Paganism and (bad) History

[painted wolf]

I've seen no relyable sources that there were any "pagan" groups left in Europe. Surely there were some "non-christians" but no "witches" and so on.
There were those who still practiced some traditional fokelore, but that isn't to say that they were practicing a non-christian faith.

wa:do

 

[MaddLlama]

I guess I would distinguish between the layity and "clergy" or elders. I completely agree with you that authors and those who teach others need to the historical truth of what they are saying. However, I disagree that all Pagans should read Hutton, Clifton, Pike, etc. I think it is ok to say, for instance, "I'm Wiccan and I believe in nature and the God and Goddess and ..." without having to quote historical sources on it.

So, then you think that the history of Wicca and Paganism, and the history of the religions and practices they were based on is completely irrelevant?
What you believe the nature of Deity is doesn't have to have historical sources, but I do think that reading authors concerned with history like Hutton, makes for well-rounded, intelligent Pagans, rather than the crop of fluff Pagans who refuse to move away from the New Age section.

 

[bflydad]

I do think that reading authors concerned with history like Hutton, makes for well-rounded, intelligent Pagans, rather than the crop of fluff Pagans who refuse to move away from the New Age section.

I agree intelligent Pagans are a good thing; however, I object to holding Pagans to higher standards than other religions (e.g. Christians) or to classifying them as fluffy Pagans otherwise. I haven't heard of anyone claiming all Christians that are not up on Augustine, Council of Trent or writers for their specific denominations as fluffy Christians.

 

[bflydad]

I've seen no relyable sources that there were any "pagan" groups left in Europe. Surely there were some "non-christians" but no "witches" and so on.
There were those who still practiced some traditional fokelore, but that isn't to say that they were practicing a non-christian faith.

wa:do

I'm not sure what you mean by a non-christian faith. Hutton certainly acknowledges the presence of witches. I don't believe that the witches who were killed during the Inquisition were killed for their religious practices; I believe they were just killed for practicing witchcraft.

 

[MaddLlama]

I agree intelligent Pagans are a good thing; however, I object to holding Pagans to higher standards than other religions (e.g. Christians) or to classifying them as fluffy Pagans otherwise. I haven't heard of anyone claiming all Christians that are not up on Augustine, Council of Trent or writers for their specific denominations as fluffy Christians.

I would say that anybody who isn't at least familiar with the history of their religion is at the very least uninformed. I'm not sure using the term "fluffy" outside of Paganism even works, though. I haven't met a lot of "white light and bunnies" kind of Christians. However, it has been my experience that it is the "white-light" type Pagans who are unwilling to learn history.

 

[painted wolf]

"Witch" was anyone who the church didn't like. It included midwives, widows and just about anyone who was accused.
"Witchcraft" was often as simple as looking at someone funny, or being the most unpopular person when a contagious disease broke out.

The terms Witch and Witchcraft are practically useless when it comes to the witchcraft craze of the middle ages. All confessions were gained from the use of brutal torture and histeria.

Unless you believe that actual werewolves were running around during the werewolf panic. And that the Vampires "killed" around the same time were actual vampires.

wa:do