I don’t think this thread belongs in either the Pit or GD; after all, we supposedly are still discussing Cecil’s column. And I certainly don’t mean to flame Krash for his point of view, or have anyone think that he should take it personally because I doubt his sources.
But consider; whenever we need to judge the veracity of a particular historical occurance, we need to be able to find some sort of historical marker for it. And while the sources he mentioned are still ok (the 1901 source being just a little bit closer to the mark), it’s still not quite what we’re looking for. I used Frazer as an example before and I will again; when he wrote “The Golden Bough” (all 15 volumes of it!) he knew that he was introducing a world of new information to a world that was largely unaware of it. Therefore, in order to prove his points, he included references and footnotes to those who had documented or actually seen the things he was reporting on firsthand. In fact, one complete volume was strictly notes and a bibliography to what he was writing.
This is what we’re looking for here. If we are to believe that what you are saying is true, and that Scott Cunningham and Hans Holzer are to be regarded as legitimate sources, then we need to see the firsthand historical markers, either in literature or in history, that would verify what they are saying. This is what history is all about.
I’m not saying that your sources are wrong, or that what you are saying is incorrect; just that we need some sort of original marker to verify it.
Thank you, Eutychus55. Now can the rest of you please try to play nice?
If it becomes clear that you are never going to change someone else’s mind or perspective on an issue, the most sensible thing to do is drop it.
I don’t take that as a flame, that is a legitimate question put in a non insulting manner. I currently do not have anything older than what I have quoted, but I will be looking and see if I can come up with something stronger and I will make a post at that time.
I’m pissed off with some bunch of RenFaire hangers-on who have just read The Big Book Of Feng Shui Acupressure For Cats thinking they know anything about veterinary medicine as a result.
I don’t care what any quack believes about pentagrams, broomsticks, crystals and all the rest of it. If you want to bathe in essence of pigs feet and primrose oil and make sacred incantations over a haddock’s entrails, I don’t give a damn, nothing to do with me. I do take exception to contemporary inventions or speculations being passed off as the Celtic tradition and mythology of centuries past. That’s all.
I would greatly appreciate it if you didn’t use your inability to discern peevishness from hatred as a clumsy attempt to patronise me.
If we all invent our own personal realities, then we sacrifice any hope of finding the truth.
If humanity really doesn’t have a chance, it’s because of people such as the Interahamwe and the real Hitler. I’m just arguing about the mythological and historical precursers of Wicca; I’m not suggesting that anyone should be killed or persecuted for their beliefs: just that sometimes their beliefs are pretty damned silly.
And I certainly don’t need lessons in acquiring a life or perceiving reality from someone who thinks a dismissive attitude towards New Age nonsense is a hallmark of Nazism.
Ben, I have not been to a Ren-Fair are they any fun?
Do you believe in anything at all or do you just tell everyone that their beliefs are Stupid?
And we do invent our own personal realities and we choose to live in them. Who’s truth are you refering to, your own, Christianity’s. Everyone has there own truth, or something they choose to believe in which becomes truth to them.
RenFaires - the only ones I’ve been to have been a lark. Much exposed cleavage, booze and haunches of roast animals.
We don’t make our own truths, we don’t make our own realities, much as some of us would like to. The universe exists regardless of what goes on between your ears, and behaves the way it does whether you think it does or not. You can deny the existence of a brick for as long as you like, and claim that in your reality it doesn’t exist, and stoutly assert that you’re making your own truth, but if someone smashes you in the head with it and you continue to deny its existence through broken teeth, then you’re a damn fool. There are different perceptions and different interpretations between our respective ears, but the truth is out there, so to speak.
It’s a monstrous cop-out to claim “well, this is the way it is in my reality” when you can’t answer an argument, and it results in stupid conversations like this one and me getting annoyed and NewAgers getting defensive:
“Modern Wicca has very little to do with actual Celtic history or actual Celtic mythology, that we know of, and the ancient Celtic rituals that are being suggested as accurate are, in fact, contemporary creations which couple wishful thinking with a smorgasbord of authentic and spurious mythological devices. Specifically, your attempts to link the modern perception of witches with broomsticks to ancient Celtic Beltane rites involving corn growth and/or handfasting are all my eye.”
“Not in my reality.”
Grrrr.
It’s laziness, sophistry and sloppy argument. It makes it impossible to win any argument:
“The President of the US is Bill Clinton.”
“Not in my reality.”
I don’t know why you’ve started to talk about Christianity now, but leave me out of it.