this aggravating nit-picking...........Would you mind explaining that is you don't do Wicca now if you have something else.

I have been a bit out of it this week, you know why

tata barbara

Thanks David--well all quiet on the dickipoggy front eh!

damiana

For all:

It is suggested that I agree that Wicca is of modern origin. For clarification, I meant that its modern form is of modern origin; but witchcraft has existed in some form or other throughout recorded history, and without any central authority to dictate any formal doctrine or practice, it is inevitable that it should keep changing. Also, it does not seem to have borrowed anything from Margaret Murray other than the use of the word 'coven'.

With regard to Dorothy Clutterbuck, later Mrs. Rupert Oswald Fordham, her diaries do not mention witchcraft, but they do have a curious stylistic resemblance to material in the earliest known versions of the Book of Shaodws. In Gardner's 'Witchcraft Today' is a poem taken from "a witch's book" which contains the words "fair as a dream ... laughter and swaying white shoulders gleam", which is startlingly similar to a couplet by Clutterbuck-Fordham, "For oh! you're lovely as a dream, in that white swaying crinoline". If these are not by the same person, then we have to assume that, not only were there two women with the same poetic style, but that one of them wrote a verse that was included in 'Witchcraft Today', whilst another, though having nothing to do with witchcraft, was for some inexplicable reason alleged by Gardner to be the leader of a coven.

Damiana, nice to see you back, and using the word 'dickipoggy' again.

Gareth J. Medway.

"It is suggested that I agree that Wicca is of modern origin. For clarification, I meant that its modern form is of modern origin; but witchcraft has existed in some form or other throughout recorded history, and without any central authority to dictate any formal doctrine or practice, it is inevitable that it should keep changing. Also, it does not seem to have borrowed anything from Margaret Murray other than the use of the word 'coven'."

Thanks Gareth; that's all the only point I was trying to make.

If 'Wicca' was really only a '"19th centurn invention', then how could this possibly explain all the notorious 'witchcraft' persecutions and Inquistions of the 15th century (and before)? Many people were imprisoned, tortuted and even put to deat then if they refused to co-operate with the Inquisitors - by naming the other members of their Coven, for example.

It seems almost incredible that, many centuries later, some modern-day 'sceptics' are almost trying to pretend that these attrocities did not take place and that 'witchcraft' never had an earlier origin in history.

In fact, it is the other way around. It did. Any 'modern interpretations' of it, really amount - or are based on - events which have already taken place in history.

I suppose you just have to forgive the ignorance of such people! But there are a lot of ignorant people around - even in the 21 centuary!

David Farrant

As you know David several years ago, around 2000, I was called a witch by some sociapathic neighbours, simply because I was "a woman alone" and had cats--it was a very primal response to my independence by two thickos--I named Ug and Thug--- who I refused to be intimidated by, so they began a literal witchhunt and got the local kids calling me it. Well as you know I did sort them out, not in a witchy way--though I think "something" did help--I certainly wished them away and secretly tape recorded them and took it to the police and lo and behold they vanished--up until then the police had been useless, but I think they had a weird fear of me and so the best they could think was to accuse me of being a witch---funny really!If I had been I would have turned them into toads. However, I have been called that before, by our mutual friends--a certain person who visited my house reported back to her "guru" that my house was full of witchy things--ie cats and candles, a slight exaggeration and hardly incontrovertible evidence of witchcraft , and also a big black pentagram given to me by you--haha, the last a complete fiction!

tata damiana

"As you know David several years ago, around 2000, I was called a witch by some sociapathic neighbours, simply because I was "a woman alone" and had cats--"

Yes, Barbara, I am fully aware of that deep-rooted fear many people still have towards the 'Unknown' ('witchcraft' included) and have often ponted out how in reality, this is not really an individual thing but forms an inherent trait in human consciousness; one which is just as prevalent today as it was in the Dark Ages.

Your case is perhaps just a typical example of this inherent fear: mine was another, or indeed, still is!

I remember writing about this somewhere in an article I wrote about Wicca . . . "People no longer burn witches, that is true, but they would think little, probably nothing, of accrediting them with the same crimes and absurdities of which they stood accused so long ago".

How true that is! People may have becme outwardly 'civialised', but that basic trait to fear - and ultimately condemn - those things that they cannot understand (the Unknown, if you like) still remains. Many people still see devils and demons in the dark recesses of their own mind's; and all too often, these can take the form of some terrible reality. These can even take on 'living forms' of their own and then such projections are seen as 'evil spirits', 'demons' or the devil; when in reality, these are only the product of human imagining and have no real existence of their own. Their only 'real' existence is in the mind of someone who is either accepting or projecting them.

So yes. That fear still remains, and is in most people.

It is even with the sceptic who claims to believe in nothing. The 'devil' or 'demons' may not be there, but this fear is still there. The only difference is, it manifests in different forms.

That is why I persistently said, that there exists no devil and there exists no demons. Both are just projections of the human mind (fear of 'witchcraft' and the 'Unknown' included). Take away the source (human mind or thinking) then these things just disappear.

Easier said than done perhaps, but their lies the only source of such beliefs!

'Til later,

David

Dear David
I think the point you make about fear of the unknown is rather interesting.
I think there is a certain amount fear behind some of the views expressed by
what might called ultra-sceptics.
Regards Matt

"I think the point you make about fear of the unknown is rather interesting.
I think there is a certain amount fear behind some of the views expressed by
what might called ultra-sceptics." Matt

Thanks Matt

I think it is fairly obvious that people have a basic fear of the Unknown, or 'unknowable'.
It has been an inherent part of the human psyche since remembered history, and probably long before that. I was confining my answer to Barbara's point about the Unknown (demons, devils, 'vampires', ect) because her point is perhaps more relevant to myself - or perhaps more accurately, what I have been seen to erroneaosly represent. But that is only one aspect of it. The 'human fear' that I was talking about does not only relate to things termed as 'supernatural'; that is only a part of it, although it is still invariably connected.
We fear living and physical things as well; whether these take the form of people, or biological organisms which might make us fall ill. We fear insecurity, lack of love (or maybe losing it in one way or another) and, of course, we fear death, that ultimate reminder that this human life is only transitory. The list is really endless, but analyse it over and over again, that basic human fear of so many things, still remains. It is in virtually everyone in some degree or another.

It is certainly in the sceptic, just as it is in the atheist; just as it is in the devotely religious person who may seek solace inside the closed walls of some Temple or Cuurch. We carry this fear with us, and it has certainly in our very homes and has spilled over onto our streets.

It governs or affects virtually everybody. When this happens to apply to the Unknown, of course, it can become wildly unconstrained, and the human imagination takes over and is capable of creating the most horrendous pictures of 'a devil' or demons, that cloud human thinking and belief.

Let me restate here again, to perhaps save any misunderstanding, I personaly DO accept the existence of a Supreme Principle or 'Life' (call it 'God' if we must, although that word in itself is so often open to misinterpretation) without which, Life as we know it, could not have come into existence.

But we still carry this 'fear' with us. It is THERE, and no man-made Gods or angels have been able to change this basic factor of human existence. Maybe we, ourselves, will be able to one day. But without recognition that this even exists, it is very difficult to even take the first step which involves Understanding.

Hope everything's well Matt. Haven't forgotten I owe you an answer on my Blog, but things have really been so hectic lately!

For now anyway,

David (Farrant)

I'm now back after receiving a suspension of grave double standards from the Moderator.

Clearly, personal attacks (on intelligence, on nationality, false claims, deliberate distortion of what's responded to, etc.) are allowed by certain persons on this forum, but when one bites back, even directly addressing said person with refutation, it's not to be tolerated.

Certain folk make claims about myself "monopolising" a thread...even though the items I've discussed a) relate to the topic being raised by the certain person and b) a friend of the certain person even confirms what I was saying all along, ie that Wicca is a modern religion. At the very least, it's current incarnation.

Far from the ancient belief it's made out to be by the certain person in question.

On top of that, that certain person, in spite of personal attacks, isn't even an "active" member any more. Sheesh.

Let's hope the Moderators are more even-handed in punishing certain people for hijacking the forum to spread their own deceit and propaganda. Not naming names, of course.

Now, onto something completely different.

David,



Because of the Church's pre-conceived notion of what witches (in their eyes, servants of the devil) got up to, and forcing innocent victims to "confess" to these notions. Blame mass hysteria, if you will and unscrupulous witch-hunters. Many Wiccans even acknowledge that the majority of folk killed in these barbaric acts were Christians.



No one is pretending they didn't happen. Witchcraft persecutions are certainly founded in fact. However, you're confusing witchcraft persecutions with the modern strain of Wicca (which you were formerly active in). Two very different things.

The empathy you're exhibiting for these folk is dealt with in "The Burning Times or the More Persecuted than Thou Syndrome"....which is written by a Wiccan, by the way.

As I established in a previous post, Wicca doesn't have ancient origins. We'd be talking nineteenth century, at best.

Sure, witchcraft has existed for millenia. But that doesn't make Wicca (an organised religion) the same thing. You also seem to be confusing witchcraft with paganism, which aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, either.



Again, the "ancient" source of Wicca is primarily derived from Margaret Murray's "witch cult" hypothesis which has been debunked by many scholars. If you wish to cite "ignorance" in this case, then you're throwing them into the same boat.

Hello David, TCP here - 3rd degree Wiccan initiate and perpetual student of the history of witchcraft (small-case "w"). Just my two cents' worth (and maybe it isn't even worth that much), but my studies have led me to conclude that Gerald Gardner's "Wicca" was indeed an amalgamation of various influences, from "ancient" folk practice to more sophisticated esoteric/occult magickal systems developed in the 19th century which were derived from sorcery.

I think it is important to distinguish between folk-craft and sorcery. The former was the realm of the "cunning-folk" with echoes back in time to pre-Christianity and was largely found in rural settings. The latter was a rich man's game, requiring education, a good working knowledge of dead languages, and access to rare texts. Also the framework of sorcery was largely Abrahamic, while folk craft drew its influences from the surviving remnants of European paganism.

The distinction was blurred during the periods of persecution when it was all labeled "witchcraft" and branded as heresy. To my mind, Gerald Gardner perpetuated this generalization by suggesting that this amalgamation was historical, presenting it as "the Old Religion" while claiming that it had come down to him in some semblance of pristine transmission. Based on my own studies, I see no reason to conclude that sorcerers in centuries past took up folk-craft, or that "cunning-folk" would have had any understanding of sorcery. What we know today as "Wicca" - the religion - simply doesn't pre-date Gardner in any sort of distilled form.

TCP

And your source for this is...?

I've read Graves, Murray, Frazier, Gimbutas, et al and I have to admit that their hypotheses are grounded far more solidly in speculative interpretations of artifacts and reading their own ideas into folklore rather than anything historical or concrete. Which was disappointing to me as I really did want to believe their premises. I've found, however, that strenuous arguments made for intangible concepts are usually masking deficits in the historical record, without which nothing can be proven or disproven - and there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of academicians to leave lacunae unfilled. Certainly seasonal cycles of death and rebirth, male/female polarities, fertility, cosmic transmissions, etc. are universal concepts, even found among the most primitive of cultures. But to ascertain that these point without question to some sort of widespread institutionalized codification immediately pre-dating the advent of Christianity seems a weak argument, and something that the historical and archaeological record itself argues against. In the larger scheme of history, Christianity isn't that old, nor was it imposed in one fell swoop. We can see by way of solid evidence that cultures often built on the ruins of previous cultures and this is certainly true of Christianity, both in the figurative and literal sense. But that fact alone doesn't argue per se for the mass destruction of what came previously, but rather its integration.

TCP

Actually I believe Frazier doesn't make the argument rather it is implicit in his presentation of the book that the hypothesis is derived. He does not make the argument rather he presents the evidence of folklore and artifacts and was critised for not making the argument by Graves. It is Graves that speculates and interprets on both artifacts and folklore in relation to this this with his most famous book-length essay of the White Godesss.

In fact there is also the hypothesis that Christianity was Paganised specifically by Constantine in the building of Constantinople over the old byzantium and the statues stolen from the temples and made to adorn the new edifaces and by putting up the deriviatives of The Jerulsalem temple and fortifications via the walls of Constantinople on the periferary rather than Paganism being Christianised and according to the architectural records this argument is correct. Which over time does support your argument of an intergration rather than a mass destruction.

"And your source for this is...?"

Thanks TCP

I will come back to you tomorrow on this. I know I may sometimes say this, but I really am a little tired right now.

Just to say this though at the moment: I never quote Internet sources - or rather, just paste them from elsewhere. I think that is pointless, which is why I never do it. You can quote just one source from some author, for example, and there will be a dozen others to contradict it. Or vice versa.

But you raise a legitmate point about Wicca which I will answer for you (without quotes!) tomorrow. But I am talking about a particular Knowledge System here; not general speculations (even the poetical ones of Graves) in which I was involved in. It went back a long time, way before Gardnier or the commercialised antics of the late Alex Sanders.

David Farrant

TCP,

Thanks for confirming that. It's what I've been saying all along, but of course, certain people are just merely happy to distort what I say rather than discuss what I actually write.

Thanks for being a breath of fresh air.

As I said before, Wicca is distinct from ancient paganism and witchcraft itself. Hell, even pagans persecuted witches and the persecution of witches even carries on to this day.

The third degree reference you give is also suggestive of a Freemasonry influence, wouldn't you say?

David,



Yes, and you identified this "old religion" (a term derived from Murray, who we've already discussed) as "Wicca". Hence your refutation to Gareth acknowledging that Wicca is largely derived from the nineteenth century onwards and isn't ancient: "If 'Wicca' was really only a '"19th centurn invention', then how could this possibly explain all the notorious 'witchcraft' persecutions and Inquistions of the 15th century (and before)?"

You're obviously trying to revise what you've written (by suddenly changing Wicca to a much vaguer "ancient knowledge system"), but TCP sums up the concept of this so-called "ancient knowledge system" very well:



rain,

.

As a Christian, even I can acknowledge that pagan practices were incorporated into Christian practice over time. After all, Jesus didn't tell us to put up Christmas trees in acknowledgment of his birthday.

In order to smooth the transition of converting pagans to Christianity, the early Chuches (and the pagans, themselves) integrated pagan practices into Christian ones. That said, there's a distinction between the religion/spirituality itself, as opposed to such amalgamations.

The point is here, however, that Wicca is far from an "ancient knowledge system". It is a modern amalgamation of paganism, occultism and so forth. As I said before, to lump a whole bunch of pagan/occultic practices together, centralise it into one religion and call it Wicca, and then claim it as "ancient" is a clear example of retroactive nomenclature and ignores historical fact.

Back to Dave,



Firstly Dave, you and what you write are an internet source. I hope you realise that.

Second, it's better to quote internet sources than have none at all, wouldn't you say? The idea of quoting/citing one's source is so others know where you derived your knowledge/writings from. It's something even primary school children are taught to do.

And yes, sources will occasionally contradict each other. That's why we have this thing called "research", you see.



We'll see. Either way, lookin' forward to it.