PDA

View Full Version : Dianic wicca



Littleone
August 3rd, 2008, 04:16 PM
I was reading about this kind of Wicca In a book I had rented from the library. Its very Interesting as It Is female-only and goddess worshipped.
The book I have only mentions It and I was looking for more Information.

Is this area of Wicca commonly praticed? And how Is It views by the other pagan communitys? On their reguards to men and gods.. what are there views? Are they hostile to male energy and deitys? Or do they just disreguard them? Are the male energies and deitys at all Involved In the religion? Are the recognized yet Ignored? Is the goddess the source of everything in their views?

Any Information on this subject would be lovely. I appreciate any response and you taking to time to read my questions.

:)

RuneCast
August 3rd, 2008, 05:48 PM
There is a sub-forum on this site in the path specific section, I would go there for first hand accounts.

I will say this, after having been to her website, that several of Zsuzsanna Budapest's comments are problematic at best. She is the self-described 'founder' of Dianic Wicca, a problematic claim but...

Her website: http://www.zbudapest.com/

I do suspect that she is at least a part time provocateur. I don't pretend that she speaks for even a majority of Dianic Wiccans though. Still, comments such as

"there are only two types of people in this world, women and their children"

are ungraciously ambiguous.

Faelon_Moon_Hawk
August 3rd, 2008, 05:55 PM
I was reading about this kind of Wicca In a book I had rented from the library. Its very Interesting as It Is female-only and goddess worshipped.
The book I have only mentions It and I was looking for more Information.

Is this area of Wicca commonly praticed? And how Is It views by the other pagan communitys? On their reguards to men and gods.. what are there views? Are they hostile to male energy and deitys? Or do they just disreguard them? Are the male energies and deitys at all Involved In the religion? Are the recognized yet Ignored? Is the goddess the source of everything in their views?

Any Information on this subject would be lovely. I appreciate any response and you taking to time to read my questions.

:)


I'd search MW i know there are other threads on this. I think there's even a forum dedicated to dianic wicca in the Paths forum.

There are actually two "forms" of dianic wicca. One is female only, goddess only, the other can include males and the god tho the goddess takes "priority". I think many other pagans find the dianic paths to be "unequal' I don't think this is the case. Look at the vast variety of goddesses, and women irl and you will find ones that occupy both traditional male and female roles and traits.

RainInanna
August 3rd, 2008, 06:39 PM
I was reading about this kind of Wicca In a book I had rented from the library. Its very Interesting as It Is female-only and goddess worshipped.

Sure, do look for the Dianic subforum over in Specific Paths forums.


And how Is It views by the other pagan communitys?

Depends on the community :)


On their reguards to men and gods.. what are there views?

This depends on the individual. Z Budapest's followers do have co-ed groups now, as do many Dianic groups. Most simply don't work with gods, many work in women-only circles at times. A thing to keep in mind is that there are McFarland Dianics and Budapest Dianics and Shekhinah Mountainwater's goddess-centered path as well. There are different forms.


Is the goddess the source of everything in their views?

Again, depends on the individual and group. Usually they feel that the Divine transcends gender. Most work with the Goddess because they are women and want to work with the Divine they understand to be female with female experiences they can identify with. Some want to work with Goddesses to balance out the focus on God only. Some just feel it's convenience to use one set of pronouns and prefer "she" etc.

Philosophia
August 3rd, 2008, 09:59 PM
Is this area of Wicca commonly praticed?

Yes. But it's mainly connected to Witchcraft rather than Wicca.


And how Is It views by the other pagan communitys?

Depends on who you talk to. Some hate it, some find it unbalanced, others don't care, and even some respect the path.


On their reguards to men and gods.. what are there views?

That is difficult to answer. Every Dianic tends to have their own opinions on that.


Are they hostile to male energy and deitys? Or do they just disreguard them? Are the male energies and deitys at all Involved In the religion? Are the recognized yet Ignored?

It really is a personal choice. Many don't have anything to do with them, others (like myself) have altars dedicated to different Gods. I don't think there is a consensus of how a male deity is in the Dianic tradition.


Is the goddess the source of everything in their views?

Again, it really depends. Some of polytheists, others are monotheists, etc..

Here is the Dianic subforum for you to read:

http://mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=389

CzechWoods
August 3rd, 2008, 11:18 PM
I have read several of Z.Budapest books, and cannot quite understand the hostility against Zusanna (sp?) - other than the whiplash/rebound thing.

Back on topic, when I began the path i (male) started as Dianic Wicca/Witch and it suited me well. I found her writtings rather balanced than anti-male.

Many passages in her books refer to male worship of Female deities and male deities. There were some rather funny stories of encounters with very male deities such as cernunos/Pan in her books and very good explenations how to deal with those energies.

The above statement I havent read (two types of good people) but i believe the person posting it.

Z. has gone through quite an ordeal with patriarchic dominance in her life, and i find it understandable at least, that she would maybe become somewhat biased in some peoples books.

What did suit me very well, during many years of practice was the fact that she would rather introduce the many - so far forgotten - aspects of female deities and a very practical lead towards life within the Dianic kontext. Her female deity mainly/only way is a very good balance to the ma(i)nstream male dominant deities JHV/God/Allah/Buddha etc. A very needed counterpoint to the expressions from lets say Buddhism, that the last incarnation before nirvana MUS be as a man, etc etc, the influences of patriarchic POV in Hinduism (Highest God male, Shiva; female deities being mainly soft and tender - mainly mind you) within the classic antheons of greece, rome etc, where originally powerful gooddesses were degraded to be just wives or playthings of the male gods

For me, the idea, that a main deity should be female is all natural. as in nature too - as far as we know it - females bring life, not males. It is not unusual, that in a female only colony of animals suddenly a female animal gets pregnant and gives birth - though no male was in the play ....

It was very interestig to hear from Z. in her books, that within the x-ian concept all sightings of the divine were V. Mary sightings (Goddess) yet non of JHV/Jesus.

These facts are very provking, as well as her hints onto the great works of Marja Gimbutas, an archeologist who discovered the ancient carvings and artifacts being signs of Goddess worship.

So to make my short notice not too long.

I believe that dianic paths are very worth exploring, and ery helpful in your path. whether yu are male or female, their POV can help you get a more balanced picture of the divine. I myself have left he Dianic concepts, but i have also eft behind wicca altogether.

Hope my post will help you some

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 6th, 2008, 04:13 PM
I'm fine with Dianics as long as they worship a Goddess and a God. To worship only a Goddess is most emphatically not Wicca.


It was very interestig to hear from Z. in her books, that within the x-ian concept all sightings of the divine were V. Mary sightings (Goddess) yet non of JHV/Jesus.

These facts are very provking, as well as her hints onto the great works of Marja Gimbutas, an archeologist who discovered the ancient carvings and artifacts being signs of Goddess worship.

There have been countless sightings of Jesus. For heaven's sakes, immediately after His tomb was found empty He was seen by the Apostles and countless others, walking around and talking.

Gimbutas is a known hack, and her writings on the religion of prehistoric peoples are without merit. Beautifully illustrated, but groundless and written with an axe to grind.

Budapest herself is someone with an incredibly huge axe to grind, as her 'holy' Book of Women's Mysteries more than amply demonstrates. To actually recommend forcibly exorcising the Christian religion from another human being is a vile, vile thing, and I cannot ethically recommend anything written by the author of such a monstrosity:

From pages 232 - 235 of 'The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries':


Possession by Christian Demons and Devils

In the news recently was the tragic story of a young woman who died of starvation while being 'exorcised' by Christian priests. They were charged with murder and their defense produced a tape recording of the young woman, speaking in a male voice and hurling obscenities at them. The possession, not the exorcism, was to blame, claimed the defense; the Devil made the woman starve to death. The inquisition was satisfied.

This particular case is one of many in which the emergence of a frighteningly ignorant thought-form, the relatively new idea of a "Devil." Christians, Muslims, even Krishna people pay a lot of attention to the concept of evil incarnate. The Christian devil, like their god, is male. The same holds true for Muslims. Hinduism differs in that it offers female evil in the person of Kali.

The truth is that duality religions (something Wicca is NOT) need a "bad guy" from whom their "good guy" can save humanity. Their gods are usually warrior types, fashioned after heroes and military figures. Television reflects this duality in the good-guys-in-white-catch-the-bad-guys-in-black theme.

In essence, the patriarchal gods and devils are exact flip sides of each other. If you have one, you get the other. Patriarchal duality: good-bad, black-white, god-devil, man-woman. There are other ways.

Kali is quite different, representing the fossilized belief in the ancient trinity of the Goddess. Within the natural cycles of all life, Kali brought change, transformation, rebirth and regeneration. But in contemporary India, Kali's shrines are virtual slaughterhouses. Kali does not "possess" people's minds. In Her cycle She has no flip side. She is round. The destruction in Kali is the death necessary for rebirth. Future-oriented death is not evil; it is natural. It is part of the Round.

Frankly, my cure for "diabolical" possession would consist of an intensive program of education, prevention and removal of all the negative and harmful myths the person may have absorbed.

In case a witch has to attend to a person who is possessed by the Christian devil or patriarchal demons, remember that the Great Goddess is LIFE. She can be stimulated in even the most brainwashed mind.

A trinity of priestesses should first purify the room with frankincense and myrrh, making invocations to the Four Corners of the Universe. Enclose the place with a protective magic circle.

Walk slowly around the room with a censer, holding it up in front of you. Pause at the East while the High Priestess says:

Watchtowers of the East - Ea, Astarte, Aurora, Ashtoreth - come into this house. Come through the doors, through the walls, through the ceiling and the windows. Permeate this room with Your healing energy. Initiate (name) into Your Mysteries. Blessed be!

If at this point a new name for the ill person comes to you, accept it and use it. Initiation means a new name, a new identity. If you don't fine a new name for your friend, wait until one comes. Cure could depend on whether the person absorbs the new name.

The other two priestesses follow each invocation with affirmations:

The Goddess is here. The Goddess has come. She is present in us. Blessed be!

Pause at the South and say:

Watchtowers of the South, Spirits of the Fires, Sacred Fires, come permeate this place. Burn away all anti-Life energy. Let Your work be done through the heart, through the blood. Come now and heal (name). Blessed be!

The accompanying priestesses:

The Goddess has come. The Mother is here. The healing be done. Burn away all ills. Blessed be!

Pause at the West:

Watchtowers of the West! Goddess of Cleansing, of the Waters if Life, come and wash away all ills. Equalize as only the Waters can. Permeate this place. Flow through (name), work through the muscles, through the fluids, blend in the blood. In, in come the good! Out, out goes the ill! Blessed be!

The other two priestesses say:

The Goddess has come. Welcome! The Goddess of Love is here. Welcome! She washes away the ignorance liker ain. So welcome! Blessed be!

Finally, pause at the North and say:

Watchtowers of the North! Great Earth Mother Whose destination is the darkest of space. Earth-Mother, Earth-Daughter! Make a new manifestation of (name's) thoughts. Bind the ills with Your assured hand and take them to the underworld. There lock them up under seven keys, and seven-headed serpents of Sacred Duties will keep them there for seven years, only to release them into the VOID. Blessed be!

All priestesses chant:

The Goddess is present. The Goddess is here. The Goddess is blessing all who participate. She blesses (name of one priestess) who is fair and strong; She blesses (name next priestess) who is valiant and loving; She blesses (name third priestess) who is nurturing and generous. Blessed be!

This may be chanted repeatedly for strength and blessing.

Turn inward and hum to raise inner power. Holding a cup of clear water sprinkled half-and-half with honey, sprinkle it over the room and the ill person. This is the Mother's Holy Water. Have everyone drink of it if possible; if not, the priestesses drink it for good luck.

Invocation of the High Priestess:

Hearken to me, Old Mother! You Who preceded all the gods! Astarte, Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Lilith, Havla! Come and aid (name) to find peace in Thee! Out, out, bad thought, imaginary devil, entity of ill fortune! Come in, come in, Mother of Cure, Mother of Love, Blissful Mother. Blessed be!

The trinity of priestesses should develop a rhythmic musical tune, using a bell, flute, cymbals, even sticks. The rhythm should be kept together and the invocation chanted over and over. You may change the mantra as you wish, but always keep the emphasis on the Mother Goddess aspect. Also, tones of E are very healing and might be useful. If you can blow or hum an E, do so. Don't expect an immediate cure. The mind became ill over a long period of time, subjected to an incredibly bad mythology. It may take several sessions of hearing about the Goddess before the woman is able to see Her, feel Her, and have Her awakened within.

When you notice the woman is calming down (even the toughest cases have "rest periods"), try to give her an acupressure massage. Follow this with a scrubbing, using sponges in lukewarm water, then anoint the body with Priestess oil or rose-scent, and give a cup of Valerian tea for sleep. Make a circle of salt around the bed where she lies, and place large pentagrams overhead or under the bed. Keep freshly cut flowers at the bedside for guiding spirits.

If after receiving such loving care the person is still unresponsive the next morning, bring a big brass horn, the loudest you can find, and blow it into her room. Expose the body to sound vibrations so strong that the thought form can change.

Each time a repeat performance of is needed, blow the horn as loudly as possible. Repeat purification of the room and continue chanting ancient imagery of the Goddess into the room. use slide projectors, musical instruments, everything.

Repeat this treatment five times, one for each point of the Pentagram, but no more. If it hasn't worked by the fifth time, save your energies for yourselves and don't absorb any more of the sad madness that comes from an overdose of Christianity. Even witches have their limits.


Vileness, vileness, a thousand times vileness unspeakable. The woman is a monster. A monster.

CzechWoods
August 6th, 2008, 07:56 PM
I'm fine with Dianics as long as they worship a Goddess and a God. To worship only a Goddess is most emphatically not Wicca.



There have been countless sightings of Jesus. For heaven's sakes, immediately after His tomb was found empty He was seen by the Apostles and countless others, walking around and talking.

Gimbutas is a known hack, and her writings on the religion of prehistoric peoples are without merit. Beautifully illustrated, but groundless and written with an axe to grind.

Budapest herself is someone with an incredibly huge axe to grind, as her 'holy' Book of Women's Mysteries more than amply demonstrates. To actually recommend forcibly exorcising the Christian religion from another human being is a vile, vile thing, and I cannot ethically recommend anything written by the author of such a monstrosity:

From pages 232 - 235 of 'The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries':



Vileness, vileness, a thousand times vileness unspeakable. The woman is a monster. A monster.

Have you actually read the quoted section with an OPEN mind ?

Last sentence: even witches have limits !

Contrary to Church excorcists, Z. sets a limit to rather give up than to destroy the possessed person. The Church is not that sympathetic you know.

Excorcisms are always tricky. Performing excrcism on people is risky at best, i dont propagate the practise, especially not to beginners o the Craft.

BUT: she has a point that some people cling to their demons.

The many Jesus sightings you talk about, any of them in times after his reported ressurection ? Like recently ?

I can only hope, that woman is a monster thing is meant as sarcasm. Otherwise its simply slander.

He who yells first, is out of arguments first - Japanese Proverb

RainInanna
August 6th, 2008, 08:08 PM
Beautifully illustrated, but groundless and written with an axe to grind.

There, Littleone, your example of someone who insists Goddess-centered/Dianic writing is without merit if it doesn't fit their requirements. *shrugs* You will find there are a few people like that, and after awhile, you get used to it. If you find worthwhile spirituality there, don't let this deter you. There are as many who see women's myths as inspirational metaphors and find spiritual development and a connection to the Sacred through them.

Doing a ritual to exorcise the Christian devil/patriarchal demons/what-have-you doesn't seem inexcusable to me, but to each their own (mind you, I'm also not offended by Christians trying to save me from the "Pagan" devil either, so your mileage may vary). I am curious to read that section in the book, the newer version doesn't have it on pages 232-235.

Ivy Artemisia
August 6th, 2008, 08:14 PM
To worship only a Goddess is most emphatically not Wicca.



I agree with this.

sparrowspirit
August 6th, 2008, 08:35 PM
well now... LittleOne,

I have strayed here and there from both Wicca and Dianic Wicca.

I myself, find that as being a whole multitude of different background and aspects of myself, I prefer to think of Diety not only as Goddess... but as One who really transcends gender all together. I find myself not liking the male/female duality but more of a yin/yang fluid quality. I find that being female, I can relate to things that we go through in life. I can find a kinship there, but I also find a kinship in God as well.

I find a connection that i share with many beliefs and principles that come up within the path. I work with God/dess on a day-to day basis, and during rituals I also work with both god and goddess as well.

But I encourage you to stop on over the dianic subforum and check it out :)

blessed be,
Mickey.

Philosophia
August 6th, 2008, 08:41 PM
I'm fine with Dianics as long as they worship a Goddess and a God. To worship only a Goddess is most emphatically not Wicca.

What about Dianics that aren't Wiccan and don't worship a God?

Fiamma
August 6th, 2008, 08:57 PM
I will say this, after having been to her website, that several of Zsuzsanna Budapest's comments are problematic at best. She is the self-described 'founder' of Dianic Wicca, a problematic claim but...

Her website: http://www.zbudapest.com/

I do suspect that she is at least a part time provocateur. I don't pretend that she speaks for even a majority of Dianic Wiccans though. Still, comments such as

"there are only two types of people in this world, women and their children"

are ungraciously ambiguous.

Uhg, yeah. I find Z Budapest to be mainly good for inducing massive headaches. Referring to the God as "A good little boy who behaves himself" and seeming to be otherwise incapable of speaking of male divinity without reference to "the patriarchy"...please.

I've talked to a few Dianics who weren't nearly so arrogant and condescending, but I tend to stay away from "woman's spirituality" of any sort, partially because I just have no interest and largely because everything I've ever seen of "woman's spirituality" seems to revolve entirely around the state of one's uterus, literally or figuratively...even if I were interested in "women's spirituality", this would drive me nuts, and as a woman who has no intentions of ever being a mother, and really doesn't like the idea of analogizing every little bit of creativity to birth and wombs...I see no place for myself in any of the pockets of "women's spirituality" that I've encountered.

But hey, I worship those "patriarchal gods".

/soapbox

To answer the OP, as far as Wicca goes, it's been mentioned that Dianic is much mre correctly used in reference to witchcraft than Wicca. If you look at the Wiccan religion, the god and goddess in their own, fairly equal roles are crucial. If one was to be removed or greatly diminished...you end up with something completely different.

Philosophia
August 6th, 2008, 09:34 PM
But hey, I worship those "patriarchal gods".

So do I and I'm a Dianic. Plus, I'm not having children and my womb is just that...my womb.

RainInanna
August 6th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Referring to the God as "A good little boy who behaves himself" and seeming to be otherwise incapable of speaking of male divinity without reference to "the patriarchy"...please.

Uh, except when you read The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries,wherein she talks about Pan, Dionysus, Bacchus, and a god she refers to as Kouros who I am not familiar with. And as she goes on to write about men as divine sons and lovers, including manhood rituals and a man's Dianic self-dedication ritual.


I've ever seen of "woman's spirituality" seems to revolve entirely around the state of one's uterus, literally or figuratively...even if I were interested in "women's spirituality", this would drive me nuts, and as a woman who has no intentions of ever being a mother, and really doesn't like the idea of analogizing every little bit of creativity to birth and wombs...I see no place for myself in any of the pockets of "women's spirituality" that I've encountered.

Which is interesting, since so much if Dianic literature is the focus on elements other than procreation, and how women can be creative and spiritual even as they choose not to have children.

I think the only reference I've seen to "womb-space" as the center of woman's creativity is in Ruth Barrett's Women's Rites, Women's Mysteries, where she points out that particular space in the body is active regardless of whether one has a uterus, let alone whether one uses it.

Louisvillian
August 7th, 2008, 09:22 AM
To answer the OP, as far as Wicca goes, it's been mentioned that Dianic is much mre correctly used in reference to witchcraft than Wicca. If you look at the Wiccan religion, the god and goddess in their own, fairly equal roles are crucial. If one was to be removed or greatly diminished...you end up with something completely different.
Exactly. The very basis of Wicca is balance in all things, most especially in theology. The primary god and goddess are equals, and one cannot function without the other. Dianics would be better defined as practitioners of witchcraft in general, rather than the specific path such as Wicca which doesn't mesh well with the idea of female dominance (or dominance of either gender, for that matter).

I have to admit that I have a certain distaste for Dianicism and other "women's spirituality" movements; partly because, well, I'm not a woman, so they don't apply to me, at all. :hahugh:
But it's also partly because of the things you mentioned; some of the writers and leaders of it are arrogant, ignorant at times, and occasionally reeks of propaganda. Not to say that all Dianics are arrogant ultra-feminists, nor that it's not right for them to follow what they choose. I'm just tired of hearing the propagandistic drivel of authors like Z. Budapest.


...and a god she refers to as Kouros who I am not familiar with...
Kouros, in this context, means Apollo.
Kouros is an ancient Greek term that simply means the archetype of a nude, beardless youth. It's used in statues all the time. In mythology, it referred to Apollo, as the ideal kouros.

Philosophia
August 7th, 2008, 09:33 AM
[QUOTE=Louisvillian;3645635But it's also partly because of the things you mentioned; some of the writers and leaders of it are arrogant, ignorant at times, and occasionally reeks of propaganda. Not to say that all Dianics are arrogant ultra-feminists, nor that it's not right for them to follow what they choose. I'm just tired of hearing the propagandistic drivel of authors like Z. Budapest.[/QUOTE]

But couldn't that be applied to most, if not all, traditions?

RainInanna
August 7th, 2008, 10:14 AM
Not to say that all Dianics are arrogant ultra-feminists, nor that it's not right for them to follow what they choose. I'm just tired of hearing the propagandistic drivel of authors like Z. Budapest.

Where are you seeing all of Z Budapest's drivel? I'm at a loss. When I read feminist writing, I learn the reasoning behind the anti-patriarchal comments. Because there *is* reasoning for it; there are reasons why women flock to Dianic and women-centered rituals and groups and why they feel the need to break out of patriarchal beliefs to build their own. Sue Monk Kidd's Dance of the Dissident Daughter is a short book that explains in more detail, and obviously research into feminist literature can provide more.

Budapest may have been extreme in a time when extreme feminism was needed. She may speak out to the mainstream and bring bits of the subject out to people who don't understand wholly because they're not interested to research Budapest's reasoning. But to ignore all the reasoning because it's passionate and not politically correct anymore, well that's just beyond me.

That there are women who want women-only circles and groups proves that women need a woman-only space. That people criticize Dianic writing for being "without merit" only proves and reinforces why women want Dianic space to be themselves without criticism and summary judgment. That there are people who don't post about Dianic beliefs even here on MW because they're tired of trying to defend it only reinforces why Dianic beliefs help some women.

When there are men's groups and religions, I just realize I may not understand them or be the best one to judge them since I'm not a man. I don't get offended, I don't call their work crap, I don't make comments about men's writing without ever reading it, or claim to know whether men's ritual has merit or is valid since I couldn't possibly know.

(Although this originally started with a quote from you Louisvillian, I don't mean that this all applies to you nor do I mean to attack you personally. This thought has been simmering for awhile and I have only found a thread in which to draw it out. I do believe you're one of those lovely MW members who can appreciate the discussion without getting personally offended. I apologize otherwise.)


Kouros is an ancient Greek term that simply means the archetype of a nude, beardless youth. It's used in statues all the time. In mythology, it referred to Apollo, as the ideal kouros.

Thank you for the explanation.

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 7th, 2008, 01:16 PM
Have you actually read the quoted section with an OPEN mind ?

Sadly, yes. If you can't see what's wrong with forced conversion, then clearly you're not reading it properly. Allow me to spell it out for all and sundry:

ZSUSANNA BUDAPEST ADVOCATES FORCED CONVERSION TO 'WICCA' FROM CHRISTIANITY. If you, or anyone else fail to see what the problem with this is, then you're clearly in the wrong religion here. It's violently, violently unethical. I'm even going to go out onto the loaded-word limb here and say that what Z. Budapest is advocating here is evil, pure and simple.



Contrary to Church excorcists, Z. sets a limit to rather give up than to destroy the possessed person. The Church is not that sympathetic you know.

I suggest you actually learn what happens at an actual Catholic exorcism. Hint: it's not like what happens in 'The Exorcist' or 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'. It's a drawn-out, boring, process and you can even find the ritual online - look up the Rituale Romanum. The variety of Christians that engage in dangerous 'exorcisms' are not Catholic and are therefore not associated with the Church. The Church does not undertake an exorcism lightly; most priests will deny that they do it, and there is a very stringent set of criteria to determine whether or not someone is possessed.


The many Jesus sightings you talk about, any of them in times after his reported ressurection ? Like recently ?

Gosh, it sure is unfortunate that there's not some massive, free, global source of information where you can enter in a random string of words and look at the results you get.

Oh, wait. (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Jesus+sighting&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)


I can only hope, that woman is a monster thing is meant as sarcasm. Otherwise its simply slander.

If Z Budapest is not, judging by the above section of her 'holy' book, a monster in the sense that the term 'monster' is applied to a human being, then I don't know what a monster is.


He who yells first, is out of arguments first - Japanese Proverb

And they who have excessively open minds are in danger of having their brains fall out.


There, Littleone, your example of someone who insists Goddess-centered/Dianic writing is without merit if it doesn't fit their requirements. *shrugs* You will find there are a few people like that, and after awhile, you get used to it. If you find worthwhile spirituality there, don't let this deter you. There are as many who see women's myths as inspirational metaphors and find spiritual development and a connection to the Sacred through them.

Yes, please, shrug me and my accursed insistence on lack of ignorance off. You do realize that by building 'women's spirituality' around a ticking time-bomb like the Gimbutas theory is a bad idea, yes? Hint: Gimbutas made things up, engaged in terribly unprofessional academic practices, took her conclusions as fact and then drew further conclusions from them, and so forth. One cannot make sweeping statements about prehistoric cultures based on tiny fragments of what remains. History does not work that way.

Here: Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas) and the Kurgan Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis). Pay attention to the sections marked 'Criticism'.

Metaphor is perfectly fine. I love metaphor. But you'd better damn well make sure people know what you're talking about is a metaphor, because presenting metaphor or myth as actual history is suspiciously close to something called lying.


Doing a ritual to exorcise the Christian devil/patriarchal demons/what-have-you doesn't seem inexcusable to me, but to each their own (mind you, I'm also not offended by Christians trying to save me from the "Pagan" devil either, so your mileage may vary). I am curious to read that section in the book, the newer version doesn't have it on pages 232-235.

Again, let me emphasize: Z BUDAPEST IS RECOMMENDING FORCED CONVERSION TO GODDESS WORSHIP. Still see something wrong here? Then I suggest you closely examine your ethics. Let's go over this again:


Frankly, my cure for "diabolical" possession would consist of an intensive program of education, prevention and removal of all the negative and harmful myths the person may have absorbed.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Z is a Christian recommending the exorcism and removal of a pagan religion from a person. Does it sit well with you? No? Then it ought not sit well with you if it's a pagan talking about forcibly converting a Christian.


The mind became ill over a long period of time, subjected to an incredibly bad mythology. It may take several sessions of hearing about the Goddess before the woman is able to see Her, feel Her, and have Her awakened within.

Let's change that to


The mind became ill over a long period of time, subjected to an incredibly bad mythology. It may take several sessions of hearing about the LORD your God and His Son Jesus Christ before the woman is able to see Him, feel Him, and have Him awakened within.

Does it sound any better that way? If you're getting your knickers in a twist about the Christian presentation of it but not the pagan one, than you'd better damn well sit down and do some thinking about the way you view other religions.

And I knew someone would try to claim that the passage does not exist. Happens every time. The book I'm quoting from was evidently published in 1997 by Wingbow Press. The ISBN is 0-914728-67-9. Would you like photographic proof?


What about Dianics that aren't Wiccan and don't worship a God?

Those are an entirely other kettle of fish. This is a thread about Dianic Wiccans. Z. Budapest's book is presented as 'Wicca'. It's entirely possible to be a Goddess Worshipper, Dianic Pagan, Women's Spirituality-Type Lady, or whatever else you'd like to call it, but if it hasn't got a God and Goddess on equal footing, then it is not, can not, and never will be Wicca. This is a core tenet of the faith and can not be debated. Wiccans worship a God and a Goddess. Anything else is not Wicca, plain and simple.

Littleone
August 7th, 2008, 04:24 PM
Wow this has been a very interesting and wonderful discussion. Thank you for all who contributed In my question. All your answers and duscussion was very helpful and I will go to the Dianic subfourm to find out more.

Thank you so much everyone. :)

Philosophia
August 7th, 2008, 07:49 PM
Those are an entirely other kettle of fish. This is a thread about Dianic Wiccans. Z. Budapest's book is presented as 'Wicca'. It's entirely possible to be a Goddess Worshipper, Dianic Pagan, Women's Spirituality-Type Lady, or whatever else you'd like to call it, but if it hasn't got a God and Goddess on equal footing, then it is not, can not, and never will be Wicca. This is a core tenet of the faith and can not be debated. Wiccans worship a God and a Goddess. Anything else is not Wicca, plain and simple.

Of course, it's about Dianic Wiccans. However, you said "I'm fine with Dianics as long as they worship a Goddess and a God." and only differentiated that from Wiccans in the second paragraph. I simply asked you a question concerning that sentence.

Anyway, what do you have against the Dianic path? Its obvious you don't like Zsuzanna Budapest (though I suspect she's just as bad as a lot of other authors) and Maria Gimbutas but I'm getting the feeling you also don't like the Dianic path.

Fiamma
August 7th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Uh, except when you read The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries,wherein she talks about Pan, Dionysus, Bacchus, and a god she refers to as Kouros who I am not familiar with. And as she goes on to write about men as divine sons and lovers, including manhood rituals and a man's Dianic self-dedication ritual.

So then the attitudes put forth in interviews are completely negated by what might be written in her books?

[quote=RainInanna;3645079]
Which is interesting, since so much if Dianic literature is the focus on elements other than procreation, and how women can be creative and spiritual even as they choose not to have children.

Okay well, here's where I'm coming from:

I haven't read the books, for the most part. I've flipped through some in the past, unfortunately anymore, I couldn't tell you which ones...other than Barbara Taylor's big old encyclopedia, which I can't even begin to take seriously enough to discuss it here. Flipping through a few was enough to tell me that it wasn't my gig.

Most of my experiences mentioned come from talking to people in real life, and having been involved with a women's group in the past, and knowing others and what I see people discussing. Maybe I'm just hitting on a certain uterus-obsessed fringe, but that's what I ran into so many times, I gave up. *shrug* Based on what I have read, of interviews and whatnot of the various writers, I have no interest in reading their books.

Additionally, having been told a number of times that I'm buying into the patriarchy, a bad woman, a bad feminist (nevermind that I don't identify as a feminist at all) and other such similar things because I worship gods...it leaves a bad taste. I've talked to a few sane Dianic sorts, but largely, my experience has been as I said.




I think the only reference I've seen to "womb-space" as the center of woman's creativity is in Ruth Barrett's Women's Rites, Women's Mysteries, where she points out that particular space in the body is active regardless of whether one has a uterus, let alone whether one uses it.

Clearly you and I have different experiences then. Like I said, maybe I just seem to encounter a certain slice of the population, but what I've seen seems to be all couched in the language of "giving birth" and "wombs" and even if you don't have children, you're still a mother who gives birth to ideas and expressions of creativity and all that...and the whole maiden/mother/crone thing and talk about the moon and menstrual cycles is never far away.

RainInanna
August 7th, 2008, 10:16 PM
You do realize that by building 'women's spirituality' around a ticking time-bomb like the Gimbutas theory is a bad idea, yes?

No, I don't feel it is. I hope that's clear enough this time.


One cannot make sweeping statements about prehistoric cultures based on tiny fragments of what remains.

One certainly can, and many certainly do, and many of us are just fine with finding inspiration and building spirituality based on metaphorical interpretations of myth, even if they don't fit your standards of merit. Some of us don't care about historical accuracy and use myth purely for metaphor and inspiration. Seriously. Understood what you meant, didn't agree with you.


For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Z is a Christian recommending the exorcism and removal of a pagan religion from a person. Does it sit well with you?

You know the part where I said I had no problem with a Christian trying to save me from the '"Pagan" devil'? That's where I meant that I don't mind a Christian ritual meant to stop my being Pagan. I don't have a problem with it, I don't care about it, and it doesn't bother me in the least regardless of who is doing it or to whom they are doing it. Unethical? Seriously? No, physically hurting someone, threatening them, beating them, assaulting them, harassing them - yes those are unethical. But no, someone praying or doing rituals doesn't "get my panties in a knot". I hope that's really clear this time.


The book I'm quoting from was evidently published in 1997 by Wingbow Press. The ISBN is 0-914728-67-9. Would you like photographic proof?

No, I think what I said was I'd be interested to know what section so I can read it myself. Perhaps you were so busy wanting to rant and rave in defense of that point that my post wasn't clear enough. Whether it exists or it doesn't wouldn't change my opinion one bit. I simply had my copy in front of me and that section wasn't on the same pages in mine.

RainInanna
August 7th, 2008, 10:29 PM
So then the attitudes put forth in interviews are completely negated by what might be written in her books?

I haven't seen any of her interviews so can't say anything about them or how they relate to her books. My only guess is that you're thinking of old interviews and her opinion has changed, if only because she's said her opinions have changed in the new edition? I've no idea. I imagine she met more people who made her see things differently.


Maybe I'm just hitting on a certain uterus-obsessed fringe,

Possible. So many people judge the whole group/religion/movement by a few radical people that pissed them off. It's the same as those who judge all Pagans by some McWiccan ass or "devil worshipping" fool.

I'm not saying this should be for everyone. I'm just saying sweeping judgments based on little information is generally not good.

I mean, I just don't make comments about other people's beliefs or other Pagan authors who's opinions I don't really know in depth. For some reason people do that with Dianic spirituality, and I just don't think it's cool.

RainInanna
August 7th, 2008, 10:53 PM
Of course, it's about Dianic Wiccans.

I'm not sure I entirely agree. I just assumed the OP didn't know enough about Dianic beliefs to decide if they were Wiccan or Witchcraft, and so took her best guess. I don't find the "are Dianics Wiccan" discussion can be very long or interesting beyond the poster who has already said they aren't. "They can't be Wiccan? They can be? Ok, no one agrees, we've beaten that dead horse again, now what can we talk about." *shrugs*

I think it's ok to post about Dianic Witchcraft in a thread moved to the Wicca forum because it happens to have "Dianic Wicca" in the title. Maybe I'm wrong. But my assumption is the poster was as interested in Dianic beliefs whether we call them Witchcraft, women's spirituality, Wicca, or purple-unicornism.


I'm getting the feeling you also don't like the Dianic path.

Yes it sure does seem like there's a lot of temper involved there. At least that's what I feel from the discussion.

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 7th, 2008, 11:26 PM
Of course, it's about Dianic Wiccans. However, you said "I'm fine with Dianics as long as they worship a Goddess and a God." and only differentiated that from Wiccans in the second paragraph. I simply asked you a question concerning that sentence.

Anyway, what do you have against the Dianic path? Its obvious you don't like Zsuzanna Budapest (though I suspect she's just as bad as a lot of other authors) and Maria Gimbutas but I'm getting the feeling you also don't like the Dianic path.

I'm sorry, I should have specified (and thought that I had!) with 'Dianic Wiccans'. Terribly sorry for the mistake.

I do not have a problem with all Dianics. I have a problem with Dianics who see nothing wrong with the kinds of things I've been talking about here. Actually, no, scratch that. I have a problem with anyone, regardless of tradition, who fails to see what's wrong with the text I quoted.

Now, I do have a problem with Z. Budapest as I have outlined above and many times before in other threads, and the same goes for Gimbutas. Gimbutas, however, I do not regard as a Dianic as much as a bad, bad archaeologist who was largely guilty of the same thing Murray was guilty of, in that she knew what she wanted to find and then twisted the things she found to support her theories.

And oh, RainInanna, if I were ranting and raving, you'd know, and so would everyone else who was reading it. I've been accused of lying about the quoted section before, and it's a bit of a touchy subject for me, if that hasn't been made rather blindingly obvious.

David19
August 8th, 2008, 08:21 PM
I have read several of Z.Budapest books, and cannot quite understand the hostility against Zusanna (sp?) - other than the whiplash/rebound thing.

Back on topic, when I began the path i (male) started as Dianic Wicca/Witch and it suited me well. I found her writtings rather balanced than anti-male.

Many passages in her books refer to male worship of Female deities and male deities. There were some rather funny stories of encounters with very male deities such as cernunos/Pan in her books and very good explenations how to deal with those energies.

The above statement I havent read (two types of good people) but i believe the person posting it.

Z. has gone through quite an ordeal with patriarchic dominance in her life, and i find it understandable at least, that she would maybe become somewhat biased in some peoples books.

What did suit me very well, during many years of practice was the fact that she would rather introduce the many - so far forgotten - aspects of female deities and a very practical lead towards life within the Dianic kontext. Her female deity mainly/only way is a very good balance to the ma(i)nstream male dominant deities JHV/God/Allah/Buddha etc. A very needed counterpoint to the expressions from lets say Buddhism, that the last incarnation before nirvana MUS be as a man, etc etc, the influences of patriarchic POV in Hinduism (Highest God male, Shiva; female deities being mainly soft and tender - mainly mind you) within the classic antheons of greece, rome etc, where originally powerful gooddesses were degraded to be just wives or playthings of the male gods

For me, the idea, that a main deity should be female is all natural. as in nature too - as far as we know it - females bring life, not males. It is not unusual, that in a female only colony of animals suddenly a female animal gets pregnant and gives birth - though no male was in the play ....

It was very interestig to hear from Z. in her books, that within the x-ian concept all sightings of the divine were V. Mary sightings (Goddess) yet non of JHV/Jesus.

These facts are very provking, as well as her hints onto the great works of Marja Gimbutas, an archeologist who discovered the ancient carvings and artifacts being signs of Goddess worship.

So to make my short notice not too long.

I believe that dianic paths are very worth exploring, and ery helpful in your path. whether yu are male or female, their POV can help you get a more balanced picture of the divine. I myself have left he Dianic concepts, but i have also eft behind wicca altogether.

Hope my post will help you some

I don't mind Dianic Wicca, or Dianic witchcraft, or whatever, etc, some of it seems quite cool. I do have some criticisms of your post, though, why should the main deity be female?, I mean, one, life needs both sperm and eggs to create life, not just eggs from a woman. 2, I've seen some scientific studies that show, in the future, it may be possible for men to be pregnant (giving humans true equality). Also, I remember something Z. Budapest said in the video Gathering the Goddess (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTaTGsh7Cvc) (which I did like, and you can watch it on Youtube), but, she said, what was "natural" was men not fighting women, but fighting each other, like in the animal kingdom, for women, or something like that, and, I'm sorry, but no way am I fighting for a woman's attention, to me, that's a very hetrosexual interpretation of nature. That's a problem I have with her, and others, I'm gay, I'm not fighting for women, to get a female mate, or girlfriend, etc.

David19
August 8th, 2008, 08:25 PM
The many Jesus sightings you talk about, any of them in times after his reported ressurection ? Like recently ?

You seem to have a grudge against Christianity, and Christians, there have been plenty of mystical experiences that Christians have had with their God, you know, Pagans aren't the only one who have mystical experiences, visions of their God, or Gods, etc There's been people who've had near death experiences, and had visions of Jesus, other mystical experiences, etc. Also, I think in Catholic, and, maybe other, Christian beliefs too, there's something called the Mysterious Union, where a Monk, Priest, Nun, etc will join with their God, whether it's YHWH, or Jesus, I don't know, etc. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc all have mystical experiences. I worship a Goddess (Ereshkigal, the Sumerian God of Kur, the underworld), but, I can accept, and I just know, that other people have experiences with many other Gods, beings, spirits, whatever, etc.

David19
August 8th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Uhg, yeah. I find Z Budapest to be mainly good for inducing massive headaches. Referring to the God as "A good little boy who behaves himself" and seeming to be otherwise incapable of speaking of male divinity without reference to "the patriarchy"...please.

I've talked to a few Dianics who weren't nearly so arrogant and condescending, but I tend to stay away from "woman's spirituality" of any sort, partially because I just have no interest and largely because everything I've ever seen of "woman's spirituality" seems to revolve entirely around the state of one's uterus, literally or figuratively...even if I were interested in "women's spirituality", this would drive me nuts, and as a woman who has no intentions of ever being a mother, and really doesn't like the idea of analogizing every little bit of creativity to birth and wombs...I see no place for myself in any of the pockets of "women's spirituality" that I've encountered.

But hey, I worship those "patriarchal gods".

/soapbox

To answer the OP, as far as Wicca goes, it's been mentioned that Dianic is much mre correctly used in reference to witchcraft than Wicca. If you look at the Wiccan religion, the god and goddess in their own, fairly equal roles are crucial. If one was to be removed or greatly diminished...you end up with something completely different.

I think I remember hearing she refers to a God, or all Gods, as "a good little boy who behaves himself", I'd love her to say that to YHWH, Odin, Enlil, Enki, or an Aztec God, etc, actually, maybe I wouldn't want to be there, but, I have a feeling they wouldn't take that from anyway, and it has nothing to do with what gender you are either (for those that don't know, in Sumerian Mythology, beliefs, etc, Enlil is one of the more powerful Sumerian Gods, he, I think, is at the head of the 7 Who Decree Fate (7 of the most powerful Gods in the Sumerian pantheon), although, I'm not sure if An is more powerful, but, he did send a flood to wipe away all humans (or those in Sumer anyway, probably, not the whole world)).

David19
August 8th, 2008, 08:35 PM
Sadly, yes. If you can't see what's wrong with forced conversion, then clearly you're not reading it properly. Allow me to spell it out for all and sundry:

ZSUSANNA BUDAPEST ADVOCATES FORCED CONVERSION TO 'WICCA' FROM CHRISTIANITY. If you, or anyone else fail to see what the problem with this is, then you're clearly in the wrong religion here. It's violently, violently unethical. I'm even going to go out onto the loaded-word limb here and say that what Z. Budapest is advocating here is evil, pure and simple.



I suggest you actually learn what happens at an actual Catholic exorcism. Hint: it's not like what happens in 'The Exorcist' or 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'. It's a drawn-out, boring, process and you can even find the ritual online - look up the Rituale Romanum. The variety of Christians that engage in dangerous 'exorcisms' are not Catholic and are therefore not associated with the Church. The Church does not undertake an exorcism lightly; most priests will deny that they do it, and there is a very stringent set of criteria to determine whether or not someone is possessed.



Gosh, it sure is unfortunate that there's not some massive, free, global source of information where you can enter in a random string of words and look at the results you get.

Oh, wait. (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Jesus+sighting&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)



If Z Budapest is not, judging by the above section of her 'holy' book, a monster in the sense that the term 'monster' is applied to a human being, then I don't know what a monster is.



And they who have excessively open minds are in danger of having their brains fall out.



Yes, please, shrug me and my accursed insistence on lack of ignorance off. You do realize that by building 'women's spirituality' around a ticking time-bomb like the Gimbutas theory is a bad idea, yes? Hint: Gimbutas made things up, engaged in terribly unprofessional academic practices, took her conclusions as fact and then drew further conclusions from them, and so forth. One cannot make sweeping statements about prehistoric cultures based on tiny fragments of what remains. History does not work that way.

Here: Marija Gimbutas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas) and the Kurgan Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis). Pay attention to the sections marked 'Criticism'.

Metaphor is perfectly fine. I love metaphor. But you'd better damn well make sure people know what you're talking about is a metaphor, because presenting metaphor or myth as actual history is suspiciously close to something called lying.



Again, let me emphasize: Z BUDAPEST IS RECOMMENDING FORCED CONVERSION TO GODDESS WORSHIP. Still see something wrong here? Then I suggest you closely examine your ethics. Let's go over this again:



For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Z is a Christian recommending the exorcism and removal of a pagan religion from a person. Does it sit well with you? No? Then it ought not sit well with you if it's a pagan talking about forcibly converting a Christian.



Let's change that to



Does it sound any better that way? If you're getting your knickers in a twist about the Christian presentation of it but not the pagan one, than you'd better damn well sit down and do some thinking about the way you view other religions.

I didn't know she advocated forced conversions, it actually does sound like brainwashing to me, it's wrong when Christians go on and on about Jesus, to try and get you to become Christian (and it's also disrespectful to their God, IMO, 'cause, if you're forced to become part of a religion, you won't be sincere in your feelings, and, IMO, that is disrespectful to the God, or Gods, there), it's also wrong when someone goes on about The Goddess, and wants people to convert to their religion too, etc.

Philosophia
August 8th, 2008, 08:37 PM
I don't mind Dianic Wicca, or Dianic witchcraft, or whatever, etc, some of it seems quite cool. I do have some criticisms of your post, though, why should the main deity be female?

Why shouldn't it be female? Even though I understand your POV, but I'm wondering what is wrong with a person only worshiping a female deity.

RainInanna
August 8th, 2008, 08:59 PM
Why shouldn't it be female? Even though I understand your POV, but I'm wondering what is wrong with a person only worshiping a female deity.

I wish I could remember who commented that we all make god in our image - that a duck will see god in duck form, a horse will see god in horse form, and we will see god in our form.

I don't have to worship god as a duck just because I like ducks.

I am not making any comment on ducks by worshipping a Goddess.

A duck is a duck, and I am not.

I hope that doesn't offend ducks as much as it appears to offend some men I know. :)

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 8th, 2008, 10:56 PM
Why shouldn't it be female? Even though I understand your POV, but I'm wondering what is wrong with a person only worshiping a female deity.

There's nothing wrong with it at all, unless that person is also trying to call her/himself a Wiccan.

Philosophia
August 8th, 2008, 11:06 PM
There's nothing wrong with it at all, unless that person is also trying to call her/himself a Wiccan.

I agree.

RuneCast
August 9th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Had I realized that Bringing up Z Budapest would have woven the whole thread this way, I would have just mentioned the Dianic Wicca subforum here and left it at that.
Why did I mention Z?
Because I feel her ideas should not go unchallenged.
Her message can indeed overpower less radical alternatives.
She gets coverage and reaches an audience.
But whether or not Z Budapest should be debated, that does not mean that Dianic Wicca, or any type of Goddess worship needs to be debated by extension.

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 9th, 2008, 02:21 AM
Had I realized that Bringing up Z Budapest would have woven the whole thread this way, I would have just mentioned the Dianic Wicca subforum here and left it at that.
Why did I mention Z?
Because I feel her ideas should not go unchallenged.
Her message can indeed overpower less radical alternatives.
She gets coverage and reaches an audience.
But whether or not Z Budapest should be debated, that does not mean that Dianic Wicca, or any type of Goddess worship needs to be debated by extension.

Ah, but we are talking about Dianic Wicca :P After all, The Holy Book of Women's Mysteries bills itself as Dianic Wicca, so we're talking about a Dianic author who has for better or for worse had an immense impact on women's spirituality, and I think that's a valid discussion topic in a thread like this.

I don't think I said anything invalidating Dianic Wicca or other varieties of Dianic-ness, but I did spend some time slagging Budapest and Gimbutas for what I considered and still consider justifiable reasons.

Also, see Philosophia, we agree on something in a Dianic thread :O I AM AMAZED.

...also, I totally almost wrote 'Minerva Mind' instead of Philosophia. Whoops.

Philosophia
August 9th, 2008, 02:36 AM
Also, see Philosophia, we agree on something in a Dianic thread :O I AM AMAZED.

...also, I totally almost wrote 'Minerva Mind' instead of Philosophia. Whoops.

:hehehehe: I'm amazed too. You'll be surprised by how many Dianics do agree with you on the subject Dianic Wicca.

BTW, I still catch myself writing Minerva Mind as well. :hahugh:

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 9th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Discussion point: It's kind of blindingly obvious that once Wicca hit America's west coast, with its at-the-time radical feminism and bizarre New Age-type stuff that it became a very different creature. Many very influential Wiccan and pagan authors live on the west coast - Z Budapest, Starhawk, Scott Cunningham for a time, for example.

I'm wondering what Wicca would now be like were it not for this (for want of a better word) tinkering, playing with, and then disseminating. Any takers?

RuneCast
August 9th, 2008, 01:05 PM
Someone else besides those authors would have tinkered with Wicca, if they hadn't.

One of two things usually happens in this country:

Something arrives and it isn't American enough, so Americans get into it, create an Americanized version and then market that to other Americans.

or

The new arrival meets up with something else non-indigenous that most Americans are unaware of and they get in bed and make something new.

These 'things' or 'somethings' could be Wicca, any form of music, martial arts, whatever. Either this place acts as a melting pot or else it Americanizes everything it touches.

How cold Wicca not have been tinkered with?

Despite what our current administration says, this is a multi-ethnic society. Many heritages reside here, many different memories of pre-christian times. Greeks, Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, Japanese and many others have deities and that are decently far removed from Wicca when it arrived in America. So how could Wicca continue to retain its largely northern European / British influence and ever be practiced by all but those that descent? Or rather, why did people seek to bring deities from other pantheons into Wiccan practice? Because they did.

Possible counter example:

Look at Blue Star Wicca, supposedly they commune only with British deities so in that sense they are against the trend of American Wiccans to tinker with Wicca. And here is an originally Canadian / American spin on Wicca that has gone back to Ireland and the UK. So I've read.

Perhaps it could have taken much longer for anyone to have started tinkering than it has.

Had a different group of men been involved and excluded women, maybe Wicca, even with its emphasis on the Goddess might have ended up as more of a Masonic type deal.

RainInanna
August 9th, 2008, 01:15 PM
Someone else besides those authors would have tinkered with Wicca, if they hadn't.


I'm a little lost because I know a lot of tinkering had nothing to do with feminism, Dianic witchcraft, goddess-centered spirituality, etc. Visiting a British Wiccan forum is enough to suggest the difference, and the differences I notice rarely have anything to do with Dianic beliefs or feminism. So I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding (again).

RuneCast
August 9th, 2008, 02:15 PM
I'm a little lost because I know a lot of tinkering had nothing to do with feminism, Dianic witchcraft, goddess-centered spirituality, etc. Visiting a British Wiccan forum is enough to suggest the difference, and the differences I notice rarely have anything to do with Dianic beliefs or feminism. So I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding (again).

If you're possibly confused, let me proceed cautiously.

In my opinion, if a lot of the tinkering had nothing to do with feminism and Goddess-centered spirituality, some of it did. A measurable amount. An amount worth taking into consideration. Good tinkering. If Wicca is to be legitimately gender balanced it needs the full participation of feminists and practitioners of Goddess Centered Spirituality. Where's the Goddess in Wicca, if women don't go around changing things?

Indeed a lot of the changes were for other reasons and by other people. No doubt.
But I see plenty of ways that most forms of modern American Wicca relate much more closely to Dianic Wicca than the earlier forms of Wicca that arrived long ago ever did.

RainInanna
August 9th, 2008, 02:27 PM
If you're possibly confused, let me proceed cautiously.

Worry not, I just prefer to say I'm confused rather than offending people by being a blathering idiot ;)

My guess if is Wicca hadn't been Americanized, it'd still more closely resemble what happens across the pond. There are good Wiccan forums there as well, and one need only find them to see how different views may be, at least publicly. For one thing, arguments over what is Wicca and whether it can be practiced as a solitary are frequently shot down quickly. Somedays that's a blessing, since "that's all well and good - but it isn't bloody well Wicca" really does come off better than some of the vehement raging debates that have gone on about the subject. But then I say that as one of those who's not really concerned what label you stick on my beliefs. YMMV and all that.

David19
August 9th, 2008, 07:59 PM
Why shouldn't it be female? Even though I understand your POV, but I'm wondering what is wrong with a person only worshiping a female deity.

I didn't mean there was anything wrong with only worshipping a female God, there's nothing wrong with it at all, just as there's nothing wrong with just worshipping a male God, or a Transgendered one, a Hermaphrodite God, etc. It's just, I thought he was saying it "made more sense" for the creater of the universe, multiverse, etc to be female, and I was just wondering, why?. If anything, if there is a creater of the universe, multiverse, etc, it won't be male, female, etc at all.

David19
August 9th, 2008, 08:00 PM
I wish I could remember who commented that we all make god in our image - that a duck will see god in duck form, a horse will see god in horse form, and we will see god in our form.

I don't have to worship god as a duck just because I like ducks.

I am not making any comment on ducks by worshipping a Goddess.

A duck is a duck, and I am not.

I hope that doesn't offend ducks as much as it appears to offend some men I know. :)

There's nothing wrong with that, like I said above, I just meant, why would it "make more sense" that the "creater" of the unverse, multiverse, etc is a female, why would it be any gender at all?.

RainInanna
August 9th, 2008, 10:25 PM
There's nothing wrong with that, like I said above, I just meant, why would it "make more sense" that the "creater" of the unverse, multiverse, etc is a female, why would it be any gender at all?.

For me? Because I'm a female and it would make more sense to me if the creator of the universe was someone I could identify with. Like the duck thing.

Why does it make sense for so many people that the creator is a male? And yet, it does make sense to the mainstream (JCI). The majority of people, I would say, seem to think it makes sense that the creator is male. Why should it make any less sense for the creator to be female?

Mithrea
August 10th, 2008, 12:49 AM
The thing that nobody seems to get is that it's not your place to "have a problem" with someone else's path. If you're Wiccan, you're Wiccan. If someone calls themself a Dianic Wiccan, then how does that affect your spirituality? If you think they are wrong, isn't that their problem? I wonder why it is that it's not okay to just think to yourself, "Z Budapest is a quack, but that has no affect on my life." Why is it that people have to actively discredit people who write about certain topics? Why is it so threatening to people on a personal level?

Christianity works the same way. Whoever is participating in the dominant practice tries to decide what is and isn't Christian. There are many Christian sects that mainstream Christians won't call Christianity, yet the followers of those smaller sects believe themselves to be Christians and in fact do call themselves Christians. People are far less likely to go on such an active campaign to discredit Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians than they are to try and discredit Dianics. Yet there is a parallel in that there is a strong disagreement in the core tenets of the faith in both examples.

I think it's possible that people give too much power to labels and worry far too much about other people's business. Debating theories is fine, but this "I have a problem with" this and "I have a problem with" that when you are referring to someone else's beliefs and practices is not debating the theory. If you were to say "I don't believe . . . " or "This goes against my practice . . . " that would be one thing, but many people here aren't doing that and don't do that historically. It could be a case of semantics, but it never feels so inocuous.

I applaud the posters in this thread for remaining relatively civil though. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the responses of the Dianics who have posted and feel quite proud to be counted among them. :)

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 10th, 2008, 01:42 AM
The thing that nobody seems to get is that it's not your place to "have a problem" with someone else's path. If you're Wiccan, you're Wiccan. If someone calls themself a Dianic Wiccan, then how does that affect your spirituality? If you think they are wrong, isn't that their problem? I wonder why it is that it's not okay to just think to yourself, "Z Budapest is a quack, but that has no affect on my life." Why is it that people have to actively discredit people who write about certain topics? Why is it so threatening to people on a personal level?

Because one jackass ends up being really, really noisy, so everyone pays attention to the jackass and things that everyone who believes that the jackass says is what the non-jackasses think, too.

Not all Christians are like Fred Phelps, not all atheists are like Richard Dawkins, but people lump them all together because people can be stupid. I don't want morons like Silver RavenWolf or Raven Grimassi running around making all Wiccans look like dumbasses. Dianics, I am sure, don't want twits like Z Budapest or Insert Radical Separatist Feminist/Feminazi Here running around shooting their damn fool mouths off, because then idiots like me get freaked out and associated the asshats with the group they claim to represent.

Z Budapest and her tripe do have an effect on my life, and Silver RavenWolf and her tripe have an effect as well, because in their horrible, horrible books both claim to be Wiccans. As a Wiccan, they are therefore associated with me, but unlike them I'm not an idiot. I don't want my religion to be associated with idiots or the particular kind of hateful bile that the writing of Budapest in particular exudes.

...and yes, I'm well aware of the irony of me complaining about hateful bile.

RainInanna
August 10th, 2008, 10:16 AM
Dianics, I am sure, don't want twits like Z Budapest or Insert Radical Separatist Feminist/Feminazi Here running around shooting their damn fool mouths off, because then idiots like me get freaked out and associated the asshats with the group they claim to represent.

Actually, we really do. We really did too, when people had to shoot their mouths off about feminism just to be heard as women. Then what we really want is "idiots like you" to stop painting all of us by your vague impression of Z Budapest based on half hearing what she had to say rather than trying to understand why her words are so meaningful to us. You see, us Dianics actually have high hopes for you.

See, we know Z Budapest spewed hateful bile about the patriarchy. We read about it at length, we did the research, and we suddenly had our eyes forced open to why feminism was, and is, necessary. We found out why Budapest was so passionate, and when we evaluated her hateful bile and her reasons for it, we understood her even if we disagreed. We respected her, even if we didn't hate the patriarchy. We found her literature to be beautiful, inspiring, and meaningful, and to help us finally accept and find the Sacred within ourselves and eachother, and then we used it to craft heart-felt, meaningful feminine rituals and myths to continue knowing the Divine and finally loving ourselves for also carrying the Divine within. We knew it was hateful bile, and we knew why it was, and we accepted it, even if we didn't agree with it, because then we were able to find god in a whole new way.

And also? We decided we weren't the only ones who were smart enough to recognize why the hateful bile was there. We knew others would be smart enough to understand why Budapest was so passionate, and that they could look past their defensiveness to find out what Dianic spirituality is to us rather than painting us all with the same poorly shaped, haphazard brush.

RainInanna
August 10th, 2008, 10:24 AM
Why is it that people have to actively discredit people who write about certain topics? Why is it so threatening to people on a personal level?


Because rage is an easy emotion, and it's easily spurred on by the ego in defense of itself. People get so caught up in not being associated with "those people" that defense shoots out before introspection and contemplation can really take hold. Before one knows it, they're ranting and raving as the anger snowballs, and can't imagine how "those people" believe it. Not realizing that understanding comes when ranting and raving stops. At least, that's my impression. Your mileage may vary.

Maybe I am just really old and cynical because honestly, I got tired of worrying so much about who people associated me with and whether they considered me a feminazi, fluffybunny, or anything else. Seriously, can't be bothered to waste the energy.

You need to post more here. Either that or PM me with where you are posting about Dianic spirituality.

RuneCast
August 10th, 2008, 06:00 PM
Why is it that people have to actively discredit people who write about certain topics?

I'm not trying to discredit Z Budapest.
I'm just challenging her ideas.
Why am I not talking to her then?
Because her ideas in and of themselves really are her business.
It is their affect on the people who agree with some of it, or sympathize with it, that interests me.
Regardless of what she intended and whatever apolgetics gets built up around her words, what type of outlook does this encourage in a reader's day to day world?
I also do not consider my reading of her to be one-sided, superficial or halfway.

What Dianic Wiccans think and feel does affect me and it is disempowering of the tradition to say
otherwise.


...and yes, I'm well aware of the irony of me complaining about hateful bile.

You know, maybe it isn't ironic. Maybe hate happens and that's part of the deal. We should control it
and try to balance it out or at least put it to constructive work. But eliminate hate? That might be too ambitious.
I don't think anyone here was seriously suggesting a world where hatred never happens or where it is a symptom of ignorance alone.
Let's not delude ourselves, hate is one of our primary emotions.
Whether you're a man or an Amazon.
History is all the proof I need of this.
If we learn about ourselves in a meaningful way, then hate can become more of a choice, but if you're a human being you're going to willingly decide to hate something or someone.


Why is it so threatening to people on a personal level?

I'm man enough to admit that if this lady got pissed at me:

http://www.artemisarchery.com/about/falcon.html

I'd have every reason to feel threatened on a personal level, but she seems amiable enough,
I'd certainly deserve it if she got annoyed, I suppose.



You see, us Dianics actually have high hopes for you.

Such as?

Silverfire Darkmoon
August 10th, 2008, 06:14 PM
You see, us Dianics actually have high hopes for you.

That's...quite condescending, actually.

RuneCast
August 10th, 2008, 06:31 PM
Is it?

David19
August 10th, 2008, 07:39 PM
For me? Because I'm a female and it would make more sense to me if the creator of the universe was someone I could identify with. Like the duck thing.

Why does it make sense for so many people that the creator is a male? And yet, it does make sense to the mainstream (JCI). The majority of people, I would say, seem to think it makes sense that the creator is male. Why should it make any less sense for the creator to be female?

I don't think it makes sense for the creator to be either male or female, why would it?, I mean, if there is something that created the universe, or multiverse, then, it would, probably, be just some spiritual force, or something, that isn't male, female, whatever, etc.

David19
August 10th, 2008, 07:42 PM
Actually, we really do. We really did too, when people had to shoot their mouths off about feminism just to be heard as women. Then what we really want is "idiots like you" to stop painting all of us by your vague impression of Z Budapest based on half hearing what she had to say rather than trying to understand why her words are so meaningful to us. You see, us Dianics actually have high hopes for you.

See, we know Z Budapest spewed hateful bile about the patriarchy. We read about it at length, we did the research, and we suddenly had our eyes forced open to why feminism was, and is, necessary. We found out why Budapest was so passionate, and when we evaluated her hateful bile and her reasons for it, we understood her even if we disagreed. We respected her, even if we didn't hate the patriarchy. We found her literature to be beautiful, inspiring, and meaningful, and to help us finally accept and find the Sacred within ourselves and eachother, and then we used it to craft heart-felt, meaningful feminine rituals and myths to continue knowing the Divine and finally loving ourselves for also carrying the Divine within. We knew it was hateful bile, and we knew why it was, and we accepted it, even if we didn't agree with it, because then we were able to find god in a whole new way.

And also? We decided we weren't the only ones who were smart enough to recognize why the hateful bile was there. We knew others would be smart enough to understand why Budapest was so passionate, and that they could look past their defensiveness to find out what Dianic spirituality is to us rather than painting us all with the same poorly shaped, haphazard brush.

Thanks for that explanation, that really helped me understand :).

RainInanna
August 10th, 2008, 08:00 PM
Thanks for that explanation, that really helped me understand :).

Sometimes you brighten my day. This was one of those times :smile:

David19
August 11th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Sometimes you brighten my day. This was one of those times :smile:

Thanks :).

BenSt
August 12th, 2008, 11:27 AM
There is far too much to reply and give my own opinion in this debate but I had a side question that I've always wanted to ask :)

Something has always interested me about Dianic Wicca. I know that feminism is very highly combined with the concept of Dianic wicca... and not that I totally agree with the notion of a female supreme being (but then again thats my own beliefs and not Dianic Wiccan beliefs :P). I had a question regarding the mixing of feminism and Dianic Wicca. I know that in recent years traditional first wave feminism has been criticized by feminists themselves as being more than anything westerly focussed and ignoring the specific situations and conditions of women of colour both in the West and around the world. That the focus of feminism is and has been on the experiences of a certain group of middle class/upper middle class white women. I'd be fascinated to know if in Dianic Wicca and Goddess Worship if these criticisms or observations have appeared and if so are there divergent groups or opinions among Dianic Wiccans?

David19
August 12th, 2008, 07:22 PM
There is far too much to reply and give my own opinion in this debate but I had a side question that I've always wanted to ask :)

Something has always interested me about Dianic Wicca. I know that feminism is very highly combined with the concept of Dianic wicca... and not that I totally agree with the notion of a female supreme being (but then again thats my own beliefs and not Dianic Wiccan beliefs :P). I had a question regarding the mixing of feminism and Dianic Wicca. I know that in recent years traditional first wave feminism has been criticized by feminists themselves as being more than anything westerly focussed and ignoring the specific situations and conditions of women of colour both in the West and around the world. That the focus of feminism is and has been on the experiences of a certain group of middle class/upper middle class white women. I'd be fascinated to know if in Dianic Wicca and Goddess Worship if these criticisms or observations have appeared and if so are there divergent groups or opinions among Dianic Wiccans?

That's quite interesting, I know some feminists have accused other feminists of only caring about the experiences of white women, or, in some cases, rich, white women, I wonder, how that affects Dianic Wicca, or Dianic Witchcraft (as they are 2 different things).

BenSt
August 12th, 2008, 07:50 PM
That's quite interesting, I know some feminists have accused other feminists of only caring about the experiences of white women, or, in some cases, rich, white women, I wonder, how that affects Dianic Wicca, or Dianic Witchcraft (as they are 2 different things).

well it's an important question. There definitly is a divide in academic feminism right now, and I guess I feel it as a social work student because feminism is one of the first social movements in the western world (next to Marxism) that helped to raise awareness to social issues.

The key point of the criticism is that the points of view, lifestyles and experiences of a certain group of women (in this case white middle to upper class women of anglo-saxon descent in the western world) is then applied to all women. The generalizations and aims of this certain group of women is then applied as a general bar. I know in South Asia for example, western feminism cannot work and is criticized completely by South Asian feminists.

So I'd be fascinated to find out what dianic wiccans on here think about this and if there is any differences or how that debate seeps down.

David19
August 13th, 2008, 05:56 PM
well it's an important question. There definitly is a divide in academic feminism right now, and I guess I feel it as a social work student because feminism is one of the first social movements in the western world (next to Marxism) that helped to raise awareness to social issues.

The key point of the criticism is that the points of view, lifestyles and experiences of a certain group of women (in this case white middle to upper class women of anglo-saxon descent in the western world) is then applied to all women. The generalizations and aims of this certain group of women is then applied as a general bar. I know in South Asia for example, western feminism cannot work and is criticized completely by South Asian feminists.

So I'd be fascinated to find out what dianic wiccans on here think about this and if there is any differences or how that debate seeps down.

I've read some things about that, and I do think it's an important issue (not just, for Dianic Wiccans, Dianic Witches, Dianic Feminists, etc, but, for all Feminists).

Louisvillian
September 4th, 2008, 03:23 AM
There's nothing wrong with that, like I said above, I just meant, why would it "make more sense" that the "creater" of the unverse, multiverse, etc is a female, why would it be any gender at all?.
Exactly.
As a Wiccan, I think it is both, equally.

Anyway- on topic. I don't think anyone is saying that Dianicism is itself bad. Just that Dianics aren't Wiccan, because overemphasis of the feminine is as not at home in Wicca as overemphasis of the masculine. People can believe what they want, just put the right name on the name-tag.

Caelestis ♥ Raven
September 4th, 2008, 08:34 AM
Anyway- on topic. I don't think anyone is saying that Dianicism is itself bad. Just that Dianics aren't Wiccan, because overemphasis of the feminine is as not at home in Wicca as overemphasis of the masculine. People can believe what they want, just put the right name on the name-tag.

As a Dianic I do agree with that statement. I am not Wiccan.

I think all paths have a core foundation that sets them apart from one another and defines them. Definitly one of Wicca's core beliefs is that in a balance of the masculine and feminine which is just not usually found within the Dianic tradition.

Though I will admit I have met Dianics who do believe in the balance between masculine and feminine and just choose to honor the Goddess side. Which would IMO define them as Wiccan still. Yet by far the majority of Dianics in my experience do not view it that way.

At the same time I don't really care what others choose to call themselves lol. I think Wicca has split between itself to become two different paths. One the traditional Wicca, and another very loose almost anything goes but I will still call it Wicca. I won't say if it is good or bad it is just the way it has gone.

I think it is just that many people don't wish to feel excluded or alone. Sometimes our paths are so unique that it can feel like we are outsiders and so many people will just prefer to jump in with the group to feel part of it. I can understand the need sometimes I wish I would just say Wicca because it is more widely known and I don't have to make an 8 page essay to name my path lmao

Karri Morgan
September 4th, 2008, 08:59 AM
I dont quite get it, actually.

Does the belief in one actuall god, and one actuall goddess, define Wicca as a whole?

It not even in Wicca, the definite energy consistant of male energy, and female energy? So, following this logic, if the male energy is in me, and I seek the female energy elsewhere, say, a goddess, then I have the full energy as a whole in and around me, and if I also practice the Wiccan traditions, celebrate the Wiccan special days, and do magic, then am I not a Wiccan?

Just a question, although I dont do all these things, I would still say that a person who celebrate the holidays, follow the traditions of a religion, and belive in the same things, are still Wiccans.

Because most of the Dianics I have talked to around here, they acknowledge the god, even if they focus on the goddess. So they dont say the god dont excist, they just prefer to work with the goddess.

Then why is the name-tag so important? If it smells like a sheep, eats like a sheep, sounds like a sheep, does it then matter if it is black or white?

Lol.. Just point out my mistakes, I am not a pure Wiccan, although I think by now I would declare myself a pure Dianic. But I started out a Wiccan, so I sort of am in the between there. I would like to be a Dianic, without having to sever all ties to Wicca. So the question then goes, can one be both?

Caelestis ♥ Raven
September 4th, 2008, 09:43 AM
When I first discovered paganism it was through Wicca. After a while of being Wiccan I found it just wasn't quite for me at all and began searching which was when I found the Dianic path & Goddess Spirituality.

Over time I definitly just didn't feel Wiccan anymore. I think part of it was that when I first discovered my path I hung around far too many in your face traditional Wiccans.

I do think though that if you still feel you are Wiccan and like using the name there is nothing wrong with that.

Most Dianics I have known view the Divine as genderless. And then choose to honor as a feminine aspect. Also not that we say there is no masculine energy it is just part of the Goddess as well. All things are of the Goddess.

Wicca doesn't own magick :) I am a witch I practice magick as well.

The Wiccan Sabbats acknowledge the balance of masculine and feminine. The whole entire wheel of the year is about that balance. So celebrating them would surely probably make you more Wiccan then not IMO.

Myself and many others choose to celebrate a Goddess wheel of the year. The wheel deals with the changes of a womans life and the reflection of those within nature and the changing seasons.

My favorite is Shekhinah Mountainwaters version:
http://shekhinah.net/The%20Goddess%20Year.htm

& other views:

(just a snippet don't wanna take up the whole thread with it lol)



Traditional vs Dianic Wiccan Wheels of the Year
by Suzanna

Samhain
Many Wiccans start their year with Samhain (Oct. 31st). During Samhain,
Wiccans revere their friends and loved ones who have past on to the other
life. Because reincarnation is a general belief among Wiccans, this is not a
somber occasion, but a quiet recognition of the inevitable outcome of this
life. Many Wiccans mark this night as the symbolic death of the God.

Samhain
is linked with the coming of winter and ancient hunting rituals.
Dianic: A time to honor the Old Ones; the Ancestors. The veil between the
worlds is at it's thinnest. Honoring and remembering our own Loved ones who have passed into the OtherWorld. The last harvest; The Great Goddess/Earth Mother starts her decent into the 'quiet world.' A world of rest, dreams and hibernation. A time and place for the gathering of strength for the renewal, and the rebirth of Her vitality.

Yule
The exact dates of Yule vary from year to year (usually around the 21st of
December). Yule takes place during the Winter Solstice, and celebrates the
date of the rebirth of the God (symbolically seen as the Sun). The Winter
Solstice marks the depth of winter, from this day onward the days grow
longer until midsummer.

Dianic: Yule, Winter Solstice; The Earth Mother slips into Her dreams and
hibernation. The Earth that is in winter-rests. The dark half of the year.
Longest night of the year. With the following dawn, comes the gradual
increase of Light.


I personally find Wicca's wheel of the year a bit sexist (eek the feminist in me wants to rant lol) I wont get into it as I prefer not to step on toes over it :)

They are very similiar traditions. Many paths within paganism are similiar. But idk I think just there comes a time when you are bending the path too far that what is the point in being it? Just for the name or something else? It is a good question to ask.

In the end you might find yeah it fits or you may say no it doesn't. I don't think it really matters either way as long as the person themselves feels it is right.

It surely doesn't matter what others think. You will get 8 million different views lol. I once had a woman actually argue with me that I had to be Wiccan because I practiced magick oO

Louisvillian
September 4th, 2008, 11:33 PM
At the same time I don't really care what others choose to call themselves lol. I think Wicca has split between itself to become two different paths. One the traditional Wicca, and another very loose almost anything goes but I will still call it Wicca. I won't say if it is good or bad it is just the way it has gone.
There is also a middle path, which I walk on, and arguably the majority of Solitaries and Eclectics walk on as well. Not traditionalist, but also not anything-goes.
I'm a Solitary, but my methods are fairly conventional and go along with standard Wiccan ritual practices, though simplified for singular use, though I don't rigidly ascribe to conventional Wiccan views on theology, which are often duotheistic; I'm edging closer to general polytheism.

Each individual experience is different, but there are some general definitions that should be met to determine a label's validity. This ensures that the wrong perception isn't spread.


I can understand the need sometimes I wish I would just say Wicca because it is more widely known and I don't have to make an 8 page essay to name my path lmaoI know what you mean, sort of, because my beliefs even in the context of Wicca are very particular, meticulous, and admittedly a bit OCD. 8O
Although wouldn't simply "Dianicism" or "Dianic withcraft" fit for you?

CzechWoods
September 5th, 2008, 12:10 AM
I dont quite get it, actually.

Does the belief in one actuall god, and one actuall goddess, define Wicca as a whole?

It not even in Wicca, the definite energy consistant of male energy, and female energy? So, following this logic, if the male energy is in me, and I seek the female energy elsewhere, say, a goddess, then I have the full energy as a whole in and around me, and if I also practice the Wiccan traditions, celebrate the Wiccan special days, and do magic, then am I not a Wiccan?

Just a question, although I dont do all these things, I would still say that a person who celebrate the holidays, follow the traditions of a religion, and belive in the same things, are still Wiccans.

Because most of the Dianics I have talked to around here, they acknowledge the god, even if they focus on the goddess. So they dont say the god dont excist, they just prefer to work with the goddess.

Then why is the name-tag so important? If it smells like a sheep, eats like a sheep, sounds like a sheep, does it then matter if it is black or white?

Lol.. Just point out my mistakes, I am not a pure Wiccan, although I think by now I would declare myself a pure Dianic. But I started out a Wiccan, so I sort of am in the between there. I would like to be a Dianic, without having to sever all ties to Wicca. So the question then goes, can one be both?

excellent postie

and yes, you can be both. as long as your dianic tradition evolves around the trinity concept that defines wicca, you follow the rede and other main wiccan concepts - there is no problem being both

RainInanna
September 5th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Wicca has room for many different forms of belief, and is also defined more by orthopraxy (practice) than rigid demands on what deities you worship. Also, most often people use Wicca in conjunction with another term to suggest a practice that blends both - for example, Tameran Wicca blends some Ancient Egyptian elements with some Wiccan elements, and is not a pure version of either.

I tend to avoid the term to reduce arguments, but I don't see that it's that big a deal either, at least to me.

Louisvillian
September 5th, 2008, 01:05 AM
I don't think personally connecting with one or the other is a bad thing. I connect with The God more, because I'm a guy. I'd expect a woman to kind of connect better with The Goddess. But that's different from emphasizing either in ritual or theology, or to suggest a notion of superiority in one or the other. At least in Wicca, where generally the aim has been a balance of them. Although, as you have pointed out, it's become more elastic in recent years.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Change is positive and useful, really, as it allows further growth. But there are certain standards that define Wicca, regardless of the pantheon used or the deity one personally associates with; I find the "Core Beliefs of Wicca" thread in the Wicca Paths Forum to be very useful in finding a core list of common (though not universal) beliefs held by most Wiccans.

CzechWoods
September 5th, 2008, 02:30 AM
than again, there are men like me, streight too, tht will arther work with female deities as to balance their own masculinity and the masculinity in deities that is too much anyway. if i make sence

i am not dianic anymore, but were for 7 years, and wasnt feeling inbalanced at all

Silverfire Darkmoon
September 5th, 2008, 12:29 PM
I once had a woman actually argue with me that I had to be Wiccan because I practiced magick oO

Whoever told you this should be shot.

Lunacie
September 5th, 2008, 12:56 PM
Whoever told you this should be shot.

Doesn't that violate "Harm none"? :T

Better to cast a spell to give that person the wisdom to seek better information sources and to stop telling people "absolutes" like that. :uhhuhuh:

RainInanna
September 5th, 2008, 01:43 PM
But there are certain standards that define Wicca, regardless of the pantheon used or the deity one personally associates with; I find the "Core Beliefs of Wicca" thread in the Wicca Paths Forum to be very useful in finding a core list of common (though not universal) beliefs held by most Wiccans.

Yes, absolutely agreed. There are some great threads over in the Wicca subforum discussing the subject.


than again, there are men like me, streight too, tht will arther work with female deities as to balance their own masculinity and the masculinity in deities that is too much anyway. if i make sence

Yes, I found the earlier comments interesting because, of the male Pagans I know, most lean towards the Goddess. They see it as reclaiming the feminine parts of them, and I consider it part of connecting with their anima (Jung's term for the feminine part of men).

I think the main take-away is simply that balance is different for everyone.

Louisvillian
September 6th, 2008, 06:07 PM
Whoever told you this should be shot.
Oh, I've heard crazier shit. One of my friends, Brandon, who's kind of an agnostic or something, was born on September 22.
One of our friends, Belinda, who considers herself a Wiccan, but is definitely one of the fluffies, told him that he should become a Wiccan priest because he was born on the Autumnal Equinox. O.o
I had set him straight on the whole issue.

Milendil
September 6th, 2008, 09:32 PM
I wouldn't call Dianics Wiccan at all. They only worship the Goddess. Wica is supposed to be about the worship of the Lord and Lady ((and many other things)). How can they call themselves Wiccan if they do not practice what the founder put out? And didn't they drop the title of Wiccan anyway?

Philosophia
September 6th, 2008, 10:36 PM
I wouldn't call Dianics Wiccan at all. They only worship the Goddess. Wica is supposed to be about the worship of the Lord and Lady ((and many other things)).

That would be a mistake to assume that Dianics only worship the Goddess. Some, not all, also worship the God but as a consort.


How can they call themselves Wiccan if they do not practice what the founder put out?

A lot of Wiccans don't practice what the founder put out. Would that mean they aren't Wiccan?


And didn't they drop the title of Wiccan anyway?

Some did, some didn't.

Caelestis ♥ Raven
September 6th, 2008, 11:55 PM
Oh, I've heard crazier shit. One of my friends, Brandon, who's kind of an agnostic or something, was born on September 22.
One of our friends, Belinda, who considers herself a Wiccan, but is definitely one of the fluffies, told him that he should become a Wiccan priest because he was born on the Autumnal Equinox. O.o
I had set him straight on the whole issue.

lol that is my birthday as well. The year I was born it fell on the day after my birthday pfft. While I don't think it means that lol I always find it quite special on the years that it does fall on my birthday.

Karri Morgan
September 8th, 2008, 02:43 AM
I wouldn't call Dianics Wiccan at all. They only worship the Goddess. Wica is supposed to be about the worship of the Lord and Lady ((and many other things)). How can they call themselves Wiccan if they do not practice what the founder put out? And didn't they drop the title of Wiccan anyway?


I have begun to call my self a dianic, but I also call myself a Wiccan, more than a pagan. As I see it, I might be an ecclectic (right spelling? Lol), but I am still more in tune with Wiccans than true pagans.

I celebrate the holydays, I do the altar-thing, honor the quarters, recognize the male side of the devine universe, work my "rituals" by Wiccan rules, and etc. So, I pretty much would call myself a Dianic, since I do focus on the female part, I pray to my goddesses, I honor the feminine, but I recognice the male.

And there were witches/Wiccans around way before Gerald Gardner time.. So, I dont really feel the whole "founders rule" thing.

I guess what I feel, is that people have to half way define their own path.
They know the more basic rules for what describes the different paths, and then you name it after what would be the most correct, even if it isnt 100% perfectly valid. I think, for most Wiccans, getting the path-names, or labels, 100% correct would be darned near impossible. We dont have one book, or one set of rules, most of us operate after the gut feeling.

Silverfire Darkmoon
September 8th, 2008, 11:21 AM
I wouldn't call Dianics Wiccan at all. They only worship the Goddess. Wica is supposed to be about the worship of the Lord and Lady ((and many other things)). How can they call themselves Wiccan if they do not practice what the founder put out? And didn't they drop the title of Wiccan anyway?

A Dianic and a Dianic Wiccan are two different creatures. Yes, if there is no God and only a Goddess, it ain't Wicca.

That said, Goddess-only Dianicism (is that a word?) is a perfectly cromulent spirituality. It just isn't Wicca.

tellmethetruth
September 8th, 2008, 01:22 PM
oops - accidentally posted twice. See following post.

tellmethetruth
September 8th, 2008, 01:27 PM
I started reading this thread and had to stop because it's so long and my computer is so slow, but I just wanted to point something out.

SilverfireDarkmoon inserted a quotation from Zsusanna Budapest giving detailed instructions on how to perform a ceremony excercising the Christian "Devil" from a person. It doesn't say so explicitly, but as I was reading it to me it became very apparent that no Christian would submit to it willingly. And one would have to be a Christian to believe in the Christian Devil, or so Budapest says, So what SDM pointing out is that she's actually promoting holding a person captive and performing this ceremony on them. I have to agree with him that that is one of the worst things you could ever do to a person. It would scare the holy hell out of a person, and they would likely never recover, psychiatrically.

I would hate to be associated in any way with such a practice, and I don't think it at all represents Goddess-centered spirituality.

Here's the quote again:


"In case a witch has to attend to a person who is possessed by the Christian devil or patriarchal demons, remember that the Great Goddess is LIFE. She can be stimulated in even the most brainwashed mind.

A trinity of priestesses should first purify the room with frankincense and myrrh, making invocations to the Four Corners of the Universe. Enclose the place with a protective magic circle.

Walk slowly around the room with a censer, holding it up in front of you. Pause at the East while the High Priestess says:

Watchtowers of the East - Ea, Astarte, Aurora, Ashtoreth - come into this house. Come through the doors, through the walls, through the ceiling and the windows. Permeate this room with Your healing energy. Initiate (name) into Your Mysteries. Blessed be!

If at this point a new name for the ill person comes to you, accept it and use it. Initiation means a new name, a new identity. If you don't fine a new name for your friend, wait until one comes. Cure could depend on whether the person absorbs the new name.

The other two priestesses follow each invocation with affirmations:

The Goddess is here. The Goddess has come. She is present in us. Blessed be!

Pause at the South and say:

Watchtowers of the South, Spirits of the Fires, Sacred Fires, come permeate this place. Burn away all anti-Life energy. Let Your work be done through the heart, through the blood. Come now and heal (name). Blessed be!

The accompanying priestesses:

The Goddess has come. The Mother is here. The healing be done. Burn away all ills. Blessed be!

Pause at the West:

Watchtowers of the West! Goddess of Cleansing, of the Waters if Life, come and wash away all ills. Equalize as only the Waters can. Permeate this place. Flow through (name), work through the muscles, through the fluids, blend in the blood. In, in come the good! Out, out goes the ill! Blessed be!

The other two priestesses say:

The Goddess has come. Welcome! The Goddess of Love is here. Welcome! She washes away the ignorance liker ain. So welcome! Blessed be!

Finally, pause at the North and say:

Watchtowers of the North! Great Earth Mother Whose destination is the darkest of space. Earth-Mother, Earth-Daughter! Make a new manifestation of (name's) thoughts. Bind the ills with Your assured hand and take them to the underworld. There lock them up under seven keys, and seven-headed serpents of Sacred Duties will keep them there for seven years, only to release them into the VOID. Blessed be!

All priestesses chant:

The Goddess is present. The Goddess is here. The Goddess is blessing all who participate. She blesses (name of one priestess) who is fair and strong; She blesses (name next priestess) who is valiant and loving; She blesses (name third priestess) who is nurturing and generous. Blessed be!

This may be chanted repeatedly for strength and blessing.

Turn inward and hum to raise inner power. Holding a cup of clear water sprinkled half-and-half with honey, sprinkle it over the room and the ill person. This is the Mother's Holy Water. Have everyone drink of it if possible; if not, the priestesses drink it for good luck.

Invocation of the High Priestess:

Hearken to me, Old Mother! You Who preceded all the gods! Astarte, Ishtar, Ashtoreth, Lilith, Havla! Come and aid (name) to find peace in Thee! Out, out, bad thought, imaginary devil, entity of ill fortune! Come in, come in, Mother of Cure, Mother of Love, Blissful Mother. Blessed be!

The trinity of priestesses should develop a rhythmic musical tune, using a bell, flute, cymbals, even sticks. The rhythm should be kept together and the invocation chanted over and over. You may change the mantra as you wish, but always keep the emphasis on the Mother Goddess aspect. Also, tones of E are very healing and might be useful. If you can blow or hum an E, do so. Don't expect an immediate cure. The mind became ill over a long period of time, subjected to an incredibly bad mythology. It may take several sessions of hearing about the Goddess before the woman is able to see Her, feel Her, and have Her awakened within.

When you notice the woman is calming down (even the toughest cases have "rest periods"), try to give her an acupressure massage. Follow this with a scrubbing, using sponges in lukewarm water, then anoint the body with Priestess oil or rose-scent, and give a cup of Valerian tea for sleep. Make a circle of salt around the bed where she lies, and place large pentagrams overhead or under the bed. Keep freshly cut flowers at the bedside for guiding spirits.

If after receiving such loving care the person is still unresponsive the next morning, bring a big brass horn, the loudest you can find, and blow it into her room. Expose the body to sound vibrations so strong that the thought form can change.

Each time a repeat performance of is needed, blow the horn as loudly as possible. Repeat purification of the room and continue chanting ancient imagery of the Goddess into the room. use slide projectors, musical instruments, everything.

Repeat this treatment five times, one for each point of the Pentagram, but no more. If it hasn't worked by the fifth time, save your energies for yourselves and don't absorb any more of the sad madness that comes from an overdose of Christianity. Even witches have their limits."[/quote]

Caelestis ♥ Raven
September 8th, 2008, 03:57 PM
I started reading this thread and had to stop because it's so long and my computer is so slow, but I just wanted to point something out.

SilverfireDarkmoon inserted a quotation from Zsusanna Budapest giving detailed instructions on how to perform a ceremony excercising the Christian "Devil" from a person. It doesn't say so explicitly, but as I was reading it to me it became very apparent that no Christian would submit to it willingly. And one would have to be a Christian to believe in the Christian Devil, or so Budapest says, So what SDM pointing out is that she's actually promoting holding a person captive and performing this ceremony on them. I have to agree with him that that is one of the worst things you could ever do to a person. It would scare the holy hell out of a person, and they would likely never recover, psychiatrically.

I would hate to be associated in any way with such a practice, and I don't think it at all represents Goddess-centered spirituality.

I think you have misread the quote...

Now I do not have a copy of the book sadly & havent read it in ages either.

But from the bit that was quoted I do not see where anyone is getting anything about a person being held captive or forced or anything of the like. I read no where of it saying holding someone down, preventing them from leaving, kidnapping, tieing them up etc... It all sounds to me as if the woman would be there of her own free will.


Frankly, my cure for "diabolical" possession would consist of an intensive program of education, prevention and removal of all the negative and harmful myths the person may have absorbed.


Doesn't sound scary or evil or bad in anyway to me.

On our path I think there is quite a view of stepping through doors, moving past old thoughts with ritual.

I don't think it was meant for a Christian but someone who was christian or any faith that regards women and goddess negativly and wants to purge that way of thought and cleanse the body. mind and soul with a new way of thinking.

I can completely see those people who have had it beat into their minds that Goddess is evil. That women are evil. etc... Infact I have even met other women who are trying to connect to the Goddess and feminism and struggled while still being tied down by this "possession" of the old mindset that they had been met with their entire lifes. People who have been told they are wrong for believing something, for feeling different, etc... Maybe a lesbian who her whole life her family and church said she was wrong for feeling that way. It would sure not be an easy step to recover from and begin to love yourself. A ritual to help the process of moving forward would surely be lovely IMO.


They seek a ritual of rebirth to cleanse away and find inner strength and the "removal of all the negative and harmful myths the person may have absorbed."


I myself have done many very beautiful rituals that do the same not with Christianity or anything but with my own personal issues. I find the ritual quoted very moving and beautiful as well.

Has no one ever done a very deep personal ritual to give "death" to one way as to announce and prepare to move on to the next?

IDK that is how I see that quote anyways.

Z is an amazing woman who has done alot for women's spirituality.

RainInanna
September 8th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Has no one ever done a very deep personal ritual to give "death" to one way as to announce and prepare to move on to the next?

People have asked for ways to help themselves get past the spirituality they were forced to follow on this forum several times before. Seems such a ritual would fit, and makes perfect sense in Z's book.

Philosophia
September 8th, 2008, 07:44 PM
I would hate to be associated in any way with such a practice, and I don't think it at all represents Goddess-centered spirituality.

Than don't be associated with it. Z. Budapest, while an author, is not the "be all and end all" of Dianic Witchcraft.

Fiamma
September 8th, 2008, 08:16 PM
And there were witches/Wiccans around way before Gerald Gardner time.. So, I dont really feel the whole "founders rule" thing.


Witches, yes. Wiccans, no. Gardner founded Wicca with inspiration from earlier works, religions and traditions and input of a number of his contemporaries. If it's before Gardner's time, it's something else.

Fiamma
September 8th, 2008, 08:19 PM
"In case a witch has to attend to a person who is possessed by the Christian devil or patriarchal demons, remember that the Great Goddess is LIFE. She can be stimulated in even the most brainwashed mind.

So then what about non-Christian devils? Or non-patriachal demons? They're okay and don't need to be exorcised I guess? Or does that just mean that they get a different ritual? O:-)

RainInanna
September 8th, 2008, 08:56 PM
So then what about non-Christian devils? Or non-patriachal demons? They're okay and don't need to be exorcised I guess? Or does that just mean that they get a different ritual? O:-)

Or it means devils and demons are specifically used to describe Christian baddies.

Non-Christian devils is like saying non-mammal cats. Or non-Pagan Wiccans. Non-flower daffodils. Non-insect butterflies.

CzechWoods
September 8th, 2008, 09:09 PM
that depends on definition of demons. there are pre-christian demons. reason why an exorcism in the name of christ can lead to a failure

Fiamma
September 8th, 2008, 10:05 PM
Or it means devils and demons are specifically used to describe Christian baddies.

Non-Christian devils is like saying non-mammal cats. Or non-Pagan Wiccans. Non-flower daffodils. Non-insect butterflies.


I was joking. But "devil" is not a solely Christian concept. So while purely humorous in intent, I do think there's some validity to my comments.

RainInanna
September 8th, 2008, 10:23 PM
I was joking. But "devil" is not a solely Christian concept. So while purely humorous in intent, I do think there's some validity to my comments.

I don't think it's hard to imagine she felt demons/devils were solely Christian concepts. Seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Silverfire Darkmoon
September 9th, 2008, 02:11 AM
For what it's worth, the presumably newer copies of the Holy Book of Women's Mysteries I saw at the local occult store last week didn't have the above ritual of vileness in them.

Oh, and I agree with what Fiamma said above. There were no pre-Gardner Wiccans, and pre-Christian societies had devils and demons in both senses - spirits, and evil spirits. Good versus evil is not a merely Christian idea.

Philosophia
September 9th, 2008, 04:41 AM
For what it's worth, the presumably newer copies of the Holy Book of Women's Mysteries I saw at the local occult store last week didn't have the above ritual of vileness in them.

Mine doesn't have that ritual in it either.

tellmethetruth
September 9th, 2008, 09:56 AM
I think you have misread the quote...

Now I do not have a copy of the book sadly & havent read it in ages either.

But from the bit that was quoted I do not see where anyone is getting anything about a person being held captive or forced or anything of the like. I read no where of it saying holding someone down, preventing them from leaving, kidnapping, tieing them up etc... It all sounds to me as if the woman would be there of her own free will.


Doesn't sound scary or evil or bad in anyway to me.

On our path I think there is quite a view of stepping through doors, moving past old thoughts with ritual.

I don't think it was meant for a Christian but someone who was christian or any faith that regards women and goddess negativly and wants to purge that way of thought and cleanse the body. mind and soul with a new way of thinking.

I can completely see those people who have had it beat into their minds that Goddess is evil. That women are evil. etc... Infact I have even met other women who are trying to connect to the Goddess and feminism and struggled while still being tied down by this "possession" of the old mindset that they had been met with their entire lifes. People who have been told they are wrong for believing something, for feeling different, etc... Maybe a lesbian who her whole life her family and church said she was wrong for feeling that way. It would sure not be an easy step to recover from and begin to love yourself. A ritual to help the process of moving forward would surely be lovely IMO.

They seek a ritual of rebirth to cleanse away and find inner strength and the "removal of all the negative and harmful myths the person may have absorbed."


I myself have done many very beautiful rituals that do the same not with Christianity or anything but with my own personal issues. I find the ritual quoted very moving and beautiful as well.

Has no one ever done a very deep personal ritual to give "death" to one way as to announce and prepare to move on to the next?

IDK that is how I see that quote anyways.

Z is an amazing woman who has done alot for women's spirituality.

I could see a lot of good things in the ritual, for somebody who was participating in it voluntarily. Absolutely.

But I'm remembering back to my Christian days and thinking "there's just no way any Christian is going to voluntarily submit to the ceremony." Just the pentagrams would be enough to send them running down the street screaming.

I've never read anything by ZB, although I've heard of her a lot. A lot of the quotes I've seen on this forum are very good.

RainInanna
September 9th, 2008, 10:21 AM
Mine doesn't have that ritual in it either.

Now I know why I could never find it.

Caelestis ♥ Raven
September 9th, 2008, 02:12 PM
But I'm remembering back to my Christian days and thinking "there's just no way any Christian is going to voluntarily submit to the ceremony." Just the pentagrams would be enough to send them running down the street screaming.

eek I have to admit comments like that I find quite sad. I don't think it is very wise to fit everyone in one big icky clump.
:sadman:

There is just no way any Christian...

Well I am sorry to say that is just not true in the least. My mother is Christian and her and myself have tons in common. She bought me my first tarot deck. She reads tarot herself. She was with me when I bought my first pentacle. She is surely not afraid of my path in the least lol I have met many wonderful christians were are very open minded and even some who are interested in witchcraft.

I think a few feminist sisters who were christian and wanted to look at their religion in a more open minded woman empowered way might even be interested in that ritual.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think it is for those who are Christian and wish to continue to be Christian. I think it is for those who had been Christian and now wish to move on towards a new way of thinking or new spirituality.

Louisvillian
September 9th, 2008, 05:49 PM
And there were witches/Wiccans around way before Gerald Gardner time. So, I dont really feel the whole "founders rule" thing.
Well...witches, yes. Though it is highly unlikely that they called themselves that prior to the early 1900's. The term carried heavy stigma, for one, and secondly, most of the people who we would retroactively term "trad witches" were active Christians who practised folk magic and the like, and maybe dabbled in ceremonial magic and Christian mysticism after the concept of it got popularized in the 1890's. It was their children who would term themselves "witches" after taking part in the pagan revival and occult movement in the early 1900's; and those people were definitely in Gardner's generation.

Wiccans? No. The coven that Gardner joined in 1939 probably existed, at most, as far back as the early 1920's. But it is highly unlikely they referred to their religion in the same terms that Gardner later did. What I think is most likely, is he restructured the New Forest Coven and reinvented it as the first Wiccan coven less than a decade prior to him publishing books on the subject in 1949 (though it was in 1954 that he made it widely public).

However, I agree with your statement on the founder's wishes not having to be followed. Gardner's time was a very different from our own, and so his ideas aren't quite as relevant. Times have changed, and so must the religion he helped start; and it has, in many ways.