colder than a witches' teat

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

Danielinthewolvesden:
I don’t know why but I am no being notified of posts here. Just happened by and saw this lol Oh well, maybe I am booted out haha I’ll find out when I hit POST I suppose :slight_smile:
Your point taken, my point missed: I am not referring to new ways.

My point: Yes, we do deal in (some) spirits, no not a devil. As to Oxford: I don’t pay much mind to books authored by non participants in alternative beliefs any more than I’d expect a Buddhist to believe my writings of his beliefs, nomattr how much I study…but you may, this is your right. Just as your opinion is yours :slight_smile:
I know a professor of quantum physics, brillian tman…who prefers to dress in little girls clothes and swears he is “Mary, Mary, quite contrary” too :slight_smile:

as to the term witch:
Most books as Oxfords’, F&W’s, Webster’s rely on new English translations. I reiterate I was brought up in old ways not new. In the instance of the ‘King James Version’ of the Bible, upon which virtually all English-language translations are based. This version was begun and completed during the Burning Times (the Witch holocaust in Europe). It is well documented that King James was extremely paranoid of Witches and Witchcraft. Hence, as you said very few people who were tortured and murdered for ‘religions’ sake were actually witches. Mainly because they were covert. So it is not surprising that he changed the translation in the final version from the original meaning of “evil-doer” or “poisoner” to Witch. In actuality, the original Hebrew writing have no word for witch. So as for how it came to be in King James’ version? well, you would just have to ask him :slight_smile:

I can only suppose this contributes to authors of dictionaries and encyclopedias definitions. Then again, I have seen a version of F&W which states witches DO fly too :slight_smile:
Many (not all) witches are pagans. Most I know are. Pagans don’t incorporate the ‘devil’ or ‘satan’ etc. in our beliefs. We don’t support Christian dogma of heaven/hell, good/evil,atonement/sin/savior etc. We take full responsability not laying it on some’being’ so we can worm out way out of it :slight_smile: I am not saying there are not so called ‘bad’ people who use the craft in that manner, as with anything it can be used to positive or negative results. And as you know also, Stanists do not worship Satan. But I won’t get int that here. I’ll leave that for ppl to read up on :slight_smile:

One other fact. There were no priests and priestesses in the old ways. That is neo wisecraft. I am not.
I for one don’t need a degree, I have a birth certificate :slight_smile:

"altho there are some parts that do go back thousands of years. "
my point exactly.

"but don’t get all huffy if someone, when using the word “witch” uses it to mean what the word primarily and originally was supposed to. "

am I huffy ? :slight_smile:
no it wasn’t originally meaning anything to do with Satanism. You may men that is how the status quo relate to it but not the original intent. Wic is ‘to bend’ as in elements that can change our life and our world. For better or for worse. I say why perpetuate the myths? There will never be understanding until fears are put to rest, that will only come through education and enlightenement.
Perhaps I am adamant because the prejudices deny witches their human rights every single day. We are tired of hiding out of ignorance. I am out but many I know STILL have to cloak themselves in secrecy. I am not saying it doesn’t now have that meaning. simply asking that we dust off the cobwebs and get to some truth.

My point was missed entirely. I AM a witch of the old ways, my families ways… ways not neo, the ways of MY ancestors…thats all. Yes, I am adamant cuz the same injustices that burnt John Howard et al (my ancestors) at the stake along with his lifestock are the same that keep tradfams today from openly practicing an ancient craft.
I don’t care about neo and least of all Gerry’s clan. You can call yourself the Muffin Man for all I care :slight_smile:
whatever floats yer boat :slight_smile:
Just ask thatthe world enlighten themselves a little to truth rather than fiction. After all, is this not a forum?
Nicole
(ps Lighten up sweety, if I sounded adamant it slips out depending on what status quo bull I put up with that day. dont worry you haven’t burst any bubble here :slight_smile: For the most part I am an incessant joker with a bawdy sense of humor …Besides, I was having more fun with the ‘colder than’ thing

42

pwright

makes sense to me :slight_smile:

43

samclem

thx

44

Oh, by the way, as to the temperature required to freeze the balls off a brass monkey, it seems that it’s adjustable.

45

lol

46

By Oxford, I mean both the small Oxford dictionary, and the larger one, that traces a words spellings & meanings as far back in history as the written word goes- if possible. Thus, like it or not, the word “witch’ was coined for the express purpose of meaning a woman who had a pact with the devil. That was then 'the original intent”. True, the roots of the word do not have that express & only meaning.

The original meaning of the word in Leviticus(19:31) was “those that have familiar spirits”- and to translate that to 'witch" is not a stretch at all. The “Witch of Endor” was not a 'poisoner" but “a woman that hath a familiar spirit”. (1Sam28:7)

There are those who call themselves “Witches”, and claim to worship Satan- who am i to say they are using the name wrong?

Exactly- why perpetuate the myths? The word 'witch" was coined to mean those with a pact with satan. There are still those who call themselves 'witches" and claim to have a pact with satan. The word is loaded down with negative connotations. Paganism has nothing whatsoever to do with satanism- so why call youselves by a name that at best you must share with those that do have truck with satan? If you are a pagan- call yourself a pagan. If you want to use ‘wicca’, fine also. As long as folks call themself by a name with such negative connotations & meaning, that they must share with those who have no other thing in common other than the name- why be surprized when you get negative reactions? If i was a soldier, I certainly would not call myself an “assasin”- even tho the meaning can be stretched to cover soldiers, who do, after all, in some way- “kill for money”- in some senses of the words & occupations.

The root word “wicce, or wicca”- means more what you want to perpetuate, and has not the negative connotations & meanings. Why not use it?

47

I have a strict policy not to argue religion/beliefs whatever. I gave my opinion. Someone is free to accept it or not. My opinion is mine, yours is yours. perhaps I took the meaning of the forum wrong, I thought it was to put views out there for each other to have other options to investigate. I am not out to ‘convince’ anyone of anything. These are my beliefs. You have yours. I didn’t reply to the mail bag in an effort to ‘convert’ to my way of thinking. Merely to put the option out there for one to investigate. I will not be baited sir. And if your next post was to be “You brought it up, now you don’t wanna continue?” hoping to save face or not look ignorant I will continue the farce that bait doesn’t work either. Think what you will. I predented a different take on things, my opinion.
ppl are free to take it & investigate or leave it. Was a time I’d take it head on and lambast these boards with a lot of copying and pasting proving my point, proving word originins, being ‘politically correct’. I have matured beyond BBS banterings now. As for me, my time here is shortened by about 40 yrs now due to a recent diagnosis and I have more important things to do in life than debate. The only reson I continued on the board this long was I was enjoying the ‘cold as’ thingy. Otherwse I’d have been gone after first few posts. I don’t send my day arguing my beliefs…good day to you sir. Nicole

48

I’m curious: How much documentation is there for the Burning Times? Were people really burned as witches? If so, how many (approximately)? I have heard of this before, but I don’t know if it’s historical fact or myth and I don’t which books on the subject are considered reliable. (And it appears that pagandream has left, so the question is directed to anyone who can answer it.)

49

to jab1 :

Guess I had better preface with the CYA of political correctness and state “in my opinion…”

Books are in your library. You can search historical records of the witch trials. Both local and the European Holocaust as well. There will never be an accurate account. I have a few on my webpage designating by gender and geographical area.
As to were they burned? You will see when you read the documentation. Most were tortured and humiliated first. Humiliation was a huge part of a convicted’s demise. Also their livestock and pets as my ancestor John Howard was (after already having been cleared of the charges of being a werewolf (yeah you heard me right, a werewolf! can you imagine?). Remember, all a persons (convicted) property was confiscated and divided. Half of which was divided among city fathers/councils and some physicians of the day who were not getting paid because witches didn’t charge for healing. The other half went to the Church. Although most these had little in the way of $$(if they had they could have afforded proper council to defend them in court) the numbers were enough to make the booty mount considerably. In comparison to non witches few witches were convicted because witches knew to be covert. It was far was for females & I have an entire section on the reason for women hiding their sexuality during the witch crazes. It was humiliation and torture, plain (historical) fact. Accounts are also on my webpage but I am not sure it is allowed to post personal webpages here so you can email me for that if you like.

As to info…I would suggest not going by individuals webpages (unless you are just looking at factual content in which case look up the references for yourself to be positive you are gleaning correct info). Most witches are eclectic. Most with webpages are not traditional witches but nuage. Ask 10 nuagers what witchcraft is and you will get 10 different answers. Not necessarily wrong, just different.
Best to search facts in black and white rather than a lot of individuals’ ideas. That way you have the info and can determine from your own wisdom and insights. No those of another. There is much on the Salem incidents online, these will lead to European references that are more difficult (for me in my family research anyway) to find. Being I am pretty much cloistered here in the middle of no where…with my computer I must resort to online research then follow-up with phone calls(you wouldn’t want my phone bill LOL):

As my grandpa would say (in love of course),
“Here’s the shovel, dig” :slight_smile:

General info and historical docs:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/

The documents:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/texts/transcripts.html#Bur
(off this intro page):
These transcripts were originally prepared in 1938 by the Works Progress Administration, under the supervision of Archie N. Frost. A new transcription and chronological organization of the Salem Witchcraft Papers is currently in preparation by Editor-in-Chief, Professor Bernard Rosenthal of SUNY Binghamton, and Associate Editors: Risto Hiltunen of Turku University, Finland; Merja Kytö of Uppsala University, Sweden; Matti Rissanen of Helsinki University, Finland; and Richard B. Trask of Danvers Archival Center. The work will be published by Cambridge University Press.

Happy hunting! :slight_smile:

50

I see it’s time to re-enter with some actual facts.

Belief in witches is as old and as wide-spread as humanity. In fact, around the time of Charlemagne, the Church condemned witch-hunts as a wicked holdover from pagan times. It was only in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance that the superstition spread to the higher levels of the Church, and, at any rate, no one was ever burned for witchcraft under English law, which specified hanging. And most felonies involved some form of confiscation – nothing special about witchcraft here.

One of the Hebrew words translated “witch” probably meant “poisoner” at some point in its verbal prehistory, but gives every sign of meaning something in the “witch” or “sorcerer” line by its Biblical appearances. In any case, James VI/I, despite his fanaticism, had nothing to do with it; the interpretation was ancient long before the translation he sponsored. (The Douay-Rheims version of 1609, for example, makes it “wizard”, from Jerome’s 5th-century Latin “maleficos”.) (Alas, older English bible texts appear to be unavailable on the web without paying a fee.)

As to Wicca’s claim of an historic chain linking them; a ancient, secret, benificent order of “witches”; and the victims of the early-modern witch hunts – suffice it to say that anti-witch-hunt writers of the period (who were in nearly as much danger themselves), such as Reginald Scot, never say any such thing, instead blaming witch-hunts on family jealousies, direct and personal gains to the accusers, plain old superstition, and, occasionally, loony victims. There is no period documentation for the Wiccan claims.

51

#1-I am not Wiccan, actually I wasn’t gonna say since I thought I’d get kicked out for flaming but since I am on my way out the door anyway I will give a little food for thought. I don’r exect you to believe it and it’s obvious you won’t research it but i’ll feel better as I walk away. (Foryumnalely unlike most ‘posters’ I don’t have the insatiable need to ‘look back’ and see what ppl are saying)
Wicca’s originator=a known liar. i.e.
Gerald claimed someone named Old Dorothy Clutterbuck initiated him into the New Forest Coven…a Coven of traditional Witches. Dorothy has never been proven to even have existed except in Gerry’s mind and the New Forest Coven members had NEVER heard of him. Upon hearing his claims they proved he was living in another country during the time he was supposed to have his initiation.
He had been caught in many lies all his life, he claimed he had a degree from the University of Toulouse and the Uni there had never heard of him as well as one from the Uni of Singapore which did not even exist back then. These “falsifications of credentials”, do a great deal to undermine Gardner’s credibility in other issues. If people would just research…it is amazing the crap they take at face value just because he (or you, or “I”) said it.

#2-ditto my reply to whats his name, I won’t argue, I know facts…believe what you will…you won’t be the last to ignore black and white in favor of not wanting to admit youmay have been mistaken. I on theother hand don’t address
an issue until I know for a fact. not reading books but
the records themselves…some ppl prefer to investigate ‘just so far’…makes it easier to ‘digest’ I suppose…as I see the fun part is over I am outa here…have fun arguing kids, :slight_smile:
<]:o) Nicole RW <—RW? guess :slight_smile:

52

Some of us have fun with serious debating, some have fun with the lighter, more frivolous stuff. "Which"ever you want to do is fine with us. This Board supports both.

53

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions to broadly state that Witch’s are in league with Satan is showing ones total lack of knowledge when it come to the history of what is now termed Wicca.

I am a follower of the old ways (Wicca). This is a religion that was around long before the invention of Christ and the Christian ways. We have no Satan. All of the Deities that are part of our everyday lives are all positive, loving, caring beings. The fact of the mater is that to believe in the Devil you must be a Christian. Christianity created the Devil. If you read the Old Testament you will see that the Christians promoted a Jewish messenger to the office of the Devil. The so called fallen angel. The Devil and the worship of this alleged creature is a direct result of the invention of Christianity and the church. All of which was created long after the Old Ways had been established.

Wicca (which in truth is a male Witch, Wissa is a female Witch) is a loving compassionate highly tolerant system of beliefs. Our communities work to protect the environment as our oneness with Nature is paramount. We work within societal communities to help those in need. My community gathers clothing, food etc for people and helps out animal shelters. We are healers, physics, and holistic. We are a deeply spiritual people.

Our first and foremost rule: Do only out of Love and harm NONE.

So before you make a generalized statement check your facts and history.

Now as for the phrase “Colder than a Witch’s Tit” I do not know the history of the phrase but a guess would be that is comes from when we dance sky clad around the sacred fire during our ceremonies. When it is cold outside and we are around the fire dancing we do not always notice the cold until the end of the night and … you guessed someone says its “Colder than a Witch’s Tit”

54

Look, you can worship the Purple People Eater for all I care, but the claim that Wicca is ancient is just plain hooey. The story was made up within living memory, based on an article in the 1929 Encyclopedia Britannica that the Britannica has been apologizing for for 30 years.

Whatever the “witches” of the 16th and 17th centuries were, they weren’t Wiccans, they weren’t (in essence) pagan holdovers, and they weren’t misunderstood healers. Even their defenders (and they had defenders) never said so.

Believe what you want, but don’t piss in history.

55

See, I think that the confusion is stemming from the fact that when someone who is Wiccan sees the term witch, they assume that what is meant is Wiccans. I don’t think that is the case. When most people who are not Wiccans see the term witch, and it’s being used in the sense of history (i.e., not old hags on broomsticks), they think of the men and women who were accused of being witches, tried and eventually executed.

But we all know that these people weren’t witches in any sense; as in they weren’t in league with Satan, nor were they Wiccans. They were just Christians who got screwed by the mob mentality.

So when someone says “Colder than a witch’s teat,” they do not mean Wiccans. I don’t think that Wiccans factor into the equation at all, it just so happens that Wiccans also use the term witch.

56

If you read the first paragraph I stated “now termed Wicca”. I am well aware that the name Wicca is new and what most people think of as being the proper name for our beliefs. I also explained that Wicca is really the name for a Male Witch and that Wissa is the name for a Female Witch

What I follow are the “Old Ways”, things that were in place long before the invention of Christianity and satan. In no way am I pissing on History. Satan did not become a player until Christianity. To believe in satan you must believe in the church as they are satan’s creator.

Witchs do not believe in the chruch therefore they do not believe in satan.

57

Damn, I had this response all written out to post yesterday right after Silversoul’s, and then my computer wouldn’t load the reply page. :frowning:

Hello, Silversoul. Let me welcome you to the Straight Dope. I see this topic caught your attention. I hope you will stick around, and check out all the forums.

Regarding your post, did you even read the rest of the thread? It is considered good form to see what has been said so far, to avoid repetition. If you had you would see that your comments have already been addressed. Specifically, to recap:

We all understand that Wiccans call themselves witches, that Wiccans do not necessarily believe in Satan or worship him as Satan is a christian deity. That does not mean all witches are what are now called Wiccans or Pagans. The word witch also means people who worshiped or were believed to worship Satan.

It has also been mentioned that Wicca and neo-paganism are new inventions that were structured off of some old beliefs, but there is no strong evidence of any traditional practitioners having remained in hiding for centuries. I merely mention that to summarize what has been said. This is not really the proper forum to argue that point. That topic should be reserved for Great Debates, or perhaps the Pit. (see the main menu http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php )

Regarding the origin of the phrase, that is certainly a colorful suggestion.

Now on to the others that were discussing testing for comparisons. I think we need to get some basics out of the way first. Do you want to use objective means, or will subjective means work?

Objective means would require some physical temperature measurement, via a thermometer or thermocouples. This would allow a division of labor, but would perhaps be a little impersonal.

Subjective measurment means seem to be what have been favored so far. This is making a judgement call. In order for subjective comparison techniques to work, the same person who checks one subject must check a different subject to make the comparison. So if you check a witch’s tit, you must also check a well-digger’s ass or a brass monkey’s balls or a husky’s nuts or one of the others. Preferrably, the same person must check all of them, to get a proper ranking. Then there must be multiple samples, plus reproducability. That means several testers must be involved, and each person must test several candidates of each type. And the measuring technique must be identical for each tester across all subjects.

Now, who’s up for it? :wink:

58

No.

Wicca is not “old ways”.

That’s a lie. A lie that was made up by Aleister Crowley and Gerald Gardner in the 30’s-50’s, as a way of getting into the pants of stupid young women. Wicca has nothing whatever to do with ancient paganism (which did not particularly resemble Wiccan beliefs), and Wicca has nothing to do with Renaissance “witches” – and neither did ancient pagans and Renaissance “witches”, for that matter, have much of anything to do with each other. (In fact, ancient pagans believed in evil witches, and persecuted those thought guilty, long before Christianity appeared on the scene, and real pagans, living today, still do so.)

Wiccans cannot produce one damn bit of evidence for their claims except unsubstantiated statements from their own modern texts.

59

Irishman,

Yes I read several of the posts and am aware that things had already been said. I am still entitled to voice my two cents worth. So I did. Although sometimes it may only rate a penny (LOL)

I will continue to participate I enjoy the opportunity to debate and especially enjoy debating with people who don’t take it personally.

Be well

Silversoul MoonDancer

60

Quite right, Irishman. I agree entirely.

While Akatsukami, jab1, and Chronos were all pretty keen on witches’ tits, and pagandream and Jill seemed hot for welldiggers’ asses, they all promptly puppied out once huskies’ nuts were brought into the equation.

Mind you, I’m not volunteering either, especially if the methodology proposed by jab1 is selected for all categories. :eek: And if we don’t use thermocouples, we still have the problem of testing whores’ hearts while also avoiding homicide charges (see methodology proposed by Akatsukami).

There are sound theoretical grounds for believing that brass monkeys’ balls would be the coldest, as all the rest would necessarily be above freezing (unless they actually became frost-bitten).

There are two theories for the origin of the “brass monkey” phrase, one attributing it to a metal frame supposedly used to hold cannonballs on ships, the other to Victorian ornaments. Frankly I don’t find either theory particularly convincing. The following thread contains some links:

What’s a Brass Monkey?

Thanks to Chronos for another wonderful link. I would definitely buy one of those if I lived someplace cold.

And thank you Irishman for contributing to our continuing efforts to hijack this thread away from Religion and into Science!