Darkest Auldearn wrote:
Lady_Lilith wrote:That's not 'source' material, that is a mistake early Wiccans did and that modern Wiccans do not make. Academia, with the original definition of witchcraft as "harmful magical practices" supports that witches were beyond any religion. Gardner, Valiente, etc are not the end all be all of witchcraft and witches, nor are they "authorities" just because they popularized it. They're authorities on Wicca and Wiccan witchcraft, but not witchcraft itself since the term is insanely broad.
source material, I'm afraid. Gerald Gardner didn't popularize modern Witchcraft; he was the first person to codify it into an applicable religion, similar to how Anton Szandor LaVey codified Satanism almost a decade after Gardner.
There is no basis in evidence that there was any codified religion dedicated to Witchcraft prior to High Magic's Aid
, and then officially, Witchcraft Today
and The Meaning of Witchcraft
. When people argue the opposite, they usually get mired in things like early Heathan/Pagan concepts, "cunning folk" and sympathetic magic practices. None of these were "religions" per se, and were little more than localised sets of superstitions that were applied to individual communities that had need of magical (for want of a better term) services.
Secondly, and more importantly, you're dismissing academic study because... Why? Academics don't simply identify Witchcraft as what you presumably term "maleficia", and an argument to the contrary only highlights that you're hopelessly out of touch with the breadth of modern research.
If you want to argue this point, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on evidence
Wicca is a modern religion
, witchcraft exists outside of Wicca. They are authorities on their specific brand of witchcraft and Wicca as a religion. They are NOT authorities on witchcraft as a whole. If they were, brujeria would have never developed independently without them even knowing. Witchcraft does not belong to one culture. Not once did I say that witchcraft as a religion existed prior to then, what I said was that it was "beyond" religion because magic usage dates back to at least prehistoric times when people tried to use such practices to control domestication, the hunt, and nature. This is mentioned in my anthropology textbook. (Citation below) That means "witchcraft" in the dated sense, did as well.
Per academia ancient witchcraft is as generally defined as harmful magic. This is what I am saying. Witches, sometimes those who were born that way, were thought to harm communities. This still happens in many parts of the world, where people are scape goated, and you will see WITCH used in the original way in cultures such as Mexico, African cultures, and India, and not the broad Neopagan definition that people such as Gardner said.
Need some citations?
Maqlu texts of ancient Akkadia, in which a lengthy anti-witchcraft ritual is performed and includes burning the witch, a concept outside of Abrahamic religion. Daayan or Daayani in India, which does not have a positive image.
Here's some book citations:
Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion: An Anthropological study of the Supernatural (4th edition) by Lehmann and Meyers. Page 200 and probably 409-410. This book goes mostly in depth into how most cultures, especially ancient, viewed witches. Phillips Stevens, Jr. talks about how witchcraft was perceived as social problem that is disruptive to to society compared to modern urban developments, where it is not.
An Illustrated Dictionary of Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia by Black and Green (Under:Witchcraft)
Kottack's Anthropology: Appreciating Human Diversity show cases the old school usage of the word on 501-502 under "social control". On 503 he goes on about shamans.
Anton LaVey also mentioned it. I think it was in the Satanic Witch.
Also, comparing Satanism to witchcraft is a bad example in my opinion. Satanism is not really a phenomena outside of Abrahamic influenced cultures, witchcraft is.
"Magick/Witchcraft are tools, and that's it".
Tools to do what, exactly?
To change a circumstance.
Hermeticism isn't Christianity, either. An assertion to the contrary is illogical gibberish.
Never said it was. Said that magic/Christianity has been mixing for sometime.
Trying to argue that Christianity and Witchcraft are compatible, by adding in Jewish mysticism, is about as poor an argument as you could possibly make. I know very well what Qabbalah and Rosicrucianism is, and I have personal experience with a Brujo. At this point, you're just throwing out obscure religious notions and hoping that I don't know anything about them. This passage of yours isn't even making a point... It's just random sentences.
I'm sorry, but every response you've posted so far smacks of millennial thinking; facts are secondary to feelings.
That's just not how information works, I'm afraid.
Nope. I listed instances of Christian magick which takes inspiration from Kabbalah, you say it's wrong because you have facts to the contrary and then go on about how it's about feelings and not facts. Yet you have not cited any facts, other than your opinions? But I am emotional?
Also, I cited my sources down to specific academic books and pages. You have yet to do so. Rather, you resort to ad hominem, straw man, which may be you just misunderstanding me, and assumptions about my character. Try again.