Wicca. What are you thoughts? what is it and where did it come from? Do you agree?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: iNobody

then how do you explain Göbekli Tepe?

That site is in Turkey. Humans did not originate in Turkey. They moved their from Babylon. The oldest known tablets are the Hammurabi Code from Babylon.

Turkey is not older then Babylon. The dating has to be in error. And there is no doubt that they carried the same Babylonian beliefs of the immortality of the soul, a hellfire, perhaps cross worship, and even a trinity of gods.

originally posted by: iNobody

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: iNobody
a reply to: nonspecific

Check my post with video inserted for no mention of Bible in post.

ETA: I should say the there are understandings that can only be found in the word of truth there, but most of what is linked together is not of Biblical origins, rather of Babylonian origin.

Ok I watched your you tube vid. It was pretty good.

I will happily talk about this at some other point as we may agree.

Can you tell me how this ties in with my OP regarding Wicca please?

That way all of your comments and especially your vid have merit.

As I say I like your vid and take on board what your saying but where does this tie in to the conversation in point?

Do Wiccans believe in the immortality of the soul? Do any use a cross in any form of worship? If so, their pagan beliefs stem from Babylon, just like all the others, including Catholicism (which is an apostatized, or corrupted form of Christianity).

All religions on earth are related. Even Wiccans with the rest.

So what you are saying is that you have decided what religion is and regardless of the question is you will answer with your own version of it?

At what point do you stop listening to your own inner monolouge and actually listen to what someone else is saying?

I gave you all the chances in the world to make a valid point but you just had to keep on banging on about your own viewpoint.

I get it, I really do.

Redeem yourself and show me how everything you have said in this thread relates to the OP, thats all I ask.

Show me how your contribution to this thread proves your point as opposed to you railroading anything you deem fit to plug your own propaghanda.

What you have said and how it relates to the OP and Wicca, a simple task.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: iNobody

5000 years? And you are serious about this?

When did Civilization Appear

That was my google of: When did civilization appear.

a reply to: iNobody

So the dating of the site done by archaeologists and geologists must be in error because it doesn't fit your theory? Interesting.

Anyways, I think we've derailed this thread enough, don't you? I've shared my opinion on Wicca, you've shared yours. Lets see what others think, shall we?

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: iNobody

So the dating of the site done by archaeologists and geologists must be in error because it doesn't fit your theory? Interesting.

Anyways, I think we've derailed this thread enough, don't you? I've shared my opinion on Wicca, you've shared yours. Lets see what others think, shall we?

I'm going to allow this.

originally posted by: iNobody

Not at all. They received their teachings from Babylon. Anyone with a deep understanding of occult understanding knows that all religions, all of them stem from Babylon.

Do you have any sort of citation for that rather bold and saucy assertion? There is evidence that Neanderthals were engaged in ritualistic activities in Europe as far back as 300 KYA including the earliest burials with grave goods. There is also evidence of a Bear Cult during the Middle Paleolithic which was then adopted by H. Sapiens moving into Europe from Africa. While not quite as old, the use of red ochre on the bodies of the deceased during burial is exhibited approximately 35,000 years ago. around 25,000 Years ago we see more intricate and valuable grave good including ivory and precious stones. ~12KYA we see Gobekli Tepe and its one of the oldest human built places of worship yet discovered and predates Sumeria by thousands of years. These are just the sites in Europe I can think of off the top of my head. We can travel over to India and see early stages of Hinduism again, thousands of years before Sumeria.

To state that ALL religions stem from Sumeria is not just bold, but it's factually incorrect.

originally posted by: iNobody

That site is baloney if it dates it back that far. All civilization according to archaeological records appeared suddenly on the world scene about 5,000 years ago.

Bull poop Ein - us - Sultan is 10KYA

Catal Hoyuk 9.5KYA, Mehrgarh (in Balochistan, Pakistan)9KYA


Egypt 8KYA

the Indus Valley civilization can trace its history as far back as the Chalcolithic with clear evidence of trade with Turkmenistan and Persia. It also demonstrates meager beginnings and a build up over hundreds of years before it became the massive civilization written about in text books and history books.

The belief that all civilizations began in the Fertile Crescent and then radiated outwards is an archaic anachronism that doesn't belong in any discussion about ancient civilizations and their origins nor does the hypothesis or belief that all of these places just appeared overnight suddenly and there was indeed a slow buildup over time. and they all had religions which had nothing to do with Sumerian mythos.

OK...

Wicca is just the modern-day term coined to cover most non-Abrahamic ("Pagan") religions. If you speak of Wicca only, then yes, it is a recent development. However, I would consider this on par with saying Christianity only began with Martin Luthur; it ignores the great preponderance of all that came before in favor of the current interpretation.

On what basis is anyone posing the Abrahamic God/Satan projected their archetypes on a nature-based religion that predated them by thousands of years? Not only did they not "know" of the Abrahamic system, they predate it, and were halfway around the globe from said events, in an age where communications were not-so-reliable and long distance travel a risky and time-occupying endeavor.

No...just, no. Wicca/Paganism categorically IS NOT descended from any Babylonian religion, 'mystery', Abrahamic, or otherwise. If you want to push that back, one can trace the first physical evidence of Pagan religion to the Lion Man of Hohlenstein Stadel figure, dated to around 38,000 years ago. One might push it as far back as mankind himself if one considers Paganism to be the further refinement of the initial "Venus" idol worship, which is likely the case. To put it in perspective, the Lion Man was carved about 33,000 years before Methuselah was born, if you go for that sort of thing. (Then again, if you go for that sort of thing, the Earth is only 6,000 years old anyway, so maybe not the best example.)

Once Christianity spread, they decided that they must 'civilize' the pagans (i.e. bring the unlearned barbarians under their control system). Make new holidays over their old ones, try to incorporate pagan symbology into the church services, burn some witches, kill some shamans...you know, what overbearing religious types have done throughout recorded history.

To clarify some other points...yes, Catholics are Christians. THE Christians, so to speak, as they kind of invented the whole thing. Ask them, they'll tell you. History will verify this. Maybe you have heard of this Pope guy? Big funny hat, hangs around the Vatican a lot.

iNobody...your assertion of "no true Christians on earth except those called on by Jehovah's name" is a viewpoint unique to Jehovah's Witnesses, and you should be ashamed for misrepresenting that to someone trying to learn about different religions (i.e. not yours). The 2 Billion 'other' Christians on the planet take great exception to this claim by your 8 Million 'tops'. For a sect that's been around for less than 1/10th of the time span of it's progenitor to claim total dominion seems a bit straw-graspy and rather ungenuine.

Not that numbers verify the officiousness of any religion...I've always thought it would be rather amusing if there was only one Church set up in an old house trailer somewhere in podunk who actually had religion "right", and a membership of like, 12. Jesus (or insert denomination-appropriate returning messiah-type name here) finally shows up, and is flummoxed that the message went this far awry. The vast majority of humanity, hosed for eternity for nothing more substantial than the equivalent of 'chinese whispers' and a omnipotent-yet-strangely-inflexible supreme being.

a reply to: peter vlar

We learned about when civilization arose in third grade. I was taken aback, by what I think as an adult asking me if I was serious.

This is well known archaeology. It is taught in school, and is backed up by archaeological findings.

a reply to: Q

Q, there is no shame in that.

All so-called Christian based religions except for Jehovah's Witnesses believe in hellfire, not taught in the Bible, immortality of the soul, not taught in the Bible, and most even believe in the Trinity, not taught in the Bible. All these false teachings are of pagan origins and stem from Babylon.

There is no shame in sharing the truth.

I understand you may not understand of all of these things, and I do not disrespect your beliefs. I respect them very much just as I do everyone else's. But when it comes to the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be compared to anyone else on earth as to their understanding, or beliefs in what it really says, and getting rid of demonic and pagan teachings that stem from Babylon.

Furthermore, all so-called Christian religions were involved in the great wars of the 20th century. True Christians would not be involved in warfare, or partake in politics.

Also all these so-called Christians have removed Jehovah's name from their Bibles, and many of them worship God's son Jesus as God himself.

Most have no idea what they are doing, and God no doubt pities them. Is there any wonder he has risen up a people for his name to preach to them before he brings the end to this wicked system? It is an act of love.

a reply to: iNobody

How long ago was third grade? Seriously, was it more than 5 years ago? Archaeology and Anthropology don't cease to look for new sites to dig just because you learned something in 3rd grade. It may have been "well known archaeology" a decade ago but that isn't the case anymore. There are very definite sites demonstrating all the trappings of a proper civilization, walled cities, places of worship, trade with other places that were rather far off in those days.

Sumeria is not the first, it isn't the oldest and none of them popped up in a rapid fashion as you suggest. But hey, I'm always open minded enough to admit when I'm wrong so provide a citation that demonstrates it to be the case and I will gladly offer up an apology and give thanks for teaching me something I apparently did not know.

a reply to: peter vlar

I do not suggest it. History shows this to be true. You made me do some looking up old accounts. All of this is in my head from what I have researched for decades, but now I have to show statements to back up what is obvious. And will try to do so to the best of my ability.

To blindly believe that all such dating of older civilizations that those that have been proven is to not understand how scientists can error. Evidence shows that mankind appeared on the scene about 5,000 years ago, with developed writing and language. Much different to what evolutionists teach, that mankind came from apes and cavemen and took millions of years to develop.

Even if your dating of 15,000 or more is true (which it isn't) it still disproves that mankind developed slowly. All archaeological evidence shows that mankind appeared suddenly, and with highly advanced civilization, with highly developed speech ability, and writing capability.

a reply to: iNobody

Well, there's the problem, then. If you have no moral quandary presenting your interpretation of someone else's religion as the unabashed truth, armed with the foreknowledge that said individual was seeking legitimate information regarding said (pointedly not your) religion, then it's hardly a matter for shame.

It's a matter of heavy bias at best, or willing disinformation at worst, which is even more reprehensible 'round these parts. I understand these things quite well, and you sir are misrepresenting the facts.

I defy your claim that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be compared to anyone else on earth. The simple fact is that this sect is indeed quite comparable to many others that have came/went/continue to exist. As posited in my initial post, the belief that you and only you are right is by no means unique; it is 'dime a dozen' common. I can throw a metaphorical rock in any direction and hit a house of worship who will tell me the exact same. A novel interpretation of the scriptures *that nobody else understands*, you say? Gee, those are really hard to find. I could almost even grant some uniqueness for that annoying door-knocky thing, but the Mormons scooped you guys on that one (and they're more polite about it in my experience, to boot). You are aware that there are over 41,000 different sects of Christianity in the United States alone, and that each of them will posit some similar story, yes?

The war angle is a dud. Lots of justification and 'OK by God' for this to be found in the scriptures. This God character seems to revel in it, actually. From ancient times right on through to modern, God has been all up in the middle of politics AND war. A primary driver of such. If people are to be believed, he's told lots of them to do it, often on opposing sides and at the same time.

Actually, the name Jehovah is in most Abrahamic texts. And would a supreme being really be that picky about what his worshippers called him, especially seeing as he never really showed us in the first place? (Again, I think God can spell, which causes me grief to no end.) I think if he really wanted us to know, he'd have put it on the news, or at least spray painted it on some overpasses or something.

Insofar as the son-worshipping angle...no argument. They kinda do this. There seemed to be a lot of confusion with that whole trinity concept, and the seem to have just tried to reconcile it as best they could.

If humans truly have no idea what they're doing, God needs to dial down the 'pity' and tweak the 'enlightenment' knob. He could do either, right? From what all the scriptures say, he seems to have started out all information & love, but went full psychopath somewhere along the line.

[You don't create imperfect beings then hammer them for being imperfect. You don't threaten a sentient being with eternal damnation if they refuse your advances. These are not the acts of a loving God. These are my opinions, nothing more, and surely don't fit with most.]

My apologies for somewhat drifting. The OP made this thread looking for legitimate information regarding Wicca, not a debate on the finer points of Wicca as interpreted by Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other religion that may similarly have absolutely nothing to do with and little knowledge of Wicca for that matter.

originally posted by: iNobody
a reply to: peter vlar

I do not suggest it. History shows this to be true. You made me do some looking up old accounts. All of this is in my head from what I have researched for decades, but now I have to show statements to back up what is obvious. And will try to do so to the best of my ability.

History does not show this to be true. Not even a little bit.

So that's a "no" and you can't or won't support your assertions with a citation. Ok... Got it.

To blindly believe that all such dating of older civilizations that those that have been proven is to not understand how scientists can error.

So why are the scientists who dated some middle eastern sites 60 years ago more accurate than those who dig and research today with better and cheaper access to dating methods? Do you realize how loony that comes off?

Evidence shows that mankind appeared on the scene about 5,000 years ago, with developed writing and language.

It absolutely shows nothing of the sort. Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley all show developmental stages and in no way shape or form did the just wake up one morning with the ability to write and started building cities with running water and sewage.

Much different to what evolutionists teach, that mankind came from apes and cavemen and took millions of years to develop.

And here you demonstrate that you don't even understand the basics of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis yet still argue against it with willfully ignorant statements about what is taught by " evolutionists. Evolutionists don't teach anything as they are a product if the vivid minds of devoutly religious people. Evolutionary biologists, earth scientists, anthropologists and paleontologists are just a few who are qualified to and do in fact teach classes on MES.

Man didn't come from apes. Man is an ape. We share common ancestry with the other great apes(gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo and orangutan) and there's an awful lot if artwork on cave walls for a bunch of people who didn't spend any time in caves.

Even if your dating of 15,000 or more is true (which it isn't)

Now you're just making stuff up. The oldest site I listed was Gobekli Tepe at 12,000 years old and sorry to break it to you, but these dates are solid and backed up by archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists.

it still disproves that mankind developed slowly.

Not at all true. If you bothered to do as much research as you claim then you would know that each of the great civilizations if our past had formative stages and didn't simy appear fully formed as you claim.

All archaeological evidence shows that mankind appeared suddenly, and with highly advanced civilization, with highly developed speech ability, and writing capability.

Evidence shows nothing of the sort.There absolutely were formative stages of all the great civilizations. Speech goes back long before Homo sapiens and has been morphologically proven in Neanderthal by modeling a hyoid bone, placing it in the appropriate spot and running tests on it. This demonstrates that HN had the same ability to communicate with the same range of sounds as we do. There is also evidence that this is true in H. Heidelbergensis going back 600KYA. Either way, sense of community and the ability to communicate predate written language by hundreds of thousands of years.

You make a lot of assertions as though they are statements of fact yet still no citations. Is it because there aren't any that support your position? And honestly, I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with Wicca. If you want to debate the finer points of evolutionary theory perhaps you should start a new thread so we Can cease the hijacking of this one. Sorry OP

originally posted by: nonspecific
I am simply asking this question because it has come up a few times in the past couple of days and opinions are divided.

I am not offereing an informative post on what I think it is or is not but asking you what you think it is.

What your opinion is?

Where does it come from/ Does it have a place in modern society.

What have you heard about witches?

I heard they're all tranny feminist witches.

If somebody tells you different, they are speaking with the mouth of Satan himself.

So mote it be.

Short version is, it seems nice. But in the end distracts you from what is truly important, and warps your point-of-view. But it can instill a nice respect for nature, I guess. The whole worshiping nature is fairly off-center so-to-speak, one shouldn't worship the creation, but the creator. I wonder how many people look at the Mona Lisa, and think of Leonardo? How many think that painting was about a woman? No creation is about the created, it is a reflection of the artist's view of the subject. When you stop to smell roses, do you worship the rose? Or the one who sculpted it?

a reply to: Q

You may defy it, and that is your right. And I deeply respect your right, and humbly accept your free will to think as you will.

You may one day actually come to think why you defy though. I am a sinner just as you are. And we will only gain life by means of mercy. In the end that is all that matters, to love each other, do no harm, and love Jehovah God.

As for my part, no disrespect was meant, no deception was given. And I spoke only out of love for truth, and for you.

a reply to: nonspecific

wicca was invented by a man called gerald gardner in england c1940, as an excuse to run around naked in the woods

Every living thing had a mother and a father. If someone says there is no feminine divine I think they have abdicated the truth. God has a Mother and a Father just as his sons and daughters had both sons and daughters. Humans are made in the image go God then they are also made in the image of the goddess. Having loved a few of these goddesses in my life I can attest they are real. Love is the law.

a reply to: peter vlar

This pretty much sums up what i was going to say...
My Mum was a Christian, church organist for the same church from the age of 14 to the age of to 46 when she sadly passed. My Dad was a protestant who never went to church but was involved with the Orange Order in his younger days. Myself taken to Sunday school till i was old enough to make my own mind up at 12. I never, ever believed the stories and saw them as just that. As a teenager i looked into a lot of religions and the only thing that made sense to me was Wiccan.

These days i consider myself Lapsed Wicca. My books sit gathering dust, i keep making a plan to kick start my practice by buying and carrying out the entire Spall-a-day almanac from llywellen publishing but it never happens. Maybe next year....

I believe that the reason prayer works for some people, spells for others is that they believe in it.

Also it's unlikely you will be cursed by a Wiccan since a lot of us believe that what you inflict on others comes back on you threefold. And more than a few of us believe "An it harm none do what ye will."