the point was to demonstrate i am reading my history, i am understanding who influenced what, what started where and what it's become having read what those who study it are understanding, thorugh scientific methods.

the celts as wonderful as their tribal culture was, were little more than a three hundred year blip in the history of Great Brittian, personally i find the picts a much more fascinating group, they predated the celts in norther europe quit a bit before the celts rose up from the southern area of the continent, but i've always been fond of the prehistoric peoples.

that quote was my reply to that discussion, not quoted or copied and pasted from books but my understandings and thoughts reading the books on what's being claimed as "old" religions versus those that are in actuallity, old religions, christianity is not the oldest religion, but it does predate anything practiced as witchcraft today, the hebrews didn't have witches until king james began his translation, or have you never done a report for any actual study?

what was your point in the thread?

my concern is that there are these "high something or another" claiming ancient traditions as being more correct than any other established form of faith, belief or practice, when it's really nothing more than overglamorized, melting pots of interpretations; and then have the audacity to tell me to read a history book, i've got pounds of them i've been reading, and then calling me a moron for pointing out that your claim of practicing an ancient religion is nothing more than, ravewolf style hype having no basis in actual ancient history, that's been discovered to date?

how are you different from any roman catholic priest telling non believers they're going to burn in hell for not kneeling before his worshipped idol of a tortured christ?

oh that's right...you're just telling them that your's is better, and please refrain from simple minded insults like "moron", that's really not a very nice thing to do, if you're going to point out one of my faults, at least assess them correctly...there are those on this board that have the intelligence to do so, no matter how displeasing or rude they may be when presenting them to me...you are not one of them.

why not offer up what you've read as being "historically accurate" to verify anything you say about your religion is more than personal opinion, i can continue on with a list of books i'm reading to educate myself on the development of religious thought, having thus far finding christianity with all it's faults more beneficial for my life than any new age, occult derived neopagan religion that's found on any bookshelf today...

i'm reading books that are not written by any new age practicioners, but demonstrated experts in the field with actual acedemic degrees, education and scientific methods to support their theories of ancient religion, otherwise your coming off as just another "trad witch" with delusions of grandeur derived from some family lineage of arcane knowledges. that can be bought at border's for fifteen bucks.

wow, this discussion really proved to me, i was silly as a witch, now that i have had the same arguements i used to use, against me. *chuckles*

at least egyptian recreationists have some basis of historical claim to their point of predating many religions and influencing others that are known today, but witchcraft just doesn't float in that level of boat, no matter it's way, shape, base or form of presentation, in the real world of history.

but that doesn't devalue it's impact on the lives of people who believe, follow and worship in that religion, they do that well enough on their own.