Wicca:Good Or Bad Final Answers

[Havoc]

 

One cannot prove the non-existence of anything, not purple spotted dragons nor Witches during the burning times.  Witches in pre-Christian times were the solitary village practitioners of the Religions of the Celts Norse and Saxons. This we know from their descriptions in ancient writings. We also know from Christian writings that those religions were stamped out by force by the Christian Church and the practitioners put to the sword. In the several hundred years since the Old religions were wiped out and the new Papal Bull (Innocent VIII: BULL Summis desiderantes, Dec. 5th, 1484) there is no evidence that the Old Religion was being practiced, thus precluding the need or probability for it's professional practitioners.

The description of the activities and rituals of Witches in the aforementioned Papal Bull, and in the Malleus maleficarum (1486), the ANT HILL (Johannes Nider, 1437), and the Demonologie (King James I, 1597), bear no resemblance to the description of Witches from the ancient texts. In particualr all the later Christian texts lists the Cardinal crime of Witches to be their sworn alleigence to Satan. This is ridiculous as the the Old Religion had no Satan, even persecuted Witches would be calling on the names of their own Gods and Goddesses, not the Christian God of Evil.

It is also accepted among historians that the investigations of alleged crimes were spurious at best. Persons accused of Witchcraft were tortured into confessing, most of the time without any knowledge of what they were being accused of.  There was no crime investigation, an allegation of witchcraft was considered to be sufficient to begin the torture. There was no opportunity to be found innocent.

One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.
paraphrased from Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay, LL. D.

Considering that the description of Witches by the Christians of the day do not fit what we know Witches were historically, and that the Witch trials were a complete sham from a justice point of view, there is no reason to suppose that any of the crimes actually took place at all. Historians agree that the burning times were merely a way for the Church and Monarchy of the time to deflect the anger of the populace over a miserable existence away from themselves and place it upon innocent men and women for whom the only crime was  having a little money or being unpopular. It's interesting to note that the Chief Magistrates, King James among them, were entitled to keep the lands and goods of those thay had executed. It's no coincidence that the general level of wealth tended to steadily increse among the accused Witches until by James time it was mostly wealthy Widows who came under the ministrations of the torturer.

We have extensive knowledge of the activities of the burning times. We know it was the Christian Church and Monarchy that committed the murders. If you want to use the burning times as evidence of the Crimes of Witches you still have to show that.

1. Any crime actually took place. You'll have the devil's own time (lol) finding that as the literature has already been extensively studied.

2. That Witches committed any such crime. Not the Witches of the Malleus Malificarum; those Witches never existed, but actual Witches, the practitioners of the old Religions.

 

[Outspoken]

"We also know from Christian writings that those religions were stamped out by force by the Christian Church and the practitioners put to the sword."

so in this instance you choose christians writtings to be completely true? Puzzling..?


"bear no resemblance to the description of Witches from the ancient texts. "

"Considering that the description of Witches by the Christians of the day do not fit what we know Witches were historically, and that the Witch trials were a complete sham from a justice point of view,"

Is that the they aren't a real witch statement?

"If you want to use the burning times as evidence of the Crimes of Witches you still have to show that."

Actually your own statements proved the point I was going to make

 

[seebs]

I think Havoc's point is that, if we accept the Christian historical record, it's pretty clear that the term "Witch" has been used for several different and unrelated groups of people.

 

[Outspoken]

"I think Havoc's point is that, if we accept the Christian historical record, it's pretty clear that the term "Witch" has been used for several different and unrelated groups of people."

Hmm...thanks for pointing that out, I just find it strange when people accept things when it makes a point for them, and not when it doesn't?

 

[Havoc]

The fact remains that to accuse someone of something you have to show that a crime was committed and that the person being accused did it. You have not shown either.

By using the burning times as an example all you can do is show that the Christian church was much more "bad" than any of the people accused of Witchcraft ever where. And you still can't support the premise of Witches doing crimes by anything more than speculation. That should qualify as false witness in your God's book.

 

[Outspoken]

"You have not shown either."

don't need to. you did what I was looking for you to do. You played the, "they aren't a real witch" card several times. That's what I was looking for anway. It was a clear example to me that you use it as often as you say christians do, thus showing me either we are both right, or neither of us is

 

[Havoc]

Well I didn't, despite your manipulations.

There's a vast difference between taking the documented atrocities of the Christian Church, who claimed to be Christians, and sweeping it under the carpet by claiming the actual criminals "weren't real Christians", and taking the victims of those same atrocities where the crime never took place and the victims bore no relation to, nor even claimed to be, Witches. That is two completely different situations.

But go on believeing it. I'm used to Christians wriggling their way out of their false witness. I understand that you have to assuage your guilt over what proffessed Christians have done in your Gods name. I find it somewhat disgusting that you would use the death of so many innocent people to try and prove your point, but I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that you would try to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. It's your God you'll have to answer to for it.

I think there may have been a murder 50 years ago today in Idaho and it must have been a Christian did it. Will you be using the "not a Christian" card? That's the equivalent of what you've tried to pull here. Not fact, or documentation, or anything substantive. Is this an example of pulling the "not a Witch" Card? Of course not, it's pure speculation, which is exactly what you've been argueing. How about we try to get back to something at least a little bit substantive.

Now does anyone have something substantial to contribute to the discussion? Does anyone have examples of actual crimes, commited by actual Witches that they can use to see if I will use the "not a witch card" in the same way that Christians use the "not a Christian" card when faced with documented substantive crimes of the Church against innocent people?

 

[Outspoken]

"That is two completely different situations."

not at all. The question to weather they did it or not was irrelevant to me. I thought, when confronted with people that could possiblty have done wrong, you would play that card, and so you did to avoid the possiblity of linking it to your relgion. I appologize for having to go this route, but I felt it nessisary and it did prove fruitful.

"I understand that you have to assuage your guilt over what proffessed Christians have done in your Gods name."

As you did, I can claim they either 1. weren't acting like christians or 2. weren't real christians at all evidienced by the comparison of the bible (ie to you ancient lit).

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"
So you think they were all wrongfully accused of harming people. Every witch in history? 

Nope.  I think that alot of people throughout history were guilty of things that could be defined as witchcraft.  Maybe some of them even used their practices to harm people.  But the point is THE MAJORITY DIDN'T !  But they were still persecuted with reckless abandon.

Now here is where Havoc and I differ in position.  I believe that there were definitely people throughout history who used magickal practices (note the spelling) to harm others and increase their own personal power.

Magick is about power.  It can be used for good or bad.    But then, I digress.

During the Salem Trials, and the Inquisition for that matter, there were numerous people who were accused of witchcraft who had done nothing more than used an herbal remedy or looked at the stars.  Those things, in and of themselves, do not make someone a witch.  But they do fall under the blanket category of what the Bible calls witchcraft.  So then, being accused of witchcraft does not mean that someone is, by definition, a witch.  Just that they have done one thing that is 'identified' as being 'witchy'.  Heck, most of them didn't do anything at all.

If checking the stars for divination makes someone a witch, there are alot of Christians out there who are guilty for checking the daily horoscopes.

Should I even start on the Inquisition, where people were tortured into confessing things that they hadn't even done?  Yeah, that's a great way to get at the truth.  Sheesh!

 

[Outspoken]

"But the point is THE MAJORITY DIDN'T ! "

I agree. I think the majority of all types of people want to just live and let live. Doesn't change the fact that some did correct?

 

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"But the point is THE MAJORITY DIDN'T ! "

I agree. I think the majority of all types of people want to just live and let live. Doesn't change the fact that some did correct?

Once again there is no evidence that any crime was committed by any of the persons accused of Witchcraft. There is also no evidence that any of the persons accused of Witchcraft had anything to do with any form of Witchcraft at all. You can cloud the issue all you like Louis/Outspoken, it won't make you look any better in the eyes of reasonable people who are interested in debating in good faith.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"But the point is THE MAJORITY DIDN'T ! "

I agree. I think the majority of all types of people want to just live and let live. Doesn't change the fact that some did correct?

Yes, throughout the course of history, a scattered few. Logic tells me so.  

But it does not justify the widespread panic and treatment of those who didn't. Nor does it mean that a single person in Salem was actually a witch.  Remember the Bible is very broad in its description of what a witch is.  Any off the wall behavior could do.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Havoc
Once again there is no evidence that any crime was committed by any of the persons accused of Witchcraft. There is also no evidence that any of the persons accused of Witchcraft had anything to do with any form of Witchcraft at all. You can cloud the issue all you like Louis/Outspoken, it won't make you look any better in the eyes of reasonable people who are interested in debating in good faith.

Havoc,

Would you be willing to admit that it is remotely possible that one or more people possibly engaged in activity that could be widely defined as 'witchy'?    Thereby leading to their faulty accusation and conviction.

Remember, that something as simple as practicing herbal medicine was enough to accuse someone.  Not that it is a crime.

 

[Havoc]

What your asking me to do is admit that the KJV idea of a Witch, is what a Witch is. That is not the case. Practising herbal medicine is not Witchcraft. Magick is not Witchcraft.

To be a Christian you must fit at least a minimum criterion, that is to at least claim to follow Christ. To be a Witch you must also follow a minimum criterion, that is to follow the old religion. Causing warts is not Witchcraft any more than eating babies is Christianity.

Unfortunately when you are arguing with Louis (or Outspoken or whatever nick he's using today) you have to put up with debating irrelevancies and arguement in bad faith. If one native in peru cast a curse on his Cat and a reporter for the Albequerque Chronicle heard about it third hand in an anonymous email and said that person was a Witch Louis would call that proof that Witches murder.

The original premise of the conversation was Gunny's assertation that Witches murder people. This line of irrelevant questioning does not address that question it only serves to allow Louis to once again manipulate a conversation to his advantage. I choose not to be a part of that. I'm sure there has been an American, somehere, who was accused of being a pedophile. Does this mean that the statement "Americans are Pedophiles" is valid? Of course not. But that is the standard being applied here.

 

[Vixen Evenstar]

Yeah, witchcraft does not come from God. Any power that is not from God is evil. "magic" is not from God. It speaks strongly against witchcraft in the bible.

 

[seebs]

This is totally circular. Imagine that I inform you that a friend of mine "did something" and someone was healed. How do you determine whether it's "magic" or "from God"?

 

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Vixen Evenstar
Yeah, witchcraft does not come from God. Any power that is not from God is evil. "magic" is not from God. It speaks strongly against witchcraft in the bible.

We've been through the whole Witchcraft in the bibble thing many times in these forums. The use of the word "Witch" in the KJV is a mistranslation, probably intentional. The Hebrew and Greek words do not refer to Witches.

 

[Outspoken]

"But it does not justify the widespread panic and treatment of those who didn't."

I agree whole heartedly.

"To be a Christian you must fit at least a minimum criterion, that is to at least claim to follow Christ. To be a Witch you must also follow a minimum criterion, that is to follow the old religion. Causing warts is not Witchcraft any more than eating babies is Christianity."

the problem here is that havoc is unwilling to admit that in the past some witches have done wrong because it shows that christians of the past were not following Christ either when they did the same type of things, ie either not real christians or not acting like christians at that time, just like those witches were not acting like witches at the time, or they weren't real witches.

He will then say, well christians use it more often, and I would probably agree also stating the fact that there have probably been more christians in history then there have been witches.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by seebs
This is totally circular. Imagine that I inform you that a friend of mine "did something" and someone was healed. How do you determine whether it's "magic" or "from God"?

That's true and right on what I've been trying to get across.  I don't think I or anyone else is qualified to decide whether or not healing, divination or any power for that matter is 'magic' (and thereby supposedly evil) or 'from God'.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Havoc
What your asking me to do is admit that the KJV idea of a Witch, is what a Witch is. 

 

Actually, I'm not.  I know that the two are completely different things.  What I was asking was for a little common ground. 

I know that practicing herbal medicine is not witchcraft. 

But in the broad umbrella definition of the KJV, it could be seen that way.  And that could be the reason that many were accused.  That's what I was getting at. 

Of course, at the time, if your neighbor's dog died it was probable cause to think you were in league with the devil and cast a spell on it.