If you do this, you're not a Wiccan.

[Dumunzi]

It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal.

Look. I won't rain on Goddess worshipers, go for it if that's whats for you by all means, there are some great people on here that probably would fit themselves in that branch of Paganism.

However, if you just worship the Goddess and preclude the existence of the God or take it a step further and deny the existence, your not a Wiccan, not in any shape or form.

Some people try to define them selves in these ways(Dianic Wiccan are an examples), and this is where I draw a line. It is not so. You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine.

Now, there are some workings where a person just works with the God or the Goddess, and that's understandable. There are some spells you do where you only work with one deity in the magic. That's understandable to, in fact I've done that myself.

I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does.

- Dumunzi

[Louisvillian]

Numerous discussions of this exist in the Dianicism subforum and the Wicca subforum, as well.

I agree, and most Wiccans on here would probably also agree, that Wicca's core beliefs include a clear, obvious statement of polytheism, and equality of male and female deity. Whether it be a great many or just those two "rolled into one" figures-- the theme of complementary male and female gods is strong, and has been there since Wicca began in the 1940's. It is as core to it as the concept of natural magic.

And you're right- there is a big difference between concentrating on a particular gender of deities, and shutting out one gender of them altogether. I concentrate on the God, logically because I'm a guy and that's what I associate with; but I don't not venerate and honour the Goddess. That'd run counter-current to Wiccan core practices.

[Philosophia]

Some people try to define them selves in these ways(Dianic Wiccan are an examples), and this is where I draw a line. It is not so. You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine.

Actually, most Dianic Wiccans I know (which is a lot) do recognize the God without precluding or denying the existence of it.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Oh hello bi-annual 'Dianics are not necessarily Wiccans' thread.

Of course not all people calling themselves Dianics are Wiccans, but then again, not all Dianics exclude the God, so they're just fine.

[Happydeadkitty]

[quote=Dumunzi;I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Dumunzi[/quote]

I'm not Wiccan, but I understand your argument. It makes sense to me.

But oddly enough to your quote above, I've always looked at Mary as the Goddess. I felt that she was the Christian way of taking the Goddess and making her lesser than the God. IMO I always found it easier to understand the shift to Christianity. Just thought I'd share that with everybody.

HDK

[Darth Brooks]

Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does.I think I agree with some of the rest of your points, but I have to disagree with this one. Religion may not necessary change overnight, but I don't think it's at all correct to say that it seldom changes. There is plenty of clear evidence to prove that even in pre-Christian times, religions were changing and being changed quite a bit, and for all kinds of different reasons.

[watersprite]

I'm not Wiccan, but I understand your argument. It makes sense to me.

But oddly enough to your quote above, I've always looked at Mary as the Goddess. I felt that she was the Christian way of taking the Goddess and making her lesser than the God. IMO I always found it easier to understand the shift to Christianity. Just thought I'd share that with everybody.

HDK

I have always looked at Gaia as the Goddess. So when I left all the dogma of all organized religion and started my own "Help Gaia help us" thing and respecting the planet, I began to feel better.
I truly have nothing against anyones' religion until they try to run my life.

[Louisvillian]

Oh hello bi-annual 'Dianics are not necessarily Wiccans' thread.

Of course not all people calling themselves Dianics are Wiccans, but then again, not all Dianics exclude the God, so they're just fine.

Indeed. I think the OP was referring more to the theoretical paradox of a monotheistic Dianic (which are actually rare) claiming to be a Wiccan (which is, consequently, a rare occurrence).



But oddly enough to your quote above, I've always looked at Mary as the Goddess. I felt that she was the Christian way of taking the Goddess and making her lesser than the God.

Which would be a somewhat inaccurate way of looking at it. Being that Christianity was based off Judaism, which by that time was totally monotheistic, there was no "goddess" in it to be "made lesser". Likewise, the concept of a "God" in polytheistic and duotheistic religions is entirely different from the concept of a "God" in Abrahamic monotheism.

[Happydeadkitty]

Which would be a somewhat inaccurate way of looking at it. Being that Christianity was based off Judaism, which by that time was totally monotheistic, there was no "goddess" in it to be "made lesser". Likewise, the concept of a "God" in polytheistic and duotheistic religions is entirely different from the concept of a "God" in Abrahamic monotheism.

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly from what I was trying to get across. I'm sure your probably right...as far as what your saying. I'm not an expert on other religions. I just think of Mary as a Goddess type.

HDK

[Lunacie]

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly from what I was trying to get across. I'm sure your probably right...as far as what your saying. I'm not an expert on other religions. I just think of Mary as a Goddess type.

HDK

And I think quite a large number of people agree with you. In fact, I've read that in the early bible, before people like Saul/Paul and King James got their mitts on it, there were references to both a father god and a mother goddess, she represented wisdom. So there is an example of a religion changing without being the result of one force conquering an area and trying to force the natives to change to their own religion which seems to be one of the most common reasons for religions to change and morph and blend.

[HetHert]

I think I agree with some of the rest of your points, but I have to disagree with this one. Religion may not necessary change overnight, but I don't think it's at all correct to say that it seldom changes. There is plenty of clear evidence to prove that even in pre-Christian times, religions were changing and being changed quite a bit, and for all kinds of different reasons.


Here Here!! The Egyptians didn't get 1500 Gods/esses overnight.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

And I think quite a large number of people agree with you. In fact, I've read that in the early bible, before people like Saul/Paul and King James got their mitts on it

I think you mean 'The Old Testament', then. There wasn't any New Testament around at Paul's time.

There are a few instances of God using 'we' and 'us' but I'm not sure if he's talking to someone else, or if he's using the personal plural. I figured he was talking to his angels or something.


Here Here!! The Egyptians didn't get 1500 Gods/esses overnight.

Well my, aren't we being conservative with our estimates here :P

[Lunacie]

I think you mean 'The Old Testament', then. There wasn't any New Testament around at Paul's time.

There are a few instances of God using 'we' and 'us' but I'm not sure if he's talking to someone else, or if he's using the personal plural. I figured he was talking to his angels or something.


Actually I meant the bible pre-Nicean Council, which was adding and eliminating books from the bible at about 325 AD. They weren't just adding the books of the New Testament, not by a long shot.

Saul, or St. Paul as he came to be known, lived some 3 centuries before that, about a generation after Jesus lived. King James, of course, came along somewhat later.

Many modern Christians don't put any validity in the information that was left out during the Nicean Council and completely ignore the changes that made by King James, even though references to Sophia, the female soul of God, associated with wisdom and fate, still remain scattered throughout the Old Testament. The Jews called her Asherah.

[Philosophia]

Oh hello bi-annual 'Dianics are not necessarily Wiccans' thread.

Of course not all people calling themselves Dianics are Wiccans, but then again, not all Dianics exclude the God, so they're just fine.

:eyebrow: I was merely clarifying a statement the OP made. I never stated that Dianics are not necessarily Wiccans.

[Lunacie]

:eyebrow: I was merely clarifying a statement the OP made. I never stated that Dianics are not necessarily Wiccans.

Silverfire did not quote you, he was responding to the OP or the thread topic in general. At least, that's how I took his response.

It's something that newbies to Wicca and Paganism seem to misunderstand pretty often - there are two distinctive groups, Dianics and Dianic-Wiccans. Therefore, Dianics are not necessarily Wiccan.

[Philosophia]

Silverfire did not quote you, he was responding to the OP or the thread topic in general. At least, that's how I took his response.

It's something that newbies to Wicca and Paganism seem to misunderstand pretty often - there are two distinctive groups, Dianics and Dianic-Wiccans. Therefore, Dianics are not necessarily Wiccan.

I assumed that he was responding to my message since it was directly underneath my own.

I do know that there are two distinctive groups, Dianics and Dianic-Wiccans. However, this is the Wiccan sub-forum so I thought it would be targeting Dianic Wiccans only.

[Lunacie]

I assumed that he was responding to my message since it was directly underneath my own.

I do know that there are two distinctive groups, Dianics and Dianic-Wiccans. However, this is the Wiccan sub-forum so I thought it would be targeting Dianic Wiccans only.

Sometimes a new post or three will appear while I'm in the process of writing a response. If I'm replying to a particular post/poster I will use the quote feature. Otherwise, it's a general response to the topic. So that's what I assume the other posters are doing as well. But I could be wrong.

It was pretty plain that the OP was referring to Dianic Wiccans who don't include the God in their rituals in any form, but I thought some including Silverfire were saying that in their experience they haven't seen that so much, although they have certainly seen Dianics (not Wiccans) who do not honor or work with a male diety. And also saying that there is nothing wrong with that, simply that it's different from Wicca (Dianic or otherwise).


... wonders if I'm making things any clearer, or just making a bigger mess...

[Philosophia]

Sometimes a new post or three will appear while I'm in the process of writing a response. If I'm replying to a particular post/poster I will use the quote feature. Otherwise, it's a general response to the topic. So that's what I assume the other posters are doing as well. But I could be wrong.

It was pretty plain that the OP was referring to Dianic Wiccans who don't include the God in their rituals in any form, but I thought some including Silverfire were saying that in their experience they haven't seen that so much, although they have certainly seen Dianics (not Wiccans) who do not honor or work with a male diety. And also saying that there is nothing wrong with that, simply that it's different from Wicca (Dianic or otherwise).


... wonders if I'm making things any clearer, or just making a bigger mess...

Well, I assumed that Silver was responding to my post because it was after mine and about the topic I was talking about. I guess I spend too much time in PP because I'm used to people doing it in there.

From my first post, I thought I needed to clarify what the OP was stating since it seemed that it was saying that Dianic Wiccans didn't include the God. I just needed to show that many Dianic Wiccans do recognize the God without precluding or denying the existence of it.

But I probably should just keep out of the Wicca sub-forum. _inabox_

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Silverfire did not quote you, he was responding to the OP or the thread topic in general. At least, that's how I took his response

It was both of these, actually. Not an attack on anyone! I didn't mean to cause so much confusion!_inabox_

[Glowingsun]

I believe in both dieties. But it's natural for women to lean more towards the Goddess, especially when you've converted from Christianity or the like.

[Louisvillian]

there were references to both a father god and a mother goddess, she represented wisdom.
Eh...sorta, sorta not. You're thinking of Gnostic Christianity, which was never really that big. It wasn't ever mainstream Christianity. They never had enough numbers (or any bishops under their sway) to make a big impact on the majority, even in the early days before the ecumenical councils, because most of the early Christians were converted Jews who were strongly monotheistic, and saw Gnosticism as heretical.

That doctrine of monotheism has been in Judaism pretty much since the mid-Iron Age, and simply transferred over to Christianity due to it being a Jewish sect. Any of the sub-sects that saw it as non-monotheistic were seen as being kinda out-there, and never really had a majority say. Heck, the main bone of contention in the first ecumenical council at Nicaea was over the unitarian v.s. the trinitarian view of the Abrahamic God; the idea of monotheism within Christianity was never seriously challenged.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I believe in both dieties. But it's natural for women to lean more towards the Goddess, especially when you've converted from Christianity or the like.

One's view of God should never be in knee-jerk reaction to something else.

[RainInanna]

One's view of God should never be in knee-jerk reaction to something else.

It's not necessarily knee-jerk.

It could, in fact, quite possibly be a well thought out, carefully considered, personally driven and perfectly valid decision based on how one feels, what they believe, and what spirituality means to them that is not only ok but preferable since it works better and feels right to that individual.

I think SD, your comment earlier that this discussion is done over and over and over again, is so very true. You know, far be it from me to tell people what to do, but seriously, can't we get over this need to tell people what Wicca is and isn't as if they need to be informed (and that is not directed at you in particular SD, since I don't feel that was your intention here, even though I did reply to you to start)?

[RainInanna]

Really I think we all waste too much time arguing over the semantics of the term when we could be doing better things like improving the Wiccan community, educating, sharing ideas, encouraging and inspiring students, helping organizations, and so forth.

Stop arguing about what Wicca is or isn't and start showing what it is.

[Louisvillian]

To practice it, we must first define the parameters.
Within those parameters, sure, do as much as you can in the way of positive things that educate people about Wicca and give it and yourself a more positive face.

But to know what it is before we do it is the mark of rational thought. That's all I think we need to do: know what Wicca is first. Theory comes before practice, et al.

However, I do agree that this has been discussed ad nauseam, and there is a stickied thread in this subforum for those who want to know more about Wicca's core common beliefs. It isn't really necessary for us to debate about this heavily, because it's been done to death.

[RainInanna]

To practice it, we must first define the parameters.

I disagree. Profusely. Parameters relate to labels and terms. Labels and terms are words. Wicca is not a dictionary definition. If I could assert nothing else about what it is, I would still insist it is a living practice. Not something you define before you use. Something you live fully, wholly, completely, and individually.

I doubt very highly you would say, for example, that Wicca can be described by books of words. We're all very proud of the fact that it isn't a bible, but a living spirituality for every individual to discover and breathe themselves. It is not definitions. It is not a rule book. It is not parameters.

Orthopraxy. It was always meant to be an orthopraxy. Even within traditional groups, it is still first and foremost orthopraxy. Not prescribed rules on beliefs. Living, breathing spirituality based on the assumption that every individual must find the Sacred themselves.

Too many people are wasting too much time with words rather than actively practicing the spirituality and actually connecting with & bringing forth the Sacred.

[Lunacie]

Well, I assumed that Silver was responding to my post because it was after mine and about the topic I was talking about. I guess I spend too much time in PP because I'm used to people doing it in there.

From my first post, I thought I needed to clarify what the OP was stating since it seemed that it was saying that Dianic Wiccans didn't include the God. I just needed to show that many Dianic Wiccans do recognize the God without precluding or denying the existence of it.

But I probably should just keep out of the Wicca sub-forum. _inabox_

Ah, I rarely drop by PP, whole different mindset, eh?

Sometimes it's good to have someone help us see things from a different perspective. Sometimes it stops a disagreement in it's tracks, sometimes it starts a whole new disagreement. Either way it's likely to make us all stop and think. Which is most often a good thing.



Eh...sorta, sorta not. You're thinking of Gnostic Christianity, which was never really that big. It wasn't ever mainstream Christianity. They never had enough numbers (or any bishops under their sway) to make a big impact on the majority, even in the early days before the ecumenical councils, because most of the early Christians were converted Jews who were strongly monotheistic, and saw Gnosticism as heretical.

That doctrine of monotheism has been in Judaism pretty much since the mid-Iron Age, and simply transferred over to Christianity due to it being a Jewish sect. Any of the sub-sects that saw it as non-monotheistic were seen as being kinda out-there, and never really had a majority say. Heck, the main bone of contention in the first ecumenical council at Nicaea was over the unitarian v.s. the trinitarian view of the Abrahamic God; the idea of monotheism within Christianity was never seriously challenged.

Yeah, pretty much. I never said it became a mainstream belief, just that a whole lot of Christians aren't even aware of the concept of a goddess in their religion. I remember what a big deal it was about 10 years ago maybe for some churches to begin including the Mother God along with the Father God. I was sure hoping that would become mainstream, I really think it's a natural balance and would do the religion a world of good.



One's view of God should never be in knee-jerk reaction to something else.

Ah, you're "shoulding" on people. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

If the Gods themselves think we're approaching them in the wrong way, they will somehow make it clear to us. I think the "church police" mindset has no place in Wicca, whether in regards to the original post or in regards to this issue - or any issue. I've never seen Wicca as a religion of Rules, hemming us in and making us feel guilty for straying at times. It's all a learning experience, and if we have trouble learning something this time around, I believe we get another shot at it in the next incarnation.



I disagree. Profusely. Parameters relate to labels and terms. Labels and terms are words. Wicca is not a dictionary definition. If I could assert nothing else about what it is, I would still insist it is a living practice. Not something you define before you use. Something you live fully, wholly, completely, and individually.

I doubt very highly you would say, for example, that Wicca can be described by books of words. We're all very proud of the fact that it isn't a bible, but a living spirituality for every individual to discover and breathe themselves. It is not definitions. It is not a rule book. It is not parameters.

Orthopraxy. It was always meant to be an orthopraxy. Even within traditional groups, it is still first and foremost orthopraxy. Not prescribed rules on beliefs. Living, breathing spirituality based on the assumption that every individual must find the Sacred themselves.

Too many people are wasting too much time with words rather than actively practicing the spirituality and actually connecting with & bringing forth the Sacred.

This was something I learned through discussion on the internet some years ago. As good as my teacher was, we didn't talk about the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy (or it's possible I forgot). It's the difference between belief that the divine is above us or apart from us - and the belief that the divine is part of us and of everything around us. To truly see the Sacred in other people and other things, we must be able to see the Sacred in ourselves, neh?

And once we see that we ourselves are Sacred beings, how then can we deny that others are also Sacred beings as well? Some are certainly failing to live up to that Sacred innerness, but hey I also have my off days.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Ah, you're "shoulding" on people. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

If the Gods themselves think we're approaching them in the wrong way, they will somehow make it clear to us. I think the "church police" mindset has no place in Wicca, whether in regards to the original post or in regards to this issue - or any issue. I've never seen Wicca as a religion of Rules, hemming us in and making us feel guilty for straying at times. It's all a learning experience, and if we have trouble learning something this time around, I believe we get another shot at it in the next incarnation.

This is quite true. However, I still think that it's occasionally necessary to tell people that they're Doing It Wrong. I'm not talking about differences between ritual formats in assorted traditions, or whether an athame is Air or Fire. I'm talking about basic theology, like "There's a God and a Goddess and Love makes the world go 'round. Also, magic." which is basically what Wicca boils down to.

The lack of an actual dogmatic text that everyone can agree on is something that Wiccans generally view as A Good Thing, which I'm going to suggest isn't necessarily the case. When you have such a ridiculously high number of people basically making it up as they go along and passing something off as 'Wicca' that bears very little actual resemblance to the creature in question...well, who's to tell them that they're wrong? What can people use to hold aloft a really reprehensible example, like the Frosts, and make it obvious to all and sundry that yes, these people are nutjobs and do not practice what we regard as Wicca?

I think the anti-sacred-text attitude is partially, again, a knee-jerk reaction to Christianity. We're defining ourselves not by what we are and do, but what we aren't and don't do.

Of course, any attempt to make some kind of general 'This is what Wiccans believe' has fallen flat on its face. Look at those wretched 'Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief (http://davensjournal.com/obsidian/Essays/decind13.html)'. How all-encompassing are they? They're so vaguely-worded and generic that they could apply to anyone, regardless of religion.

I think I probably sound a lot angrier in this post than I actually am, so please take note of that.

[Lunacie]

This is quite true. However, I still think that it's occasionally necessary to tell people that they're Doing It Wrong. I'm not talking about differences between ritual formats in assorted traditions, or whether an athame is Air or Fire. I'm talking about basic theology, like "There's a God and a Goddess and Love makes the world go 'round. Also, magic." which is basically what Wicca boils down to.

The lack of an actual dogmatic text that everyone can agree on is something that Wiccans generally view as A Good Thing, which I'm going to suggest isn't necessarily the case. When you have such a ridiculously high number of people basically making it up as they go along and passing something off as 'Wicca' that bears very little actual resemblance to the creature in question...well, who's to tell them that they're wrong? What can people use to hold aloft a really reprehensible example, like the Frosts, and make it obvious to all and sundry that yes, these people are nutjobs and do not practice what we regard as Wicca?

I think the anti-sacred-text attitude is partially, again, a knee-jerk reaction to Christianity. We're defining ourselves not by what we are and do, but what we aren't and don't do.

Of course, any attempt to make some kind of general 'This is what Wiccans believe' has fallen flat on its face. Look at those wretched 'Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief (http://davensjournal.com/obsidian/Essays/decind13.html)'. How all-encompassing are they? They're so vaguely-worded and generic that they could apply to anyone, regardless of religion.

I think I probably sound a lot angrier in this post than I actually am, so please take note of that.

Someone I rather admire posted a list of "Core Beliefs and Practices of Wicca" on another online forum, and Gillyflower borrowed that list and posted it here. From what I've seen on each of these forums, those things are generally accepted by Wiccans who seem to know where Wiccan came from and how much it can vary and still be true to it's roots.

But does that give any of us the right to tell another person that "You're doing it all wrong"? I don't think so. What we can tell them is "Hey, here's what most serious Wiccans believe and here's how they practice, and here's the background reasoning and history for those things." I've found that teaching and sharing seem to go much further than bullying and criticizing.

The exception of course would be when we've been asked to teach or mentor another person and they just don't seem to want to look at things from a different perspective - then a swift kick in the seat of the pants (usually but not always figuratively) may well be needed.

[RainInanna]

on another online forum, and Gillyflower borrowed that list and posted it here. From what I've seen on each of these forums, those things are generally accepted by Wiccans who seem to know where Wiccan came from and how much it can vary and still be true to it's roots.

I like it too. Nice "rule of thumb" - we can point at it and say "if this makes sense and sounds like you, you could probably be considered a Wiccan by most people".


But does that give any of us the right to tell another person that "You're doing it all wrong"? I don't think so.

That is such a very important distinction, I'm so glad you pointed it out. We can say "in my opinion and experience, that may not be what I consider Wiccan". That's very different from "you're doing it wrong".

Frankly, "you're doing it wrong" is adversarial and causes people to defend themselves. It is, frankly, a waste of time. It causes conflict where none need be, and it comes off as self-righteous and patronizing. If you had a message after it, nobody noticed because they were too offended.

Immediately people see "you're doing it wrong" and think of ways to defend themselves. Explain it all you like. "Wrong" is a bad word to use. Even if you know your opinion is only yours, it is poor communication to say that as a statement of fact - "you are wrong". Try stating it differently or you lose your audience before you had a chance to share knowledge. To me that is a vast waste of time and resources.

Respected elders are respected and called elders because they already know to communicate better than that.

Half the problem with the community, IMHO, is that people don't even make an effort to share knowledge. They're too busy telling eachother what is right and wrong and hurting other people's feelings. Not cool, IMHO.

/$0.02

[Louisvillian]

But does that give any of us the right to tell another person that "You're doing it all wrong"?
In some cases.


I've found that teaching and sharing seem to go much further than bullying and criticizing. I agree; but telling someone who is doing something wrong that they are doing it wrong isn't bullying.

[Lunacie]

In some cases.

I agree; but telling someone who is doing something wrong that they are doing it wrong isn't bullying.

Maybe it depends on what they're doing "wrong" and why they do it that way. In most cases, they simply don't know any better. So many people want to know more about Wicca but can't find a teacher, and they are learning from people who don't really know any better either.

I agree with RainInanna that simply saying "You're wrong" is just going to make them feel bad and they won't be as likely to learn from whatever you say when you explain why they are so very wrong. Asking why they believe such-n-so is much more likely to lead to a good discussion where you can explain what the Wiccan beliefs are, and why we believe them.

If they read the discussion and still believe the crappola is true, then you can say with all the superiority and condescension you want to, "Well, You're Just Wrong!" :razz:

[Louisvillian]

Well, of course you don't just say "UR RONG LOLWUT". That's retarded. You have to give them an explanation as to why and where they are wrong, and teach them what the standard way is.

[Nox_Mortus]

Well, of course you don't just say "UR RONG LOLWUT". That's retarded. You have to give them an explanation as to why and where they are wrong, and teach them what the standard way is.

I agree witht his to an extent, but unfortunately, sharing the "standard" way of doing things is many times not admissible.

[PhoenixRevival]

Ok, here is what i have and completely IMO.

Wicca (and i am not wiccan myself, so please keep the beaty sticks at bay) is the same unbrella term as any over-arcing religion or believe/practice structure. To use the first and easiest example that comes to my mind... Christianity. These days there are so MANY versions of the religion as a whole its boggels the mind, each of course having their own versions and interp's on their god-Christ and the dogma there-of. However, each and every one is Christan. A Sect who focuses (possibly to the point of isolating a distinct practice or focal) on one thing, doesnt make them any less "a part" of that whole.

The sub-discussion on "you're doing it wrong" I personally would say, "Hmm, that's not how i do it", but in the same regard, i'm a bit odd. =)

[Nox_Mortus]

Ok, here is what i have and completely IMO.

Wicca (and i am not wiccan myself, so please keep the beaty sticks at bay) is the same unbrella term as any over-arcing religion or believe/practice structure. To use the first and easiest example that comes to my mind... Christianity. These days there are so MANY versions of the religion as a whole its boggels the mind, each of course having their own versions and interp's on their god-Christ and the dogma there-of. However, each and every one is Christan. A Sect who focuses (possibly to the point of isolating a distinct practice or focal) on one thing, doesnt make them any less "a part" of that whole.

The sub-discussion on "you're doing it wrong" I personally would say, "Hmm, that's not how i do it", but in the same regard, i'm a bit odd. =)


I guess you could argue that. But a lot of the contention with Wicca is not that the differences come from religious or philosophical disagreements over the source material, but from ignorance, or people watering it down to make it more accessible. As it is, a lot of people who claim to be Wiccans have no clue what the source material even is, which causes a lot of problems.

[Darth Brooks]

Wicca is not my religion and I feel unsure of defending any particular position within it against another. For me it is enough to take a person at their word; if they say they're Wiccan then for all intents and purposes I will acknowledge them as such, unless they are doing something that is so obviously not Wiccan that even a non-Wiccan can see they aren't Wiccan. (Say that five times fast!)

I never exactly knew before reading this thread that not all Dianics are Wiccans. After reading Margot Adler's book I was led to think just the opposite, that all Dianics are Wiccans, or some such. I am always happy to learn something new.

But I do have one question. If there are people who believe in both the Goddess and the God but who only really worship the Goddess, are there also people who believe the same way but who really only worship the God? Like, are there any "Panic witches" as opposed to Dianic witches? Certainly one does not hear about them quite as often.

[PhoenixRevival]

DB- Logically, I would have to say there would be, but being such a goddess forward religion, i'm sure its rare.

Nox- Even watered down, if the person believes in the preceps of the idea... could they not be defined as a "believer" in that faith? Think that might go back to the "you're doing it wrong" sub discussion =)

[Nox_Mortus]

Nox- Even watered down, if the person believes in the preceps of the idea... could they not be defined as a "believer" in that faith? Think that might go back to the "you're doing it wrong" sub discussion =)

the problem is a lot of people don't even know what the precepts are. and also, since Wicca is highly based around ritual practice and whatnot, in the eyes of many the precepts are not enough.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

But I do have one question. If there are people who believe in both the Goddess and the God but who only really worship the Goddess, are there also people who believe the same way but who really only worship the God? Like, are there any "Panic witches" as opposed to Dianic witches? Certainly one does not hear about them quite as often.

I've never heard of people doing this. But just the same, that wouldn't be Wicca either.

It takes two to tango, baby ;)

[PhoenixRevival]

the problem is a lot of people don't even know what the precepts are. and also, since Wicca is highly based around ritual practice and whatnot, in the eyes of many the precepts are not enough.


The eyes of many... such dangerous phrase. Anywho.

If a person doesnt know what the preceptions or basic tenants of a religion or believe structure... then well, i have to bite the hook and say that the person isnt as they define themselves if its not of ignorence. The ignorant dont know better because they lack the proper knowledge; otherwise would that not be considered simply a lie? :smile:

[Nox_Mortus]

yep, ignorance and lies are two very big problems within Wicca.

[PhoenixRevival]

Would you really consider Ignorance "In" Wicca to be a problem? (sorry topic people if i'm OT) Ignorance of course someone is without knowledge as opposed to my definition of Stupidity which would be knowing the knowledge is there and ignoring it outright. Now ignorance ABOUT Wicca (and paganism in general) that is a problem on a big scale.

[Nox_Mortus]

Would you really consider Ignorance "In" Wicca to be a problem? (sorry topic people if i'm OT) Ignorance of course someone is without knowledge as opposed to my definition of Stupidity which would be knowing the knowledge is there and ignoring it outright. Now ignorance ABOUT Wicca (and paganism in general) that is a problem on a big scale.

Yes I would. mainly due to bad information in books(lies and more ignorance)

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

yep, ignorance and lies are two very big problems within Wicca.

Yes, and often the ignorance is wilful, at that.

People lying about Wicca really grinds my gears. To combat this I'm quite open with the fact that my religion was invented by a retired British civil servant in the 1940's, quite possibly as an excuse to look at naked women.

Oh, the looks I get some times.

[PhoenixRevival]

Yes I would. mainly due to bad information in books(lies and more ignorance)

Hmm, i'm the kind of person to say that's a part of the learning curve, but then again i'm not Wiccan so who am I to say eh?:crown:

Then again one person's view on a subject can be seen as heretical by others of the same faith. The whole thing is just too subjective.

[RainInanna]

Well, of course you don't just say "UR RONG LOLWUT". That's retarded. You have to give them an explanation as to why and where they are wrong, and teach them what the standard way is.

The problem is, you see that's ridiculous. A lot of people don't seem to.

But the words "you're wrong" are starting you off on a bad foot, no matter what reasoning you have. It automatically makes people defensive.

[Lunacie]

Ok, here is what i have and completely IMO.

Wicca (and i am not wiccan myself, so please keep the beaty sticks at bay) is the same unbrella term as any over-arcing religion or believe/practice structure. To use the first and easiest example that comes to my mind... Christianity. These days there are so MANY versions of the religion as a whole its boggels the mind, each of course having their own versions and interp's on their god-Christ and the dogma there-of. However, each and every one is Christan. A Sect who focuses (possibly to the point of isolating a distinct practice or focal) on one thing, doesnt make them any less "a part" of that whole.

The sub-discussion on "you're doing it wrong" I personally would say, "Hmm, that's not how i do it", but in the same regard, i'm a bit odd. =)

No beaty-sticks, as this helps clarify the problem the OP brought up.

So... not exactly. Wicca isn't the umbrella term (although there are certainly various "denominations" within Wicca). Paganism is the umbrella term, and Wicca is a specific religion with things that are unique about it that make it different from the others. But each of those Wiccan denominations (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Dianic, etc) have a core set of principles that connects them with each other.

Don't all those versions of Christianity have the same basic dogma? Things like belief in Christ as a personal savior, belief that Jesus died to save his followers from their sins, belief that Jesus was the son of God and therefore was divine himself. belief that God+Jesus+the Holy Spirit composes a Holy Trinity?

Well, Wicca has its own roots, it's own dogma so to speak. Otherwise it's just a catch-all term, like "Wicca is whatever you want it to be." That's simply not true of Wicca anymore than it's true of Christianity or Judaism or Muslim or Buddhism or whatever.

The tricky part, as has been discussed already, is that Wicca isn't so much about the beliefs like god being both male and female, it's more about the practices and how we incorporate that godhood into our daily lives, how we connect with the divine, and what kind of rituals we do to honor the God and Goddess.

There are similarities between most religious rites and rituals, but there are definate differences that set them apart and make them unique to each religion. So if a person believes that Jehovah+Jesus+Holy Spirit has both a male and a female aspect and they choose to worship them using Wiccan rituals, chances are they aren't going to catch as much flak from other Wiccans as someone who believes in the Wiccan Lord and Lady but follows a Christian worship service every Sunday morning to honor the Lord and Lady. I've even attended some of those myself.

[Lunacie]

Hmm, i'm the kind of person to say that's a part of the learning curve, but then again i'm not Wiccan so who am I to say eh?:crown:

Then again one person's view on a subject can be seen as heretical by others of the same faith. The whole thing is just too subjective.

Beliefs are subjective. Wicca is based on a set of particular practices and those are not so subjective. Some religions say as long as you believe a certain set of things you can practice them in any way that brings you closer to the Divine presence. Wicca says that by practicing in a certain way you will become closer to the Divine presence. We feel the other religions probably "have the cart before the horse". :smile:

[PhoenixRevival]

Beliefs are subjective. Wicca is based on a set of particular practices and those are not so subjective.

Ok this interests me greatly... I have to ask, arn't the practices subjective? Doesn't each person practice in a way that serves their believes best? Are not the incantations, rituals and spells that a practitionar (sp) uses completely subjective to the person (obviously minus the base tenants of the beliefs)?:huh:

[Nox_Mortus]

Ok this interests me greatly... I have to ask, arn't the practices subjective? Doesn't each person practice in a way that serves their believes best? Are not the incantations, rituals and spells that a practitionar (sp) uses completely subjective to the person (obviously minus the base tenants of the beliefs)?:huh:

only to a very limited degree. In order to be a practicing Wiccan you really do need to practice properly within a certain fairly rigid framework. There are some things that are subjective, but the basic rituals and observances are all pretty much the same within a given tradition.

[PhoenixRevival]

only to a very limited degree. In order to be a practicing Wiccan you really do need to practice properly within a certain fairly rigid framework. There are some things that are subjective, but the basic rituals and observances are all pretty much the same within a given tradition.

Interesting. Well i can say that I've learned something new today.:uhhuhuh:

[Lunacie]

Since I became the leader of my small Grove I've done a lot more study on rituals, why we do them the way we do them, why they're done in a particular order, what the purpose of each step is all about. There is indeed a rhyme and reason for doing rituals in a particular manner.

But those are the group rituals that are done for the Sabbats and Esbats. One can certainly do any ritual that one feels improves the connection with the Divine in one's life, do any spells one feels are needed, anything else is subjective and as personal as you wish to make it. In fact, Gardner explained that although we honor a certain God and Goddess in Wiccan ritual, the individual Wiccan is quite free to honor any other Gods they are called by or wish to honor - in any way they wish to do so, in addition to the Wiccan Lord and Lady.

It also has to do with being recognized as a Wiccan by other Wiccans, if you do things too differently then you don't appear to be a Wiccan at all. Your path is probably perfect for you, but it's wrong to call it Wicca if it's very much different than what Wicca has always been.

[Glowingsun]

All in all, I think that wicca is beautiful. Every coven and solitare practitionar is unique, open minded, and true to themselves and really belive in what tehy do. I don't see any reason to chop down their pedistal is going to make them or break them.
Perhaps it's the closed minded wiccans with the insecurities that may have doubts about what they're own beliefs that may not be true wiccans.
Never mind the dieties or gender of the dieties they worship.

[Indigo Child]

I definitely agree, however, I wouldn't blatantly tell somebody that. I grew up in a hardcore Christian setting and part of the major problem that turned me away and insulted me personally was the lack of freedom to worship as I pleased. There was too much of an absolute right and wrong. I wouldn't want to try and thrust that on anyone else. So, if a person who practices the Wiccan religion does however decide to omit the presence of the God or Goddess, I would just leave that up to them personally --not make it my business. Obviously, they would most likely be in a solitary practice in doing that (unless Dianic, but I'm not going to go into that...), and I think everybody has the right to worship as they choose. Even if it isn't Wicca by the book or by the tradition, I wouldn't want to push anyone away with an absolute right or wrong type of attitude. At the same time, you can't just call any ol' thing Wiccan that's a Pagan type of practice, but I still think it's wrong to try and execute statements onto somebody such as, "No, you're not Wiccan," or, "That makes you not [a] Wiccan." I think hurting someone's feelings or angering them unnecessarily is the worst crime/sin of all. (Just my opinion because I've been in that place before and I know how much it hurts so I could never do that to somebody else). Perhaps a better approach would be to give them a list of some good book titles and websites in which they might take the opportunity for some more learning about the religion's basic belief system. Oftentimes, people with this belief/practice just aren't educated very well in Wiccan tradition. So it's probably more helpful to help them learn rather than try to correct them with specific statements.

So yeah, just my opinion...

[Indigo Child]

A couple more things I meant to add...

First, I think that generally when one meets a Witch who claims to be Wiccan but omits one aspect of Universal Deity, whether that be the masculine or the feminine, that perhaps it's something karmic for that person - learning to understand and respect the polar duality may be their own personal challenge for this lifetime. With that possibility in mind, it's just another reason that I try not to interfere with others' path, even if it is a little, "off", per se.

Secondly though, I thought I'd just mention that according to The Council Of American Witches' Principles of Wiccan Belief, principle ten states, "Our only animosity toward Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be the only way and have sought to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

Not that anybody here was suppressing or denying anyone else's right to worship as they please, but I just thought it was something worth thinking about.

On the other hand, in the same document, principle four states, "We conceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity-- as masculine and feminine--and that this same Creative Power lies in all people, and functions through the interaction of the masculine and feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supportive to the other. We value sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magickal practice and religious worship."

Again, just somethin' to think about...
Blessed be to all,

[Louisvillian]

I don't think we're saying that Wiccan practitioners who believe differently than us shouldn't be considered Wiccan. Merely that, there is a general outline for practice, and the religious practices of Wicca at least imply certain core beliefs or ideals.

Not that deviation and heterodoxy are bad, necessarily. Just that there are certain practices and beliefs that have become conventional. No one's saying those conventional ways are the "one and only" way, but they are the most usual way and they make the most sense in context with Wicca's usual practices.

Overall, I agree with what Lunacie said a few posts above.

[Indigo Child]

Since I became the leader of my small Grove I've done a lot more study on rituals, why we do them the way we do them, why they're done in a particular order, what the purpose of each step is all about. There is indeed a rhyme and reason for doing rituals in a particular manner.

But those are the group rituals that are done for the Sabbats and Esbats. One can certainly do any ritual that one feels improves the connection with the Divine in one's life, do any spells one feels are needed, anything else is subjective and as personal as you wish to make it. In fact, Gardner explained that although we honor a certain God and Goddess in Wiccan ritual, the individual Wiccan is quite free to honor any other Gods they are called by or wish to honor - in any way they wish to do so, in addition to the Wiccan Lord and Lady.

It also has to do with being recognized as a Wiccan by other Wiccans, if you do things too differently then you don't appear to be a Wiccan at all. Your path is probably perfect for you, but it's wrong to call it Wicca if it's very much different than what Wicca has always been.

Best response in this topic. :thumbsup: Agreed! :clapping:

[Dumunzi]

The conversation here has slightly altered my opinion on the matter.

:fpraise: to intelligent people!!

[David19]

Eh...sorta, sorta not. You're thinking of Gnostic Christianity, which was never really that big. It wasn't ever mainstream Christianity. They never had enough numbers (or any bishops under their sway) to make a big impact on the majority, even in the early days before the ecumenical councils, because most of the early Christians were converted Jews who were strongly monotheistic, and saw Gnosticism as heretical.

That doctrine of monotheism has been in Judaism pretty much since the mid-Iron Age, and simply transferred over to Christianity due to it being a Jewish sect. Any of the sub-sects that saw it as non-monotheistic were seen as being kinda out-there, and never really had a majority say. Heck, the main bone of contention in the first ecumenical council at Nicaea was over the unitarian v.s. the trinitarian view of the Abrahamic God; the idea of monotheism within Christianity was never seriously challenged.

Just wanted to add something, Gnostic Christianity did have quite a bit of influence, for example, Valentinus formed the Valentinian school of Gnosticism, was a pacifist, and was almost elected as Pope, not only that, but, I've read that St Irenaeus (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=St.+Irenaeus&spell=1), a Bishop who wrote a lot of criticisms against the Gnostics, was close friends with a Valentinian woman, Gnostic Christians also didn't constitute a seperate tradition from mainstream Christianity, 'cause Gnostic's still went to the same Churches, still, pretty much, celebrated the same festivals, prayed, etc, they just focused on some things in more detail, held a few different beliefs, ideas, etc, maybe had some different practices.

[Modesty]

I agree. It takes two to create. One cannot be without the other. Man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life. There is an equal to everything.


It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal.

Look. I won't rain on Goddess worshipers, go for it if that's whats for you by all means, there are some great people on here that probably would fit themselves in that branch of Paganism.

However, if you just worship the Goddess and preclude the existence of the God or take it a step further and deny the existence, your not a Wiccan, not in any shape or form.

Some people try to define them selves in these ways(Dianic Wiccan are an examples), and this is where I draw a line. It is not so. You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine.

Now, there are some workings where a person just works with the God or the Goddess, and that's understandable. There are some spells you do where you only work with one deity in the magic. That's understandable to, in fact I've done that myself.

I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does.

- Dumunzi

[Lunacie]

I agree. It takes two to create. One cannot be without the other. Man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life. There is an equal to everything.

Actually it takes two humans to procreate, but one human can create any number of things.

Balance, polarity, sure. But are all things the exact equal of the other? How do you measure that evenness?

[Modesty]

"
There is left, there is right, there are theories, there are debates,13 there are divisions, there are discriminations, there are emulations, and there are contentions. These are called the Eight Virtues.14 As to what is beyond the Six Realms,15 the sage admits its existence but does not theorize. As to what is within the Six Realms, he theorizes but does not debate. In the case of the Spring and Autumn,16 the record of the former kings of past ages, the sage debates but does not discriminate. So [I say] those who divide fail to divide; those who discriminate fail to discriminate. What does this mean, you ask? The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see.
The Great Way is not named; Great Discriminations are not spoken; Great Benevolence is not benevolent; Great Modesty is not humble; Great Daring does not attack. If the Way is made clear, it is not the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. If benevolence has a constant object, it cannot be universal.17 If modesty is fastidious, it cannot be trusted. If daring attacks, it cannot be complete. These five are all round, but they tend toward the square.18"


http://library.holtof.com/unicorn/chuang-tzu/2.htm





Actually it takes two humans to procreate, but one human can create any number of things.

Balance, polarity, sure. But are all things the exact equal of the other? How do you measure that evenness?

[Lunacie]

"
There is left, there is right, there are theories, there are debates,13 there are divisions, there are discriminations, there are emulations, and there are contentions. These are called the Eight Virtues.14 As to what is beyond the Six Realms,15 the sage admits its existence but does not theorize. As to what is within the Six Realms, he theorizes but does not debate. In the case of the Spring and Autumn,16 the record of the former kings of past ages, the sage debates but does not discriminate. So [I say] those who divide fail to divide; those who discriminate fail to discriminate. What does this mean, you ask? The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see.
The Great Way is not named; Great Discriminations are not spoken; Great Benevolence is not benevolent; Great Modesty is not humble; Great Daring does not attack. If the Way is made clear, it is not the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. If benevolence has a constant object, it cannot be universal.17 If modesty is fastidious, it cannot be trusted. If daring attacks, it cannot be complete. These five are all round, but they tend toward the square.18"


http://library.holtof.com/unicorn/chuang-tzu/2.htm

Well, thanks anyway, but that doesn't help me understand your point about all things being opposite but equal. :weirdsmil

[David19]

I agree. It takes two to create. One cannot be without the other. Man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life. There is an equal to everything.

It doesn't just have to be a man and woman, it could be a man and man, woman and woman, etc.

[Modesty]

To create a life traditionally, yes, man and woman. Science being able to fertilize an egg and implant it in a womb of a woman with a girlfriend, or a male couple adopting a child is not what I am talking about.


It doesn't just have to be a man and woman, it could be a man and man, woman and woman, etc.

[Modesty]

The story philosophically explains that everything has an equal and opposite. No matter what it is, there is always something to equal it and there is always something opposite of it.


Well, thanks anyway, but that doesn't help me understand your point about all things being opposite but equal. :weirdsmil

[Modesty]

i don't know what else to say.

[Lunacie]

To create a life traditionally, yes, man and woman. Science being able to fertilize an egg and implant it in a womb of a woman with a girlfriend, or a male couple adopting a child is not what I am talking about.

Which is why I made the point about the difference between PROcreating and creating, eh? Of course the energies are similar and yet different when a man and a woman perform The Great Rite and when it is performed by two men, or by two women. Different, and yet, many of us believe it is not less than or invalid in some way. "All acts of love and pleasure" eh?

[Lunacie]

The story philosophically explains that everything has an equal and opposite. No matter what it is, there is always something to equal it and there is always something opposite of it.

I don't find it particularly apt to compare a Chinese Zen philosophical story with Wiccan religious tenets.

Newton's Law is referring to forces when he theorizes that "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What force is present in the polarity between man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life? Those are mental concepts, not actions. They are our perceptions of the variations in one thing and their relationship to each other.

Man and woman are variations on a human being. Day and night are variations in the cycle of the earth as it turns it's face towards and away from the sun. Left and right are very subjective depending on which way any one person is facing. Death and life are also just two different experiences for the same soul.

Not all of these variations are equal. Days are sometimes longer than nights, while nights are sometimes longer than days. This demonstrates that over the course of a year we can see the balance between them, not the oppositeness or the equality. Until I reach a point where I can remember the time spent between living in a human body I can't say whether life and death are truly opposite or equal.

Your statement just seemed very black and white, and I much prefer to look beyond those comparisons.

[Modesty]

"Originally Posted by Dumunzi http://mysticwicks.com/enlighten/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3790399#post3790399)
It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

I then went on to say that I agree with their statement. I believe it takes two to CREATE A LIFE. Man and woman. They are equal. So is night and day, life and death, left and right etc. One cannot be without the other.

I then posted a philosophical Chinese story. Philosophy is hard to grasp for a lot of people. But it makes a person think and one can always find their own answer within the philosophy itself.

You then said, "Well, thanks anyway, but that doesn't help me understand your point about all things being opposite but equal."

I said one thing cannot be without the other and that they were equal. I NEVER said anything about opposites. While, up down, day night, man, woman, left right etc., are all opposites, I was not going down the road of Newton's law. You were.

Then, after you posted your, "thanks anyways...", I responded with, "The story philosophically explains that everything has an equal and opposite. No matter what it is, there is always something to equal it and there is always something opposite of it.

The reason I mention opposite here, is because philosophically speaking, that particular story points it out in various ways. And since you were the one asking about "opposites", there was my answer.

And since WHEN does me putting my two cents in about me believing that it takes two to create a life and that everything is equal and one cannot be without the other, have to do with the WICCAN TENETS?

I would much rather read any philosophical story from any cultural background, than the wiccan tenets anyday.

Besides, I don't follow those tenets. And I am not a Wiccan.



I don't find it particularly apt to compare a Chinese Zen philosophical story with Wiccan religious tenets.

Newton's Law is referring to forces when he theorizes that "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." What force is present in the polarity between man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life? Those are mental concepts, not actions. They are our perceptions of the variations in one thing and their relationship to each other.

Man and woman are variations on a human being. Day and night are variations in the cycle of the earth as it turns it's face towards and away from the sun. Left and right are very subjective depending on which way any one person is facing. Death and life are also just two different experiences for the same soul.

Not all of these variations are equal. Days are sometimes longer than nights, while nights are sometimes longer than days. This demonstrates that over the course of a year we can see the balance between them, not the oppositeness or the equality. Until I reach a point where I can remember the time spent between living in a human body I can't say whether life and death are truly opposite or equal.

Your statement just seemed very black and white, and I much prefer to look beyond those comparisons.

[Lunacie]

"Originally Posted by Dumunzi http://mysticwicks.com/enlighten/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3790399#post3790399)
It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

I then went on to say that I agree with their statement. I believe it takes two to CREATE A LIFE. Man and woman. They are equal. So is night and day, life and death, left and right etc. One cannot be without the other.

I then posted a philosophical Chinese story. Philosophy is hard to grasp for a lot of people. But it makes a person think and one can always find their own answer within the philosophy itself.

You then said, "Well, thanks anyway, but that doesn't help me understand your point about all things being opposite but equal."

I said one thing cannot be without the other and that they were equal. I NEVER said anything about opposites. While, up down, day night, man, woman, left right etc., are all opposites, I was not going down the road of Newton's law. You were.

Then, after you posted your, "thanks anyways...", I responded with, "The story philosophically explains that everything has an equal and opposite. No matter what it is, there is always something to equal it and there is always something opposite of it.

The reason I mention opposite here, is because philosophically speaking, that particular story points it out in various ways. And since you were the one asking about "opposites", there was my answer.

And since WHEN does me putting my two cents in about me believing that it takes two to create a life and that everything is equal and one cannot be without the other, have to do with the WICCAN TENETS?

I would much rather read any philosophical story from any cultural background, than the wiccan tenets anyday.

Besides, I don't follow those tenets. And I am not a Wiccan.

I'm sorry it seems to bother you that I didn't make a connection with what you were sharing. Also sorry I assumed that you were a Wiccan. Shame on me, not everyone who posts in the Wiccan forum is a Wiccan of course. However, the topic is about one of the core beliefs of Wicca so if that's not what you're discussing, maybe you should start a new thread?

But no, you did not write "it takes two to create a life", so I won't apologize for misunderstanding your meaning in that post.



I agree. It takes two to create. One cannot be without the other. Man and woman, day and night, left and right, death and life. There is an equal to everything.

[Darth Wychipu]

Okay, forgive me for coming into this discussion late in the game...I admit that I haven't read EVERY post, so if I repeat someone else's point or don't address everything, I apologize. I must also state that while I am currently *not* a Wiccan, I did spend some time wandering through that path. However, I do realize that what I have to say is likely going to be unpopular. Please do not take it as a direct assault on you as a Wiccan, but as a general statement about my experience with a common grouping of said faith....

....in any case, I've donned my asbestos jammies for preventative measures...

I used to live in Portland, OR which is a place where diverse spiritualities are tolerated (if not accepted) openly. This means that even the head of the local Church of Satan can walk down the street in full satanic gear with horn implants in and pretty much folks will just stare and giggle to themselves. It's not uncommon for any of the occult path to proudly wear whatever symbol they choose (pentacle, chaostar, etc) as over stated bling. That said, I add that there is a HUGE Wiccan community of various forms of practice in the area. So my observations are made after being around a LOT of openly proclaimed Wiccans....so many that basically where I come from *Wicca* is commonly recognized as a blanket term (much like pagan) to describe those who practice a Goddess based elemental witchcraft oriented religion.

I have to say that the vast majority of Wiccans (heretofore referred to as Pacific Northwest {PNW} Wiccans) I've met are female. It seems that the Goddess worshipping angle draws women to it after years of a patriarchal God being forced upon them. It gives them a sense of feminine empowerment after being subjected to an environment which didn't allow such concepts. Thus, their tendency is to reject veneration of a male deity or to place God into a secondary or subservient role to the Goddess. So vehemently so, that I've observed them DEMANDING to be called Goddess themselves and stating that men should serve them as the superior magickal force in the Universe....after all, women are able to give birth (and these gals also seem to like to breed prolifically), so we have stronger magickz (one of the reasons I didn't fit with this path). They forget that conception requires joint efforts.

:hailmol:

Another branch of this PNW sect go so far as to "prove" their feminine empowerment through promiscuity; with the mindset that they are going to show men just how powerful they are by sleeping with as many as they can or brag about bi-sexuality. These gals often tend to be of the granola or "hippie" circle. Now, I'm not prude, but this is another reason why I didn't feel that PNW Wicca worked for me. Many a PNW Wiccan became enraged with me when I laughingly explained how getting on your knees for a man does not prove feminine empowerment since it's EXACTLY what he wants you to do. To me, feminine empowerment is not evinced in spreading your legs every time your carnal desires flare. It's in your actions, philosophies, and dedication to your community/environment.

So, to say that those who honor only the Goddess are doing it wrong, means that a good 85% of the Wiccans of the Pacific Northwest are pseudo-Wiccans. I can guarantee that they would take issue with such a label. Likely, they would smite you about the head and shoulders with their mighty wands (never admitting the phallic symbolism in effect while doing so).

Fact is, Wicca is such a subjective practice and perspective is truly 9/10ths of the Law that to be a purist is rather laughable.

:dead:

In my humble coyote opinion, of course.

_catroll_

[Lunacie]

Darth, thanks for your thought provoking post. It's interesting to see how things are playing out in other places. In Wichita KS there is a group of witches who are also like that - claiming that only women can do magic and men are basically here to serve women. The person who taught me to do magic was a man, and he could do some pretty awesome things, so I just giggled and ignored them.

They manage to work with the greater Pagan network in town, but they are only a small (but often vocal) minority. I call them witches because I'm not sure they even claim to be Wiccans, but I wouldn't use that label for them myself.

While there is indeed a lot of wiggle room and plenty of room to add personal practices - there is still a core set of practices which the majority of Wiccans hold to be what makes the religion unique to itself and different from the other Pagan paths. Although this is certainly my honest opinion, my research and that of other Wiccans I respect indicates that it's a pretty general opinion among Wiccans. But there is definately some disagreement among ourselves as to whether every one of the core practices must be adhered to exactly as handed down by Gardner in order to deserve the label. :smileroll

[Modesty]

Again I disagree. The topic name is, "If you do this, you're not a Wiccan".

The very first sentence say's:

"It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

The original poster may have wrote that sentence and may have used the term, "core belief" in it, but when you read past the first sentence it is not discussing one of the core beliefs in wicca, it is discussing those that think they can change religion and are practicing the religion incorrectly by the use or lack of use of a specific gendered deity.

Original poster then writes the following. These are key sentences to understanding what they are writing about.

"You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine."


"What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does."

And my original post says, "It takes two to create." The second time around I said in big letters that, "IT TAKES TWO TO CREATE A LIFE", because when you first responded you were very keen on correcting that with "PROcreate" so I wanted to make the distinction clear this time.

Apologies? never asked for one.


I'm sorry it seems to bother you that I didn't make a connection with what you were sharing. Also sorry I assumed that you were a Wiccan. Shame on me, not everyone who posts in the Wiccan forum is a Wiccan of course. However, the topic is about one of the core beliefs of Wicca so if that's not what you're discussing, maybe you should start a new thread?

But no, you did not write "it takes two to create a life", so I won't apologize for misunderstanding your meaning in that post.

[Lunacie]

Again I disagree. The topic name is, "If you do this, you're not a Wiccan".

The very first sentence say's:

"It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

The original poster may have wrote that sentence and may have used the term, "core belief" in it, but when you read past the first sentence it is not discussing one of the core beliefs in wicca, it is discussing those that think they can change religion and are practicing the religion incorrectly by the use or lack of use of a specific gendered deity.

Original poster then writes the following. These are key sentences to understanding what they are writing about.

"You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine."


"What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does."

And my original post says, "It takes two to create." The second time around I said in big letters that, "IT TAKES TWO TO CREATE A LIFE", because when you first responded you were very keen on correcting that with "PROcreate" so I wanted to make the distinction clear this time.

Apologies? never asked for one.

Well, I would say that I just assumed that the OP was talking about whether you can change a religion in reference to Wicca specifically - but since he actually said...


However, if you just worship the Goddess and preclude the existence of the God or take it a step further and deny the existence, your not a Wiccan, not in any shape or form.

... it was not as assumption that he was referring to Wicca specifically. Nothing wrong with broadening the subject, as long as you're clear that you're talking about religion in general, maybe even making it clear that you're not speaking from a Wiccan perspective.

I did think it would be helpful to make it clear that you had not actually written "create a life" whether that's what you meant or not. All you had to do was say "Yeah, that's what I meant." I wasn't trying to project any attitude, just trying to be clear. And since that's what you did, I certainly haven't tried to belabour the point.

And now I hope we can set all this aside and get back to the general topic?

[Modesty]

The Wiccans I know and those that are on the same path but practice solitary all believe in a god and goddess. And Dumunzi is right that there are certain rituals where calling upon only a female or male deity is necessary, but the recognition of the other is still firmly there.

[Lunacie]

The Wiccans I know and those that are on the same path but practice solitary all believe in a god and goddess. And Dumunzi is right that there are certain rituals where calling upon only a female or male deity is necessary, but the recognition of the other is still firmly there.

Yeah, unfortunately some people are confused and don't realize there's a difference between Dianic witches and Dianic Wiccans. Which may give them the wrong idea about Wicca in general.

[RainInanna]

I think the confusion is that the difference is between Wicca and Witch, rather than Dianic or not.

Dianic Wicca was coined when Wicca and Witchcraft were considered the same thing to most people.

Now they're not.

Now Dianics tend to avoid the label too if only because it offends trad Wiccans.

The thing is, it's not the Dianics who are concerned about whether "Wicca" fits what they do so much, because they meant what trad Wiccans would now call "Witchcraft, not Wicca" in the first place.

The problem is only that we can't agree on the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft, not really the Dianic part.

If someone says Dianic - whether they say Wiccan, Witch, or Space Invader - they basically mean "feminist spirituality". If they say Dianic Wiccan they're probably referring to Z Budapest's teachings, if I remember correctly. Whether traditional Wiccans consider that "real Wicca" or not only matters to Dianics because then people start making statements about what *Dianic* beliefs are, and usually the statements are misinformed and poorly communicated.

Most of the Dianics just avoid the discussion anymore because the whole point is not whether Dianic beliefs can be Wiccan - its only that Dianic Wicca was used when the term made sense, when everyone was using Wicca and Witchcraft interchangeably, and arguing over those terms misses the point.

[Lunacie]

I think the confusion is that the difference is between Wicca and Witch, rather than Dianic or not.

Dianic Wicca was coined when Wicca and Witchcraft were considered the same thing to most people.

Now they're not.

Now Dianics tend to avoid the label too if only because it offends trad Wiccans.

The thing is, it's not the Dianics who are concerned about whether "Wicca" fits what they do so much, because they meant what trad Wiccans would now call "Witchcraft, not Wicca" in the first place.

The problem is only that we can't agree on the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft, not really the Dianic part.

If someone says Dianic - whether they say Wiccan, Witch, or Space Invader - they basically mean "feminist spirituality". If they say Dianic Wiccan they're probably referring to Z Budapest's teachings, if I remember correctly. Whether traditional Wiccans consider that "real Wicca" or not only matters to Dianics because then people start making statements about what *Dianic* beliefs are, and usually the statements are misinformed and poorly communicated.

Most of the Dianics just avoid the discussion anymore because the whole point is not whether Dianic beliefs can be Wiccan - its only that Dianic Wicca was used when the term made sense, when everyone was using Wicca and Witchcraft interchangeably, and arguing over those terms misses the point.


I know there was a time when Wicca was commonly referred to as simply Witchcraft, but all those other kinds of Witches got annoyed at all the attention Wiccan Witches were getting and how people were getting the wrong idea that all Witches are Wiccans. And to avoid the arguments, many Wiccans began calling themselves Wiccan instead of Witches, although many of us still say we practice Witchcraft.

[RainInanna]

And to avoid the arguments, many Wiccans began calling themselves Wiccan instead of Witches, although many of us still say we practice Witchcraft.

Yes. Then on the other hand, people got annoyed at everyone calling Witchcraft Wicca, and they started saying "that's not really Wicca, because it doesn't have X, Y, or Z", and then... I think we're not sure what Wicca is anymore. That's why we get to come here and try to figure it out huh :)

[cydira]

I've read this thread from beginning to end (as of the post immediately prior to my own). Several interesting points were raised. Several old debates have been revisited for the umpteen millionth time as well, and rekindled old irritations for some it appears. There are a few things that I take a mild bit of offense to and I feel I must reply to.

Now before I get into that, I want to state a few facts. I am a witch who no longer identifies herself as Wiccan. I was educated in a family tradition of witchcraft, in a Wiccan coven, and by independent research into Nordic, Celtic, and other belief systems. The Wiccan coven that educated me and deemed me worthy of being at 3rd degree, and later recognized me as ready to take on the duties of High Priestess, did have a strong Dianic tendency. A Wiccan coven which I was part of for a few years recently held to the same perspective which I am going to present here. This is something that I have found, in my research into Wicca, to be supported by many of the foundational works of the modern form of this faith.

This is what I was taught:

The God and Goddess are complementary parts of an androgynous whole. They are two different ways by which we come to comprehend the androgynous and numinous whole that is present and permeates all existence. The God and Goddess are equal to each other, neither being purely 'good' or purely 'evil'.

Situations where the God and/or Goddess are potentially able to fit into the category of 'evil' as defined by the predominantly Judeo-Christian mindset of society (mainly within the USA) are situations that we are viewing from a flawed perspective. The God and Goddess exist and act independent of our perceptions of good, bad, or anything between.

Now, here is something else that I was taught by the Wiccan coven I was apart of when I was younger and held to be true by the Wiccan coven I have been part of recently. The God and the Goddess are indistinguishable from each other. They are a part of each other and thus can never be fully separated.

I'm going to just let those two things sit where they are. I must answer one other point that just kept nagging at me as I read thru this thread. It's frequently said that there are two sexes to the human race. This is not correct. there are three. male, female, and hermaphrodite. Our society (at least here in the USA) is structured to embrace the male and the female, denying the existence of the hermaphrodite. Our society also actively works to deny that there are people who are born of one sex and feel a powerful identification with the gender that is associated with the other sex.

I have to take argument with the perspective that male and female are the way that the universe operates. If this were true, then why are there life forms that reproduce asexually? What of the species that can change sex? One can not say that there is balance and polarity in the universe and then uphold the standard of male-female. One can say that the standard of chaos vs. order is one that could be upheld, possibly. But there is no hard and fast rule that divides all existence into two categories. It irks me to no end when I see a push to create this division artificially where it does not exist within nature.

I just had to add that. I'll get off my soap box now. Oh, and if anyone's curious as to why I don't identify as Wiccan it is precisely because of this matter. Far too many folks who identify themselves as Wiccan insist that this male-female polarity is the way things must be and try to argue that it is inherent in the nature of the universe. As I have resisted this position, I have found that I've met a great deal of scorn. *shrugs* So, I refer to myself as a witch in the sense that I am a heretic of modern Wicca, apparently.

[Meabh23]

I've read this thread from beginning to end (as of the post immediately prior to my own). Several interesting points were raised. Several old debates have been revisited for the umpteen millionth time as well, and rekindled old irritations for some it appears. There are a few things that I take a mild bit of offense to and I feel I must reply to.

Now before I get into that, I want to state a few facts. I am a witch who no longer identifies herself as Wiccan. I was educated in a family tradition of witchcraft, in a Wiccan coven, and by independent research into Nordic, Celtic, and other belief systems. The Wiccan coven that educated me and deemed me worthy of being at 3rd degree, and later recognized me as ready to take on the duties of High Priestess, did have a strong Dianic tendency. A Wiccan coven which I was part of for a few years recently held to the same perspective which I am going to present here. This is something that I have found, in my research into Wicca, to be supported by many of the foundational works of the modern form of this faith.

This is what I was taught:

The God and Goddess are complementary parts of an androgynous whole. They are two different ways by which we come to comprehend the androgynous and numinous whole that is present and permeates all existence. The God and Goddess are equal to each other, neither being purely 'good' or purely 'evil'.

Situations where the God and/or Goddess are potentially able to fit into the category of 'evil' as defined by the predominantly Judeo-Christian mindset of society (mainly within the USA) are situations that we are viewing from a flawed perspective. The God and Goddess exist and act independent of our perceptions of good, bad, or anything between.

Now, here is something else that I was taught by the Wiccan coven I was apart of when I was younger and held to be true by the Wiccan coven I have been part of recently. The God and the Goddess are indistinguishable from each other. They are a part of each other and thus can never be fully separated.

I'm going to just let those two things sit where they are. I must answer one other point that just kept nagging at me as I read thru this thread. It's frequently said that there are two sexes to the human race. This is not correct. there are three. male, female, and hermaphrodite. Our society (at least here in the USA) is structured to embrace the male and the female, denying the existence of the hermaphrodite. Our society also actively works to deny that there are people who are born of one sex and feel a powerful identification with the gender that is associated with the other sex.

I have to take argument with the perspective that male and female are the way that the universe operates. If this were true, then why are there life forms that reproduce asexually? What of the species that can change sex? One can not say that there is balance and polarity in the universe and then uphold the standard of male-female. One can say that the standard of chaos vs. order is one that could be upheld, possibly. But there is no hard and fast rule that divides all existence into two categories. It irks me to no end when I see a push to create this division artificially where it does not exist within nature.

I just had to add that. I'll get off my soap box now. Oh, and if anyone's curious as to why I don't identify as Wiccan it is precisely because of this matter. Far too many folks who identify themselves as Wiccan insist that this male-female polarity is the way things must be and try to argue that it is inherent in the nature of the universe. As I have resisted this position, I have found that I've met a great deal of scorn. *shrugs* So, I refer to myself as a witch in the sense that I am a heretic of modern Wicca, apparently.

Thank you for this.

Not all of us Wiccans think the way that some think we should. I was taught very strict traditionalist Wicca and it never came up this idea about what men or women should be or do or who they should sleep with, or none of that. And as for the gods and goddesses, they have their thing and do as they wish, like we humans do. so be it.

Not all of us Wiccans will agree with some of the homophobic or gender-prejudiced statements of some members in our community.

You are right to point out that gender-based polarity is only an idea. (Okay, you implied such, and not directly pointed this out.)

Please don't think we are all so closed minded.

[Meabh23]

It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal.

Look. I won't rain on Goddess worshipers, go for it if that's whats for you by all means, there are some great people on here that probably would fit themselves in that branch of Paganism.

However, if you just worship the Goddess and preclude the existence of the God or take it a step further and deny the existence, your not a Wiccan, not in any shape or form.

Some people try to define them selves in these ways(Dianic Wiccan are an examples), and this is where I draw a line. It is not so. You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine.

Now, there are some workings where a person just works with the God or the Goddess, and that's understandable. There are some spells you do where you only work with one deity in the magic. That's understandable to, in fact I've done that myself.

I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does.

- Dumunzi

What is masculine and what is feminine? It's not so obvious and is culturally and personally decided upon.

Sorry if i am a late comer to this thread, but I am a dedicated Wiccan and I want to understand what you are trying to claim for the rest of us here.

If you have been practicing Wicca for a long while you will not worry about what is THIS or THAT that other people get off on, but this is just IMHO.

[cydira]

Thank you for this.

I just hope that I phrased everything clearly. :) Typing before I've had breakfast and with a fussy baby screaming in my ear can sometimes throw me a little off. :smileroll



Not all of us Wiccans think the way that some think we should. I was taught very strict traditionalist Wicca and it never came up this idea about what men or women should be or do or who they should sleep with, or none of that. And as for the gods and goddesses, they have their thing and do as they wish, like we humans do. so be it.

That's basically the short version of what I was trying to say. :bigredgri



Not all of us Wiccans will agree with some of the homophobic or gender-prejudiced statements of some members in our community.

You are right to point out that gender-based polarity is only an idea. (Okay, you implied such, and not directly pointed this out.)

Please don't think we are all so closed minded.

I do my best to keep that in mind but it is difficult at times. It could just be a matter of what happens in my area, I'm not sure. But I've encountered many, many who do take that stance and invested a great deal of effort and mental energy into supporting it. *shrugs* It seems to have become the prevailing opinion, but I may be wrong and just applying a local phenomenon to the whole. *shrugs* I admit I make mistakes sometimes. :bigredgri

[Meabh23]

I just hope that I phrased everything clearly. :) Typing before I've had breakfast and with a fussy baby screaming in my ear can sometimes throw me a little off. :smileroll



That's basically the short version of what I was trying to say. :bigredgri



I do my best to keep that in mind but it is difficult at times. It could just be a matter of what happens in my area, I'm not sure. But I've encountered many, many who do take that stance and invested a great deal of effort and mental energy into supporting it. *shrugs* It seems to have become the prevailing opinion, but I may be wrong and just applying a local phenomenon to the whole. *shrugs* I admit I make mistakes sometimes. :bigredgri

It's all right. We need critiquing and questions, so that we can keep focusing on what we are gaining from our practice.

There are a lot of pig-headed and wrong-minded Wiccans, but I won't be like others and say those people are not Wiccans. They are probably very Wiccan. Practicing Wicca doesn't make anyone any more wiser or truer than any other religion. We have our bad apples too. Just seems from a Pagan perspective that our bad apples have really loud mouths. ;)

Most of us seem to carry on and do what we do in silence and in peace.

Where some use Wicca as an excuse for their prejudice, this is where I draw the line and will jump in to defend it.

You were clear enough and I think I understand what you are aiming at. There are some outspoken souls who are now using Wicca as an excuse for their own little small-mindednesses. So be it. I am not trying to dismiss it blithely, but only mean that they will be gone in a few years and Wiccans will still be around, long after such people have moved on to other projects.

[Lunacie]

It's true that we can all be prejudiced. I had a very good teacher when I was new to the Wiccan path (although he didn't even want to be a teacher) and our small group spent several evenings discussing ethics and issues like gender bias. But he could be just as biased as anybody about the things that were ingrained in him from his upbringing. However, he encouraged us to think for ourselves and develop our own sense of personal responsibility instead of insisting that we had to follow his own beliefs to the letter.

We have a stickyied thread where I have listed the beliefs and practices that it seems the majority of Wiccans can agree are basic to the Wiccan religion. Not everyone agrees that each of the things on that list is important or necessary, and some would add a thing or two that aren't on that list. One that did make the list (compiled on another forum) is a belief in Diety - generally both god and goddess energies, but I don't believe anyone has the authority to say that if one doesn't hold that particular belief then one simply cannot be a Wiccan. Many different Traditions within Wicca hold slightly different beliefs or practice in slightly different ways.

Until Wiccans elect a Pope or members of a ruling council to decide the tenets of Wicca for all Wiccans everywhere, there is going to be some wiggle room.

[~*Trinity Aura*~]

Then in that case, would Dianic Wiccans just be Dianic pagans since Wicca is a subgroup of pagans?

[Lunacie]

Then in that case, would Dianic Wiccans just be Dianic pagans since Wicca is a subgroup of pagans?

It seems like you're asking if Wiccans are "just" Pagans since Wicca is a subgroup of Paganism?

I don't know enough about Dianic Wicca to say whether it contains enough of the core beliefs and practices of traditional Wicca for me to be comfortable recognizing it as another tradition of Wicca. Maybe someone else can answer this one?

[cydira]

It seems like you're asking if Wiccans are "just" Pagans since Wicca is a subgroup of Paganism?


I think that if you looked at some of the elements that tie together the pagan sub-culture, it is possible to make that argument. *shrugs* I think that it depends on your perspective.



I don't know enough about Dianic Wicca to say whether it contains enough of the core beliefs and practices of traditional Wicca for me to be comfortable recognizing it as another tradition of Wicca. Maybe someone else can answer this one?

Given what I've seen about different traditions/sects of Wicca, I think it's possible to argue that Dianic Wicca is a subset but with a great deal of overlap with Dianic witchcraft. I'm inclined to argue that Dianic Wicca lead to the development of a monotheistic goddess specific form of witchcraft that operates in a different fashion then Wicca does. Furthermore, I think that there is a great deal of confusion as to the difference between Dianic witchcraft and Dianic Wicca because of alot of parallel beliefs, ritual similarities, and political orientations, never mind the enormous volume of shared theological language.

And as I re-read that I realize that sounded very... choppy. Let me try to put it a different way that might make more sense.

Wicca is a subset of modern sacred witchcraft. Dianic Wicca is a daughter sect of Wicca. Some practitioners of Dianic Wicca focused exclusively upon the Goddess and restructured the way their tradition approached matters like theology. This resulted in the development of Dianic witchcraft or what some could call 'hard' goddess oriented monotheism.

Dianic witchcraft may retain elements of Dianic Wicca or mainstream/traditional Wicca but the philosophical orientation is different. There's confusion between Dianic witchcraft and Dianic Wicca because of the use of similar language in similar contexts (like the term 'Dianic' for example) and similar ritual elements. This confusion can make it difficult to establish if a given Dianic witch is a Dianic Wiccan or a practitioner of Dianic witchcraft with out a great deal of discussion (which may be covering topics that are verboten as per the decisions of the Coven or individual's tradition/sect of witchcraft/Wicca).

[pentacledreamer]

Ok, here is what i have and completely IMO.

Wicca (and i am not wiccan myself, so please keep the beaty sticks at bay) is the same unbrella term as any over-arcing religion or believe/practice structure. To use the first and easiest example that comes to my mind... Christianity. These days there are so MANY versions of the religion as a whole its boggels the mind, each of course having their own versions and interp's on their god-Christ and the dogma there-of. However, each and every one is Christan. A Sect who focuses (possibly to the point of isolating a distinct practice or focal) on one thing, doesnt make them any less "a part" of that whole.

The sub-discussion on "you're doing it wrong" I personally would say, "Hmm, that's not how i do it", but in the same regard, i'm a bit odd. =)


This all started with a rant about what is Wiccan... You can't compare it to older religions and say it's got sub secs.. It has branches but they follow a tradition has well.

Wicca was founded in the 1960's. so it has a CLEAR DEFINITION. A witch must have a linage back to Gerald Gardner. Now should they be practicing the same has he did not at all.. thats what the branches are for.. But the basic of it is that the person that taught you can track who taught them all the way back to Gerald.. It's that easy...

You can take the aspect of wicca yeah. Theres goddess knows how many books these days but that doesn't make you wiccan.. it makes you a witch.. such has the Dianic vs Dianic Wiccan comments I read about.

My point with this quote is Wicca can't be compared to anything like christanity becuase it is to new. it has specific branches.

[CameraGirl]

it has specific branches.

And Christianity doesn't? *confused look*

[Lunacie]

This all started with a rant about what is Wiccan... You can't compare it to older religions and say it's got sub secs.. It has branches but they follow a tradition has well.

Wicca was founded in the 1960's. so it has a CLEAR DEFINITION. A witch must have a linage back to Gerald Gardner. Now should they be practicing the same has he did not at all.. thats what the branches are for.. But the basic of it is that the person that taught you can track who taught them all the way back to Gerald.. It's that easy...

You can take the aspect of wicca yeah. Theres goddess knows how many books these days but that doesn't make you wiccan.. it makes you a witch.. such has the Dianic vs Dianic Wiccan comments I read about.

My point with this quote is Wicca can't be compared to anything like christanity becuase it is to new. it has specific branches.

I'm going to agree that there are certain core or basic beliefs and practices that make Wicca a separate and unique religion - but not that it's necessary to be able to track your lineage back to Gardner. Yes, I was taught by someone who was taught by someone, but the lineage was not passed along to me - it wasn't important to me at the time (still isn't) - and I'm terrible at remembering names. I have the proper lineage to be certified as a Usui Reiki practicioner but I would have to find the folder with the information in it and I probably wouldn't bother because it's not important to me.

What I do with what I know and whether that knowledge makes me able to work with other Wiccans when I want to is all that is important to me.


... and like Camera Girl, I'm confused about the difference you see between "sub sects" and "branches" ...


... and I believe Wicca was "founded" in the 40's with Gardner's first coven, the Bricken Wood Coven, although it wasn't called Wicca until perhaps the 60's.

[SwordsFlameSong]

I think we spend way too much time trying to apply labels to ourselves and others.

You aren't Wiccan if...
You aren't Christian if...
You aren't a Reconstructionist if...

Well, ya'll get what I mean.

We spend so much time trying to tag someone, categorize their thoughts and neatly peg them into an accepted pigeonhole we tend to forget who they really are.

How many people are on this planet? That number illustrates how many different 'faiths' or 'beliefs' there really are. That is my take on it anyway.:smileroll

[Astara Seague]

I think we spend way too much time trying to apply labels to ourselves and others.

You aren't Wiccan if...
You aren't Christian if...
You aren't a Reconstructionist if...

Well, ya'll get what I mean.

We spend so much time trying to tag someone, categorize their thoughts and neatly peg them into an accepted pigeonhole we tend to forget who they really are.

How many people are on this planet? That number illustrates how many different 'faiths' or 'beliefs' there really are. That is my take on it anyway.:smileroll

:thumbsup:

[Lunacie]

I think we spend way too much time trying to apply labels to ourselves and others.

You aren't Wiccan if...
You aren't Christian if...
You aren't a Reconstructionist if...

Well, ya'll get what I mean.

We spend so much time trying to tag someone, categorize their thoughts and neatly peg them into an accepted pigeonhole we tend to forget who they really are.

How many people are on this planet? That number illustrates how many different 'faiths' or 'beliefs' there really are. That is my take on it anyway.:smileroll

Labels can be helpful, as I said earlier, in finding people with whom we can work or study or have conversation. Not so helpful when they are saying in essence "You don't do this or that so you're not as good a person as I am."

[memnoch]

It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal.

Look. I won't rain on Goddess worshipers, go for it if that's whats for you by all means, there are some great people on here that probably would fit themselves in that branch of Paganism.

However, if you just worship the Goddess and preclude the existence of the God or take it a step further and deny the existence, your not a Wiccan, not in any shape or form.

Some people try to define them selves in these ways(Dianic Wiccan are an examples), and this is where I draw a line. It is not so. You do not get to preclude an existing deity from a religion out of a desire to feel more feminine or masculine.

Now, there are some workings where a person just works with the God or the Goddess, and that's understandable. There are some spells you do where you only work with one deity in the magic. That's understandable to, in fact I've done that myself.

I am not talking about that. What I am talking about is the absolute incorrect practice of something. You don't get to suddenly say YHW is God and Mary is actually a Goddess. Religion doesn't change overnight. In fact, it seldom does.

- Dumunzi

Considering wicca is just Gardner mixing a bunch of other religions into what I view as a pseudo religion, it is hard to criticize others for picking and choosing what they like and don't like about wicca.

[jetpiston]

Considering wicca is just Gardner mixing a bunch of other religions into what I view as a pseudo religion, it is hard to criticize others for picking and choosing what they like and don't like about wicca.
It's hard to believe that there are people who still believe this.

[SwordsFlameSong]

Truth - I have seen labels abused more than not. So I tend to shun them. ;)
Labels can be helpful, as I said earlier, in finding people with whom we can work or study or have conversation. Not so helpful when they are saying in essence "You don't do this or that so you're not as good a person as I am."

[SwordsFlameSong]

Regardless of what others may think of your personal opinion in regards to Wicca you make a valid point. I have heard people told they aren't this or that because they do not adhere to what the speaker feels is valid for a path. I've heard it more times than I can count and at least I don't perpetuate the silliness - or try not to.

It's rather like a person in a glass house tossing bricks willy nilly.
Considering wicca is just Gardner mixing a bunch of other religions into what I view as a pseudo religion, it is hard to criticize others for picking and choosing what they like and don't like about wicca.

[memnoch]

It's hard to believe that there are people who still believe this.

Gardner claimed that he got it from the New Forest coven, however the existence of said coven is questionable at best. When you look at the aspects of wicca, it is quite obvious that this is a mix of other religions, worshiping a god that is awful similar to Pan, and that has no proven historical following in England. The triple goddess was stolen from Robert Graves in a book he titled "Work of Poetic Imagination", which was based off of a series of goddesses from several different religions.

Then there are the holidays, Yule was a Germanic holiday, Samhein, lughnasadh, and Imbolc are Irish, Ostara was a German goddess who died out 1600 years ago, Beltaine comes from the word for the Irish month of May, their holiday was latha Bealltainn, Litha came from Bede's De temporum ratione, and Mabon wasn't even coined until the 1970's by Aidan Kelly.

So, in short you have a Greek god, a stolen goddess from a book which mentions it as a representation of several goddesses, German, Irish, Welsh, and made up holiday names. All coming from a man who claimed he was initiated into a coven that there is no proof of. But then again, I guess it is hard to believe that people who criticize a religion would understand it better than those who follow it.

[memnoch]

Regardless of what others may think of your personal opinion in regards to Wicca you make a valid point. I have heard people told they aren't this or that because they do not adhere to what the speaker feels is valid for a path. I've heard it more times than I can count and at least I don't perpetuate the silliness - or try not to.

It's rather like a person in a glass house tossing bricks willy nilly.

My opinion on it doesn't matter more than my opinion on any religion, and I don't hold anything against those who do practice whatever religion they like (my wife and my 2 best friends are wiccan, I don't hold it against them). But I have an issue when people try to pretend their religion is something more than it is. To me the separation here is similar to a christian denying that they come from the same religious history as a muslim.

[SwordsFlameSong]

I said what I did because - though your opinion shouldn't override the facts as presented - some will. ;)
My opinion on it doesn't matter more than my opinion on any religion, and I don't hold anything against those who do practice whatever religion they like (my wife and my 2 best friends are wiccan, I don't hold it against them). But I have an issue when people try to pretend their religion is something more than it is. To me the separation here is similar to a christian denying that they come from the same religious history as a muslim.

[memnoch]

I said what I did because - though your opinion shouldn't override the facts as presented - some will. ;)

And maybe I shouldn't have included my opinion, but my opinion comes from the point I was trying to make, therefore I saw it as relevant. There will always be people who will overlook facts presented because of a persons opinion, I'm quite used to that, but thanks for being one who does not do that.

[Lunacie]

Gardner claimed that he got it from the New Forest coven, however the existence of said coven is questionable at best. When you look at the aspects of wicca, it is quite obvious that this is a mix of other religions, worshiping a god that is awful similar to Pan, and that has no proven historical following in England. The triple goddess was stolen from Robert Graves in a book he titled "Work of Poetic Imagination", which was based off of a series of goddesses from several different religions.

Then there are the holidays, Yule was a Germanic holiday, Samhein, lughnasadh, and Imbolc are Irish, Ostara was a German goddess who died out 1600 years ago, Beltaine comes from the word for the Irish month of May, their holiday was latha Bealltainn, Litha came from Bede's De temporum ratione, and Mabon wasn't even coined until the 1970's by Aidan Kelly.

So, in short you have a Greek god, a stolen goddess from a book which mentions it as a representation of several goddesses, German, Irish, Welsh, and made up holiday names. All coming from a man who claimed he was initiated into a coven that there is no proof of. But then again, I guess it is hard to believe that people who criticize a religion would understand it better than those who follow it.

I will start with the last point first - in the early days of Wicca there were only 4 Sabbats, things did get a bit more mixed up when the other 4 Sabbats were added.

And just like in most other religions, there is a lot of co-mingling with the beliefs and practices of other religions. When you point a finger at Wicca for this, your other fingers are pointing at every other religion as well. There is a certain sameness to the very concept of "religion".

But, for those who are "in the know", the Wiccan god and goddess are not Pan and Robert Graves 'triple goddess.' :noway:

So, in short, given your opinion of Wicca's history, it's not surprising that you would feel it's fine for seekers to pick and choose and make Wicca whatever they want it to be. I'm not an Elitist or a Fundamentalist, but I do believe there are certain core values and practices that make Wicca a separate and distinct religion. Other things can be "picked and chosen" and added to those basic tenets, and some tenets may be seen as of lesser importance, but one surely must hold to most of the core values and practices in order to be accepted as a Wiccan by other Wiccans.

And, at this point in time some 18 years later, there is no "proof" of the existence of the coven that I was initiated into either. Still, I think most covens would accept that I have good knowledge and experience of Wicca and do have the right to call myself by that label.

[memnoch]

I will start with the last point first - in the early days of Wicca there were only 4 Sabbats, things did get a bit more mixed up when the other 4 Sabbats were added.

And just like in most other religions, there is a lot of co-mingling with the beliefs and practices of other religions. When you point a finger at Wicca for this, your other fingers are pointing at every other religion as well. There is a certain sameness to the very concept of "religion".

But, for those who are "in the know", the Wiccan god and goddess are not Pan and Robert Graves 'triple goddess.' :noway:

So, in short, given your opinion of Wicca's history, it's not surprising that you would feel it's fine for seekers to pick and choose and make Wicca whatever they want it to be. I'm not an Elitist or a Fundamentalist, but I do believe there are certain core values and practices that make Wicca a separate and distinct religion. Other things can be "picked and chosen" and added to those basic tenets, and some tenets may be seen as of lesser importance, but one surely must hold to most of the core values and practices in order to be accepted as a Wiccan by other Wiccans.

And, at this point in time some 18 years later, there is no "proof" of the existence of the coven that I was initiated into either. Still, I think most covens would accept that I have good knowledge and experience of Wicca and do have the right to call myself by that label.

I should point out that I criticize all but the earliest of religions (most of which are long gone) of mixing beliefs...although I do see it following more of the Jungian idea of archetypes. In short, I do point the finger at other religions, but other religions are not being discussed in this thread.

Does "in the know" now mean "refuse to accept", I'm not saying that the horned god is pan any more than I am saying that Zeus is Jupiter. But I am saying they are awful similar, and we know which one came first. As for the triple goddess, considering that Graves' book existed before Wicca, and that Gardner had read Graves' work, I think that is pretty clear.

I listed facts related to wiccan history, not opinions. None of the facts I have listed have you had a retort to other than to claim that those "in the know" believe I am wrong, but if you would like to give proof that my facts are not true, I'm open to hearing it, but be prepared for a well studied rebuttal. Claiming that one can not pick and choose and remain of the same religion is like saying that baptists and lutherans are a different religion, because they interpreted christian ideas differently.

Edit: Also, going with the 4 original holidays, you still have the one for the German goddess who hadn't been recognized in 1600 years...it still doesn't fit with the primarily Irish/Welsh beliefs of wicca. You also have Yule, which is a german holiday.

Second Edit: Also Ostara doesn't make sense with wicca...Wicca believes in two gods, the horned god and the triple goddess, Ostera is yet another god, which means that wiccans recognize 3 goddesses.

[Lunacie]

I should point out that I criticize all but the earliest of religions (most of which are long gone) of mixing beliefs...although I do see it following more of the Jungian idea of archetypes. In short, I do point the finger at other religions, but other religions are not being discussed in this thread.

Does "in the know" now mean "refuse to accept", I'm not saying that the horned god is pan any more than I am saying that Zeus is Jupiter. But I am saying they are awful similar, and we know which one came first. As for the triple goddess, considering that Graves' book existed before Wicca, and that Gardner had read Graves' work, I think that is pretty clear.

I listed facts related to wiccan history, not opinions. None of the facts I have listed have you had a retort to other than to claim that those "in the know" believe I am wrong, but if you would like to give proof that my facts are not true, I'm open to hearing it, but be prepared for a well studied rebuttal. Claiming that one can not pick and choose and remain of the same religion is like saying that baptists and lutherans are a different religion, because they interpreted christian ideas differently.

Edit: Also, going with the 4 original holidays, you still have the one for the German goddess who hadn't been recognized in 1600 years...it still doesn't fit with the primarily Irish/Welsh beliefs of wicca. You also have Yule, which is a german holiday.

Second Edit: Also Ostara doesn't make sense with wicca...Wicca believes in two gods, the horned god and the triple goddess, Ostera is yet another god, which means that wiccans recognize 3 goddesses.

I agree that all religions mix beliefs, thought I made that clear. Moving on.

Gardner didn't insist that all Wiccans/Witches/Covens should honor the same god and goddess that he did, but most groups did follow his lead in order to stay true to the foundation he set forth. And yes, Pan and Cernunnos and a couple of other gods have certain similarities, which is one reason some people believe the gods are archetypes or facets of the divine. I'm not convinced Gardner was positive which he believed, that all gods are part of the greater divine or that they are each individuals with their own personalities and powers.

I suspect that Gardner, like many in other religions, used concepts like the Triple Goddess to help attune to the different cycles, in this case the different cycles of the moon. Different ways of seeing the gods helped to attune to the solar cycles.

There are surely more similarities between Lutherans and Baptists than there are differences. They may pick different verses to hold value from their bible, but they do agree that the bible is holy word of Jehovah. Wiccans may pick different values and practices from the ones that were collected by Gardner, they may even add a few more or ignore a couple of them, but basically Wicca is based on the values and practices that were practiced by Gardner and his covens. If you bring in too much that is different and don't use any of those core practices - what you end up with is different than Wicca, and I think it's disingenuous to insist that it's still Wicca at that point.

i.e. first edit: why do all of the Sabbats have to come from one cultural source?

i.e. second edit: Wicca "believes in" ALL the gods and goddesses. At different Sabbats Wiccans might call upon the powers of different gods or goddesses. Most Wiccans I've gotten to know seem to feel that Gardner honored a particular pair as the patrons of Wicca. But unlike some religions, Wicca is not limited to just one very jealous god figure.

[memnoch]

I agree that all religions mix beliefs, thought I made that clear. Moving on.

Gardner didn't insist that all Wiccans/Witches/Covens should honor the same god and goddess that he did, but most groups did follow his lead in order to stay true to the foundation he set forth. And yes, Pan and Cernunnos and a couple of other gods have certain similarities, which is one reason some people believe the gods are archetypes or facets of the divine. I'm not convinced Gardner was positive which he believed, that all gods are part of the greater divine or that they are each individuals with their own personalities and powers.

I suspect that Gardner, like many in other religions, used concepts like the Triple Goddess to help attune to the different cycles, in this case the different cycles of the moon. Different ways of seeing the gods helped to attune to the solar cycles.

There are surely more similarities between Lutherans and Baptists than there are differences. They may pick different verses to hold value from their bible, but they do agree that the bible is holy word of Jehovah. Wiccans may pick different values and practices from the ones that were collected by Gardner, they may even add a few more or ignore a couple of them, but basically Wicca is based on the values and practices that were practiced by Gardner and his covens. If you bring in too much that is different and don't use any of those core practices - what you end up with is different than Wicca, and I think it's disingenuous to insist that it's still Wicca at that point.

i.e. first edit: why do all of the Sabbats have to come from one cultural source?

i.e. second edit: Wicca "believes in" ALL the gods and goddesses. At different Sabbats Wiccans might call upon the powers of different gods or goddesses. Most Wiccans I've gotten to know seem to feel that Gardner honored a particular pair as the patrons of Wicca. But unlike some religions, Wicca is not limited to just one very jealous god figure.

That is all a very fair argument, most of which I can't argue. But at the same time it doesn't take away from my beliefs, you are going into the why as opposed to the how.

I'm not saying all sabbats do have to come from one cultural source, but just claiming that that is another proof that wicca is a religion formed from picking and choosing from others.

So are you now claiming that a wiccan can believe in any gods they want, but if they don't believe in a god and goddess they aren't true wiccans?

[Lunacie]

That is all a very fair argument, most of which I can't argue. But at the same time it doesn't take away from my beliefs, you are going into the why as opposed to the how.

I'm not saying all sabbats do have to come from one cultural source, but just claiming that that is another proof that wicca is a religion formed from picking and choosing from others.

So are you now claiming that a wiccan can believe in any gods they want, but if they don't believe in a god and goddess they aren't true wiccans?

I'm not trying to take anything away from your beliefs, however your beliefs have nothing to do with Wicca and Wiccan beliefs, eh? And I'm not "claiming" anything, I'm only sharing my own opinion and something of my own beliefs which do have quite a bit to do with Wicca as I am a practicing Wiccan.

I have not claimed that in order to be "a true Wiccan" one must profess a belief in a certain god and goddess, or in any god or goddess. However, if one does not believe in the existence of the gods or a uber god force or some kind of divine energy, then one is not practicing a "religion", one is practicing a "craft." I believe that Wicca combines both a religion and a craft.

[Nox_Mortus]

I'm not saying all sabbats do have to come from one cultural source, but just claiming that that is another proof that wicca is a religion formed from picking and choosing from others.

So are you now claiming that a wiccan can believe in any gods they want, but if they don't believe in a god and goddess they aren't true wiccans?

While
i understand what you're getting at, here's the thing, Wicca ("pseudorelegion" or not) has a core set of things that define it, otherwise there wouldn't be much of point in calling oneself Wiccan, because it wouldn't mean anything, one of those core beliefs is worshiping a god and goddess (and IMO a particular God and Goddess, although some people are obviously more willing to let that slide) It's sort of like saying your a Christian but not believing in Jesus, doing that defies one of the basic principles of the religion.

[memnoch]

I'm not trying to take anything away from your beliefs, however your beliefs have nothing to do with Wicca and Wiccan beliefs, eh? And I'm not "claiming" anything, I'm only sharing my own opinion and something of my own beliefs which do have quite a bit to do with Wicca as I am a practicing Wiccan.

I have not claimed that in order to be "a true Wiccan" one must profess a belief in a certain god and goddess, or in any god or goddess. However, if one does not believe in the existence of the gods or a uber god force or some kind of divine energy, then one is not practicing a "religion", one is practicing a "craft." I believe that Wicca combines both a religion and a craft.

Okay, then I'm confused as to what started this, I was just trying to point out that it was acceptable to claim wiccan and not recognize a god, only a goddess. So on that we seem to agree :thumbsup:

[Lunacie]

While
i understand what you're getting at, here's the thing, Wicca ("pseudorelegion" or not) has a core set of things that define it, otherwise there wouldn't be much of point in calling oneself Wiccan, because it wouldn't mean anything, one of those core beliefs is worshiping a god and goddess (and IMO a particular God and Goddess, although some people are obviously more willing to let that slide) It's sort of like saying your a Christian but not believing in Jesus, doing that defies one of the basic principles of the religion.

That's right. A Christian might believe in both Jesus and Krishna, but if he doesn't believe in Jesus at all then what's the point of calling hirself the disciple of Christ - or Christian?

[memnoch]

While
i understand what you're getting at, here's the thing, Wicca ("pseudorelegion" or not) has a core set of things that define it, otherwise there wouldn't be much of point in calling oneself Wiccan, because it wouldn't mean anything, one of those core beliefs is worshiping a god and goddess (and IMO a particular God and Goddess, although some people are obviously more willing to let that slide) It's sort of like saying your a Christian but not believing in Jesus, doing that defies one of the basic principles of the religion.

And my later point was that it was all over the board, going to the core of Gardners Wicca, there are two gods, the horned god or green man, and the triple goddess. Yet they celebrate a holiday that recognizes another goddess, Ostara. So, in accepting that there are more gods and goddesses than the "mother" and "father" one must also be willing to accept that there will be those who only recognize one aspect, in this case the "mother", and in doing so, those who choose to believe that are just as wiccan as someone who believes in the "mother" and "father" and Ostara.

[Nox_Mortus]

And my later point was that it was all over the board, going to the core of Gardners Wicca, there are two gods, the horned god or green man, and the triple goddess. Yet they celebrate a holiday that recognizes another goddess, Ostara. So, in accepting that there are more gods and goddesses than the "mother" and "father" one must also be willing to accept that there will be those who only recognize one aspect, in this case the "mother", and in doing so, those who choose to believe that are just as wiccan as someone who believes in the "mother" and "father" and Ostara.

We accept that other people only recognize one aspect, I mean there are a ton of monotheistic religions out there, but only recognizing one aspect goes very much against one of the core ideas of Wicca (celebrating gender polarity in worship).

[Lunacie]

We accept that other people only recognize one aspect, I mean there are a ton of monotheistic religions out there, but only recognizing one aspect goes very much against one of the core ideas of Wicca (celebrating gender polarity in worship).

Because... that ties in with the aspect of being creative in it's most basic form, a man and a woman creating a new life together. Being creative is one of the practices that Wicca encourages and celebrates.

[Lunacie]

And my later point was that it was all over the board, going to the core of Gardners Wicca, there are two gods, the horned god or green man, and the triple goddess. Yet they celebrate a holiday that recognizes another goddess, Ostara. So, in accepting that there are more gods and goddesses than the "mother" and "father" one must also be willing to accept that there will be those who only recognize one aspect, in this case the "mother", and in doing so, those who choose to believe that are just as wiccan as someone who believes in the "mother" and "father" and Ostara.

I think (without reading back through the entire thread) that one of the points that came out was that there is a difference between honoring primarily a goddess/mother concept while still acknowledging that there is also a god/father concept - and saying that there is no god/father concept (energy, aspect, whatever) at all. In fact, I think that's what Dumnuzi was saying in his original post. Denying the god energy even exists is so far removed from traditional Wiccan belief that it pretty much pushes the believer outside of the envelope rather than expanding the envelope.

[memnoch]

We accept that other people only recognize one aspect, I mean there are a ton of monotheistic religions out there, but only recognizing one aspect goes very much against one of the core ideas of Wicca (celebrating gender polarity in worship).

and that is a great argument...I will have to ponder that for a while.

[memnoch]

After thinking it over, Nox, you make a point I really can't disagree with, in other words, you have convinced me of your side. It may not change my opinion about the religion, but I have to agree with you now on this aspect.

[jetpiston]

Lots of things being responded to, I'll try to be brief...


Gardner claimed that he got it from the New Forest coven, however the existence of said coven is questionable at best.Not going to go into detail since it's not really on topic, but even if I discount the experience of those in my Tradition who were actually there, it has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that the New Forest coven (actually there were a few) did indeed exist.


Then there are the holidays, ... etc. ...Many of the holidays you mention are not exactly what most Gardnerians would call Wiccan holidays. For instance, many people in the eclectic paths would call the upcoming sabbat Ostara. We usually call it spring.


And my later point was that it was all over the board, going to the core of Gardners Wicca, there are two gods, the horned god or green man, and the triple goddess. Yet they celebrate a holiday that recognizes another goddess, Ostara.We do? Huh. I guess no one remembered to tell me.


So, in accepting that there are more gods and goddesses than the "mother" and "father" one must also be willing to accept that there will be those who only recognize one aspect, in this case the "mother", and in doing so, those who choose to believe that are just as wiccan as someone who believes in the "mother" and "father" and Ostara.Being of the Wica has little to do with believing in or recognizing an aspect of the "mother" or the "father." In fact, it mostly has to do with honoring a very specific pair of deities in a certain way. As far as being "just as wiccan" if you believe in one thing or another, if you're referring to Gardnerian Wica (which you seem to be) no. To be Wiccan, in that sense, you must be initiated into the Tradition in a certain way by a certain type of person. Doesn't matter if you recognize one aspect, or two, or a hundred.

I'm not sure where you've been getting your information about Gardnerianism, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the actual practice.

-Jet
3* Gardnerian HP

[memnoch]

Lots of things being responded to, I'll try to be brief...

Not going to go into detail since it's not really on topic, but even if I discount the experience of those in my Tradition who were actually there, it has become increasingly clear over the last couple of years that the New Forest coven (actually there were a few) did indeed exist.

I would like to see the evidence, beyond Gardner and his buddies claims

Many of the holidays you mention are not exactly what most Gardnerians would call Wiccan holidays. For instance, many people in the eclectic paths would call the upcoming sabbat Ostara. We usually call it spring.

I don't know what Gardner called them, but they have become common for wiccans...just because you don't call them that doesn't mean others don't

We do? Huh. I guess no one remembered to tell me.

Again, just because you don't call it that doesn't mean many Gardnerian wiccans don't.

Being of the Wica has little to do with believing in or recognizing an aspect of the "mother" or the "father." In fact, it mostly has to do with honoring a very specific pair of deities in a certain way. As far as being "just as wiccan" if you believe in one thing or another, if you're referring to Gardnerian Wica (which you seem to be) no. To be Wiccan, in that sense, you must be initiated into the Tradition in a certain way by a certain type of person. Doesn't matter if you recognize one aspect, or two, or a hundred.

So, as was pointed out to me, does that mean you can be a christian and not recognize christ, or the virgin mary? Or can you be a christian who believes in Thor and Pan...it is a major part of the religion.

I'm not sure where you've been getting your information about Gardnerianism, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with the actual practice.

I'm going off of years of study, and many books, if you would like me to find my resources on each I will gladly do it, but it could take a while

-Jet
3* Gardnerian HP

I like how you throw in your religious title, I could throw in the several religious titles that I have, but I don't think it would add anything to the debate.

[jetpiston]

I would like to see the evidence, beyond Gardner and his buddies claimsSo look for it. Others have and are convinced.


I don't know what Gardner called them, but they have become common for wiccans...just because you don't call them that doesn't mean others don't ...and... Again, just because you don't call it that doesn't mean many Gardnerian wiccans don't.Well, I do know what Gardner called them. And I know what Gardnerians call them.


So, as was pointed out to me, does that mean you can be a christian and not recognize christ, or the virgin mary? Or can you be a christian who believes in Thor and Pan...it is a major part of the religion.No, but Christianity is not the same as Wicca. Gardnerianism is most often described as being an orthopraxy, and is concerned more with practicing the religion correctly than with whether you believe the horned god is Pan or the Green Man. In reality he is of course neither, but the point is that the practice of the religion makes no doctrinal demands.


I like how you throw in your religious title, I could throw in the several religious titles that I have, but I don't think it would add anything to the debate.Like it or not, I "throw that in" in the interest of full disclosure and to let people know that I am speaking from first hand experience with the subject. It isn't intended to add to the debate so much as to aid in communicating. By all means, throw in any titles, degrees, affiliations and awards you feel necessary.

Rev. Jet Piston, CHB
Third Degree High Priest of the Wica
Assistant Editor
Lead guitar and vocals
Producer
Sound Engineer

[memnoch]

So look for it. Others have and are convinced.

What I've found says otherwise, which is why I asked if you could provide any information on your statement

Well, I do know what Gardner called them. And I know what Gardnerians call them.

I know many Gardnerians who don't call them that, I already stated I don't remember what Gardner called them, but since you obviously do, why don't you enlighten us (it would be nice if there were some sources to back that)

No, but Christianity is not the same as Wicca. Gardnerianism is most often described as being an orthopraxy, and is concerned more with practicing the religion correctly than with whether you believe the horned god is Pan or the Green Man. In reality he is of course neither, but the point is that the practice of the religion makes no doctrinal demands.

How can one practice a religion correctly if they believe in something inconsistent to the religion?

Like it or not, I "throw that in" in the interest of full disclosure and to let people know that I am speaking from first hand experience with the subject. It isn't intended to add to the debate so much as to aid in communicating. By all means, throw in any titles, degrees, affiliations and awards you feel necessary.

Rev. Jet Piston, CHB
Third Degree High Priest of the Wica
Assistant Editor
Lead guitar and vocals
Producer
Sound Engineer

In short, you feel you need to justify your knowledge with a title, I do not, which is why the only time I use titles is for official church business.

[Louisvillian]

The thing is, Gardnerianism isn't the same thing as Wicca as a whole. It is a part of it, the oldest branch within it. But Wicca has grown to be larger and more varied than that.
Just because someone is a Wiccan doesn't mean they have to follow Gardnerian Wicca to the letter; they should do so if they claim to be Gardnerian, sure. But Wicca is more than just that one tradition.

[memnoch]

The thing is, Gardnerianism isn't the same thing as Wicca as a whole. It is a part of it, the oldest branch within it. But Wicca has grown to be larger and more varied than that.
Just because someone is a Wiccan doesn't mean they have to follow Gardnerian Wicca to the letter; they should do so if they claim to be Gardnerian, sure. But Wicca is more than just that one tradition.

But there are certain aspects of the initial religion that have to be adhered to. Again, you wouldn't call someone christian, no matter what branch, if they didn't believe in Jesus or Mary or Christmas or Easter

[Louisvillian]

Oh, of course. I wasn't saying that. I realise that there are core practices.
Even though I'm a solitary, I'm very conventional; so, I do honour those practices. And I think that other Wiccans, solitary or not, should too, because it is those practices that define Wicca.

I'm just saying that following Gardnerianism to the letter isn't necessary for non-Gardnerian Wiccans. Which is why I stated that Wicca today is more than just Gardner's original iteration.

[Lunacie]

Gardner and his coven called the Sabbats Summer and Winter Solstices, the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes and the quarter days or fire festivals were called simply November Eve, February Eve, May Eve and August Eve. (linkie: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm))

I don't know who first began calling the quarter days by Samhain, Inbolc, Beltaine and Lughnasadh, or who first began calling the Solstices and Equinoxes by Yule, Ostara, Mabon and Litha. They were celebrated at the same time and for the same reason, so I don't think it matters a great deal what name they were called by.

Mike Nichols does a very interesting lecture on the Sabbats and how they came by their names - unfortunately it didn't all fit into the time they had allotted for his talk at the event where I heard him speak. But he has done a lot of research into the Sabbats, the reasons for celebrating at those particular times, and where the names came from. You can find his research on each of the 8 Sabbats here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7280/

He also wrote a book about the subject.

[memnoch]

Gardner and his coven called the Sabbats Summer and Winter Solstices, the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes and the quarter days or fire festivals were called simply November Eve, February Eve, May Eve and August Eve. (linkie: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm))

I don't know who first began calling the quarter days by Samhain, Inbolc, Beltaine and Lughnasadh, or who first began calling the Solstices and Equinoxes by Yule, Ostara, Mabon and Litha. They were celebrated at the same time and for the same reason, so I don't think it matters a great deal what name they were called by.

Mike Nichols does a very interesting lecture on the Sabbats and how they came by their names - unfortunately it didn't all fit into the time they had allotted for his talk at the event where I heard him speak. But he has done a lot of research into the Sabbats, the reasons for celebrating at those particular times, and where the names came from. You can find his research on each of the 8 Sabbats here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7280/

He also wrote a book about the subject.










Thank you for the info, I have no problem admitting I am wrong, and this is one of the cases I obviously am.

[Lunacie]

Thank you for the info, I have no problem admitting I am wrong, and this is one of the cases I obviously am.

Not really your fault. There is a lot of misinformation out there and we appreciate the chance to let folks know better.

Some of the people who yell the loudest about the misinformation aren't willing share the history in order to share the correct information. Those people actually irritate me more than the people who buy into the trash from authors who took one Wicca 101 class and are suddenly experts.

[Nox_Mortus]

Some of the people who yell the loudest about the misinformation aren't willing share the history in order to share the correct information. Those people actually irritate me more than the people who buy into the trash from authors who took one Wicca 101 class and are suddenly experts.

As irritating as it may be, most of them have good reasons.

[Louisvillian]

As irritating as it may be, most of them have good reasons.
Not really. Just because they think they have a good reason to withhold information pertinent to a discussion doesn't mean they actually do. Especially if it's information that would clarify a point of confusion.

[Nox_Mortus]

Not really. Just because they think they have a good reason to withhold information pertinent to a discussion doesn't mean they actually do. Especially if it's information that would clarify a point of confusion.

Most people would consider a sacred oath a good enough reason.

The real problem is that what is actually covered by that is debatable and varies from person to person.

[Louisvillian]

Most people would consider a sacred oath a good enough reason.
I don't.
It's a personal thing; I just don't like the concept of an oath to secrecy. It comes across as pretentious, to me.


The real problem is that what is actually covered by that is debatable and varies from person to person.
Now, that's actually a good reason to be wary about it.
But, even so, their opinion would be valued and appreciated.

[Nox_Mortus]

I don't.
It's a personal thing; I just don't like the concept of an oath to secrecy. It comes across as pretentious, to me.



Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not a good reason. If you don't like the concept then don't swear yourself to secrecy, but you can't rightfully criticize others for following their religion, especially if you claim the same religion.

[Louisvillian]

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not a good reason.
You significantly underestimate my egomania.


If you don't like the concept then don't swear yourself to secrecy, but you can't rightfully criticize others for following their religion, especially if you claim the same religion.
Good point. I do apologise if I seemed overly-critical.
I just meant that, entirely as a personal opinion, I think it comes across to me as saying "you're not good enough to hear my opinion". And I don't like that.

[Nox_Mortus]

Good point. I do apologise if I seemed overly-critical.
I just meant that, entirely as a personal opinion, I think it comes across to me as saying "you're not good enough to hear my opinion". And I don't like that.

It's not that people aren't good enough, it's that we swear to follow the rules, which at this point are somewhat arbitrary since most of the stuff that's frequently discussed has been leaked by someone at some point and can e found on the internet (although you could easilly argue that the two main people that leaked the most stuff both have an agenda and could be leaking bad info)

[Louisvillian]

although you could easilly argue that the two main people that leaked the most stuff both have an agenda and could be leaking bad info
That seems overly paranoid, though.
And this is coming from the paranoid guy™. :toofless:

[jetpiston]

In short, you feel you need to justify your knowledge with a title, I do not, which is why the only time I use titles is for official church business.You didn't even read my reply, did you?

[Lunacie]

As irritating as it may be, most of them have good reasons.


Most people would consider a sacred oath a good enough reason.

The real problem is that what is actually covered by that is debatable and varies from person to person.

Well, from my perspective, those people know when they smugly inform others that they are sooo very wrong that they won't be able to explain WHY they're wrong because of those oaths, so why say anything in the first place? :whatgives

In my opinion, the reason is simple... they're saying "Look how stupid or naive you are, and look how smart and sophisticated I am." When all they're doing is looking at their own reflection in the water and not engaging in a face-to-face conversation at all.

The only oaths I was sworn to uphold in my training was never to reveal what happened in the initiation ceremonies, and to honor my committment to the others in the group. It never made any sense to me to swear to keep secret things that Gardner himself made public. As far as personal gnosis, which is the basis for personal growth and the focus of the religion, it's personal gnosis and it's up to me (and only me) whether I choose to reveal any of that.

[Nox_Mortus]

That seems overly paranoid, though.
And this is coming from the paranoid guy™. :toofless:

well, one of the people definitely has an agenda.


Well, from my perspective, those people know when they smugly inform others that they are sooo very wrong that they won't be able to explain WHY they're wrong because of those oaths, so why say anything in the first place? :whatgives

In my opinion, the reason is simple... they're saying "Look how stupid or naive you are, and look how smart and sophisticated I am." When all they're doing is looking at their own reflection in the water and not engaging in a face-to-face conversation at all.



Oh I agree with you there, some people are just really elitist and rude about it, and that sucks.

[Lunacie]

>>

Oh I agree with you there, some people are just really elitist and rude about it, and that sucks.


Yeah... that's what I was saying. :huh:

[Nox_Mortus]

Yeah... that's what I was saying. :huh:
Yep, hence the "i Agree with you" but they still do have a reason to not talk about it.

[Lunacie]

Yep, hence the "i Agree with you" but they still do have a reason to not talk about it.

(still confuzzled)

I wasn't saying that they don't have a reason not to talk about certain things - that reason being the oaths they have sworn. I was saying that I think it's ridiculous to complain about what they see as misinformation if they're not willing to share the correct information.

I rather suspect that some of the oaths have no valid reason other than one person on an ego trip said "Hey, I'm going to tell you a secret but you have to keep the secret because it makes both of us speshul." Since I haven't been asked to swear any of those oaths, it's just a suspicion I have.

[Nox_Mortus]

ok yeah I must've misunderstood something at some point in the coversation, yeah I pretty much completely agree with you. Although I think there's more to the oaths than that I can understand why you would feel that way.

[Lunacie]

ok yeah I must've misunderstood something at some point in the coversation, yeah I pretty much completely agree with you. Although I think there's more to the oaths than that I can understand why you would feel that way.

Aha, finally on the same page. It feels good when that happens. :smile:

[cydira]

This all started with a rant about what is Wiccan... You can't compare it to older religions and say it's got sub secs.. It has branches but they follow a tradition has well.

Would you be so kind as to clarify this? Because you seem to be contradicting yourself here and you've rather confused me. Thanks! :)



Wicca was founded in the 1960's. so it has a CLEAR DEFINITION. A witch must have a linage back to Gerald Gardner. Now should they be practicing the same has he did not at all.. thats what the branches are for.. But the basic of it is that the person that taught you can track who taught them all the way back to Gerald.. It's that easy...

You can take the aspect of wicca yeah. Theres goddess knows how many books these days but that doesn't make you wiccan.. it makes you a witch.. such has the Dianic vs Dianic Wiccan comments I read about.

My point with this quote is Wicca can't be compared to anything like christanity becuase it is to new. it has specific branches.

I would contend that the comparison is still possible and that it's not something that is on the basis of age. I would argue that the development of different sects of Wicca can be up held as accurate because of the fact that while there are different elements to each sect there are core unifying traits.

Furthermore, I don't think that Wicca can be argued to strictly be the sect as founded by Gerald Gardner anymore. It is safe to say that the things which define Wicca as a religion (core beliefs, theology, world view, etc.) has moved well beyond the sect founded by Gerald Gardner.

To argue that sect is the only form of genuine Wicca out there is like saying that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. While it may be a statement of belief for a given sect (or person) it is patently false because the hallmarks that allow one to identify the ideological make up of the belief system can be located elsewhere and the core structure is not altered in many of those cases.

[Nox_Mortus]

Furthermore, I don't think that Wicca can be argued to strictly be the sect as founded by Gerald Gardner anymore. It is safe to say that the things which define Wicca as a religion (core beliefs, theology, world view, etc.) has moved well beyond the sect founded by Gerald Gardner.

To argue that sect is the only form of genuine Wicca out there is like saying that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. While it may be a statement of belief for a given sect (or person) it is patently false because the hallmarks that allow one to identify the ideological make up of the belief system can be located elsewhere and the core structure is not altered in many of those cases.

The problem here is that a lot of the offshoots (at least the ones that people tend to complain about) really don't have enough in common with Wicca to be considered part of the religion, a good comparison would be what I will call mainstream Christianity (which includes most Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sects) and Mormonism (or the Children of God or various other radical offshoots) they have some mostly superficial simmilarities, but you can't really classify them as being the same thing.

[ffetcher]

cydira said:


Furthermore, I don't think that Wicca can be argued to strictly be the sect as founded by Gerald Gardner anymore. It is safe to say that the things which define Wicca as a religion (core beliefs, theology, world view, etc.) has moved well beyond the sect founded by Gerald Gardner.

To argue that sect is the only form of genuine Wicca out there is like saying that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. While it may be a statement of belief for a given sect (or person) it is patently false because the hallmarks that allow one to identify the ideological make up of the belief system can be located elsewhere and the core structure is not altered in many of those cases.and Nox_Mortus replied


The problem here is that a lot of the offshoots (at least the ones that people tend to complain about) really don't have enough in common with Wicca to be considered part of the religion, a good comparison would be what I will call mainstream Christianity (which includes most Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sects) and Mormonism (or the Children of God or various other radical offshoots) they have some mostly superficial simmilarities, but you can't really classify them as being the same thingGardner's own published material changed between 1949 and 1961 but as far as I'm aware he never said that the previous stuff wasn't Wicca. He just saw it as evolving (and, if the current theories about the New Forest Coven coming out of the Crotona Fellowship, then his published material was quite different from the original workings of the group into which he was initiated, and he called that 'Wica' (with one 'c') as well.

The original post, all those pages ago, said "It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

Well... (and before we go further I'm discussing the published material) in the 1949 version, which is skeletal but a full system, the names of the God and Goddess are used in the consecrations, so two, yes. But the charge (which he calls 'Lift up the Veil') refers to the Great Mother and the Star Goddess. So the God is named alongisde the Goddess five times, but the Great Morther gets nine names all to herself, and 191 words, the Star Goddess gets 165 words, so equal? Not by my definition.

I do agree that some branches that call themselves "Wiccan" are pretty far away from the brand I originally learned, but before saying that something isn't 'Wicca' it's worth taking a look at what it was originally.

blessings
ffetcher

[Nox_Mortus]

Gardner's own published material changed between 1949 and 1961 but as far as I'm aware he never said that the previous stuff wasn't Wicca. He just saw it as evolving (and, if the current theories about the New Forest Coven coming out of the Crotona Fellowship, then his published material was quite different from the original workings of the group into which he was initiated, and he called that 'Wica' (with one 'c') as well.

The original post, all those pages ago, said "It is core belief in Wicca, from it's conception, that there are two deities, male and female. God and Goddess. Equal."

Well... (and before we go further I'm discussing the published material) in the 1949 version, which is skeletal but a full system, the names of the God and Goddess are used in the consecrations, so two, yes. But the charge (which he calls 'Lift up the Veil') refers to the Great Mother and the Star Goddess. So the God is named alongisde the Goddess five times, but the Great Morther gets nine names all to herself, and 191 words, the Star Goddess gets 165 words, so equal? Not by my definition.

I do agree that some branches that call themselves "Wiccan" are pretty far away from the brand I originally learned, but before saying that something isn't 'Wicca' it's worth taking a look at what it was originally.

blessings
ffetcher

I agree that it has definitely evolved even during Gardner's lifetime, and I have no problem accepting other traditions that have evolved since, but still only to a point, you have to draw a line or else calling anything Wicca becomes meaningless.

[ffetcher]

I agree that it has definitely evolved even during Gardner's lifetime, and I have no problem accepting other traditions that have evolved since, but still only to a point, you have to draw a line or else calling anything Wicca becomes meaningless.

Right, I'm quite happy with that. What was worrying me, as I re-read the thread from the start, was that some people appeared to be drawing the line at a point where Gardner's original publication wouldn't count as 'Wicca'.

Personally, although it's not what I originally learned, I'm happy to include a system that recognises both a Goddess and a God, but actually worships the Goddess only. To what extent Gardner drew on Leland's Aradia before Valiente came on the scene is moot, but the original published concept reads to me pretty much as 'the Goddess and Her consort', with said consort being a God.

I would exclude any system that recognised only a Goddess or only a God from the definition 'Wicca'. I have no problems with such systems, they just don't seem to me to be related to the concept Gardner published.

blessings
ffetcher

[Lunacie]

Right, I'm quite happy with that. What was worrying me, as I re-read the thread from the start, was that some people appeared to be drawing the line at a point where Gardner's original publication wouldn't count as 'Wicca'.

Personally, although it's not what I originally learned, I'm happy to include a system that recognises both a Goddess and a God, but actually worships the Goddess only. To what extent Gardner drew on Leland's Aradia before Valiente came on the scene is moot, but the original published concept reads to me pretty much as 'the Goddess and Her consort', with said consort being a God.

I would exclude any system that recognised only a Goddess or only a God from the definition 'Wicca'. I have no problems with such systems, they just don't seem to me to be related to the concept Gardner published.

blessings
ffetcher

That was basically what Dumunzi wrote in his first post, and many have agreed.

[David19]

Gardner claimed that he got it from the New Forest coven, however the existence of said coven is questionable at best. When you look at the aspects of wicca, it is quite obvious that this is a mix of other religions, worshiping a god that is awful similar to Pan, and that has no proven historical following in England. The triple goddess was stolen from Robert Graves in a book he titled "Work of Poetic Imagination", which was based off of a series of goddesses from several different religions.

Then there are the holidays, Yule was a Germanic holiday, Samhein, lughnasadh, and Imbolc are Irish, Ostara was a German goddess who died out 1600 years ago, Beltaine comes from the word for the Irish month of May, their holiday was latha Bealltainn, Litha came from Bede's De temporum ratione, and Mabon wasn't even coined until the 1970's by Aidan Kelly.

So, in short you have a Greek god, a stolen goddess from a book which mentions it as a representation of several goddesses, German, Irish, Welsh, and made up holiday names. All coming from a man who claimed he was initiated into a coven that there is no proof of. But then again, I guess it is hard to believe that people who criticize a religion would understand it better than those who follow it.


My opinion on it doesn't matter more than my opinion on any religion, and I don't hold anything against those who do practice whatever religion they like (my wife and my 2 best friends are wiccan, I don't hold it against them). But I have an issue when people try to pretend their religion is something more than it is. To me the separation here is similar to a christian denying that they come from the same religious history as a muslim.

I agree with you, in part anyway, I'd say Gardner did mix in a lot of things to create his religion, he may have met a group of New Forest Witches, though (personally, I think that, if the New Forest Coven did exist, it would be not like Wicca at all, considering Gardner said he had to bring in other elements to fill in the gaps, who knows how many gaps he had to fill in?). Personally, I do think there are some core values to Wicca, though, like the worship of 2 specific Gods, a worldview, etc, there are some things that you can't just chance, you can say you're Wiccan-influenced, if you don't want to become a full Wiccan, but, just like you can't put a green-skinned, 3 eyed Goddess statue on an altar along with a Cross, and the Koran, and call yourself Catholic or Buddhist, there are some core values you have to prescribe too, IMO, to call yourself Wiccan.

[Twinkle]

Well, from my perspective, those people know when they smugly inform others that they are sooo very wrong that they won't be able to explain WHY they're wrong because of those oaths, so why say anything in the first place? :whatgives

In my opinion, the reason is simple... they're saying "Look how stupid or naive you are, and look how smart and sophisticated I am." When all they're doing is looking at their own reflection in the water and not engaging in a face-to-face conversation at all.

The only oaths I was sworn to uphold in my training was never to reveal what happened in the initiation ceremonies, and to honor my committment to the others in the group. It never made any sense to me to swear to keep secret things that Gardner himself made public. As far as personal gnosis, which is the basis for personal growth and the focus of the religion, it's personal gnosis and it's up to me (and only me) whether I choose to reveal any of that.


I don't see it that way.

The truth of it is, the Gardnerian Wiccans are a Traditional, Mystery, Oathbound Tradition. Those that are not initiated are not Traditional Wiccans, and therefore *cannot* get the information from the oathbound.

It's not smug or anything else - but there are specific Deities within this Tradition, there *are* core tenets - that are also oathbound, and as I understand it - some of the rituals as well.

This doesn't mean they are superior, it means they are different.

When they can speak about Gardnerian Wicca - they do so. They list their title so that it can be understood that they are working within this specific Tradition, and are also oathbound. In this case people spoke up to clear up some obvious misinformation in this thread regarding Gardenerian Wicca. I find it interesting that people spoke up at all. It's very rare to find a Traditional Wiccan speaking about their religion so publicly. It's nice to see it. :)

No one is less. It is just different.

[Lunacie]

I don't see it that way.

The truth of it is, the Gardnerian Wiccans are a Traditional, Mystery, Oathbound Tradition. Those that are not initiated are not Traditional Wiccans, and therefore *cannot* get the information from the oathbound.

It's not smug or anything else - but there are specific Deities within this Tradition, there *are* core tenets - that are also oathbound, and as I understand it - some of the rituals as well.

This doesn't mean they are superior, it means they are different.

When they can speak about Gardnerian Wicca - they do so. They list their title so that it can be understood that they are working within this specific Tradition, and are also oathbound. In this case people spoke up to clear up some obvious misinformation in this thread regarding Gardenerian Wicca. I find it interesting that people spoke up at all. It's very rare to find a Traditional Wiccan speaking about their religion so publicly. It's nice to see it. :)

No one is less. It is just different.

Uh nope. Those who are not initiated by lineaged Gardnerian Wiccans cannot claim the title of "Gardnerian Wicca." There are many other, perfectly valid, Traditions within the Wiccan religion and people can certainly claim to be a Traditional Wiccan that is not Gardnerian.

It would be wrong for me to claim I belong to a Wiccan Tradition that I do not practice. Even though I was trained and initiated into a specific Wiccan Tradition, I do not practice that Tradition. I have always followed a more Eclectic version of Wicca, therefore I say that I am an Eclectic Wiccan, which implies that I do not necessarily hold the same values or follow the same practices as some other Tradition such as Gardnerian.

Gardner certainly gave his blessing to some of those who went on to found other Wiccan Traditions, such as Alex Sanders and Raymond Buckland. Gardner said himself that he only held one piece of the puzzle of Witchcraft, and he had no trouble with the idea that other pieces of the puzzle were still part of the same puzzle.

Because Wicca is an experienced religion rather than a revealed religion - revealing your own personal experiences doesn't usually help someone else to have their own personal experience. There's no need to be smug about that.

[Twinkle]

Hmm....

I don't know - if one is initiated into a specific Tradition then you would be oathbound. To reveal specific Deities of your Tradition would make one an oathbreaker(and I'm talking about BTW, here) you are oathbound still - even if you leave it. There are some serious consequences for that, if I understand correctly.

So no, it's an Initiatory Mystery Religion - unless of course, you are practicing a form of Wicca that is based on Eclectic practice, publicly available information, and/or solitary practice.

Then again, you would necessarily be considered Wiccan by those that are initiated - like the Gardnerian Wiccans or the Alexandrians.

That could be interpreted as smug, I know - but it's not. It's just a different path. I like to call it the big W (icca), and the little w (icca). It differentiates the two.

Others call it Neo-Wicca to designate it from BTW.

Still doesn't make it smug - just different.

[cesara]

So no, it's an Initiatory Mystery Religion - unless of course, you are practicing a form of Wicca that is based on Eclectic practice, publicly available information, and/or solitary practice.

Errm....the core of Gardnerian Wicca is traditional AND eclectic. So you would most likely call them a Traditional Eclectic Initiatory Mystery Religion.

How's that for a mouthful. ;)

[Lunacie]

Hmm....

I don't know - if one is initiated into a specific Tradition then you would be oathbound. To reveal specific Deities of your Tradition would make one an oathbreaker(and I'm talking about BTW, here) you are oathbound still - even if you leave it. There are some serious consequences for that, if I understand correctly.

So no, it's an Initiatory Mystery Religion - unless of course, you are practicing a form of Wicca that is based on Eclectic practice, publicly available information, and/or solitary practice.

Then again, you would necessarily be considered Wiccan by those that are initiated - like the Gardnerian Wiccans or the Alexandrians.

That could be interpreted as smug, I know - but it's not. It's just a different path. I like to call it the big W (icca), and the little w (icca). It differentiates the two.

Others call it Neo-Wicca to designate it from BTW.

Still doesn't make it smug - just different.

Certain forms of Wicca are Initiatory only, but Wicca seems to have grown beyond that. It is possible for someone to experience the Mysteries on their own, through personal revelation from the dieties. I don't feel any need to distinguish between the two myself.

In the group I currently lead, I leave it up to the student. If they want to be initiated, I have the proper experience to do that. If they want to be part of the group but don't feel the need for that group validation, that's not going to keep me from accepting them as full-on group members. It's an Eclectic Wiccan group. Not a "Neo-Wiccan" group. BTW members can call it whatever they like of course. Depending on how they do that, I may or may not call them Smug.



Errm....the core of Gardnerian Wicca is traditional AND eclectic. So you would most likely call them a Traditional Eclectic Initiatory Mystery Religion.

How's that for a mouthful. ;)

:alol:

[David19]

Gardner certainly gave his blessing to some of those who went on to found other Wiccan Traditions, such as Alex Sanders and Raymond Buckland. Gardner said himself that he only held one piece of the puzzle of Witchcraft, and he had no trouble with the idea that other pieces of the puzzle were still part of the same puzzle.

I don't know too much about Wicca's history, but, I remember reading that, while Buckland may be a Traditional Wiccan (or started out like that anyway), when he first came to the U.S., he did things in the Traditional way, but, then, after awhile, got tired of the constant wanna-bes knocking on his door, so, he decided to create the Self-Initiation books, and all his other stuff that isn't Traditional Wicca. I just wanted to throw that in there, 'cause, Gardner may not have endorsed what Buckland later did.

[Louisvillian]

Certain forms of Wicca are Initiatory only, but Wicca seems to have grown beyond that.
I think this is a very good point to make. Wicca may have been entirely initiatory, say, 40 years ago. And, obviously, some traditions in it still are purely initiatory; and that's their prerogative.
But Wicca has grown and changed significantly since the 50's and 60's. Reconstructing the barrier of strict traditionalism that existed 50 years ago or so would be like trying to close the gates after the horses are already halfway down the track.

[Lunacie]

I don't know too much about Wicca's history, but, I remember reading that, while Buckland may be a Traditional Wiccan (or started out like that anyway), when he first came to the U.S., he did things in the Traditional way, but, then, after awhile, got tired of the constant wanna-bes knocking on his door, so, he decided to create the Self-Initiation books, and all his other stuff that isn't Traditional Wicca. I just wanted to throw that in there, 'cause, Gardner may not have endorsed what Buckland later did.

Buckland was not the first to endorse self-initiation, that would most likely be Doreen Valiente. It may be possible that Gardner himself would not have endorsed self-initiation, but I haven't read anything that indicates that he denounced it either.

Perhaps Ben will have more information on this issue?

[David19]

Buckland was not the first to endorse self-initiation, that would most likely be Doreen Valiente. It may be possible that Gardner himself would not have endorsed self-initiation, but I haven't read anything that indicates that he denounced it either.

Perhaps Ben will have more information on this issue?

I didn't know about Valiente, I always thought she was more traditional, although she did accept other traditions (like Dianic, etc).

[Lunacie]

I didn't know about Valiente, I always thought she was more traditional, although she did accept other traditions (like Dianic, etc).

I can never find anything I can remember reading - but these are a place to start...

http://www.neowayland.com/C65989237/E20051227174758/index.html
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=ukgb2&c=words&id=12722

Then Google "Doreen Valiente + self initiation" for more on the subject.

.