Got a question about 'traditional' witches

[David19]

Hi, i posted something similar in the paths forum but i've also heard your the guy to ask when it comes to witchcraft history. On the crooked heath (http://www.thecrookedheath.com/devilnf.htm), it mentions things about the devil and how witches of old would call their god the devil like
The Devil of Europe is nothing more than the Goaty and Horned All-Father, the oldest and most primal image of a God known to man., the guy then mentions that Basque witches did it, i was just wondering if you knew anything about this or if any witches (pre-Gardner) did call their god or (gods) the devil?

BTW, i know this might not have anything to do with Italian witches, so i apologise if it should be in another thread.

Thanks

[RoseKitten]

Hi, i posted something similar in the paths forum but i've also heard your the guy to ask when it comes to witchcraft history. On the crooked heath (http://www.thecrookedheath.com/devilnf.htm), it mentions things about the devil and how witches of old would call their god the devil like , the guy then mentions that Basque witches did it, i was just wondering if you knew anything about this or if any witches (pre-Gardner) did call their god or (gods) the devil?

BTW, i know this might not have anything to do with Italian witches, so i apologise if it should be in another thread.

Thanks

I doubt they called their God the Devil. The devil (a I understand) was created to look like the horned god so that it would be easier to convert pagans. "This is what the devil looks like... he's got you!!! change your faith!!!" *shrugs*

[raven grimassi]

i've also heard your the guy to ask when it comes to witchcraft history.

You are sure to get some disagreement on that position!



it mentions things about the devil and how witches of old would call their god the devil like , the guy then mentions that Basque witches did it, i was just wondering if you knew anything about this or if any witches (pre-Gardner) did call their god or (gods) the devil?

There is an old oral tale that during the era of the persecution that some Witches went renegade. They knew that the Christians feared the Judeo-Christian figure known as the devil. So they called upon it as an ally. If the story is true, then it is possible that some Witches did have dealings with the devil figure.

Now as to the devil being their "god" - well, bear in mind that despite the fact that the Bible gives no physical description of the devil, the Church depicted him with horns and cloven hooves. This resembled Pagan deity, and it may be that some Witches saw in this the Old God of the woods, and equated the two.


i know this might not have anything to do with Italian witches, so i apologise if it should be in another thread.

No problem. I am an initiate of several different traditions including the Pictish-Gaelic, Brittic, and Traditionalist Celtic as well as Italian Witchcraft. So my interest and my studies are wide. I am happy to try and answer any questions you may have regarding Witchcraft in general.

[toads_boon]

I own The Crooked Heath. The Devil article is pretty self-explainitory. It's quite simple: much like in Afro-Caribbean religion, the witches of the past called their god "the devil" like people who practice Santeria or whatever call their Loa by saint names. Simple ignorance.

[Philosophia]

I own The Crooked Heath. The Devil article is pretty self-explainitory. It's quite simple: much like in Afro-Caribbean religion, the witches of the past called their god "the devil" like people who practice Santeria or whatever call their Loa by saint names. Simple ignorance.

What evidence do you have to support your claims?

[toads_boon]

What evidence do you have to support your claims?

Countless witch trials, and dont give me that "tainted by Christians" crap-- sure they put their own twist on them, but the information gleaned from witch trials is gold. I recommend the books: "Rowan Tree and Red Thread", "Esctasies: Deciperhing the Witches Sabbath" and many more on my reading list found at my site. Also, not mentioned on the list as of yet is "Witches, Werewolves and Fairies" by Claude L.

[*Rasenna*]

[QUOTE=toads_boon]Countless witch trials, and dont give me that "tainted by Christians" crap-- sure they put their own twist on them, but the information gleaned from witch trials is gold. QUOTE]

There's two problems with your theory. The first is that the majority of people on trial for witchcraft were almost certainly not witches by any definition. This makes the bulk of statements about the devil in trial transcripts irrelevant. And that's not even mentioning that statements made under torture cannot be viewed as any kind of solid credible evidence. So if there's any "gold" in what you suggest then it's mostly fool's gold.

The second problem is in the word itself. For English speaking people, "Devil" is derived from the Latin diabolus which always means evil, and the Greek diabolos which means slanderer, and then into Old English deofol and on to Middle English as devel (retaining the Latin and Greek meanings). We're looking at century after century of an ongoing meaning. Therefore everyone from peasants on up to nobles would have understood the "devil" to be an evil and untrustworthy character. Therefore it's very doubtful that witches chose to call their deity the devil.

I think we're stuck with what you call the "tainted by Christians crap."

[toads_boon]

You are making a sweeping generalization about the people who were put on trial for being Witches. Your sweeping assumption (and the dangerous error in your logic) is that since MOST people put on trial for witchcraft were not witches, that none were, or that all witch trial records should be ignored.

Witch-finders might have been foolish men, who tended to look for sexually attractive women more than witches, but occassionally, they hit paydirt. Occult practices of the past were not always the deep, dark, hidden things that we tend to think of them as today- herbalists or people who actually had the remnants of mystical practices that might have pre-dated Christianity didn't always hide them in "ye olde mystical brotherhood"- they might have readily offered such services to people who paid them coin.

They would have been easy to catch, if a nasty enough investigator needed to round up some people for a crackdown or a trial. On top of that, there were enough heathenish practices lying around Christian and Post-Christian Europe to justify an occasional crackdown, and when politics weds itself to religion, there is never a shortage of need for such a maneuver. When you have "papists" out there, and the local Protestant powers need to get some quick money or land, you have a witchhunt.

The point of this is that occasionally, these fools snatched a person who truly was doing something associated with Cunning Craft, Wise-Craft, or what have you. There were Toadsmen, Bonesmen, and their like crawling around; there were "Craftmasons" who had their own occultism, and finally, there were folk-sorcerers and non-christians of a mystical bent. They could and did get rounded up. I doubt it was in the numbers we hear about, but they were there.

Occassionaly, in the transcripts of Witchtrials, you see material that wasn't just "Made up under torture", because their words correspond to known metaphysical facts, entities, or practices. Isobel Gowdie is certainly the best for this- what she revealed is nothing short of the entire corpus of the Faery-Faith and the Vanic "Helrunar" craft of Elfhame, complete with flying spells, journeys to the Underworld, and Trullskapir/Elf-Shot, the stealing of life from other people magically, through bolts of power or Elf Arrows. Her visions of the Underworld are nothing short of torn straight from the pages of Heathen history and a folk tradition that was decidedly pre-christian.

Other examples exist. We cannot ignore any aspect of Heresiology, and that includes Witch Trials. To do so would be to ignore the possibility (and fact) that "even a broken clock is right twice a day" or "the wrong will accidentally guess right at times".


As for your comments Re: The Devil, you aren't understanding me. You are assuming that the Witches themselves believed IN the "Devil" of the christians to begin with. If they did not, which they certainly did not, then they could have used his name for the purposes of addressing their God without the negative connotations. The reasons why they would do so are simple- because that was the name the Church gave him, and in Pagan Europe, Gods and Goddesses tended to collect names from cultures and peoples that came across them and interacted with them.

Never before in Europe had their been an idea of "Moral Evil". The Devil as "moral evil" was not something that local sorcerous practicioners, who saw their God as a God of their Cult, would have associated with either their God or the name "Devil". People in the modern day shriek and run because of the boogey-man that the church has made up, but in the Old Days, it wasn't the same for everyone. "Devil" simply meant "what the church calls the Old One". If they weren't christian, then they weren't accepting all the bullshit baggage that comes with the christian understanding. They were just taking another title, and the Old One had many. To have many names was a sign of power. This is how and why Witches could call the Old One "Devil" without it being an insult to their God or a sign of disrespect for him; they would have had to believe it was a name of EVIL and Horror before it became disrespectful for them to use it.

And, no matter what we want to believe, they did use it. Anyone who has seen a copy of the Black Books of Elverum can see that.

[toads_boon]

The second problem is in the word itself. For English speaking people, "Devil" is derived from the Latin diabolus which always means evil, and the Greek diabolos which means slanderer, and then into Old English deofol and on to Middle English as devel (retaining the Latin and Greek meanings). We're looking at century after century of an ongoing meaning. Therefore everyone from peasants on up to nobles would have understood the "devil" to be an evil and untrustworthy character. Therefore it's very doubtful that witches chose to call their deity the devil.


It doesn't mean Evil; it means something more like "Slanderer". There is a rather large difference between "Evil" (itself a contentious, interpretive word) and "Slanderer".

The "Century after century of ongoing meaning" assumes that everyone thought the same way about it. If Witches (or anyone) did not, then a world of possibilities has opened up for you, and for why some old sources cite Witches praying to the Devil. Besides, in Heathen times, some of the most important Gods were seen as untrustworthy- and quite frightening. Some Spirits are, and they aren't "Evil"- their slippery nature shows their power, and they are there to induce initiatory crisis in human beings, not unlike the trickster-spirits of other cultures; dangerous, crazy-seeming, but wise, and always quite frightening. This is the nature of not just these Spirits, but of the path of true Wisdom and Sorcery.

Don't make the mistake to assume that "EVERYONE" believed that devil meant one particular thing. The occultist of any age has always had a different perspective.

[Carla O'Harris]

It sounds like essentially you are taking a Micheletian stance on the trials.

Much of what you say makes sense. I think you are correct that much was fluff and smoke, but occasionally they hit "pay dirt".

I think you're suggesting that there may have been an ironic reclamation of the name "devil" to denote their God(/dess) whom the Christians called "devil", perhaps in a carnivalesque, topsy-turvy kind of creativity. The groundwork for this would have been lain by Cathars who were already accusing the Catholic Church's God of being the Devil, whereas they worshipped the Good God. Interestingly, the Cathars have some interesting connections with the fairy-cult, and some have suggested, not without reason, that the witch-cult as such emerging in the 1300's may have been some mixture of the old paganish fairy cult with some of the ideas lain down by the newer heresies. In any case we are certain that the Cathars represented a survival of Gnosticism which was always more open to pagan concepts than the mainstream Church.


Witch-finders might have been foolish men, who tended to look for sexually attractive women more than witches, but occassionally, they hit paydirt. Occult practices of the past were not always the deep, dark, hidden things that we tend to think of them as today- herbalists or people who actually had the remnants of mystical practices that might have pre-dated Christianity didn't always hide them in "ye olde mystical brotherhood"- they might have readily offered such services to people who paid them coin.

They would have been easy to catch, if a nasty enough investigator needed to round up some people for a crackdown or a trial. On top of that, there were enough heathenish practices lying around Christian and Post-Christian Europe to justify an occasional crackdown, and when politics weds itself to religion, there is never a shortage of need for such a maneuver. When you have "papists" out there, and the local Protestant powers need to get some quick money or land, you have a witchhunt.

The point of this is that occasionally, these fools snatched a person who truly was doing something associated with Cunning Craft, Wise-Craft, or what have you. There were Toadsmen, Bonesmen, and their like crawling around; there were "Craftmasons" who had their own occultism, and finally, there were folk-sorcerers and non-christians of a mystical bent. They could and did get rounded up. I doubt it was in the numbers we hear about, but they were there.



This seems like an entirely reasonable premise to me, and well said.


Occassionaly, in the transcripts of Witchtrials, you see material that wasn't just "Made up under torture", because their words correspond to known metaphysical facts, entities, or practices.

Absolutely.


"Devil" simply meant "what the church calls the Old One". If they weren't christian, then they weren't accepting all the bullshit baggage that comes with the christian understanding.

Especially when the Church was deliberately confusing their character Satan, a decidedly nasty fellow intent on ruining paradise, with the Satyr-ish Faery King figure of the old religion. We can trace this process iconographically ; for instance, prior to the late 1100's, one almost never sees Satan portrayed as a horned devil type, whereas increasingly he is portrayed as such after this point, and malevolently so. The Church was increasingly portraying one of the true rivals as their own Satan. That this should happen should be no surprise. They did the same thing with Diana. Essentially, the Gwynn ap Nudd character --- who varied in different places --- was satanized.

I think the reaction to this was probably varied. Some people "knew it all along" as they were good obedient Christians who had disapproved of the dvoeverie (Russian, "dual faith") of their fellows. Others who were wavering might have been scared away from dvoeverie back into the obedient fold, buying the bogeying of the Old Nick. Others hedged their bet, saying, yes, of course, this devil is evil, but the green fairy man of the forest isn't the devil. This wasn't merely clever diplomacy but actually the truth, but it may be that some of the features shared between the two figures might have to be denied. Others may have taken more of a "**** you" attitude, and of those, some may have even as you suggest ironically re-appropriated the new name the Christians gave. Another possibility, which Raven suggested, is that as the black-ops program of the Church continued to confuse the old Elf with a satanic devil, that some bought the new diabolic mix and "joined the dark side" as it were. Separating this from those who stayed true to the old path but were understandably pissed and trying to defend themselves by any means necessary including spells and poisons is also a sorting job.

It seems likely that at first there were probably a rather large number of dvoeverie, but that the Church's crackdown caused a polarization, whereby some simply rejoined the fold, others maintained their dual faith but cleaned it up considerably by rechristianizing its exterior through a much more rigorous adherence to saints and to paternosters, while it may have driven others to separate altogether.

Which would be interesting, wouldn't it? Pagan faiths are often highly tolerant and able to bridge various cults. They tend to welcome Christian sects as new variants, until such time as they prove themselves completely intolerant. Wouldn't it be ironic if Christianity ended up creating the very sect it fought against? Not created "ex nihilo", but created it as a separation? Because perhaps there were dvoeverie who were loyal pagans to the old gods, but had no problems honoring the new ones, either, but after persecution, when the lines were drawn, positioned themselves on the other side of the frontier. What could have been blessed and creative coexistence became antagonism through persecution.

[Carla O'Harris]

ummmm .... I find it strange when a computer changes my words ... I do hope that the vituperance behind what the computer replacement of "hug you" in my sentence above comes clear as to what I am actually saying ... because certainly they were not saying "hug" you but something more along the lines of yuck fou ...

[*Rasenna*]

You are making a sweeping generalization about the people who were put on trial for being Witches.

No, that seems to be your expertise.


Your sweeping assumption (and the dangerous error in your logic) is that since MOST people put on trial for witchcraft were not witches, that none were, or that all witch trial records should be ignored.

No, that's not what said. I said that the majority of remarks about the devil are irrelevant. I didn't say to ignore all witch trial transcripts. There are small bits here and there that do seem to come from actual witches, but nothing like what you suggest.


Witch-finders might have been foolish men, who tended to look for sexually attractive women more than witches, but occassionally, they hit paydirt.

Agreed, but "occasionally" doesn't make a body of evidence, which is what we'd need to support your theory.


Isobel Gowdie is certainly the best for this- what she revealed is nothing short of the entire corpus of the Faery-Faith and the Vanic "Helrunar" craft of Elfhame, complete with flying spells, journeys to the Underworld, and Trullskapir/Elf-Shot, the stealing of life from other people magically, through bolts of power or Elf Arrows. Her visions of the Underworld are nothing short of torn straight from the pages of Heathen history and a folk tradition that was decidedly pre-christian.

And it's all too easy to force someone say that the devil is involved, even when the person was actually involved in an authentic folk practice or peasant witchcraft sect.


As for your comments Re: The Devil, you aren't understanding me. You are assuming that the Witches themselves believed IN the "Devil" of the christians to begin with.

No, I'm saying that they understood English and the common usage and understanding of the word devil within the culture of their time period.


Never before in Europe had their been an idea of "Moral Evil". The Devil as "moral evil" was not something that local sorcerous practicioners, who saw their God as a God of their Cult, would have associated with either their God or the name "Devil".

They certainly would have been aware of the common usage and understanding of the word within the culture in which they lived. Therefore there would have been no reason to employ the term "devil" (unless, of course, you want to go another step forward and argue that witches did intentionally worship an evil entity)


People in the modern day shriek and run because of the boogey-man that the church has made up, but in the Old Days, it wasn't the same for everyone. "Devil" simply meant "what the church calls the Old One".

And your proof of that is where? I'd love to see your sources demonstrating that anyone saw the devil as "what the church calls the Old One."



If they weren't christian, then they weren't accepting all the bullshit baggage that comes with the christian understanding.

Agreed, which is why they wouldn't use a term like the devil, which was steeped in centuries of usage as evil.



They were just taking another title, and the Old One had many. To have many names was a sign of power. This is how and why Witches could call the Old One "Devil" without it being an insult to their God or a sign of disrespect for him

Sources please.



they would have had to believe it was a name of EVIL and Horror before it became disrespectful for them to use it.

It's not a matter of disrespect; it's a matter of the known cultural usage of the term "devil" during the era of the witch trials. Witches knew what everyone believed about the devil even if they (the witches) didn't accept that such an entity existed. Therefore it's only common sense that they're not going to apply it to their own sect nor confess to dealings with the devil.



And, no matter what we want to believe, they did use it. Anyone who has seen a copy of the Black Books of Elverum can see that.

What's clear is that this book represents a form of Norwegian folk magic. It's also clear that it's highly Christianized with references to "God the Father" - "the Holy Spirit" - "angels" - along with references to the "Son of God" and so forth. The incantations include reciting the Lord's Prayer. This is clearly not the stuff of pagan witchcraft, but certainly the stuff of Christian magic.


[B] Don't make the mistake to assume that "EVERYONE" believed that devil meant one particular thing. The occultist of any age has always had a different perspective.

Again, it's not a matter of what witches believed or didn't believe about the devil. It's a matter of knowing what the common understanding of the devil was in their own times. It's laughable to think they'd adopt it if they didn't buy into it themselves. It would be like using the term "terrorist" today as a label but not meaning it within the common cultural context, but confessing to it anyway at a trial.

[Carla O'Harris]

This lack of courtesy is most un-becoming. Why the need for insults? There are disagreements here, but not enough for disrespect. It seems like there could be common ground here to mutual advantage, especially against skeptics who deny that anything happened at all. I don't understand what happened to shut the dialogue down and make you insult Raven, who has done so much good work for the Wiccan/pagan community.:foh:

[toads_boon]

You're right, I was being harsh. I had a frustrating day and spoke rudely. I'm sorry :). I'll delete the entry as I've had no issues with Mr. Grimassi and will admit that long ago, I was inspired by his work, and it has led me to where I am today.

[raven grimassi]

I don't understand what happened to shut the dialogue down and make you insult Raven, who has done so much good work for the Wiccan/pagan community.:foh:

I guess I am missing something here as I have had no dialogue with "toads boon" either here or privately. I did not see the insult intended for me, and I hate to miss a good insult. Bummer.


I'll delete the entry as I've had no issues with Mr. Grimassi and will admit that long ago, I was inspired by his work, and it has led me to where I am today.

I was not aware that a reply could be entirely deleted. Interesting.

[Amythyst]

Wow, I feel like I missed the main fireworks and only got to view the last few feeble sparks. Very provocative reading here.

Hello, Raven Grimassi, it is an honor to meet you.

[Hawk Shadowsoul]

Normally I don't get into these discussions. But.

As cultures merge so do beliefs. Perverting others beliefs is a natural occurance of this melding. My personal take on the gods is a little different. I personally think they are all self serving and full of their own agendas. As such they are all "slippery" and to a degree untrustworthy from our limited human perspective.

As far as the "devil", well so what. The early christian church certainly did invent the boogey man. To propogate the desired result of being good, there had to be a downfall for being bad. As far as the name, a rose is a rose, and smells the same by any name. As witches, I at least reserve the right to invoke whatever god I feel is going to be useful at the time. Big deal.

[BlackMagicalCat]

I bought the book,The witching Way Of The Hollow Hill.

I cant wait to get it.

[toads_boon]

You'll enjoy it and find it quite different... and a bit demanding if you plan to follow anything found in it.... Glad you bought it, maybe you can give a review?




I bought the book,The witching Way Of The Hollow Hill.

I cant wait to get it.

[toads_boon]

Yea I was being a crabby ass. Sorry.




I guess I am missing something here as I have had no dialogue with "toads boon" either here or privately. I did not see the insult intended for me, and I hate to miss a good insult. Bummer.



I was not aware that a reply could be entirely deleted. Interesting.

[raven grimassi]

Hello, Raven Grimassi, it is an honor to meet you.

Thank you, it is kind of you to say so. I am happy to meet you as well, and I look forward to open discussions.


Yea I was being a crabby ass. Sorry.

No worries, not a problem. I do not know what you said, since you deleted it, but I do encourage respectful disagreements in any discussion or debate. So please do not be hesitant to post anything here that is in opposition to what others believe. We can only learn through the opportunity of viewing different opinions, perspectives, and interpretations. An informed opinion is one that knows both sides of any issue.

[BlackMagicalCat]

You'll enjoy it and find it quite different... and a bit demanding if you plan to follow anything found in it.... Glad you bought it, maybe you can give a review?
Okay,I will.

But you should know I have been a christian all my life,and still am I guess.
Im sorry if I seem confused,but a year and a half ago a Goddess I hardly know decided to interupt my life,and put her scent on me.I must have said this a gazzillion times here,so I wont repeat myself about how.

But,I did visit the site,and read for hours,till I got tired.(Meadows of Elfhame)

There is power there,because I can feel it.

So,after I went to sleep,I had either a dream,or was in the spirit realm,and I saw a huge person who was redish,I knew it was the devil,and he walked up to me and put both hands on my shoulders,I sensed his aproval.He was very large,my head was the level of his heart.

Then,I was somewhere,I cant remember where,and a huge dragon had his face in front of me,and he was smelling me and sniffing me,he looked like he wanted to eat me.But he didnt,he kissed or poked me in the face,and it felt like when you kiss the face of a horses muzzle,soft.His head was as big as I was.

But the dragon scarred the hell out of me,and I was frightened.The devil was not like I thought he would be,I didnt see hs face,only his form,and I felt his aproval when he put both hands on my shoulders.

I dont mean to intrude on your faith or your God,and I will show no disrespect either,and Im gratefull for whatever is shared with me,I am sensing that this ancient God is the father of all witchcraft.

I may get scared and take of running,or I may find the coarage to read the book.I dont know,it didnt help that I turned on the radio,and a preacher blurted out,the devil will devour you.I turned it off real quick,but it was too late,the word went out.

All this reminds me of christianity,how God is the God of all christianity,to those who give little,and to those who give all.His authority runs throughout all christiandom.Some follow him with there all,and some are christian in name only,some acknowledge him as God,and others do not,but he is the God of all of christianity.Despite al the differences between the different denominations,they all moslty acknowledge God as Father.

So,likewise,
This ancient God is the Father of all witchcraft,to those who acknowledge him,and to those who are witch in name only.His authority runs throughout all
the paths of the craft,to those who give little,and to those who give all.
This is what I am sensing,and I could be wrong,it wouldnt be the first time,and wont be the last time.I know someone will disagree with me,but this is what I am feeling,but what do I know.

Feel free to correct me anyone.

Thanks for showing up here.I dont know what Im going to do.But I will read the book.

[toads_boon]

Okay,I will.

But you should know I have been a christian all my life,and still am I guess.
Im sorry if I seem confused,but a year and a half ago a Goddess I hardly know decided to interupt my life,and put her scent on me.I must have said this a gazzillion times here,so I wont repeat myself about how.

But,I did visit the site,and read for hours,till I got tired.(Meadows of Elfhame)

There is power there,because I can feel it.



Wow, Meadows of Elfhame eh? Reminds me that I need to think up a new design for that site for Robin... That's some old stuff there! I met Robin through that site actually... it was my first delve into the path I'm on.



So,after I went to sleep,I had either a dream,or was in the spirit realm,and I saw a huge person who was redish,I knew it was the devil,and he walked up to me and put both hands on my shoulders,I sensed his aproval.He was very large,my head was the level of his heart.



I can't explain why he would be red... maybe it was psychological on your part... but usually the gods appear how they are and not what's best for the person's mind. Part of the reason why the traditional path is so straining and disturbing. Even the best intentions can ruin one's life... even if temporarily.

If you ever encounter the spirit, or the Master of the Witches (whoever it was), ask him his name. And if he tells you, never tell another soul or write it down. This Master of the Witches is none other than who the Northern pagans saw as Odin, and you'll read more on Him in the book. He should appear in bright light from the East, and you can call him "Conal Cernac" or "Sator."



Then,I was somewhere,I cant remember where,and a huge dragon had his face in front of me,and he was smelling me and sniffing me,he looked like he wanted to eat me.But he didnt,he kissed or poked me in the face,and it felt like when you kiss the face of a horses muzzle,soft.His head was as big as I was.

But the dragon scarred the hell out of me,and I was frightened.The devil was not like I thought he would be,I didnt see hs face,only his form,and I felt his aproval when he put both hands on my shoulders.


The dragon part I can't comment on... it's new to me.



I dont mean to intrude on your faith or your God,and I will show no disrespect either,and Im gratefull for whatever is shared with me,I am sensing that this ancient God is the father of all witchcraft.


Indeed he is... but you will discover there are two male cheif powers of Witchcraft, and not just one.



I may get scared and take of running,or I may find the coarage to read the book.I dont know,it didnt help that I turned on the radio,and a preacher blurted out,the devil will devour you.I turned it off real quick,but it was too late,the word went out.


Don't be silly- the book isn't frightening at all :) It's just much different.



All this reminds me of christianity,how God is the God of all christianity,to those who give little,and to those who give all.His authority runs throughout all christiandom.Some follow him with there all,and some are christian in name only,some acknowledge him as God,and others do not,but he is the God of all of christianity.Despite al the differences between the different denominations,they all moslty acknowledge God as Father.

So,likewise,
This ancient God is the Father of all witchcraft,to those who acknowledge him,and to those who are witch in name only.His authority runs throughout all
the paths of the craft,to those who give little,and to those who give all.
This is what I am sensing,and I could be wrong,it wouldnt be the first time,and wont be the last time.I know someone will disagree with me,but this is what I am feeling,but what do I know.

Feel free to correct me anyone.

On the contrary.. This cheif power runs through everything... all of Nature... all of Reality.

If the forum wants, I can clarifiy this with an essay on "the number of gods". But that's up to the regulars.

[*Rasenna*]

If the forum wants, I can clarifiy this with an essay on "the number of gods". But that's up to the regulars.

I suggest posting something in the "Paths" forum. You're currently in the author's forum for Raven Grimassi, and the thread here is about traditional witchcraft. What you describe seems to be an aberrant form having closer ties to Judeo-Christian notions than to older pagan themes. I think you'd fare better in the Path forum with what you have to share.

[toads_boon]

I suggest posting something in the "Paths" forum. You're currently in the author's forum for Raven Grimassi, and the thread here is about traditional witchcraft. What you describe seems to be an aberrant form having closer ties to Judeo-Christian notions than to older pagan themes. I think you'd fare better in the Path forum with what you have to share.

Excuse me? I strongly disagree. "Traditional Witchcraft" happens to be a post-Christian phenomenon. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I will say, you're quite misinformed.

Traditional Witchcraft is a practise that takes its symbolism, aesthetic, and inspiration from the surviving historical records and accounts of Old Germanic and Post-Anglo Saxon British Isles Pagan Sorcery, as well as the various images and folklores sprung up around the figure of the Witch, from the earliest times, till the late 1700's.

Since this is the "Raven Grimassi" thread, I'd let him expand on any Italian versions on this because they're not my speciality.

Me mentioning the "Devil" is something you'll have to get over-- it's very common in "traditional witchcraft" of the British flavor and if you can't accept that, you have a lot of people to confront.

TW isn't about ye olde fake "hereditary families" or "the practice of magic"-- it is the reconstruction of the Craft of the Hedge-Crosser, or the Hel-Runer, and it requires a very intuitive connection to the Mystery of the Land, and a traditional, decidedly pre-modern understanding of the darker mysteries and metaphysics that deal with post-mortem realities as our ancestors experienced and understood them.

If you call that "aberrant judeo-christianity", then by all means do so.

I think you're just bitter over losing the Devil argument yourself (due to the fact that you resorted back to the ol agnostic "sources please" reply when you couldn't think up a proper retort) :)

Please stop insulting my religion-- I haven't insulted yours.

[*Rasenna*]

"Traditional Witchcraft" happens to be a post-Christian phenomenon. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I will say, you're quite misinformed.

Not so, on either account.


Traditional Witchcraft is a practise that takes its symbolism, aesthetic, and inspiration from the surviving historical records and accounts of Old Germanic and Post-Anglo Saxon British Isles Pagan Sorcery, as well as the various images and folklores sprung up around the figure of the Witch, from the earliest times, till the late 1700's.

That's a very narrow view, and one that dismisses many regions of Europe. Smacks a bit of elitism to me.


Me mentioning the "Devil" is something you'll have to get over-- it's very common in "traditional witchcraft" of the British flavor and if you can't accept that, you have a lot of people to confront.

Hey, mention the devil all you want, I'm only suggesting that you take it to the right place. A forum on Satanism comes to mind; you might want to try there.


TW isn't about ye olde fake "hereditary families" or "the practice of magic"-- it is the reconstruction of the Craft of the Hedge-Crosser, or the Hel-Runer.

LOL - there's nothing "traditional" about reconstruction, it's an oxymoron. Traditional witchcraft is pre-Christian. What you’re talking about is clearly a Christianized system, and seems more related to folk magic rooted in Catholic culture.


I think you're just bitter over losing the Devil argument yourself (due to the fact that you resorted back to the ol agnostic "sources please" reply when you couldn't think up a proper retort) :)

That's an interesting way to dodge the fact that you can’t come up with any sources to back up your claims. BTW - Your lack of replies to my challenges is quite glaring.

Anyway, just for entertainment sake - where exactly, may I ask, did I “lose” the devil argument!? :rolleyes:


Please stop insulting my religion-- I haven't insulted yours.

Wasn't my intent to insult your beliefs. I'm just pointing out that their presentation is best served in a thread that has something to do with them.

Here, maybe this will make you feel better: :fpraise: :deviltail

[toads_boon]

Traditional Witchcraft, as it is practiced now, is a post-christian phenomenon. We are living in the post-christian era. What we call "Traditional Witchcraft" now certainly had its roots or origins in pre-christian metaphysical practices or beliefs; but then, many things have their "Roots and origins" in the pre-christian world, including Logic, Philosophy, Democracy, the concept of the "Jury" and Trial by peerage, just to name a few.

You will not be able to provide me with any evidence for living traditions- current living traditions of "witchcraft" or "paganism", that have direct lines of descent that stretch back before the time of Christianity. All modern Witch paths were born in the post-christian world. Even what we call "Wicca" now. Despite the lies of many, there are no verifiable "witch traditions" that go back to pre-christian times. Even Leland's "Aradia" is not evidence, except to those who just choose to believe it without seeing evidence. That's just the nature of religion.

Here is an example: While the Goddess Hera was worshipped in the pre-christian world, no modern follower of Hera can claim that their temple or tradition of Hera worship extends back, in an unbroken chain, to the Temples of Hera or the Cult of Hera, which was around before Christianity. Hera is certainly an immortal goddess, and she is the same Hera worshipped both then and now. But her cult and their inner beliefs, doctrines, and particular ways of pre-christian worship did entirely vanish.

Today, you can read about Hera, read myths about her, and just start praying to her again. She's there; she will hear you; she will sense your worship, just as she did in Pre-christian times. But you are not worshipping her precisely as her original followers did. You can be close, but you are a post-christian worshipper. The prayers you use, the way you make sacrifices, the ideas you form about her, are all post-christian, derived from modern books on myth, (adulterated as they are by usually christian translators or translators that are not worshippers of Hera themselves) and scholarly books on what the Greeks did when they made sacrifice, etc.

Modern Witch traditions are no different. It is true that there was Witchcraft around before Christianity. But you won't find even a single modern "tradition" of it out there, that can show it's lineage to "pre-christian" times. They are all post-christian. Traditional Witchcraft has roots in pre-christian times; an analysis of the folklore involved, and the cultural markers, shows that it was there, and that it had an impact on later generations via the folkloric tradition. But the original "witches" who practiced pre-christian sorcery are gone.

In Christian times, and in Post-christian times, there were people who still did Witchcraft, but their Craft was adulterated by their own cultural realities. In this long period, the Craft in Britain (for example) was transformed radically. It absorbed countless cultural influences such as christian influences, saracenic influences, semitic influences, hermetic, gnostic, and many other influences. Gone was the "pure" pagan cultural context in which the original "craft" was born. That's just the reality of the matter.

All the same, something of the spirit of old survived, through a very strange process of re-emergence, though not in a direct form; the "spirit" of the Old Way re-emerged in the form of impulses; the same impulses that led stone-age Britons to leave offerings at rivers and burial mounds leads modern Witches to do the same, and for most modern Witches, that impulse is allied with mentions we have in history that pagan peoples did in fact leave offerings at these places. This is where "reconstruction" comes into play, and yes, "reconstruction" can very well be "Traditional", because it is born of a primordial IMPULSE that is ageless; these impulses are as old as mankind. The reconstruction is simply a matter of modern expediency; it is a needful step to "re-dress" these impulses in a manner that we can see (more or less) matches what earlier people were doing.

But NONE of this means that any reconstructed "Craft" or even "Traditional" Craft, is a direct blood descendant of the pre-christian craft. It is simply the best the world has to offer, in the modern day. It is a direct spiritual descendant. On top of that, most "Traditional Witchcraft" in Britain has a pedigree that goes back to the 18th or 17th century at most. There are lodges, cunning-work traditions, and mystical gatherings that have some claim to having been around since the early 1800's or the 1700's. They didn't all consciously identify themselves as "pagans" or even "witches". All the same, they were fulfilling a strand of impulse that was as pagan as the hills.


You can fight about this "devil" business until you rot. Your inability to see past a word, a name, like "devil" is your own curse; it is a curse born of your modern neo-pagan leanings and incredibly onion-skinned sensibilities; it doesn't change even one bit of the reality. There was a figure, dark, common, and powerful, who walks through the pages of both pagan lore and into christian and post-christian times, who was called "Devil" by a lot of people; what they meant by "devil" was different depending on the time and place. When you peel back the reality, this figure is the Master of the Craft, a Cthonic figure who was the opener of the Mound-doors and the guardian of the portals into the Unseen world; he was cunning and frightening to the christian sensibilities of the mainstream.

Those people who came to "know" him and work with the challenges and strange experiences he awakened in them called him "devil" for lack of a better name. He had dozens of local names; Robin was one; Hobb or Hobb th'rus was another; Wandil was another.

Clerics make it clear in their writing and in trials that this was the Devil, in their eyes. Isobel Goudy refers to this figure as "The Devil" without shame, because she had seen the truth about the dreaded cultic God of the witches in Aberdeenshire- he was the King of Faery, the dighter of the Elf-arrows in the Underworld, which she visited and whom she met personally- and she met his Queen.

Seeing the Truth, she could (and did) happily love her Devil; once released from the chains of fear, (and knowing who and what the "devil" TRULY was) the post-christian heathen or pagan (if you want to call them that) don't suddenly just "change" the religious language they grew up with; God and the Devil don't go away; but their meaning in the mind of the awakened person radically changes. They were "Free" among the many who were slaves to fear. This is a common reality for people who have faced the terror of the Underworld and come out the other side- the standard initiatory transformation.

When it came time for her to give her testimony (which she volunteered to give, BTW) the clerics who took dictation either left what she said alone, or replaced things with "Devil"- a common habit of theirs, for they dreaded writing down what they thought were the "names of demons" or magical formula. "Devil" is a christian and post-christian name for the Cultic Lord of the Craft. It's that simple. It's also not satanic, for "Satan" is not even a being; it merely comes from "Shaitan", which means adversary; anything that the semitic nations felt opposed them was called "opposer" or "adversary". To Israel, Babylon was a Shaitan; so was Rome. The Christians copped that word up to refer to whatever opposed Christ and the Church. And that was a lot of people and a lot of other religions, including Islam. It was also some folk-beliefs and practices that persisted and were too heathenish.

Either way, Isobel Goudy's "Devil" and her love for him does not make her a "Satanist" anymore than it makes me a satanist. "Devil" is a name given to Our Lord Under the Mound by christian tradition, and it stuck. He's collected many names throughout the ages. "The Devil and Dame Dark" are a common fixture in some parts of England and in English Folklore. This refers to pre-christian figures, and those who came to know them directly would have had to laugh at the dark irony, once they had seen the light.


You will take all this and ignore it; wiccans tend to do that. Wiccans and neo-pagans are almost completely controlled in their thinking by norms established by the church. They tip-toe around and don't want to upset any delicate sensibilities, and what's worse is they SHARE those sensibilities. Like it or not, you associate all that is "Evil" and undesirable in human nature with words like "Satan" and "Devil".

You give some objective reality to these words AS beings or concepts, and you fear them. What's sad is that you will never take it far enough to realize that the fear and revulsion you feel is a potential key to awakening; it is the guardian at the threshold, as some say; that mental reaction is the gate to a deeper realization, beyond the guardian of fear. It is the line that christians will never cross, thus staying in their narrow worlds; the brave and truly wise cross that line and discover a very different reality from the one people have reported (and from the one they may have expected) waiting on the other side of the hedge.

I welcome you to your fear and revulsion. I'm just sorry that you'll never see past it, and will continue to help your christian brothers and sisters to maintain their superstitious and groundless fears. The true beings and spiritual forces of paganism became covered by a cloak of fear, thanks to christianity, and that cloak has to be parted by those who want to re-join the True Sabbat on the Akkelarre, or the Field of the Goat. The Meadows of Elfhame (which Isobel laid her eyes on) are not reachable until you pass the barrier of fear. To go towards these mysteries is to go towards what looks like death. But it's not death; it's a new sort of life that defies description, and from what the witches told DeLancre, it was a new sort of life that they would gladly die for- and they couldn't wait to get back to the Sabbat-stead.

So, now I release you to go back to your fearful corner, and to go back to your inability to see beyond language and cultural tricks of language. It's better for you to stay where you are. The impulse that I felt, which led me to the Old Ways, was clearly felt by you, too.

The difference between us is that I didn't let social parameters of shallow language and fear and superstition stop me from following that impulse back to its source. You only went so far, and stopped right where you wanted to- on a pedestal, a place where you could pull out your narrow lingustics, interpretive histories, and flat definitions, add your half-wisdom and uninitiated perspective to it, and preach to others with that heady mixture.

You can do that until your life is spent, and indeed, it seems likely that you will. The rest of us will be off actually seeing beyond the veil of obvious empiricism, and seeing what THEY saw, in the older times. Each of those deep impulses is a "Lure from paradise".


One more thing- "Witchcraft" was originally a germanic cultural phenomenon. It's even an Anglo-Saxon word. That word was taken MANY centuries later and applied, by english-speaking anthropologists, to all cultures who had sorcerous practitioners, who tended to be dreaded by the mainstream. Stregas are not "Witches"; they are Stregas. English speakers translate the word "Strega" as "Witch", but that is a mark of our modern day, not a historical reality. Stregas are Stregas. Anglo-Saxon Wicces were Wicces. You are allowing your lack of understanding about how translation works to fool you. In English, we may talk all day about "Italian Witchcraft". But there never was any. Sure, they had SORCERY, magically active people who cursed, hexed, healed, and did all the things that are common to sorcerers worldwide. But the Witch-cult is Germanic, from Germanic lands. "Witch" is just the Germanic equivalent (in the minds of anthropologists and translators) of what the Italians called "Stregas".

[Rudas Starblaze]

Hi, i posted something similar in the paths forum but i've also heard your the guy to ask when it comes to witchcraft history. On the crooked heath (http://www.thecrookedheath.com/devilnf.htm), it mentions things about the devil and how witches of old would call their god the devil like , the guy then mentions that Basque witches did it, i was just wondering if you knew anything about this or if any witches (pre-Gardner) did call their god or (gods) the devil?

BTW, i know this might not have anything to do with Italian witches, so i apologise if it should be in another thread.

Thanks

if you want to get technical, in traditional witchcraft, there dosent necessarily have to be worship of any gods. thats only if the individual so choses to follow one or more gods or goddesses. they tend to worship the earth, plain and simple.

but as to gods being depicted as "devils", it was probably for a fear factor by both christian leaders, to keep their followers from being swayed, and possibly by witches trying to keep others out of their affairs by using fear, (but my bet is towards the first of my opinions.)

Lucifer, before he was deemed "Satan" by the christians, was known as the god of light and wisdom. other european gods were known to have had two horns, and or cloved feet. but in my knowledge of the bible, Satan, being the all evil, was/is supposed to be the most beautiful and temping thing on the earth. so how an ugly portrait of him can be displayed is far beyond me. i was always told Satan was a sign of beauty, which is what kept me away from cheerleaders in highshcool! :lol:

[BlackMagicalCat]

I dont think the devil he is talking about sounds like the christian devil.
I saw nothing christian in his path,and it didnt look satanic either.

But what do I know.The devil was one of many names given to his deity.

I know wiccans dont like to admit there is a devil,because to do so means there might be a God too.But the devil is the only god they do that too,because how many gods and goddesses are believed in here ?

A gazzillion.But only one (two)is scoffed at,and it is said,they coudnt possible exist,the devil,and God.

But every other god and goddess under the sun and moon,,is believed in.

Thats what I see,but what do I know.

[toads_boon]

if you want to get technical, in traditional witchcraft, there dosent necessarily have to be worship of any gods. thats only if the individual so choses to follow one or more gods or goddesses. they tend to worship the earth, plain and simple.


That's a confused statement. It stems from traditional witches not actually calling what they worship "gods," and people on the outside who try to make themselves "experts" on the topic confuse this for "god-less religion."

[BlackMagicalCat]

That's a confused statement. It stems from traditional witches not actually calling what they worship "gods," and people on the outside who try to make themselves "experts" on the topic confuse this for "god-less religion."
Well,I went to a site called Ask A witch,,,and they were traditional witches,and they said they didnt believe in a Goddess,or a God.

They said that when I posted a question asking about how I could get closer to the Goddess.
They said,there wasnt a Goddess,,so I asked them by what authority they could say that.They didnt believe in any god or goddess,and they claimed to be traditional witches.

And I asked them to prove it.LOL

Sorta like an athiest asks a christian to prove God is real.

But they said,that thier magic came from them,I told them I was blessed by the Goddess with her magic,and with my cat.a cat walked into my apartment one day,and gave birth to one black cat,,right in front of me and my son,on my couch.

I named her Tabitha.

[Carla O'Harris]

This debate in part seems semantic to me, but I think it is far preferable to refer to the Horned Lord, Horned One, or Horned God than it is to refer to the "Devil", because it's impossible to separate from the diabolizing connotations connected with the term as it was overlayed onto the Horned Lord. The Horned Lord is not Satan, not Yaldabaoth, not Ahriman. There may very well have been cases of ironic reappropriation of the negative term, just as some gay men may choose to reappropriate the burning times term "faggot", but this does not mean that all gay men wish that representation, and to use the term "Devil" is to invite projection of the unintegrated shadow of everyone in Christian culture. I think there are strong rational reasons to want to dodge that bullet, or rather shotgun barrage. I think there are also good reasons indigenously to differentiate the Horned Lord and bring him out into relief from the devilized cover placed over him. I presume that you do not wish to say that witches worship the rebel angel of the JudaeoChristian theology? Because if you are so saying, then you are suggesting that witchcraft is a Christian heresy, whereas Raven Grimassi (in whose room you are speaking, so you might want to consider decorum in that regard --- not that Raven doesn't welcome debate, but as Rasenna pointed out, there is a question of topicality) has presented a witchcraft that is pagan. And yes, pagan : Diana, whose lore survived at least into the late 1800's when Leland discovered it. But wait, that discovery allowed others to begin utilizing it --- meaning it continued, into the present!!

I appreciate your perspective. You seem to be suggesting a fundamental relationship between the witch and the fylgia, which requires one to cross the boundary, the hedge, to discover what one is not in order to know what one is ... all basic and important points made by Hans Peter Duerr in his Dreamtime.

But I still think there are good reasons for differentiating satanism and witchcraft.

[raven grimassi]

One more thing- "Witchcraft" was originally a germanic cultural phenomenon. It's even an Anglo-Saxon word. That word was taken MANY centuries later and applied, by english-speaking anthropologists, to all cultures who had sorcerous practitioners, who tended to be dreaded by the mainstream. Stregas are not "Witches"; they are Stregas. English speakers translate the word "Strega" as "Witch", but that is a mark of our modern day, not a historical reality.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you want to get technical, the oldest accounts of what came to be called Witchcraft in Western Culture appear in ancient Greek writings. Here the word was pharmakis (and pharmaceutes) which refers to herbal knowledge. In Latin this became saga, and then venefica. The latter being used in early trials even in the British Isles, which demonstrates they saw no distinction between English and Italian systems. However, the English word "Witch" certainly has a different etymology, but I have not seen any difference pertaining to beliefs and practices when compared to southern European systems of the Craft. A rose by any other name, as they say.


But you won't find even a single modern "tradition" of it out there, that can show it's lineage to "pre-christian" times.

A lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence. It is difficult to say with any certainty how far back any Witchcraft tradition with lineage may extend. All we can do is look to the earliest writings on Witchcraft, which are pre-Christian, and make comparisons from there.


Stregas are not "Witches"; they are Stregas. English speakers translate the word "Strega" as "Witch", but that is a mark of our modern day, not a historical reality. Stregas are Stregas. Anglo-Saxon Wicces were Wicces.

Since we have not been discussing Stregheria in this thread, and you have now introduced it, I can only assume that you took the opportunity in this thread for a pot shot at me and my beliefs. I find that rude, as I specifically welcomed you here and simply asked for mutually respectful exchanges.

You are still welcome to share your opinions, but you are not welcome to belittle or be abusive (which is showing up in your personal comments towards Rasenna).

[*Rasenna*]

Here is an example: While the Goddess Hera was worshipped in the pre-christian world, no modern follower of Hera can claim that their temple or tradition of Hera worship extends back, in an unbroken chain, to the Temples of Hera or the Cult of Hera, which was around before Christianity. Hera is certainly an immortal goddess, and she is the same Hera worshipped both then and now. But her cult and their inner beliefs, doctrines, and particular ways of pre-christian worship did entirely vanish."

Um, you best check again. Carlo Ginzburg, in Ecstasies, mentions a Medieval sect of peasants who worshipped Hera in the Palatino.


It is true that there was Witchcraft around before Christianity. But you won't find even a single modern "tradition" of it out there, that can show it's lineage to "pre-christian" times. They are all post-christian. "

And your conclusive proof that is where? Perhaps they just don't want to be exposed. There are many possibilities other than your extremely narrow view on the matter.


So, now I release you to go back to your fearful corner,"

LOL - the only "fear" I have is that someone might take you seriously, and like yourself, contribute to the ongoing persecution of witches by spouting this stuff of yours.


You only went so far, and stopped right where you wanted to- on a pedestal, a place where you could pull out your narrow lingustics, interpretive histories, and flat definitions, add your half-wisdom and uninitiated perspective to it, and preach to others with that heady mixture. "

Where the heck did you come up with this!? I've got maybe two or three posts here on this thread, and you're seeing all this in just a few words. Are you feeling okay?

[toads_boon]

Mr. Grimassi, I am not taking pot shots at you or your religion.

The Greek word "Pharmakos" does not translate into "Witch". That's not what "Pharmakos" means. A Pharmakos was a person who used plants and drugs to heal people, a healer, a physician, hence "Pharmaceuticals" as a term for drugs.

The earliest mention we have of Witches- in Anglo Saxon- Wicce- does not derive from a greek source. The Witches of the Germanic peoples were a particular cult, they were Seidmadr and Seidkonas, the Helrunars and Haegtessa who practiced a shamanic art of entering into Hel- the Underworld- and bringing back power and wisdom from that region. They were the "Hedgecrossers"- Haegtessa- that went across the "world hedge" or the dividing line between this world and the next. They also did spells and charms, as you might imagine.

The Strega may have done something similar, with the legends of "Night-travelling". The "game of benevento" and other mentions I have read of their activities. Ginzburg has an excellent book regarding Strega and Sorcerers in Italy- "Night Battles"- and I think this points to the common phenomenon of "Lifting" or flight by animistically-engaged sorcerers of pre-christian origin, which the Strega were, certainly.

But they were not "witches" in the true historical sense; they weren't germanic mystics that worshipped Dame Hel and the forces of Seid-craft. You can say (and probably will) that Hel and Diana were the same Goddess; that is your opinion, and in a broad, theosophical sense, there may even be merit to it. But that aside, cultural context is very important.

It is true that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But for most people, evidence would be nice. The world is still waiting for it- and many people who have been "inside" many occult traditions today, (like Wicca) have come out saying the same thing- "they don't have evidence". Indeed, they do not. They feel like they need none, and again, this is how religion works.

I have long maintained that we don't have to be DIRECT blood descendants of ancient religions or mystical systems. It is both more important and enough to be spiritually descended from them. But that just doesn't sell enough for most modern authors.

[David19]

So would witches (Anglo-Saxon ones) practice seidr (i think that's how you spell it), like some in Asatru do.

Also, were they related to any Vanic paths.

[toads_boon]

Rasenna said:

Um, you best check again. Carlo Ginzburg, in Ecstasies, mentions a Medieval sect of peasants who worshipped Hera in the Palatino.



Sure. I'd love to see his evidence.




And your conclusive proof that is where? Perhaps they just don't want to be exposed. There are many possibilities other than your extremely narrow view on the matter.



I don't have to offer you conclusive proof that pre-christian witches didn't survive. You have to offer me proof that they did. You are making the positive statement, so the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making a claim- I'm making a negative statement. The maker of the positive statement has to offer proof. You do know the rules of skeptical debate, right?

I bet you'd believe that aliens came down and gave me an anal probe last night if I said they did- because after all, you can't prove that they didn't!!!




LOL - the only "fear" I have is that someone might take you seriously, and like yourself, contribute to the ongoing persecution of witches by spouting this stuff of yours.



Oh yeah- you're so persecuted. Wake up to the real world.




Where the heck did you come up with this!? I've got maybe two or three posts here on this thread, and you're seeing all this in just a few words. Are you feeling okay?


I feel fine. I know a neo-pagan fluffy bunny when I see one. Get over it.

[raven grimassi]

The Greek word "Pharmakos" does not translate into "Witch". That's not what "Pharmakos" means. A Pharmakos was a person who used plants and drugs to heal people, a healer, a physician, hence "Pharmaceuticals" as a term for drugs.

As scholar Richard Gordon points out, the Greek word pharmakis "became one of the standard words for wise-women/witch, used as a substantive." Here we're seeing the connection to what witches were associated with as also being the name for them. But yes, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the word refers to plant knowledge. If you don't think the word pharmakis should be translated as "Witch," then your argument is with scholars of Greek, Roman, and Italian Witchcraft (such as Georg Luck, Richard Gordon, Stuart Clark, Gustav Henningsen, and Ruth Martin). As a good scholarly source, I suggest: Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Ancient Greece and Rome (edited by Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark, published by University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).


The Witches of the Germanic peoples were a particular cult, they were Seidmadr and Seidkonas, the Helrunars and Haegtessa who practiced a shamanic art of entering into Hel- the Underworld- and bringing back power and wisdom from that region. They were the "Hedgecrossers"- Haegtessa- that went across the "world hedge" or the dividing line between this world and the next. They also did spells and charms, as you might imagine.

What you will find in Greek and Roman Witchcraft is an account of Witches involved with Hecate, who gathers wayward souls at the crossroads. As scholar Sarah Johnston points out (Restless Dear: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece) the crossroad is a liminal place, a portal or doorway between the worlds. I see no difference here with what you call "Hedgecrossers."


But they were not "witches" in the true historical sense; they weren't germanic mystics that worshipped Dame Hel and the forces of Seid-craft. You can say (and probably will) that Hel and Diana were the same Goddess; that is your opinion, and in a broad, theosophical sense, there may even be merit to it. But that aside, cultural context is very important.

I respectfully disagree that one has to be a "germanic mystic" who worshipped "Dame Hel" in order to be a Witch. That may or may not be true of Germanic Witches, but in my opinion that is much too broad a paintbrush to be using.

Greco-Roman Witches, as herbalists, were certainly using mind-altering substances. There are also many references to Italian & Sicilian Witches involved with fairy beings, and also intimately connected to spirits of the dead and the Underworld. So once again, I see no distinction between European traditions of Witchcraft in this regard.


It is true that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But for most people, evidence would be nice. The world is still waiting for it- and many people who have been "inside" many occult traditions today, (like Wicca) have come out saying the same thing- "they don't have evidence". Indeed, they do not.

Actually there is an abundance of data, which is ignored or dismissed on the subject. This has all been bounced around in various forums here for quite some time.


I have long maintained that we don't have to be DIRECT blood descendants of ancient religions or mystical systems. It is both more important and enough to be spiritually descended from them. But that just doesn't sell enough for most modern authors.

Well, first off, authors in our genre make extremely little, so no one I know of (myself included) is writing for the money. Let us get that out of the way from the start.

But, on the other matter I agree with you, and have long said that we Italian Witches do not need an ancient tradition in order to be valid; we just happen to have one.

[*Rasenna*]

I bet you'd believe that aliens came down and gave me an anal probe last night if I said they did- because after all, you can't prove that they didn't!!!.

So tell me, did they ever find your head?

[toads_boon]

Mr. Grimassi:

You are making an error in thinking that is hard to see, and therefore easy to miss.

You are using "Witchcraft" as it has come to be used- as refering to ALL sorcerous practicioners worldwide who did things related to "spells" and "charms" or even "drugs", who hexed or likewise.

This is a modern usage. And yes, I do have an issue with those scholars, who decided that the english word "Witch" should be equated with "Strega".

As I have said, "Stregas" very likely did the same kinds of things as Anglo-Saxon Witches or Wicces. But that does NOT make them witches. That makes them italian sorcerers who were doing some of the same types of things as Anglo-Saxon sorcerers. Their two traditions did not necessarily have a common root. They were simply associated in the minds of LATER linguistists and historians. Their names- "Strega" and "Wicce" are now taken to mean the same thing- people say "oh, they were both Witches".

But they weren't. Would you call an Anglo-Saxon Wicce a "Strega", even though they weren't italian, never had been to Italy, didn't speak italian or latin, and lived in Northern England? No, you wouldn't. So why does it work the other way?

Because in the modern day the word "Witch" has been whitewashed of its original cultural meaning and applied to ALL practicioners of cultural sorcery worldwide. This is unfair. It's like mexican anthropologists deciding that ALL musicians worldwide were "mariachis". A Tibetan Throat Singer is NOT a mariachi. Both make music, but they do it very differently, and they are not culturally related. Just the same, Stregas were not Wicce. They both do sorcery, and sometimes the sorceries are similar, but they are not the same.

When we speak English we have no choice but to USE the term "Witch", because it has become a habit. But we don't ever stop to wonder at WHY that Word was chosen. It was chosen because English translators decided to use it- translators that were not Wicce themselves. They made a blanket statement using that word. I will not dishonor Celtic Mystics like Taibsears by calling them "Witches". They are Taibsears. I will not dishonor Stregas by calling them "Witches". They Stregas. I will not dishonor Apache Hand Tremblers by calling them "Witches". They are Hand Tremblers. I will not dishonor Sioux Wicasa Wakans by calling them "Witches". They are Wicasa Wakans. All of these people do sorcerous things, talk to spirits, make cures and heal people, even hex enemies. But they are not the "same" thing. Cultural context is important. White English-Speaking anthropologists called all these people "Witches" but that only shows their lack of understanding and their slavery to language.

As for your contention about Hecate- remember, Churchmen who were classically educated wrote those accounts. They took the dark goddess of the Witches to be "Hecate" because she was, from classical times, thought to be the goddess of witches- but that's enlgish translation. In the original texts, she was a goddess of Striga, Strix, Maleficium, veneficium, Goes, Pharmakos, and the like- the latin classical words that english-speakers all equate with "Witch". She (Hecate) was also conflated with local Goddesses that were seen as having similar types of people worshipping her. Aelfric does call the Burgrunes and Helruners "Parcae" and "Maleficium", but that is his Latin education coming out; because he associated the Helruners with classical Maleficium doesn't mean that they were the SAME thing. They were doing the same kinds of things, to his mind, and that made them comparable. They were NOT the same cult, not even by a long shot.

[toads_boon]

Rasenna wrote:


So tell me, did they ever find your head?



So tell me, did you ever find your ability to understand what the rules of intelligent debate are?

Have you found that evidence for the positive claim you are making? That witches secretly survived from pre-christian times in direct lines of descent? You are making that tired claim, and failing to come up with evidence for it. No intelligent person is bound to believe anything without seeing evidence.

You can choose to say whatever you want, but no one's listening until you provide evidence. And as I said before you ONCE AGAIN tried to change the subject, you- the maker of the positive statement- are the one that has to present the evidence, or remain silent. Do not speak of what you cannot demonstrate.

Your insistence in doing so only demonstrates that you have whole-heartedly bought into the new-age mythology; you want to believe something, and you believe it without question, without evidence. You believe that witches all hid and now stay in hiding because "they don't want to be exposed".

That's such a romantic, exciting, and awesome Anne Rice novel! I'd listen to Raven's wisdom if I were you- what matters is that there is a tradition now, not what happened in the past.

[*Rasenna*]

So tell me, did you ever find your ability to understand what the rules of intelligent debate are?.

So when, preacher, did this become a debate?

[Carla O'Harris]

Mr. Grimassi, I am not taking pot shots at you or your religion.

The Greek word "Pharmakos" does not translate into "Witch". That's not what "Pharmakos" means. A Pharmakos was a person who used plants and drugs to heal people, a healer, a physician, hence "Pharmaceuticals" as a term for drugs.

The earliest mention we have of Witches- in Anglo Saxon- Wicce- does not derive from a greek source. The Witches of the Germanic peoples were a particular cult, they were Seidmadr and Seidkonas, the Helrunars and Haegtessa who practiced a shamanic art of entering into Hel- the Underworld- and bringing back power and wisdom from that region. They were the "Hedgecrossers"- Haegtessa- that went across the "world hedge" or the dividing line between this world and the next. They also did spells and charms, as you might imagine.

The Strega may have done something similar, with the legends of "Night-travelling". The "game of benevento" and other mentions I have read of their activities. Ginzburg has an excellent book regarding Strega and Sorcerers in Italy- "Night Battles"- and I think this points to the common phenomenon of "Lifting" or flight by animistically-engaged sorcerers of pre-christian origin, which the Strega were, certainly.

But they were not "witches" in the true historical sense; they weren't germanic mystics that worshipped Dame Hel and the forces of Seid-craft. You can say (and probably will) that Hel and Diana were the same Goddess; that is your opinion, and in a broad, theosophical sense, there may even be merit to it. But that aside, cultural context is very important.

It is true that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. But for most people, evidence would be nice. The world is still waiting for it- and many people who have been "inside" many occult traditions today, (like Wicca) have come out saying the same thing- "they don't have evidence". Indeed, they do not. They feel like they need none, and again, this is how religion works.

I have long maintained that we don't have to be DIRECT blood descendants of ancient religions or mystical systems. It is both more important and enough to be spiritually descended from them. But that just doesn't sell enough for most modern authors.



Ok, I'm going to have to correct you here in a few areas, because when it comes to Germanic systems I happen to have some expertise myself.

First of all, the assertion that "Dame Hel" was the key figure in seidcraft is erroneous. The key figure would be Freya, who is spoken in Heimskringla as being the first to teach the art to the Aesir. Secondly, "Dame Hel" in any case would not be Loki's daughter properly named Hela-Leikin, but Wyrd herself, who along with Mimir, rules the Underworld. And the relationship between Freya and Diana would be much easier to make, although they obviously have their differences.

Secondly, it would be erroneous to assume that the seid-system used in Scandinavia was identical in all Germanic speaking areas, although obviously we want to glean as much as we can. I suspect they were similar, but we cannot assume their absolute identity.

Thirdly, if you wish to make your distinctions distinct for the sake of some ideal of absolute purity and clarity, that is your prerogative, but frankly, it amounts to splitting hairs, because as Ginzburg shows, there is a vast pan-European phenomena going on here with various local variations. Since it would be impossible to separate the practitioners of pharmakon, veneficia, and strega from "divination" and "augury", then separating them from "wicca" whose early gloss was "augur" seems like splitting hairs. This is not to say that I am not interested in the differences between all these practitioners in all their variances. But they are variations upon a very similar pattern.

As far as "the world waiting" for evidence, I consider this laziness and think, respectfully, those people should get up off their ass and stop waiting for someone else to do the work. There is a great deal of work to be done in this field, witches should be doing it (not all witches, but there should be those who apply themselves in this regard), and there is much to be gleaned from the study of popular culture and its history that can be applied towards the fragmentary evidence that we have. A lot of this evidence simply needs to be compiled together, as it has been its separation and fragmentation that makes it seem like nothing is happening. And I'll point out that Raven has for a long time fairly solo been a part of this thrust, and inspiring others to do so, while at the same time reminding them not to lose the intuitive path. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of evidence.

Since the "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack", that lack of evidence cannot be used to refute the claim, and I would think that you would know from a study of Germanic principles of law and oathing, that if an oath is put on the record where a specific claim is made, that if no one is able to challenge that within a specified time with refuting evidence, the claim is considered to hold, and become a precedent. From this standpoint, people who have made claims that they have a lineage, and whom others have never been able to fully refute, and who furthermore are able to show traces and signs in history, should be considered to have their claims as precedents and therefore of standing, until such time as a full rebuttal can occur.

[Carla O'Harris]

I bet you'd believe that aliens came down and gave me an anal probe last night if I said they did- because after all, you can't prove that they didn't!!!



Completely invalid comparison. The reason the burden of proof would lay upon a claim in this regard is because the claim is outlandish and without precedent. It is a fringe phenomenon. (I am not saying or denying that such things do not happen. But there are rational reasons to be skeptical of such phenomena.)

The same is not true of the claim that pagan survivals may have occurred in witch lineages. This is a perfectly rational claim. A claim which fits into the scheme of knowledge as we know it does not require the same burden of proof as one which is outside it.

We have dozens of examples of cult survivals over hundreds and even more than a thousand years, so there is certainly historical precedent for such survival.

In the case of Diana, we have an almost continuous record of her as a folk-figure, culminating in Leland, and from him, going beyond into the present.

Given all this, it's really not that hard to imagine. No, the burden of proof should be on the skeptics.

[Carla O'Harris]

Mr. Grimassi:

You are making an error in thinking that is hard to see, and therefore easy to miss.

You are using "Witchcraft" as it has come to be used- as refering to ALL sorcerous practicioners worldwide who did things related to "spells" and "charms" or even "drugs", who hexed or likewise.

This is a modern usage. And yes, I do have an issue with those scholars, who decided that the english word "Witch" should be equated with "Strega".

As I have said, "Stregas" very likely did the same kinds of things as Anglo-Saxon Witches or Wicces. But that does NOT make them witches. That makes them italian sorcerers who were doing some of the same types of things as Anglo-Saxon sorcerers. Their two traditions did not necessarily have a common root. They were simply associated in the minds of LATER linguistists and historians. Their names- "Strega" and "Wicce" are now taken to mean the same thing- people say "oh, they were both Witches".

But they weren't. Would you call an Anglo-Saxon Wicce a "Strega", even though they weren't italian, never had been to Italy, didn't speak italian or latin, and lived in Northern England? No, you wouldn't. So why does it work the other way?


This is ridiculous. What's your point? That there are different languages? Of course there are different languages? Are you a postmodernist asserting that translation is impossible? Translation is of course never exact, but that doesn't mean that when an native-speaking Italian eats a potato that they are somehow eating a different tuber than I am when I eat a potato.

The critical point in this matter is whether these different practitioners would recognize each other as practicing essentially the same thing, and the answer is that they would. Yes, let's be aware of all the variations and differentiations, but let us not use this polemically to gloss over or erase their essential similarity, because we will lose the forest for the trees, and in this area, the forest is all important.

I've seen this same sort of argument applied to the use of the term "shaman", and I have to completely and totally disagree with what I see as postmodern nitpicking. In the interests of looking more carefully into local variation, I encourage getting to know specificity ; but the fact of the matter is that shamanic practitioners all over the world are engaged in things so similar it is putting blinders on to not see their similarities.

And if the comparative method of someone like Frazer hadn't been irrationally thrown out of anthropology and folklore history, it would be completely obvious how many connections there indeed are. But again, a good source that shows all of these interconnections worldwide, and also makes the point about the hedge-rider who crosses over to the other side, read Hans Peter Duerr's Dreamtime, which is one of the best books in the field.

[Carla O'Harris]

As for your contention about Hecate- remember, Churchmen who were classically educated wrote those accounts. They took the dark goddess of the Witches to be "Hecate" because she was, from classical times, thought to be the goddess of witches- but that's enlgish translation. In the original texts, she was a goddess of Striga, Strix, Maleficium, veneficium, Goes, Pharmakos, and the like- the latin classical words that english-speakers all equate with "Witch". She (Hecate) was also conflated with local Goddesses that were seen as having similar types of people worshipping her. Aelfric does call the Burgrunes and Helruners "Parcae" and "Maleficium", but that is his Latin education coming out; because he associated the Helruners with classical Maleficium doesn't mean that they were the SAME thing. They were doing the same kinds of things, to his mind, and that made them comparable. They were NOT the same cult, not even by a long shot. They were NOT the same cult, not even by a long shot.


Actually, when he calls them "Parcae" he is completely on track here, because he is connecting them to Wyrd, ie. the Queen of Hel, and witches would have a connection to Wyrd, as they were "augurs" and therefore spakonas.

You're forgetting that the culture area we are discussing is Indo-European which has a fundamental deep-connection both linguistically and mythologically. The "Parcae" correspond to the "Norns" in every way. Broad comparisons can be made between Latin, Greek, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Persian, and Vedic mythological systems and languages. Secondly, underlying even this Indo-European system is an even broader Neolithic/Bronze Age system consisting of a pantheon led by a polymorphic goddess-figure associated with fairy-like birds, and a horned dying-rising god, as Gimbutas' work has demonstrated. So the underlying matrices for making comparisons are there to make such comparisons rational. So while these things may not have been the "same" (I think we can all admit this), their close similarity is meaningful, and stems actually from common sources which each particular locality diverged from.

You're also forgetting that the interpretation Romana far predated any ecclesiastical familiarity with the classics. The Romans and the Greeks before them commonly applied their own terms to local cults, and there is every indication that there resulted syncretism in this regard, where people had little problem calling their local figure by the imperial name which connected their local figure with other figures everywhere. So it's not as simple as positing that some ecclesiastical figure imposed classical lore upon a local phenomna, even though that is a possibility. It is also a possibility with some probability behind it that the predating interpretation Romana took some root, and people continued to refer to their local figure under the Roman name.

[raven grimassi]

You are using "Witchcraft" as it has come to be used- as refering to ALL sorcerous practicioners worldwide who did things related to "spells" and "charms" or even "drugs", who hexed or likewise.

Actually, that is not my position. I do not consider a sorcerer to be the same thing as a Witch (in whatever culture one might find them). For example, I do not see an African "witch-doctor" as a witch, nor a Macumba or Santeria person as a Witch, nor do I see European folk magic practitioners as Witches.


This is a modern usage. And yes, I do have an issue with those scholars, who decided that the english word "Witch" should be equated with "Strega".

It has been the academic view long before these scholars came along. You would have to undo history and Western literature in order to arrive at your position. I admire your tenacity even though your position is ultimately untenable.


Would you call an Anglo-Saxon Wicce a "Strega", even though they weren't italian, never had been to Italy, didn't speak italian or latin, and lived in Northern England? No, you wouldn't. So why does it work the other way?


Well, actually, since both words mean the same thing, I would not have an objection within the context you suggest. Likewise, I have no problem with a mela being called an apple in English, or vice versa. Different etymology, same fruit. I think "Strega" and "Wicce" simply point to the cultural differences of these Witchcraft traditions. In other words the use of "Strega" and "Wicce" would simply alert one to taking notice of the differences in how both practice Witchcraft.


As for your contention about Hecate- remember, Churchmen who were classically educated wrote those accounts.

No, the references are pre-Christian, and therefore the concept is pre-Christian. Granted Churchmen may have incorporated these tales/concepts for their own designs, but that does not negate their previous origins.


As for your contention about Hecate- remember, Churchmen who were classically educated wrote those accounts. They took the dark goddess of the Witches to be "Hecate" because she was, from classical times, thought to be the goddess of witches- but that's enlgish translation.

Actually it is an understanding of the cultural context and the existence of Witches in the lands described in ancient writings. They saw nothing different enough to make a distinction between Witchcraft in northern Europe versus southern Europe because there wasn't anything all that different.


In the original texts, she was a goddess of Striga, Strix, Maleficium, veneficium, Goes, Pharmakos, and the like- the latin classical words that english-speakers all equate with "Witch".

To which texts do you refer? Hecate's first appearance is in the Theogony, by Hesiod, where she appears as a goddess who reigns over the three great realms (Above, Below, and in-between). There is nothing dark in her nature at all. Following this she appears as a goddess venerated by the Witch Medea, who is described as her priestess. It isn't until much later among the Romans that Hecate is demoted to simply a dark goddess of night spirits.

In the book Hekate Soteira (Scholars Press, 1990) by Sarah Iles Johnston, the author notes that while many historians of religion regard Hecate as "the horrific patroness of witches," there were Greek and Roman philosophers from the Hellenistic age onwards that envisioned Hecate as the "connective boundary" between the divine and human worlds.

Johnston also notes that Hecate was regarded as a facilitator of communication between the gods and humankind. Additionally the author notes that Hecate gave messages through the Chaldean Oracles and was considered the "Cosmic Soul." Homer's depiction of Hecate living in a cave demonstrates that she lives "between the worlds" standing above the Underworld and beneath the sky, the realm of the gods. When one considers the fact that the ancient witch Medea was a priestess of Hecate, the role of witches can be seen in a different light other than the negative one offered by scholars and commentators.

The ancient writers Horace, Ovid and Lucan were among the first to connect Hecate to the Moon in Witchcraft, and to speak of the power of Witches to call the Moon down from the sky. Later in the writings of Plutarch we see Hecate and the Moon viewed in partnership as the "intermediary principle." The role of Hecate and the Moon in guiding souls across the boundary between the earth and the celestial realm was further developed in the first century CE.

In all of this we see Hecate reaching her own "fork-in-the-road" or personal crossroad in which the negative and positive elements divide entirely into two separate directions or schools of thought. In classical times Hecate was portrayed as the queen or mistress of phantoms and other night spirits. Plutarch, in the first century CE, coined the phrase "daemones" when referring to such creatures. From this word came the Christian concept of demons, despite the fact the Greek word daemon (in Neoplatonist philosophy) simply designated a spirit-being that was greater than a man but less than a god. In other words a daemon was not the ghost of a person nor was it a god. It could behave in a benevolent or malevolent manner, just as could any man or any god. With the rise to power of Christianity, Hecate and the Witch along with the daemon became purely evil creatures.

Hecate was often depicted in iconography holding a key. As a keeper of the key, Hecate could both open and close the doors to the Underworld. Plutarch wrote that souls are "resolved back into the Moon" just as bodies are resolved back into the earth. It was his belief that the Sun impregnated the Moon and the Moon then sowed new souls in the earth, which furnished the soul with a physical body. Plutarch noted that the Moon was the "gulf of Hecate" and played an essential role in the fate of disembodied souls.

[Carla O'Harris]

Rasenna wrote:


So tell me, did they ever find your head?



So tell me, did you ever find your ability to understand what the rules of intelligent debate are?

Have you found that evidence for the positive claim you are making? That witches secretly survived from pre-christian times in direct lines of descent? You are making that tired claim, and failing to come up with evidence for it. No intelligent person is bound to believe anything without seeing evidence.

You can choose to say whatever you want, but no one's listening until you provide evidence. And as I said before you ONCE AGAIN tried to change the subject, you- the maker of the positive statement- are the one that has to present the evidence, or remain silent. Do not speak of what you cannot demonstrate.

Your insistence in doing so only demonstrates that you have whole-heartedly bought into the new-age mythology; you want to believe something, and you believe it without question, without evidence. You believe that witches all hid and now stay in hiding because "they don't want to be exposed".

That's such a romantic, exciting, and awesome Anne Rice novel! I'd listen to Raven's wisdom if I were you- what matters is that there is a tradition now, not what happened in the past.



First of all, to state that a case must be able to prove to complete satisfaction their argument to the most skeptical examiner is a burden of proof that few claims of any kind beyond the most prosaical could possibly satisfy. You aren't going to get that kind of standard with scientific theories that are considered to have widespread validity.

Secondly, your statement is historically insensitive, because again we are dealing with a situation of quasi-genocide where the Church was targetting specific groups and subjecting them to extermination. That holds true whether you believe the 9 million, the 150,000, or the 40,000 killed figure, because in some cases we are dealing with small groups trying to preserve a cultural legacy against extermination. To require a group whose evidence has been systematically slandered, smeared, and wiped out, to provide the same amount of evidence as groups that have not had to face that kind of oppression is absolutely absurd.

And please listen to Raven : if you would take the time to explore the history of the examination of the evidence on a number of threads here, you'll find us providing proof for a great deal of evidence.

And don't tell Rasenna that no one is listening to her. I am listening to her, Raven is listening to her, and a great deal of people are listening to her because she has a strong voice and important things to say. Can't you find a more respectful way of differing from her?


or remain silent. Do not speak of what you cannot demonstrate.

Who are you to silence anyone? It's only with witches that anyone would ever consider this kind of disrespectful burden of proof to be rational at all. If it were a Native American tribe trying to hold onto their lore over centuries of oppression, there would automatically be a different standard of sensitivity. Many Native American leaders, by the way, accept that witches were the shamanistic leaders of the indigenous European faiths, by the way. They know as we know that systematic oppression was applied here, modern attempts to erase that oppression and erase that history --- posing as skepticism but in fact with an agenda of erasure --- notwithstanding.


You believe that witches all hid and now stay in hiding because "they don't want to be exposed".

Yah, that's completely rational, and it happens all the time anthropologically. You need to get off your high horse of hubris and change your disrespectful tone. One can demonstrate the same sort of thing with a comparable phenomena, the Moranno Jews, many of whom to this day don't want any kind of exposure, and keep themselves very secretive.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, and in a disrespectful way that assumes that those who are differing with you are lesser and do not know what they are talking about. Well, we know what we are talking about, in some areas we may well know more than you, we are proactive and not simply on the defensive, and we will not be silenced.

[toads_boon]

For all: I can see that the attempt to interject other perspectives into the minds of people whose minds are more than made up is as fruitless as I was warned it would be.

Carla: You are quite wrong to think that Seid-work had nothing to do with Hel. The Helrunar or Helruner was certainly tightly bound to the Queen of the Underworld, and the mysteries of the deep worlds were foremost in the arts of Seid; Freya was the Vanadis, the Goddess-Ancestress of the Vanir; the Idises or the Disir were figures linked to the matrones, the three fertility mothers (distant Fate figures for family lines) and their "Plenty", their blessings were tied to the 3rd function of production and fertility, on top of their "other" Walkuria or Valkyrie-like duties of protection.

The underworld is the common origin of fertility to Indo European pagans and the common origin of Wisdom.

If you take Freya and Venus/Aphrodite to be cognates, and Perspehone and Hel to be cognates, you run into another issue- Peter Kingsley discusses how many places in the classical world didn't view Persephone and Aphrodite as two different goddesses, as much as two faces of one Mystery Goddess- a Goddess of Life and Death, literally. (See his book "Reality")

It's a dangerous proposition to some, but Hel and Freya seem similar in many ways- both are goddesses of the dead, with Freya having her choice of 1/3rd of the dead, and having many chthonic overlaps.

You can accuse me of splitting hairs all you like; I will not allow the mere fact of the existence of common cultural sorcerous practices to lead me to conflate all sorcerous practicioners. You may have an addiction to calling yourself "Witch" (which is a joke coming from someone who uses the name "Wiccan Fundamentalist") but like most who try to grasp and lay claim to the term "Witch", you are just enjoying a little shock and a little immaturity in your trip through the New-Age world, before you convert back to christianity.

The word "witch" has that awesome appeal, that shock affect, that sensational power. It's so grand to be "Wiccan" or a "witch", however you can go about being one.

As far as your sorry attempts to counterattack my insistence on debate principles holding true, sorry- we don't live in ancient germanic times, and your "Oath" that "witches secretly survived" the christian onslaught is simply not enough. Show me some evidence; your word is not enough. Show me another place on earth where a secret cult has survived 1500 years or more under a dominant cultural force that didn't want it around.

You are a wiccan, and therefore pretty much unable to engage in any sort of serious debate, even if you did go to Wikipedia and read some articles on Seid in a light-hearted attempt to make yourself look well-informed.

The absurd murryaite idea that your "Witches" survived in secret worshipping their god or (the true gods forbid) their GODDESS IS outlandish and without precedent. Go find me even the first traces of traces of evidence, and we'll talk again.

The burden of proof is NEVER on skeptics. So, go re-write the rules of intellectual debate on your own time.

I am a postmodernist, and unlike your new-agey tendency to whitewash all cultures and liberally borrow their cultural terminology to suit your fantasy life, I would prefer to extend respect. That's where we differ.

Mr Grimmasi: I was attempting to use Sorcerer as a more cultural neutral word. If you want, we can use "Mystically active person" or "Numinally active person". But I felt there was no need to labor this any further. Sorcerer, at least to the the greek "Goes", only means "chanter", "singer" or "howler", to refer to songs or chants made to invisible powers. That was a bit more broad, since everyone just about did that.

And I dont' care about the "academic" View that has been held regarding the use of the word witch, and I don't care how long it has been held- if it was wrong, it was wrong, even way back then. The typically held view for centuries has been that witches are harmful, evil people. Would you agree with that, just because it has been believed by many or most for so long?

I thank you for your admiriation, but try to understand that I don't believe that I can change the world, nor am I trying to. I am stating something that means a lot to me; Carla the "Wiccan fundamentalist" says that I am being a "Nit-picky postmodernist", but that's much better than being a new-agey cultural rapist.

Like it or not, "Witchcraft" has gotten to be pretty in vogue today. People have many different ideas about what it is, many of which are bogus. You must see many such people in your everyday life.

We have to bring a level of respect and awareness back, because I feel we owe the dead only the Truth.

As for your notion that you wouldn't mind calling an English Seid-man a "Strega", well, that is your opinion, and we simply disagree. The Spirit of the Strega is tied to his or her land, to Southern Europe, to Italy and Tuscany, and those old gods and spirits. There's something more to Stregaheria than just being a person who does magic.

But that's just my opinion.

I never disagreed that the concept of associating classical Gods and Goddesses with northern ones STARTED with the church; I know the Romans did it. But that's where the church got it from- the Romans whose world and soul they stole. That was my point.

Of course, the real question becomes: Do you think the Romans had a right to make these associations? Is it fair to non-Roman cultures?

You will probably say yes.

There are many who would say no.

Finally, before I go, (as your forum is packed to the gills with kids stuck in fantasy land) I wish you well and wanted to point out that "Daimon" just means "Divine Being", and even the Gods in Greece were called "Great Daimons".

Hecate WAS the connective boundary between all things- men and gods, and all the worlds- I don't doubt that, but then, the Goddess of Witches, or of Mystics who were able to access the realms of the dead, would need just such a being to perform their art.

Good evening to you.

P.S. Carla: You REALLY believe that the church wielded a "quasi genocide" against the secret witches out nobly struggling against them in the countryside?

Are you REALLY that dull?

You have not presented evidence, and the made up concept of the "Burning times" has been well refuted by many scholars, first and foremost being Ronald Hutton. Preserving cultural legacy?? LOL! I bet it must be really warm in that helium bubble you live in, floating way above reality.

I've looked at your "Evidence". It's not evidence.

At best it's highly interpretive history, and needless to say, your desire to interpret it like Margaret Murray marks you for what you are- a new ager.

Don't you EVER dare to compare you or your crystal-wand waving, over-privledged white asses to the Native Americans, who have suffered an ACTUAL cultural genocide. YOU need to get off YOUR high horse and wake up from your fantasy life.

Good day to you.

[Carla O'Harris]

For all: I can see that the attempt to interject other perspectives into the minds of people whose minds are more than made up is as fruitless as I was warned it would be.

Carla: You are quite wrong to think that Seid-work had nothing to do with Hel. The Helrunar or Helruner was certainly tightly bound to the Queen of the Underworld, and the mysteries of the deep worlds were foremost in the arts of Seid; Freya was the Vanadis, the Goddess-Ancestress of the Vanir; the Idises or the Disir were figures linked to the matrones, the three fertility mothers (distant Fate figures for family lines) and their "Plenty", their blessings were tied to the 3rd function of production and fertility, on top of their "other" Walkuria or Valkyrie-like duties of protection.

The underworld is the common origin of fertility to Indo European pagans and the common origin of Wisdom.

If you take Freya and Venus/Aphrodite to be cognates, and Perspehone and Hel to be cognates, you run into another issue- Peter Kingsley discusses how many places in the classical world didn't view Persephone and Aphrodite as two different goddesses, as much as two faces of one Mystery Goddess- a Goddess of Life and Death, literally. (See his book "Reality")

It's a dangerous proposition to some, but Hel and Freya seem similar in many ways- both are goddesses of the dead, with Freya having her choice of 1/3rd of the dead, and having many chthonic overlaps.

You can accuse me of splitting hairs all you like; I will not allow the mere fact of the existence of common cultural sorcerous practices to lead me to conflate all sorcerous practicioners. You may have an addiction to calling yourself "Witch" (which is a joke coming from someone who uses the name "Wiccan Fundamentalist") but like most who try to grasp and lay claim to the term "Witch", you are just enjoying a little shock and a little immaturity in your trip through the New-Age world, before you convert back to christianity.

The word "witch" has that awesome appeal, that shock affect, that sensational power. It's so grand to be "Wiccan" or a "witch", however you can go about being one.

As far as your sorry attempts to counterattack my insistence on debate principles holding true, sorry- we don't live in ancient germanic times, and your "Oath" that "witches secretly survived" the christian onslaught is simply not enough. Show me some evidence; your word is not enough. Show me another place on earth where a secret cult has survived 1500 years or more under a dominant cultural force that didn't want it around.

You are a wiccan, and therefore pretty much unable to engage in any sort of serious debate, even if you did go to Wikipedia and read some articles on Seid in a light-hearted attempt to make yourself look well-informed.

The absurd murryaite idea that your "Witches" survived in secret worshipping their god or (the true gods forbid) their GODDESS IS outlandish and without precedent. Go find me even the first traces of traces of evidence, and we'll talk again.

The burden of proof is NEVER on skeptics. So, go re-write the rules of intellectual debate on your own time.

I am a postmodernist, and unlike your new-agey tendency to whitewash all cultures and liberally borrow their cultural terminology to suit your fantasy life, I would prefer to extend respect. That's where we differ.


I thank you for your admiriation, but try to understand that I don't believe that I can change the world, nor am I trying to. I am stating something that means a lot to me; Carla the "Wiccan fundamentalist" says that I am being a "Nit-picky postmodernist", but that's much better than being a new-agey cultural rapist.

We have to bring a level of respect and awareness back, because I feel we owe the dead only the Truth.

As for your notion that you wouldn't mind calling an English Seid-man a "Strega", well, that is your opinion, and we simply disagree. The Spirit of the Strega is tied to his or her land, to Southern Europe, to Italy and Tuscany, and those old gods and spirits. There's something more to Stregaheria than just being a person who does magic.

But that's just my opinion.

I never disagreed that the concept of associating classical Gods and Goddesses with northern ones STARTED with the church; I know the Romans did it. But that's where the church got it from- the Romans whose world and soul they stole. That was my point.

Of course, the real question becomes: Do you think the Romans had a right to make these associations? Is it fair to non-Roman cultures?

You will probably say yes.

There are many who would say no.

Finally, before I go, (as your forum is packed to the gills with kids stuck in fantasy land) I wish you well and wanted to point out that "Daimon" just means "Divine Being", and even the Gods in Greece were called "Great Daimons".

Hecate WAS the connective boundary between all things- men and gods, and all the worlds- I don't doubt that, but then, the Goddess of Witches, or of Mystics who were able to access the realms of the dead, would need just such a being to perform their art.

Good evening to you.

P.S. Carla: You REALLY believe that the church wielded a "quasi genocide" against the secret witches out nobly struggling against them in the countryside?

Are you REALLY that dull?

You have not presented evidence, and the made up concept of the "Burning times" has been well refuted by many scholars, first and foremost being Ronald Hutton. Preserving cultural legacy?? LOL! I bet it must be really warm in that helium bubble you live in, floating way above reality.

I've looked at your "Evidence". It's not evidence.

At best it's highly interpretive history, and needless to say, your desire to interpret it like Margaret Murray marks you for what you are- a new ager.

Don't you EVER dare to compare you or your crystal-wand waving, over-privledged white asses to the Native Americans, who have suffered an ACTUAL cultural genocide. YOU need to get off YOUR high horse and wake up from your fantasy life.

Good day to you.


You're way out of line. I've put you in your place, but I did not insult you. In fact, I have tried to engage the validity of your viewpoints, but you are the one on a high horse making disrespectful accusations about the rest of us.

First of all, I am Asatru, and well-respected within particular Asatru circles, so don't accuse me of being "New Age". I'm well familiar with seidr and other aspects of my Teutonic ancestors. And please note that I did not say that seidr had nothing to do with Hel ; I said it had little to do with Loki's daughter, and there is a difference. Please read my words more carefully.

Secondly, my invocation of "Wiccan Fundamentalist" is an ironic reappropriation of accusation ; given your penchant for calling the Horned One the "devil", I would think you would be well familiar with such a strategy.

Notice that "conflation" is not going on. Rather, the fact of differentiation is not being allowed to shadow over commonality. Here's Raven's quote :


In other words the use of "Strega" and "Wicce" would simply alert one to taking notice of the differences in how both practice Witchcraft.


"differences" in how "both" practice "Witchcraft". In other words, there is a commonality with differences. All of these different terms belong to the same class.



but like most who try to grasp and lay claim to the term "Witch", you are just enjoying a little shock and a little immaturity in your trip through the New-Age world, before you convert back to christianity.



You're being disrespectful. I have been respectful towards your views, and have differed with what you have had to say. You are assuming way too much here, and creating a straw man to tear down. You're projecting someone else onto me, someone who is far less rigorous than I am. You presume that I personally am laying claim to the term "Witch". Aside from my humorous and ironic reappropriation of "Wiccan Fundamentalist", you haven't a clue how I present myself. I am not out to shock, nor am I grandstanding. How you glean immaturity through an honest engagement with the sources is beyond me. And you have no idea what my relationship with christianity is.



As far as your sorry attempts to counterattack my insistence on debate principles holding true, sorry- we don't live in ancient germanic times, and your "Oath" that "witches secretly survived" the christian onslaught is simply not enough. Show me some evidence; your word is not enough. Show me another place on earth where a secret cult has survived 1500 years or more under a dominant cultural force that didn't want it around.


Ok, a couple things here. First of all, you're assuming that I need to show you anything in order for my knowledge-claims to be valid. That isn't true. Within a particular school of thought, the evidence has been well-demonstrated. That doesn't mean it needs to be proven to every skeptic in order to have validity. It does mean it doesn't have absolute validity, but that applies to every knowledge-claim, for which one can always find any number of dissenters. So please correct your epistemology.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence for the survival of cult elements over hundreds and thousands of years. I'll document this in my upcoming book.

Thirdly, a claim with supportive evidence that is not outlandish does not require the same level of proof as one that is outlandish. I've already covered that, and you haven't addressed it. We aren't talking alien abduction. We're discussing the persistence of cult practices amongst real human beings. It's certainly not an illogical proposition that humans tend to be religiously conservative.

Finally, your selectiveness in invoking Germanic principles is certainly interesting, as you're willing to use them except when they work against you.

As far as skepticism goes, there is a "reasonable" doubt standard that is overstretched by the skeptics in this field. Burden of proof is relative to the outlandishness of the claim. The claims being made are far from outlandish.

The absurdity of all this is magnified by the fact that you yourself see traces in the witch trials of the survival of ancient Germanic practices.


unlike your new-agey tendency to whitewash all cultures and liberally borrow their cultural terminology to suit your fantasy life, I would prefer to extend respect. That's where we differ.


I don't whitewash all cultures. Where we differ is that I see a forest, while you see only trees. I suppose by your logic I shouldn't see human beings at all, but only members of different cultures. That doesn't make me a "cultural rapist", which is a ridiculous term. I certainly don't apotheosize my reifications of them, nor anthropomorphize them to the extent that I would disrespect the term "rape" by applying it to abstractions like culture. Ridiculous.

As far as owing the dead the Truth, we are both striving for that. If we are doing that in different ways, we can do so respectfully.



The Spirit of the Strega is tied to his or her land, to Southern Europe, to Italy and Tuscany, and those old gods and spirits.

I see. So what about Lombardic and Gothic Seidkonas who entered and occupied Italy? Did their change in geography mean they were no longer practicing their traditional arts? The fact of the matter is that shamanic types are often interested in learning the arts and practices of others, and the wide interaction amongst all kinds of tribes and peoples in ancient times gave great opportunity for this.


Do you think the Romans had a right to make these associations? Is it fair to non-Roman cultures?


Did the Romans have a right to "make associations"? Are you serious? Are we policing people's thoughts now? It's one thing to ask whether they had the right to invade areas, but once they were there, syncretism was natural. People compare and contrast.


Are you REALLY that dull?

You have not presented evidence, and the made up concept of the "Burning times" has been well refuted by many scholars, first and foremost being Ronald Hutton. Preserving cultural legacy?? LOL! I bet it must be really warm in that helium bubble you live in, floating way above reality.



Do you think you're building anything for your case by throwing insults?

Did you notice that I actually quoted Hutton's figure -- 40,000 -- and then gave some other figures. Hutton is polemical in this regard, and therefore not someone to settle a debate. He presents his particular viewpoint. And no invocation of Hutton is ever going to settle a debate with me, because he's not trustworthy as a scholar. He's far too partial.

There was a cultural legacy that practitioners were trying to preserve, whether you refuse to see it or not. The notion that I need to prove things to people with a willing refusal to see things is a ridiculous notion of proof. Again, your need to insult those who see things differently than you do, even when they are drawing different conclusions from a thorough examination of the evidence, does not help your case.


Don't you EVER dare to compare you or your crystal-wand waving, over-privledged white asses to the Native Americans, who have suffered an ACTUAL cultural genocide. YOU need to get off YOUR high horse and wake up from your fantasy life.


Never had a crystal wand, not that I have anything against them. (By the way, crystals were widely used by Native American shamanic practitioners, so take care with your insults.) Secondly, if you noticed, the comparison was made by noted Native American scholars, so don't accuse me of doing anything but paraphrasing.

I still think that you have a lot to contribute to the forum, if you can take an attitude of agreeing to differ on certain points rather than assuming that you have something over on the rest of us and resorting to insults.

[Carla O'Harris]

Btw, I just looked over your site, and enjoyed a lot of it. I still think you have a great deal to contribute, and I look forward to further collaboration and discussion that is less disrespectful and full of insults, and full of more appreciation for different points of view.

[David19]

You're way out of line. I've put you in your place, but I did not insult you. In fact, I have tried to engage the validity of your viewpoints, but you are the one on a high horse making disrespectful accusations about the rest of us.

First of all, I am Asatru, and well-respected within particular Asatru circles, so don't accuse me of being "New Age". I'm well familiar with seidr and other aspects of my Teutonic ancestors. And please note that I did not say that seidr had nothing to do with Hel ; I said it had little to do with Loki's daughter, and there is a difference. Please read my words more carefully.

I don't know much about nothern traditions, but i thought Hel was Loki's daughter, are there 2 Hel's, or something?.

Sorry, if that sounds like a dumb or fluffy question, it's just i'm curious about that, i thought Hel was the Norse underworld goddess.

[mol]

ADMIN MODE

This looks like it can be a great discussion if we can leave the insults and jabs out of it. Please do that.

[raven grimassi]

For all: I can see that the attempt to interject other perspectives into the minds of people whose minds are more than made up is as fruitless as I was warned it would be.

An alternative view is that we are just as firm in our beliefs as you are in yours. It appears that your mind is made up, which I regard as the courage of your convictions. There is nothing wrong with that for either side.

Let me ask you a question - when you read our replies, do you automatically think of a counter, or do you first consider the possibility that what we say may be correct? When a mind is made up, it tends to think in terms of counter arguments instead of contemplating opposing views.


The typically held view for centuries has been that witches are harmful, evil people. Would you agree with that, just because it has been believed by many or most for so long?

I do not support things simply because they are long standing. I look at a variety of data for comparison. In the case of "evil Witches" I look also at politics and at who is doing the portrayal. I dealt with this particular topic in my article "From Beauty to Beast and Back Again" - demonstrating the evolution of the Witch figure from the beautiful Graea of Greek myth, through beautiful Witches like Medea, to the ugly Witch hag of Horace and up through the Christian era. It is a purposeful maligning. At the risk of appearing to slip in a commercial, I also cover this more fully in my book The Witches' Craft.

When I investigate words that have been translated into Witch, by and large they are simply terms for a type of people in a certain practice. So it is relatively easier to sort things out.


Like it or not, "Witchcraft" has gotten to be pretty in vogue today. People have many different ideas about what it is, many of which are bogus. You must see many such people in your everyday life.

I do indeed, and I share your frustration.



As for your notion that you wouldn't mind calling an English Seid-man a "Strega", well, that is your opinion, and we simply disagree. The Spirit of the Strega is tied to his or her land, to Southern Europe, to Italy and Tuscany, and those old gods and spirits. There's something more to Stregaheria than just being a person who does magic.

I meant that, of course, in the context of " a rose by any other name." I agree that "ties to the land" are significant markers, but I do not feel that the cultural reflections negate the commonality with Witches from other regions of Europe.


the Romans whose world and soul they stole. That was my point.

Of course, the real question becomes: Do you think the Romans had a right to make these associations? Is it fair to non-Roman cultures?

I think it is difficult to speak in terms of "fairness" when we look at the things related to warfare and boundary expansions (of any ancient people). Was it "fair" that the Celts looted the sacred temples of Greece?

Now as to the Romans, like just about very nation, they expanded to gain more territory and more power (both economical and political).

I think the Romans equated deities in other lands with their own, not as a scheme to distort them but as a means of understanding them. The Romans honored the deities of the lands they conquered, which is evident in the erection of temples in Rome to foreign deities. I think they gathered information on deities in conquered or occupied lands, and said "Ah, this one is like Mars" (or whoever). It was a plan of assimilation.

[David19]

I think the Romans equated deities in other lands with their own, not as a scheme to distort them but as a means of understanding them. The Romans honored the deities of the lands they conquered, which is evident in the erection of temples in Rome to foreign deities. I think they gathered information on deities in conquered or occupied lands, and said "Ah, this one is like Mars" (or whoever). It was a plan of assimilation.

I don't think the Roman's honoured all the gods they came into contact with, for example, they didn't honour Yahweh at all, in fact, they placed a pigs head on the Temple altar (which would've been a big insult to the Jews, as they were not only desecrating the altar but they were using a pig, which isn't kosher), also when the Roman's took over Jerusalem, they rededicated Yahweh's temple to Jupiter, and also burnt it down (or it may have been burning it down and then rededicating the land to Jupiter, i'm not sure).

Anyway, i'd just thought i'd mention that, i'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful, just mentioning that the Roman's didn't always honour other gods (and, from what i've learnt, it seems Jews have never had an easy time, from either pagans or christians).

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't know much about nothern traditions, but i thought Hel was Loki's daughter, are there 2 Hel's, or something?.

Sorry, if that sounds like a dumb or fluffy question, it's just i'm curious about that, i thought Hel was the Norse underworld goddess.


"Hel" is usually the name given to Loki's daughter, because that's what Snorri called her, but the term technically just means "the underworld". It is related to the words "hall" and "cellar".

The Underworld is an immense place, much larger than the middle plate or Midgard. It is divided into many different areas. But for the sake of convenience, it can be divided into Hel and Niflhel.

Leikn ("Hel") is properly the Queen of Niflhel. It should be understood that "Queen" here is used in a very sarcastic sense. She has the "privilege" of watching giants get ground down to nothing beneath the world-mill, and to watch Nidhogg feast on the corpses of those who have murdered or committed adultery, etc. It's like being the queen of a garbage dump.

On the other hand, in the older heathen sources, in the poetic material, "Hel" referred to she who was Queen of the Underworld proper, and that was Wyrd, also called Urd. She is the oldest of the Fate sisters.

Most people who are only familiar with Snorri or who have not studied the poetic material (which is more authentically heathen) in depth are not aware of these important distinctions, so it is no wonder that you have not encountered it. Most Asatruar are not familiar with these concepts.

[David19]

"Hel" is usually the name given to Loki's daughter, because that's what Snorri called her, but the term technically just means "the underworld". It is related to the words "hall" and "cellar".

The Underworld is an immense place, much larger than the middle plate or Midgard. It is divided into many different areas. But for the sake of convenience, it can be divided into Hel and Niflhel.

Leikn ("Hel") is properly the Queen of Niflhel. It should be understood that "Queen" here is used in a very sarcastic sense. She has the "privilege" of watching giants get ground down to nothing beneath the world-mill, and to watch Nidhogg feast on the corpses of those who have murdered or committed adultery, etc. It's like being the queen of a garbage dump.

On the other hand, in the older heathen sources, in the poetic material, "Hel" referred to she who was Queen of the Underworld proper, and that was Wyrd, also called Urd. She is the oldest of the Fate sisters.

Most people who are only familiar with Snorri or who have not studied the poetic material (which is more authentically heathen) in depth are not aware of these important distinctions, so it is no wonder that you have not encountered it. Most Asatruar are not familiar with these concepts.

Thanks for that, i know a bit more now, so is it fair to say that there are two Hel's (one who's queen of the underworld, the other who's Loki's daughter or did i just misread it?).

Also, not to sound dumb, but what's the 'world-mill'?.

Thanks, again :).

[raven grimassi]

I don't think the Roman's honoured all the gods they came into contact with, for example, they didn't honour Yahweh at all, in fact, they placed a pigs head on the Temple altar (which would've been a big insult to the Jews, as they were not only desecrating the altar but they were using a pig, which isn't kosher), also when the Roman's took over Jerusalem, they rededicated Yahweh's temple to Jupiter, and also burnt it down (or it may have been burning it down and then rededicating the land to Jupiter, i'm not sure)..

The Romans had zero tolerance for a conquered people who refused to submit to Roman decree. If I recall correctly such actions against the Jews were due to the fact that they refused to accept the Roman Emperor as a god. I imagine the Romans at that time period were not impressed with a "one god" religion to be concerned, but I think the offensive was actually intended to be punitive towards the Jews and not offensive towards their god per se (although the "logic" of that escapes me). But admittedly I am no expert on ancient Rome, so I may be entirely wrong regarding what you cited.

[Rasenna]

They respected the Jews, but at the same time, they didn't want 'em in their army.

[Carla O'Harris]

Thanks for that, i know a bit more now, so is it fair to say that there are two Hel's (one who's queen of the underworld, the other who's Loki's daughter or did i just misread it?).

Also, not to sound dumb, but what's the 'world-mill'?.

Thanks, again :).

Er, I feel a little awkward discussing this on Raven's page, as at this point it has tangentialized to something I'm not sure interests him or not, but in any case, two quick points :

1) Yes, you could say there are two Hel's, but for your sake, please keep in mind that because not many people know about this, if you go around saying that, they may treat you as some kind of whack, unless you know the proofs. If you're interested in the proofs, private email me and I can give them to you, but be aware people may look askance anyway, but at least you'll have the proofs.

2) The "world-mill" is like a mill that grinds flour. It turns on an axis which turns the tides in the ocean and spins the stars around in the heavens. It is used to grind giants down to clay and sand for the earth. During the Winter War, the giants caused an earthquake which tilted the axis. Thus, the equinoctal tiltings.