quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Archeologists seem to think better of that.
Really? Which ones?
[quote]
How the hell do you know what I want to think possible?
I visited your site.[quote]
You are judging me based on very little information. My site covers a very limited range of topics. I am not sure which of them makes you think I am chauvinistic. Or is this all based on the pretty picture?
quote:
And hence I too am chauvinistic...
Apparently.
And your preferred method of debate is personal attack? I am chauvinistic why? I disagree with your interpretation of pre-history? That is absurd.
An honest evaluation would require that you contact the people who know me
quote:
Mostly in charge.
Bare, unsupported assertation.
Let's look at nature.
Non-human primates, our closest relatives, exhibit pretty much every social structure observed in humans and, I am sorry to say, also with a strong tendency toward male dominance. As analogies go, that is the best we've got. I don't argue that it is right or that it justifies relegating women to an inferior status. In other words, the facts are not my fault. It is a lot more reasonable to assume similar cultural development in humans-- that there were many various cultures-- than to assume that human pre-history was exclusively female dominated. But analogy doesn't prove anything either. We really don't know, which has been my oint all along.
You want to go further back on the evolutionary tree? Fine.
Mammals also exhibit a huge variety of social structures, many of them male dominant. But what does it matter? The further away from humans we get the more guessing is involved. There are hundreds of millions of years of evolution involved. Go back far enough you find asexually reproducing cells.
Genetically, a Y-chromosome is a broken X-chomosome so you can call those cells female I suppose, but it does not follow that 500 million years later, human society was female dominant. Nor does it follow that the reverse is true.
It seems to me that I am not the one arguing chauvinistically. All I argue is that there really isn't any information that would solve this question.
quote:
I am thinking of modern Wicca because there is no ancient counterpart.
Yes, there is and there is plenty of real evidence to suppose it despite the Churches best efforts to eradicate it.
The real evidence is that there were countless local religions, not one big Wiccan religion. Wicca is a compilation. Compiling bits and pieces of those religion into one does not mean there was an ancient counterpart to Wicca.
quote:
http://moonraven.salemconnection.net/...history/ancient.html
From the above site: Wicca is a relatively modern attempt (approximately 50 years old) at reviving and reconstructing the old pre-Christian religions of Europe. In a mythopoetic sense it is many centuries old. However, the Witch of 200 years ago would not recognize what is called "witchcraft" today. Modern Wicca may have some of its roots in some of the local folk-magic and "family witchcraft" of mid 20th Century England. It does have traceable roots in the Golden Dawn magical society of late 19th century England, some of Aleister Crowley's magickal work and some Ceremonial Magic dating back to Elizabethan times. For a modern history of English Wicca, the reader can most profitably consult the works of Janet and Stuart Farrar and Doreen Valiente.
And again:Up until recently, the earliest known remnants of human society that give us any clues to the spiritual dimension of prehistoric man are those belonging to the Gravettian-Aurignacian cultures of 2500-1500 BCE
And we get to Lascaux cave. This is where the guessing starts. The caves demonstrate that there was some form of cognitive activity going on and that it was probably religious/magical. What that religion was is pure speculation.
Even if there were hard evidence of female primacy, all it demonstrates is that such a social structure existed at this particular site. It does not prove anything larger.
The same with the female figurines. They are all over the place, but that is about all that anyone knows. All the rest is make-believe.
How about this: In Egypt, the Hebrews had known the worship of the Goddess as Isis or Hathor. For four generations they had been living in a land where women held a very high status and the matrilineal descent system continued to function at most periods.
This just glosses right over the male deities in the pantheon-- like the creator Atum.
I really like this one too: According to the legends of the Faerie, Witchcraft and magick began more than 35 thousand years ago, when the last ice age in Europe began and small bands of nomadic hunters followed the free-running reindeer and bison herds. They were armed with but primitive weapons ( Stone Age, remember?), and had to lure or chase the animals over a cliff or into a pit to kill and eat them. As Starhawk says,"...some among the clans were gifted, could "call" the herds to a cliff side or a pit, where a few beasts, in willing sacrifice, would let themselves be trapped."
I think it need no comment.
quote:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_chr.htm
Why are you posting a link to Religious Tolerance .org? Do I have a problem with Wicca?
quote:
http://www.virtualavalon.com/wakingdragon/W101.htm
Nice story, but there ain't no supporting data. In particular:
quote:
This early beginning of religo-magic came to be, and so a priesthood was born. These few where known as Wicca or "Wise Ones".
How does the author know this? He is speaking of a time tens of thousands of years prior to written history. And then religion doesn't change until Christianity? Don't you think that is a little over simplified?
quote:
Like you said, it was started from scratch. That makes it new, not old. There is no continuity of ritual or tradition.
There is very little, but there is still some influence.[quote]
The same could be said of any religion. All religion has connections to its culture and history. This doesn't make Wicca any more like religion in 23000 bc than is, say, Hinduism. Too much time has passed.
quote:
Pretty much anything non-Christian, or even just peculiar, counted as witchcraft. Of course there were native religions which got persecuted. This doesn't mean that there was a WICCA!!!! spanning back 23,000 years.
You're ignorance is amazing.
As is your lack of actual information.
Why would I adopt the moniker of "Hell's Handmaiden" if I hate women as much as you seem to think? Why not "The Devil's Alter Boy" instead? That way I can maintain my masculinity and my misogyny.
By the fact that you had used it in the first place. That and the graphic as well speak for themselves.
[/B]
What?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2