Babylonian wicca?

[ninurta2008]

Is their a sect of wicca that fits in the babylonian religion? I was a babylonian recon for a while, and for a while I have been and am now a babylonian pagan (in general), and a worshipper of Ishtar, Ea and a bunch of other gods. Ishtar and Ea being my personal deities.

I am interested if the sect of wicca, is not pantheist.

[David19]

I did a quick Google search, but, couldn't find anything, but, I don't see why you couldn't create a form of Babylonian Wicca, I mean, you worship Inanna/Ishtar already, and her Consort is Dumuzi/Tammuz, a Dying-and-Rising God, so, that seems like it might be a good fit. Hopefully, others will be able to help a lot more, but, I don't see any problems in creating a tradition of Babylonian Wicca :).

[Burning Angel]

I'd agree with David - just make your own :) That said, I've never heard of such a thing pre-existing, but it's gotta be out there somewhere :P

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

I don't think there are any specific traditions or covens based on the idea. But there's no reason you can't integrate Babylonian deities into a personal, solitary Wiccan practice. As Dave said, there are certain deities that fit well into the archetypal roles Wiccan liturgy sets out for the god and goddess figures.

And there's nothing wrong with practising Wicca solitarily with a personal spin on it. Especially if you'd like to use a certain cultural context when no established tradition exists for it.

[ninurta2008]

I did a quick Google search, but, couldn't find anything, but, I don't see why you couldn't create a form of Babylonian Wicca, I mean, you worship Inanna/Ishtar already, and her Consort is Dumuzi/Tammuz, a Dying-and-Rising God, so, that seems like it might be a good fit. Hopefully, others will be able to help a lot more, but, I don't see any problems in creating a tradition of Babylonian Wicca :).

I don't want to make a religion, it sounds funny to do. But maybe I should make it, but I am not so sure a goddess who is also a warrior goddess will fit in well with wicca. Will she? Maybe the "do what you will" part seeing that she is kinda a goddess of liberation.

But then again sycretizing babylonian and wiccan beliefs wouldn't be that bad since babylonian religion, at least in the iron age form I follow, is a syncretic religion already. The ancient babylonians were bigger syncretics than the greeks, accounting for over half the pantheon coming from other religions like the Sumerians, I think their Elamite rivals, the Assyrians (who used to share a religion until it became syncretic), canaanites and others.

I will think about it, but what would you call it, maybe Purattu wicca (after the Euphrates river).

[Lunacie]

I don't want to make a religion, it sounds funny to do. But maybe I should make it, but I am not so sure a goddess who is also a warrior goddess will fit in well with wicca. Will she? Maybe the "do what you will" part seeing that she is kinda a goddess of liberation.

But then again sycretizing babylonian and wiccan beliefs wouldn't be that bad since babylonian religion, at least in the iron age form I follow, is a syncretic religion already. The ancient babylonians were bigger syncretics than the greeks, accounting for over half the pantheon coming from other religions like the Sumerians, I think their Elamite rivals, the Assyrians (who used to share a religion until it became syncretic), canaanites and others.

I will think about it, but what would you call it, maybe Purattu wicca (after the Euphrates river).

Have you read "The Charge of the Goddess"? It begins thus:



Now listen to the words of the Great Mother, who was of old also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Dana, Arianhod, Isis, Bride, and by many other names.
. . . For I am the soul of nature . . .


Many Wiccans believe this means that we are free to worship any Goddess as a part of the Divine Wholeness. Nature has hunters and prey, attackers and defenders, all part of the Divine Wholeness.

Gardner's coven often called upon Aradia who was also a goddess of liberation, sent to teach magic to those who were slaves or oppressed in some way.

I don't know whether you can make Babylonian beliefs mesh with Wiccan beliefs, but I don't see any harm in trying to make it so.

[Twinkle]

See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.


Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.

[ninurta2008]

I don't know whether you can make Babylonian beliefs mesh with Wiccan beliefs, but I don't see any harm in trying to make it so.
I know little about wicca, but from the way wicca is soft polytheist like that, it won't work. Nvm, I will just stick to my beliefs as they are.


See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.
I am not so sure I get what you are saying about insulting to wiccans, but I don't know much about wicca. That is why I am asking, to see if they can fit in. I realize now it don't, the idea that "it either works or it don't" would get me no where. Seeing that I looked everywhere, it leaves me with little left over options.


As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.
Been there already. I went from a babylonian recon to a general babylonian pagan. Not that the babylonians didn't syncretize their religions with others.


If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.

Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.
Why not what I called it? Purattu wicca. Besides, I was asking if there was a branch of wicca, which was the OP question, or if it would fit in.

Besides citing history and whether the culture would like it, there are other reasons that it wouldn't fit in.

[Lunacie]

See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.


Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.

I guess "trying it to see if it fits" would have been a better way of expressing what I was trying to say. I've never tried it so I don't know if it would fit or not. I certainly don't advocate mixing two things that don't fit (i.e. a square peg in a round hole).

[Lunacie]

I know little about wicca, but from the way wicca is soft polytheist like that, it won't work. Nvm, I will just stick to my beliefs as they are.


I am not so sure I get what you are saying about insulting to wiccans, but I don't know much about wicca. That is why I am asking, to see if they can fit in. I realize now it don't, the idea that "it either works or it don't" would get me no where. Seeing that I looked everywhere, it leaves me with little left over options.


Been there already. I went from a babylonian recon to a general babylonian pagan. Not that the babylonians didn't syncretize their religions with others.


Why not what I called it? Purattu wicca. Besides, I was asking if there was a branch of wicca, which was the OP question, or if it would fit in.

Besides citing history and whether the culture would like it, there are other reasons that it wouldn't fit in.

I didn't realize you know so little about Wicca. Perhaps you should begin by learning the basics of Wicca before trying to blend it with something you already know about?

You won't know whether it works or not until you give it a try, since it doesn't seem anyone else has tried it. Or may have tried it with poor results and didn't put that information out there somewhere for other questors to find. Don't ever take the word of just one person for whether something will work or not. Just because it doesn't work for that person is no indication of whether or not it may work out for you or someone else.

I agree with Twinkle (I think) that none of these blended-Wiccan paths are the same as the original tradition of Wicca, but there have been many blends that use the name Wicca and some that take a different name but clearly have some Wiccan influence. Religions have been blending and borrowing for as long as there have been religions. What becomes important, in my opinion, is not claiming that it is an unbroken lineaged tradition that is identical to the original, whatever that may have been.

[Invidosa]

See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.


Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.

*disclaimer* I'm not wiccan, I know it's not for me (waaaay too constrained) I guess i dont' have a name for what I practice, but generally I just call myself a "Daughter of Ishtar"

I understand your concern, however, I think saying something like this is a bit narrow. Just as there are many many interpretations of Christianity, can there not be many many interpretations of Wicca?

I see nothing wrong with looking to see what you can mesh from different sysems of belief, it's kind of the essence of eclectisim. If you try something and find it does not work, or it clashes, then you can discard it.

Whats left is this "war of words" and trying to define a faith, which as we all know very well is rather difficult.



I didn't realize you know so little about Wicca. Perhaps you should begin by learning the basics of Wicca before trying to blend it with something you already know about?

You won't know whether it works or not until you give it a try, since it doesn't seem anyone else has tried it. Or may have tried it with poor results and didn't put that information out there somewhere for other questors to find. Don't ever take the word of just one person for whether something will work or not. Just because it doesn't work for that person is no indication of whether or not it may work out for you or someone else.

I agree with Twinkle (I think) that none of these blended-Wiccan paths are the same as the original tradition of Wicca, but there have been many blends that use the name Wicca and some that take a different name but clearly have some Wiccan influence. Religions have been blending and borrowing for as long as there have been religions. What becomes important, in my opinion, is not claiming that it is an unbroken lineaged tradition that is identical to the original, whatever that may have been.

I could not agree more with the bolded statement! if you are going eclectic, say it lound and say it proud!! and don't become one of those people who feels a need to justify their beliefs by making up a history that is . . . tenuous at best! :D

[Lunacie]

*disclaimer* I'm not wiccan, I know it's not for me (waaaay too constrained) I guess i dont' have a name for what I practice, but generally I just call myself a "Daughter of Ishtar"

"Daughter of Ishtar"... I like that. I sometimes call myself a Daughter of Aradia who practices Wicca. ;)




I could not agree more with the bolded statement! if you are going eclectic, say it lound and say it proud!! and don't become one of those people who feels a need to justify their beliefs by making up a history that is . . . tenuous at best! :D

Actually :giggle: I forgot to put /irony at the end of the statement that you bolded. I have very serious doubts that there are any religions at this point that "come down through an unbroken lineage" and "are identical to the original."

We do the best we can and the Gods know that we are only human, working with flawed histories and much blending, and it's up to them (not to our fellow posters or fellow Wiccans) whether that's what they accept or not.

[Twinkle]

Syncretization doesn't mean pulling religions with completely different cosmologies and forcing them into something else.

Syncretization does not mean Eclecticism.

[Invidosa]

"Daughter of Ishtar"... I like that. I sometimes call myself a Daughter of Aradia who practices Wicca. ;)




Actually :giggle: I forgot to put /irony at the end of the statement that you bolded. I have very serious doubts that there are any religions at this point that "come down through an unbroken lineage" and "are identical to the original."

We do the best we can and the Gods know that we are only human, working with flawed histories and much blending, and it's up to them (not to our fellow posters or fellow Wiccans) whether that's what they accept or not.

thanks! :thumbsup: I guess I just feel like it's the best way to describe me.

and again, i totally agree with you here. that’s why it's call re-construction! With some very few examples, we have no instruction books for worship, so we do the best we can, as I believe we have for thousands of years.

One of the ultimate beautiful things about walking a Pagan path is you are taking control of your spirituality into your own hands, and basically negating all the potential middle men that so much of organized religion wants to force upon you. The determination of what is and is not correct (for those of us who do not belong to any organized church structure) is solely determined between yourself and the Gods and Goddesses to whom you owe your allegiance (and for the record, consider me a fairly hard-line polytheist)

You become your own conduit to the divine.

[Invidosa]

Syncretization doesn't mean pulling religions with completely different cosmologies and forcing them into something else.

Syncretization does not mean Eclecticism.

Yeah, I dig that.

I used that word because in my opinion (for what thats worth to anyone!) if one were to work to combine ideas from Babylonian faith and Wicca, It would be more eclecticism and les syncretization.

[Darth Brooks]

See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

If that were automatically the case, then Voudon would be an insult to both Roman Catholicism and African paganism. It only becomes insulting when false lineages are used to give the appearance of a new eclectic tradition being older than it really is, or when sweeping overgeneralizations are made about particular labels for the same purpose. If an individual Wiccan chooses to incorporate Babylonian elements into their version of Wicca, if they go out of their way to clarify that they do not speak for Wicca in general and that their way is not historically accurate, and if other Wiccans nevertheless feel "insulted" by it, then it's the other Wiccans' problem, not the individual's.


As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.

Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.Does this mean that those who practice "Celtic Wicca" should really be calling themselves "Wiccans who use Celtic Deities?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Wicca

[Twinkle]

If that were automatically the case, then Voudon would be an insult to both Roman Catholicism and African paganism. It only becomes insulting when false lineages are used to give the appearance of a new eclectic tradition being older than it really is, or when sweeping overgeneralizations are made about particular labels for the same purpose. If an individual Wiccan chooses to incorporate Babylonian elements into their version of Wicca, if they go out of their way to clarify that they do not speak for Wicca in general and that their way is not historically accurate, and if other Wiccans nevertheless feel "insulted" by it, then it's the other Wiccans' problem, not the individual's.

Does this mean that those who practice "Celtic Wicca" should really be calling themselves "Wiccans who use Celtic Deities?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Wicca


Actually, Voudon is an insult to Catholics, it's a complete manipulation of their beliefs. And yes, adherents to specific Traditions can and *should* be upset to see someone making a mockery not only of their Tradition, but their Deity.

If tolerance is what is being called for, then someone doing something with the Babylonian Deities and Wicca should be able to tolerate people thinking the idea of combining the two is repugnant, impious, and offensive.

No one is saying they can't practice - but labels have meaning and if you're going to be calling something a specific label, then you (the general you) had better damn well be able to defend it.

In response to your Celtic Wicca question- ask a CR what they think.

[Darth Brooks]

Syncretization doesn't mean pulling religions with completely different cosmologies and forcing them into something else.

In the case of certain religions, it certainly does.


syn·cre·tism (sĭng'krĭ-tĭz'əm, sĭn'-) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.


Syncretization does not mean Eclecticism.

No, not exactly.


ec⋅lec⋅tic

 <a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E00/E0028000&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; /></a> /ɪˈklɛkhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtɪk/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-klek-tik] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA –adjective

1. selecting or choosing from various sources.
2. made up of what is selected from different sources.
3. not following any one system, as of philosophy, medicine, etc., but selecting and using what are considered the best elements of all systems.
Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles: an eclectic taste in music; an eclectic approach to managing the economy.Eclecticism is just taking bits and pieces of different things and putting them together. Syncretism is trying to actually fuse two or more entire ideologies together. But despite this distinction, your original statement:


Syncretization doesn't mean pulling religions with completely different cosmologies and forcing them into something else.

Is still incorrect.

[Darth Brooks]

Actually, Voudon is an insult to Catholics, it's a complete manipulation of their beliefs.

And that's their problem.


And yes, adherents to specific Traditions can and *should* be upset to see someone making a mockery not only of their Tradition, but their Deity.Agreed that they can. Disagreed that they should.


If tolerance is what is being called for, then someone doing something with the Babylonian Deities and Wicca should be able to tolerate people thinking the idea of combining the two is repugnant, impious, and offensive.Agreed - but disagreed that people on one side or the other have any right to tell the other what to do.


No one is saying they can't practice - but labels have meaning and if you're going to be calling something a specific label, then you (the general you) had better damn well be able to defend it.Easier done than said, provided that the right amount of intellectual honesty is employed.


In response to your Celtic Wicca question- ask a CR what they think.Oh I already know good and well what a CR would think, thank you - I was more interested in what you think. The problem is that while CR's definitely have a right to their opinion of the matter, neither they nor anyone else needs to get all bent out of shape about it. Or at least, not when the eclectic in question is intellectually honest about the way in which they present themselves. If the intellectual honesty isn't there, then I can understand getting bent out of shape. Judging from the article I linked, it appears that some Celtic Wiccans are intellectually honest about the fact that their take on Celtic paganism and Wicca is not historically accurate. Provided that a "Babylonian Wiccan" takes the same approach, I fail to see a problem. (On their end, at least.)

[Lunacie]

Actually, Voudon is an insult to Catholics, it's a complete manipulation of their beliefs. And yes, adherents to specific Traditions can and *should* be upset to see someone making a mockery not only of their Tradition, but their Deity.

Like Darth Brooks, I'm also of the opinion that they can be upset about someone mixing "their" religion with another religion - and I also disagree that they should be upset about it. I don't "should" on other people, I believe they are free to form their own opinions.

Mixing or blending religions or traditions can be, and sometimes is, a mockery or disrespectful, but it's not automatically so.



If tolerance is what is being called for, then someone doing something with the Babylonian Deities and Wicca should be able to tolerate people thinking the idea of combining the two is repugnant, impious, and offensive.

Of course you have the right to think that mixing these two religions is repugnant, impious, and offensive. I have the right to think that's pretty silly reaction.



No one is saying they can't practice - but labels have meaning and if you're going to be calling something a specific label, then you (the general you) had better damn well be able to defend it.

Or else . . . what?

Are you going to start a flame war because someone dared to ask if it's even possible to combine the two?

[David19]

I don't want to make a religion, it sounds funny to do. But maybe I should make it, but I am not so sure a goddess who is also a warrior goddess will fit in well with wicca. Will she? Maybe the "do what you will" part seeing that she is kinda a goddess of liberation.

But then again sycretizing babylonian and wiccan beliefs wouldn't be that bad since babylonian religion, at least in the iron age form I follow, is a syncretic religion already. The ancient babylonians were bigger syncretics than the greeks, accounting for over half the pantheon coming from other religions like the Sumerians, I think their Elamite rivals, the Assyrians (who used to share a religion until it became syncretic), canaanites and others.

I will think about it, but what would you call it, maybe Purattu wicca (after the Euphrates river).

I don't think there's any harm in developing a personal spirituality that fuses Wicca and Babylonian deities, and, while I'm not Wiccan, I'm pretty sure the Wiccan Goddess can also be a Warrior, as Lunacie said, Aradia is quite popular amongst Wiccan's, and she can be considered a warrior, in one sense anyway (came to help the oppressed, the slaves, the poor, etc). I hadn't actually heard of Purattu before, I don't know too much about the geography of ancient Iraq (I'd like to learn, I may feel like I'm drifting away from being a Mesopotamian recon, but, I still love learning about ancient Iraq, partly due to family roots there). I like the idea of using the name of something sacred to ancient Iraq in the name, like the Euphrates or the Tigris river.


Have you read "The Charge of the Goddess"? It begins thus:



Many Wiccans believe this means that we are free to worship any Goddess as a part of the Divine Wholeness. Nature has hunters and prey, attackers and defenders, all part of the Divine Wholeness.

Gardner's coven often called upon Aradia who was also a goddess of liberation, sent to teach magic to those who were slaves or oppressed in some way.

Very true :) :thumbsup:.


See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.


Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.

Those are all good points, but, I also think that if the Babylonian deities don't want it to happen, it simply won't work out, Ishtar/Inanna is definitaly a Goddess that can and will make her pleasure or displeasure known, when/if she chooses, so, if the OP wants to practice Wicca, while worshipping Babylonian deities, I don't think there's a problem, I don't think Wiccan imports should be added to Babylonian beliefs (e.g. the rule of 3, etc), but, worshipping Babylonian Gods in a Wiccan context, I don't see a problem with, or celebrating the Sabbat's, in a ancient Mesopotamian/Iraqi context.

[ninurta2008]

I am just trying to explore into areas where there are similarities. I know the basics, contrary to what an earlier post thought I said, I am not too educated on wicca because I only know the basics, and beyond the basics I know little.

But I think this thread is already become useless.

[Ben Gruagach]

There is certainly lots of already existing Wiccan material that draws from Mesopotamian myth and culture. For instance, the descent of the Goddess myth that is recounted or re-enacted as part of the Gardnerian second degree initiation rite (a sample version from Gardner's Book of Shadows is online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos34.htm ) is clearly based on the descent of Inanna.

Raven Grimassi's book "Crafting Wiccan Traditions" is a good guide to help those who want to put together a cohesive Wiccan-based system. It's a relatively new book so shouldn't be too hard to find. If it's not in your local bookstores ask the people who run the store to special-order a copy for you. You can also find it online at lots of stores (including at this store that ships for free worldwide (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/9780738711089).)

Don't let the fuss over syncretism and eclecticism "insulting" people bug you -- that debate has been going on forever (literally!) and those who are insulted will always be insulted by something. Wicca itself is not a 100% original religion, so by the insult-logic it shouldn't be allowed since it's an insult to all the source religions and philosophies it drew from.

Oh, and by insult-logic, pre-Christian religions should be insulted since Christianity drew from them in turn. It's not much of a secret that many of the Christian celebrations, saints, etc. were based on Pagan precursors. (Thank Pope Gregory I for documenting that in a letter to the Archbishop of Canturbury around 601 CE!) I guess Christianity should just say sorry and disappear into the mists of time, eh?

The most realistic tactic is to be honest about your sources, don't make unsupportable historical claims that a new religion or system is "really" a continuation of an older one, and get on to the business of worshipping your Gods and Goddesses regardless of what others think.

Oh, and it's not correct to assume that all Wiccans are either soft polytheists or hard polytheists. You will find Wiccans who fit both categories. It's not required to be one or the other to be Wiccan.

[Darth Brooks]

I am just trying to explore into areas where there are similarities. I know the basics, contrary to what an earlier post thought I said, I am not too educated on wicca because I only know the basics, and beyond the basics I know little.

But I think this thread is already become useless.

Please don't feel this way. It is never wrong to ask questions like the one you asked in the OP. Plus, I think Ben made some really great suggestions to you. I notice that Google Book Search has a limited preview of the Raven Grimassi book he recommended; you'll have to buy the book to read the whole thing, of course, but you can at least browse through it here at the following link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4j9Jg9M2KW8C&pg=PP1&dq=Raven+Grimassi+Crafting+Wiccan+Traditions&ei=CygpSvLwCo7SMNTH5JcL#PPP1,M1

Wonderful thing, Google Book Search! :)

[Lunacie]

There is certainly lots of already existing Wiccan material that draws from Mesopotamian myth and culture. For instance, the descent of the Goddess myth that is recounted or re-enacted as part of the Gardnerian second degree initiation rite (a sample version from Gardner's Book of Shadows is online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos34.htm ) is clearly based on the descent of Inanna.

Raven Grimassi's book "Crafting Wiccan Traditions" is a good guide to help those who want to put together a cohesive Wiccan-based system. It's a relatively new book so shouldn't be too hard to find. If it's not in your local bookstores ask the people who run the store to special-order a copy for you. You can also find it online at lots of stores (including at this store that ships for free worldwide (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/9780738711089).)

Don't let the fuss over syncretism and eclecticism "insulting" people bug you -- that debate has been going on forever (literally!) and those who are insulted will always be insulted by something. Wicca itself is not a 100% original religion, so by the insult-logic it shouldn't be allowed since it's an insult to all the source religions and philosophies it drew from.

Oh, and by insult-logic, pre-Christian religions should be insulted since Christianity drew from them in turn. It's not much of a secret that many of the Christian celebrations, saints, etc. were based on Pagan precursors. (Thank Pope Gregory I for documenting that in a letter to the Archbishop of Canturbury around 601 CE!) I guess Christianity should just say sorry and disappear into the mists of time, eh?

The most realistic tactic is to be honest about your sources, don't make unsupportable historical claims that a new religion or system is "really" a continuation of an older one, and get on to the business of worshipping your Gods and Goddesses regardless of what others think.

Oh, and it's not correct to assume that all Wiccans are either soft polytheists or hard polytheists. You will find Wiccans who fit both categories. It's not required to be one or the other to be Wiccan.

Ah Ben, you brought up a couple of points I hadn't thought of (Mesopotamian legends and such), and I didn't know about Grimassi's new book. Otherwise you reiterated my points about religion drawing from many sources and mixing with each other throughout history, and being honest about any further mixing one does in creating a new path. Even the Gardnerian Tradition hasn't done things the same way each and every time they do a ritual - there are variables from group to group and even from ritual to ritual with the same group. And then of course there are all the off-shoot traditions that started with the basics from Gardnerian Wicca and made it more personal and meaningful to the new groups.

If the OP continues to study both Babylonian legends and practices and learns more about Wicca, and then blends them, there could one day be another Wiccan Tradition with many followers and information posted on the interweb.

[Louisvillian]

Syncretization doesn't mean pulling religions with completely different cosmologies and forcing them into something else.
Wicca doesn't really have a set, static cosmology; it's inherently an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy. So there's not necessarily a problem with integrating Babylonian deities and cosmology with Wiccan practices.

Further, I doubt they're too different. Wicca, after all, takes much of its theology and philosophy from Hermeticism, which in turn took in a lot of idea from Near East cultures and mythology. There are probably a few things there that carried over anyway; not saying it's identical, but there are more than a few similarities.

[David19]

I am just trying to explore into areas where there are similarities. I know the basics, contrary to what an earlier post thought I said, I am not too educated on wicca because I only know the basics, and beyond the basics I know little.

But I think this thread is already become useless.

I'm sorry you're feeling like that, I think that there are some good ideas that have come forth in this thread :).


There is certainly lots of already existing Wiccan material that draws from Mesopotamian myth and culture. For instance, the descent of the Goddess myth that is recounted or re-enacted as part of the Gardnerian second degree initiation rite (a sample version from Gardner's Book of Shadows is online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos34.htm ) is clearly based on the descent of Inanna.

Raven Grimassi's book "Crafting Wiccan Traditions" is a good guide to help those who want to put together a cohesive Wiccan-based system. It's a relatively new book so shouldn't be too hard to find. If it's not in your local bookstores ask the people who run the store to special-order a copy for you. You can also find it online at lots of stores (including at this store that ships for free worldwide (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/9780738711089).)

Don't let the fuss over syncretism and eclecticism "insulting" people bug you -- that debate has been going on forever (literally!) and those who are insulted will always be insulted by something. Wicca itself is not a 100% original religion, so by the insult-logic it shouldn't be allowed since it's an insult to all the source religions and philosophies it drew from.

Oh, and by insult-logic, pre-Christian religions should be insulted since Christianity drew from them in turn. It's not much of a secret that many of the Christian celebrations, saints, etc. were based on Pagan precursors. (Thank Pope Gregory I for documenting that in a letter to the Archbishop of Canturbury around 601 CE!) I guess Christianity should just say sorry and disappear into the mists of time, eh?

The most realistic tactic is to be honest about your sources, don't make unsupportable historical claims that a new religion or system is "really" a continuation of an older one, and get on to the business of worshipping your Gods and Goddesses regardless of what others think.

Oh, and it's not correct to assume that all Wiccans are either soft polytheists or hard polytheists. You will find Wiccans who fit both categories. It's not required to be one or the other to be Wiccan.

QFT, I forgot to mention the Descent of Inanna, that's definitely a great big influence on Wicca, especially Traditional Wicca. I didn't know about Grimassi's book, but, I might check that out one day too. Also, I agree that as long as you're honest with yourself, and not calling something by a name that you know, deep down, it isn't (e.g. saying it's Babylonian reconstructionism, but, it's more Wicca-flavoured, or saying your a Catholic, but, worshipping Cthulhu, etc), there's nothing wrong, it will be your persona spirituality which no one can take away 'cause it fulfils your own personal/subjective needs.



Please don't feel this way. It is never wrong to ask questions like the one you asked in the OP. Plus, I think Ben made some really great suggestions to you. I notice that Google Book Search has a limited preview of the Raven Grimassi book he recommended; you'll have to buy the book to read the whole thing, of course, but you can at least browse through it here at the following link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4j9Jg9M2KW8C&pg=PP1&dq=Raven+Grimassi+Crafting+Wiccan+Traditions&ei=CygpSvLwCo7SMNTH5JcL#PPP1,M1

Wonderful thing, Google Book Search! :)

Thanks for the link, and, yes, Google Books is amazing, I'm always using it!.


Ah Ben, you brought up a couple of points I hadn't thought of (Mesopotamian legends and such), and I didn't know about Grimassi's new book. Otherwise you reiterated my points about religion drawing from many sources and mixing with each other throughout history, and being honest about any further mixing one does in creating a new path. Even the Gardnerian Tradition hasn't done things the same way each and every time they do a ritual - there are variables from group to group and even from ritual to ritual with the same group. And then of course there are all the off-shoot traditions that started with the basics from Gardnerian Wicca and made it more personal and meaningful to the new groups.

If the OP continues to study both Babylonian legends and practices and learns more about Wicca, and then blends them, there could one day be another Wiccan Tradition with many followers and information posted on the interweb.

QFT :) :thumbsup:.


Wicca doesn't really have a set, static cosmology; it's inherently an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy. So there's not necessarily a problem with integrating Babylonian deities and cosmology with Wiccan practices.

Further, I doubt they're too different. Wicca, after all, takes much of its theology and philosophy from Hermeticism, which in turn took in a lot of idea from Near East cultures and mythology. There are probably a few things there that carried over anyway; not saying it's identical, but there are more than a few similarities.

Very true, yes, there are differences, but, there's also similarities, enough, IMO, to create a workable tradition, yes, it won't be Traditional Wicca, it won't be Babylonian reconstructionism, it will be Ninurta's personal spirituality/religion.

[cesara]

If you are offended by sycretism or eclecticism, don't do it. :smileroll

[cesara]

Actually, Voudon is an insult to Catholics, it's a complete manipulation of their beliefs.

And Catholicism is a bastardization of Judaism, and, Judaism, well, it seems Yahweh (or El) was Canaanite (ugaritic) god (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art4950.asp) so.... ... ...

Please. Every single religion out there insults it's predecessor. [and there's ALWAYS a predecessor] All religion is rooted in syncretism -- all of them -- yes, even the tradition you [general] follow. How far back do you want to go? Only as far as you 'connect', right? :uhhuhuh:

If facts and history are important for you, then by all means, follow your heart. But, understand that facts and history don't play a role in everyone's spirituality and that is perfectly acceptable. If it's not acceptable to you, then you are spiritually prejudice. If we learn from the past, it's clear that religious prejudice has been the culprit of much pain and anguish in the world. Personally, I intend to fight it full on.

[David19]

And Catholicism is a bastardization of Judaism, and, Judaism, well, it seems Yahweh (or El) was Canaanite (ugaritic) god (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art4950.asp) so.... ... ...

Please. Every single religion out there insults it's predecessor. [and there's ALWAYS a predecessor] All religion is rooted in syncretism -- all of them -- yes, even the tradition you [general] follow. How far back do you want to go? Only as far as you 'connect', right? :uhhuhuh:

I can agree that every religion takes from others, and, I think, if more people admitted it, they'd be able to get on with their own spirituality or magical paths, or, as someone more directly put it (http://davensjournal.com/obsidian/mirror.html):


So **** these authors who are only interested in belonging to a special élite club. **** this New Wiccan Orthodoxy that's being purported to be the gods' truth when they only ripped off a ripoff (Wicca) of a ripoff (OTO) of a ripoff (Freemasonry) of a ripoff (Judaism) of a ripoff (Zoroästrianism) of a ripoff (ancient Sumerian polytheism) etc. etc. etc. **** anyone who believes they have the truth in its entirety. They're WRONG. We're only human. I'm wrong about shit, you're wrong about shit, and your local pastor and/or HPS is wrong about shit too. We're all...only...human. No one is better than anyone else

If someone wants to include Babylonian deities into Wicca, or even Cthulhu Mythos deities into Wicca, then, that's fine, as long as they are completely honest about it.

[Louisvillian]

If you are offended by sycretism or eclecticism, don't do it. :smileroll

Precisely. I'm not very comfortable with eclecticism beyond a certain point, so I don't get into it. But, I don't disparage others for being more or less eclectic than me.

[cesara]

I can agree that every religion takes from others, and, I think, if more people admitted it, they'd be able to get on with their own spirituality or magical paths, or, as someone more directly put it (http://davensjournal.com/obsidian/mirror.html):



If someone wants to include Babylonian deities into Wicca, or even Cthulhu Mythos deities into Wicca, then, that's fine, as long as they are completely honest about it.

Loved the quote...exactly.

[David19]

Loved the quote...exactly.

Thanks, glad you liked it :).

[ninurta2008]

It's not that I feel negatively about having posted this. I was stating that it was useless or I felt it was, because I got what I asked for in the OP.

[Lunacie]

It's not that I feel negatively about having posted this. I was stating that it was useless or I felt it was, because I got what I asked for in the OP.

The thread may have become "useless" for you, and since it's your thread you are entitled to ask the admins to close it. But I think it's been an excellent discussion, showing that there is more than one side to any issue. We may not have heard from all the sides yet, so I hope the thread will stay open for those who are interested in the topic - even if there aren't any more posts to come.

[Burning Angel]

The thread may have become "useless" for you, and since it's your thread you are entitled to ask the admins to close it. But I think it's been an excellent discussion, showing that there is more than one side to any issue. We may not have heard from all the sides yet, so I hope the thread will stay open for those who are interested in the topic - even if there aren't any more posts to come.

I hope so too - if I had anything to add, I forgot it...but I'm really enjoying reading it :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

The thread may have become "useless" for you, and since it's your thread you are entitled to ask the admins to close it. But I think it's been an excellent discussion, showing that there is more than one side to any issue. We may not have heard from all the sides yet, so I hope the thread will stay open for those who are interested in the topic - even if there aren't any more posts to come.
I was just saying that I got the answer to my question, but if you guys want to continue with a babylonian wicca thread, this will be interesting to see how it turns out. I won't have it closed on you

[Twinkle]

And Catholicism is a bastardization of Judaism, and, Judaism, well, it seems Yahweh (or El) was Canaanite (ugaritic) god (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art4950.asp) so.... ... ...

Please. Every single religion out there insults it's predecessor. [and there's ALWAYS a predecessor] All religion is rooted in syncretism -- all of them -- yes, even the tradition you [general] follow. How far back do you want to go? Only as far as you 'connect', right? :uhhuhuh:

If facts and history are important for you, then by all means, follow your heart. But, understand that facts and history don't play a role in everyone's spirituality and that is perfectly acceptable. If it's not acceptable to you, then you are spiritually prejudice. If we learn from the past, it's clear that religious prejudice has been the culprit of much pain and anguish in the world. Personally, I intend to fight it full on.


I believe that people should practice and believe what they want. I don't have to tolerate it, though or accept it as Babylonian Wicca or anything else.

I really don't have to accept anything - and it doesn't imply prejudice to find another practice disrespectful or impious. It means that I have an opinion.

You obviously do not accept my opinion on religion. I could easily turn it and say you are being intolerant to me and my beliefs.

Now, in regard to Voodoo being an insult to Catholics - you've missed my point.

The Catholic stance on pagan religions is that they are false. Taking a religion like Catholocism and using aspects of it in Pagan Ritual would be an absolute affront to them. They are entitled to that opinion. A different cosmology and worldview has hijacked their beliefs and twisted it into something that to them is sinful and against their God. You want they should be happy about it?

Splintering and breaking off from the original (as Christianity did from Judaism) is not the same - religions change over time.

Taking two religions that are at odds with each other and manipulating them to work when there is nothing but a desire to *make* them work, imo is different.

It's not syncretism. It is eclecticism - which ultimately I have no problem with - but the backlash from that is that someone may be offended.

In response to that - so what? If it works for you, it works.

But words and labels have meaning. If you (the general you) uses a label then they had better be ready to defend it when someone who actually practices either religion being pulled cries foul.

I said it once before and I'll say it again. Tolerance goes both ways.

[Ben Gruagach]

The Catholic stance on pagan religions is that they are false. Taking a religion like Catholocism and using aspects of it in Pagan Ritual would be an absolute affront to them. They are entitled to that opinion. A different cosmology and worldview has hijacked their beliefs and twisted it into something that to them is sinful and against their God. You want they should be happy about it?

People get offended over all sorts of things... and there is often nothing that anyone can do to appease them. They are determined to be offended and always have a handy excuse to justify their taking offense.

As has been brought up in this thread (and in many others over the years, in many discussions in the Pagan community) it's just a tad hypocritical to take offense when others borrow ideas from one religion and use them in another -- precisely because ALL religions do that.

Can anyone name a single religion that is completely unique and does not borrow anything from another religion? I don't think such a religion exists.

I haven't seen anyone advocating the hijacking of specific titles, such as a person who is clearly not following Gardnerian Wicca calling their own system Gardnerian Wicca. That's a far cry though from calling themselves Wiccan. No one denomination of Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, B*, etc.) have exclusive ownership over the label Wiccan so they don't get to dictate to others who is and isn't "allowed" to be considered Wiccan. They only get to restrict membership and dictate dogma to their own denominations. And that is the way it should be.

[Twinkle]

Once again, I really don't care what people believe. I don't care how and what they worship.

The only time I'll challenge is when some kind of historical precedence is claimed, or a claim to a specific culture is being used to support a belief and that claim is incorrect or based on a faulty premise.

Personal spiritualities, beliefs based on feelings or personal gnosis - that's wonderful, and I think anyone should do what they want.

In the case of Babylonian Wicca - All I'm saying is that if one is going to be calling what they do Babylonian Wicca - they should be able to say what makes it Babylonian, and what makes it Wicca, and how those two can mesh into something that justifies the use of two terms that have a. specific cultural ties, and b. specific core tenets. They should also be able to say how they reconcile any conflict in cosmologies - if there are any.

If one just calls what they do a personal spirituality with some Babylonian and Wiccan components, then great.

If someone wants to be offended because what they label themselves is challenged - then that is their own spiritual prejudice.

One cannot demand acceptance for what they do if they cannot accept that someone believes differently from them. *That* is hypocritical.

What it comes down to is validation. Why is it so important to accept? Why can't we all do what we do and believe what we believe and leave it at that?

Why do *I* have to accept everything people believe? I've never claimed that anyone has to believe as I do.

Dogma doesn't really have anything to do with anything in this thread. It's about cosmology and if two different belief systems can and should be brought together to create something called "Babylonian Wicca"

[Lunacie]

Once again, I really don't care what people believe. I don't care how and what they worship.

The only time I'll challenge is when some kind of historical precedence is claimed, or a claim to a specific culture is being used to support a belief and that claim is incorrect or based on a faulty premise.

But it looked like you were giving the OP a hard time from the get-go here about simply raising the possibility of mixing Babylonian recon with Wicca. It sure looked like you cared.

Again, the OP was raising the possibility, not claiming some historical precedence or giving any indication that he was drawing from faulty sources. Asking questions, in my opinion, is a good thing.



Personal spiritualities, beliefs based on feelings or personal gnosis - that's wonderful, and I think anyone should do what they want.

In the case of Babylonian Wicca - All I'm saying is that if one is going to be calling what they do Babylonian Wicca - they should be able to say what makes it Babylonian, and what makes it Wicca, and how those two can mesh into something that justifies the use of two terms that have a. specific cultural ties, and b. specific core tenets. They should also be able to say how they reconcile any conflict in cosmologies - if there are any.

If one just calls what they do a personal spirituality with some Babylonian and Wiccan components, then great.

And still (insert image of beating a dead horse) the OP was asking questions about blending Babylonian recon and Wicca - he isn't actually practicing any mixture of the two at this point. In order to be able to say how the two cosmologies could be blended he is asking questions and looking for those answers. He hasn't claimed to be a Babylonian Wiccan who needs to prove anything at this point.



If someone wants to be offended because what they label themselves is challenged - then that is their own spiritual prejudice.

Just to be certain I looked up the meaning for prejudice and I suppose by some stretch it could be considered to include being an unreasonable feeling about having one's personal belief system challenged. It probably has more to do with how that challenge is issued whether the reaction is reasonable or unreasonable.



One cannot demand acceptance for what they do if they cannot accept that someone believes differently from them. *That* is hypocritical.

Where did the OP make such a conditional demand? Where did any of the responses make such a conditional demand? Is this a straw man?



What it comes down to is validation. Why is it so important to accept? Why can't we all do what we do and believe what we believe and leave it at that?

Why do *I* have to accept everything people believe? I've never claimed that anyone has to believe as I do.

Again, who in this thread has demanded validation? I can accept that the OP may have very different spiritual beliefs than I do, just as yours sometimes seem very much different than mine. One can accept that another person believes something that we find questionable. We may question the basis for those beliefs without questioning the right of the person to hold those beliefs.

Why couldn't you accept that the OP was asking if he could blend those two religions and leave it at that? He wasn't making any historical or cultural claims that absolutely needed to be challenged. I'm really having trouble understanding as it seems you're saying one thing and doing another.

[Twinkle]

Cesara demanded acceptance of mixing and matching without history or facts. I was told that I had spiritual prejudice if I didn't accept it.

I find her stance showing just as much intolerance as she accused me of. And I said so. One can't claim moral high ground when the behavior exhibited in the post says otherwise, hence my post about hypocrisy. Those most often screaming for tolerance and acceptance, in my experience, are the least willing to give it to another.

Asking questions is absolutely a good thing. And I answered the OP's question from my perspective. The issue here is more that no one liked my perspective. That's not my problem.

If the OP was a Babylonian Recon - then as a Recon he/she should already know the cosmology of that specific culture and their beliefs. What I was saying was that forcing something that doesn't fit is an insult to those that are worshipping Traditionally, and could be equally offputting to the adherents of Wicca. While the degree of offense taken is subjective, I don't believe my statement to be incorrect.

I said that one needs to make sure that it works - and not force it. Again, there is nothing incorrect in that statement either.

If one wants to have a personal spirituality without regard to history, culture, facts, etc - they don't have to - but then they would need to be careful with using terms that have specific cultural meanings and tenets. Considering the title of the thread is called Babylonian Wicca - the OP is already placing a label - which attracted me to the thread in the first place.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I have no right to do so. I can certainly give my opinion on a thread on a forum where people are asking advice, though.

If there is an issue with my reasoning or how I come to the conclusion then one could probably argue that - but that's not what is happening here. What's being thrown around here is me being called spiritually prejudiced - which is equally being shown through the other side of the argument.

All I did was state my opinion. If people want to take offense to that, they absolutely can - but I don't feel that it is a rational or reasoned response to anything that I've said on this thread.

[Twinkle]

I'd further add that explaining what the issues are in mixing two different religions and being able to figure out if it works or not by talking about different cosmologies and the cultural view of the Babylonians vs the tenets of Wicca is not a bad thing.

This is how people develop their beliefs and figure out if they are walking on the right path. It's not about "proving" anything. It's about being able to say what you believe and why you believe it.

Once again, this is not about validation, it's about spiritual growth and defining exactly what it is you believe.

[Lunacie]

Cesara demanded acceptance of mixing and matching without history or facts. I was told that I had spiritual prejudice if I didn't accept it.

Seriously? You saw that as a demand for acceptance of her personal beliefs? Seriously?

Cesara posted her opinion, just as all of us do. She said that in her opinion, those who don't accept that not everyone values "facts and history" as much as you do are showing prejudice. That wasn't a personal attack against you, in my opinion, but you're welcome to ask the admins to give you another opinion, of course.



I find her stance showing just as much intolerance as she accused me of. And I said so. One can't claim moral high ground when the behavior exhibited in the post says otherwise, hence my post about hypocrisy. Those most often screaming for tolerance and acceptance, in my experience, are the least willing to give it to another.

Ah, different experiences lead to different perspectives. I see just as many who insist that they have a better grasp of the "facts" being intolerant of those who they accuse of shoddy scholarship. We are all human, and we all project intolerance of whatever our personal bugbears may be. If you want to point a finger and accuse someone of hypocriscy, remember that leaves three fingers pointing back at you.


Asking questions is absolutely a good thing. And I answered the OP's question from my perspective. The issue here is more that no one liked my perspective. That's not my problem.

If the OP was a Babylonian Recon - then as a Recon he/she should already know the cosmology of that specific culture and their beliefs. What I was saying was that forcing something that doesn't fit is an insult to those that are worshipping Traditionally, and could be equally offputting to the adherents of Wicca. While the degree of offense taken is subjective, I don't believe my statement to be incorrect.

And some of us objected that there is an automatic assumption that the two would not, or could not, fit together.

And some of us also objected that either Babylonian Recons or Wiccans would necessarily object to an attempt to blend the two. While some might be offended, that's something they need to deal with in themselves. There aren't any laws against blending two belief systems that I am aware of. If it doesn't work, then it will most likely be abandoned, thus alieviating any problem. If it does work, then there isn't any problem. :whatgives:



I said that one needs to make sure that it works - and not force it. Again, there is nothing incorrect in that statement either.

I didn't see anyone claiming that making such a blending work should, or could, be forced. I said there was nothing wrong with trying to make such a blending work, not that one should make it work. Apparently you misread my post.


If one wants to have a personal spirituality without regard to history, culture, facts, etc - they don't have to - but then they would need to be careful with using terms that have specific cultural meanings and tenets. Considering the title of the thread is called Babylonian Wicca - the OP is already placing a label - which attracted me to the thread in the first place.

No, the OP was asking if anything was already in place that does fit that particular label. I didn't read that as an intention on his part to create something and apply that label to it. Apparently you misread his post and the thread title as well. Didn't you see the question mark following "Babylonian Wicca?"


I'm not telling anyone what to do. I have no right to do so. I can certainly give my opinion on a thread on a forum where people are asking advice, though.

Of course you have the right to give your opinion, even if you're giving an opinion on something that no one has actually written or claimed. But the rest of us certainly have just as much right to say "What the heck are you talking about?"


If there is an issue with my reasoning or how I come to the conclusion then one could probably argue that - but that's not what is happening here. What's being thrown around here is me being called spiritually prejudiced - which is equally being shown through the other side of the argument.

All I did was state my opinion. If people want to take offense to that, they absolutely can - but I don't feel that it is a rational or reasoned response to anything that I've said on this thread.

In my opinion Cesara didn't target you with the label of hypocrisy, she made a general statement. It seems you feel that general statement describes you in some way. Again, you're welcome to take it up with the admins if you think someone was disrespectful or attacked you personally.

[Lunacie]

I'd further add that explaining what the issues are in mixing two different religions and being able to figure out if it works or not by talking about different cosmologies and the cultural view of the Babylonians vs the tenets of Wicca is not a bad thing.

This is how people develop their beliefs and figure out if they are walking on the right path. It's not about "proving" anything. It's about being able to say what you believe and why you believe it.

Once again, this is not about validation, it's about spiritual growth and defining exactly what it is you believe.

Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along, neh? Figuring out if something works or not. As I explained above, I never said that one could, or should, try to make something like this work. I said that one can't reasonably expect that it will or won't work until they give it try. Although asking whether it has worked or not for others can help us to clarify whether we want to give it a try or not, and decide how we're going to go about trying it.

I agree that it's a good thing to explore our beliefs and compare them to others. I do not agree that we must be able to define exactly what we believe. I find in many ways my beliefs have not changed in the last 19 years, but I also find that in other ways my beliefs have changed and continue to change as I learn more and compare my beliefs to those of others.

I didn't think anyone had actually made an issue of "validation." Maybe that's also a matter of different perceptions?

[David19]

I believe that people should practice and believe what they want. I don't have to tolerate it, though or accept it as Babylonian Wicca or anything else.

I really don't have to accept anything - and it doesn't imply prejudice to find another practice disrespectful or impious. It means that I have an opinion.

You obviously do not accept my opinion on religion. I could easily turn it and say you are being intolerant to me and my beliefs.

Now, in regard to Voodoo being an insult to Catholics - you've missed my point.

The Catholic stance on pagan religions is that they are false. Taking a religion like Catholocism and using aspects of it in Pagan Ritual would be an absolute affront to them. They are entitled to that opinion. A different cosmology and worldview has hijacked their beliefs and twisted it into something that to them is sinful and against their God. You want they should be happy about it?

Splintering and breaking off from the original (as Christianity did from Judaism) is not the same - religions change over time.

Taking two religions that are at odds with each other and manipulating them to work when there is nothing but a desire to *make* them work, imo is different.

It's not syncretism. It is eclecticism - which ultimately I have no problem with - but the backlash from that is that someone may be offended.

In response to that - so what? If it works for you, it works.

But words and labels have meaning. If you (the general you) uses a label then they had better be ready to defend it when someone who actually practices either religion being pulled cries foul.

I said it once before and I'll say it again. Tolerance goes both ways.

I wanted to say good post, and I do agree with a lot of what you said, but, just wanted to add something, I think the Catholic Church's opinion of "pagan" religions is somewhat more complicated, like, and don't quote me on it, 'cause I haven't got it in front of me, but, I have read the Catholic Church do believe ancient pagans were worshipping God in their own way, although they believe it was an inferior way to the Catholic Church, but, I don't think their view is as simple as "they worshipped evil demons" or didn't have religion, as some of the more vocal fundamentalists in the American Bible Belt are apt to believe.

[cesara]

Cesara demanded acceptance of mixing and matching without history or facts. I was told that I had spiritual prejudice if I didn't accept it.
Sorry you received it that way.



I find her stance showing just as much intolerance as she accused me of. And I said so. One can't claim moral high ground when the behavior exhibited in the post says otherwise, hence my post about hypocrisy. Those most often screaming for tolerance and acceptance, in my experience, are the least willing to give it to another.

"Tolerance should not be tolerant of intolerance, or it sows the seeds of its own destruction." (http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/04/hirsi-ali-intolerant-of-intolerance.html) It's just the way it is.

Besides, my intolerance of intolerance is a red herring to this conversation, anyway. It doesn't change my original point.

Lunacie and Ben (thanks Lunacie and Ben) have expressed my own thoughts quite well, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Twinkle]

Yeah, that's what I've been saying all along, neh? Figuring out if something works or not. As I explained above, I never said that one could, or should, try to make something like this work. I said that one can't reasonably expect that it will or won't work until they give it try. Although asking whether it has worked or not for others can help us to clarify whether we want to give it a try or not, and decide how we're going to go about trying it.

I agree that it's a good thing to explore our beliefs and compare them to others. I do not agree that we must be able to define exactly what we believe. I find in many ways my beliefs have not changed in the last 19 years, but I also find that in other ways my beliefs have changed and continue to change as I learn more and compare my beliefs to those of others.

I didn't think anyone had actually made an issue of "validation." Maybe that's also a matter of different perceptions?



I believe that we should try to define what we believe and why we believe it. I believe that it is an ongoing process, and that we may find by contemplating these matters that sometimes it just doesn't work.

I believe in trying just about anything - but I also think that the attempt to should be a reasonable one that is done only after contemplating the issues.

If one truly does care about their spirituality - I don't believe going forward willy nilly will bring the best spiritual result - especially if there is spellcrafting involved.

The consequences of using a cultural god for spellcraft when the culture deems it impious (as an example) could bring down some nasty consequences.

That's why it's imperative to study the cosmologies between the two.

It seems like you have an issue with what it *seems* like I said rather than what I actually wrote.

The value of introspection on these issues is paramount, because without it one could easily walk into a spiritual void or even worse fallout.

Unreasoned belief leads to spiritual stagnation. Sometimes it can even be dangerous.

I think that what things do boil down to - especially with some of the posts on this thread *is* validation.

I need to accept and validate another person's choice to disregard history and facts and study for unreasoned belief.

The thing is: *I don't have to*. If one is secure in their beliefs and what they are doing - they don't need acceptance from me or anyone else - they do not need to have their choices validated from someone coming at it from a different paradigm, and they certainly don't need to start claiming "spiritual prejudice" because someone dares to think differently.

That's it, Lunacie.

You're right - we're not too far off.

[Twinkle]

Sorry you received it that way.



"Tolerance should not be tolerant of intolerance, or it sows the seeds of its own destruction." (http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/04/hirsi-ali-intolerant-of-intolerance.html) It's just the way it is.

Besides, my intolerance of intolerance is a red herring to this conversation, anyway. It doesn't change my original point.

Lunacie and Ben (thanks Lunacie and Ben) have expressed my own thoughts quite well, so I'll just leave it at that.

And you've contradicted yourself once again. You've judged me intolerant. Fine, I am. You've just admitted you're intolerant as well.

What you want is universal acceptance for everything that comes down the pike.

It's dangerous and irresponsible to expect that from people.

Jim Jones anyone?

[Lunacie]

I believe that we should try to define what we believe and why we believe it. I believe that it is an ongoing process, and that we may find by contemplating these matters that sometimes it just doesn't work.

I believe in trying just about anything - but I also think that the attempt to should be a reasonable one that is done only after contemplating the issues.

If one truly does care about their spirituality - I don't believe going forward willy nilly will bring the best spiritual result - especially if there is spellcrafting involved.

The consequences of using a cultural god for spellcraft when the culture deems it impious (as an example) could bring down some nasty consequences.

That's why it's imperative to study the cosmologies between the two.

It seems like you have an issue with what it *seems* like I said rather than what I actually wrote.

The value of introspection on these issues is paramount, because without it one could easily walk into a spiritual void or even worse fallout.

Unreasoned belief leads to spiritual stagnation. Sometimes it can even be dangerous.

I think that what things do boil down to - especially with some of the posts on this thread *is* validation.

I need to accept and validate another person's choice to disregard history and facts and study for unreasoned belief.

The thing is: *I don't have to*. If one is secure in their beliefs and what they are doing - they don't need acceptance from me or anyone else - they do not need to have their choices validated from someone coming at it from a different paradigm, and they certainly don't need to start claiming "spiritual prejudice" because someone dares to think differently.

That's it, Lunacie.

You're right - we're not too far off.

Some people do seem to need to learn lessons the hard way though. Sometimes nasty consequences are a very good teacher. I was lucky that most of my consequences have been minor, but then I don't think the gods I honor are bent on punishing people for making mistakes or even for being a bit arrogant at times. They will deliver a "clue-by-four" when needed, but I don't consider that punishment.

Funny, I thought it was you who was misinterpreting what I actually wrote. Communication through only text can be difficult at best.

I don't have to validate anyone else's beliefs or religious practices. I do honor their right to have their own beliefs and religious practices. Even when I think it's a load of crap. I'm pretty sure there are people who think my beliefs and religious practices are a load of crap as well.

But I did need a lot of feedback and some support when I was first learning about following a much different path than I was raised in. It took time for me to become comfortable with those changes and secure in my beliefs and what I was doing. I try to give newbies a little wiggle room because of that. In fact, I try to give everyone a little wiggle room because unless we examine our beliefs and what we're doing from time to time, we stop growing spiritually. (as you put it, "spiritual stagnation")

I don't think that the term "spiritual prejudice" was used in this thread to refer to someone who dares to think differently, but towards the idea that anyone seems intolerant of other beliefs but becomes angry when the tables are turned and someone seems intolerant of his/her beliefs. Whether that actually occurred here, I think that was the interpretation.

[Lunacie]

And you've contradicted yourself once again. You've judged me intolerant. Fine, I am. You've just admitted you're intolerant as well.

What you want is universal acceptance for everything that comes down the pike.

It's dangerous and irresponsible to expect that from people.

Jim Jones anyone?

And again, Cesara was simply making a general statement. What is it about these statements that makes you seem to take them personally?

Telling another poster 'what you want' could be considered a personal attack. Stick to the topic please.

[cesara]

I don't think that the term "spiritual prejudice" was used in this thread to refer to someone who dares to think differently, but towards the idea that anyone seems intolerant of other beliefs but becomes angry when the tables are turned and someone seems intolerant of his/her beliefs. Whether that actually occurred here, I think that was the interpretation.

Indeed.

[cesara]

I believe that people should practice and believe what they want. I don't have to tolerate it, though or accept it as Babylonian Wicca or anything else.
You yourself, as seen above, said you didn't have to 'tolerate' what people practice or believe. The essence of 'not' tolerating is expressed as intolerance.


The only time I'll challenge is when some kind of historical precedence is claimed, or a claim to a specific culture is being used to support a belief and that claim is incorrect or based on a faulty premise.
The fact that you feel a right to 'challenge' anyone else's belief system is problematic and contradictory to the claim that you believe that people should practice and believe what they want.



In the case of Babylonian Wicca - All I'm saying is that if one is going to be calling what they do Babylonian Wicca - they should be able to say what makes it Babylonian, and what makes it Wicca, and how those two can mesh into something that justifies the use of two terms that have a. specific cultural ties, and b. specific core tenets. They should also be able to say how they reconcile any conflict in cosmologies - if there are any.
My only question is -- justifiable to who? If someone should be able to practice and believe what they want, why would they have to justify anything at all?



If someone wants to be offended because what they label themselves is challenged - then that is their own spiritual prejudice.
No. It is the challenger who would be guilty of spiritual prejudice.



One cannot demand acceptance for what they do if they cannot accept that someone believes differently from them. *That* is hypocritical.
No. That is defending your right to freedom of religion. It is a DEFENSIVE act, not offensive as you seem to imply.



What it comes down to is validation. Why is it so important to accept?
History gives us extremely good examples of why.



Why can't we all do what we do and believe what we believe and leave it at that?
Agreed! That's the whole point, isn't it?

[Louisvillian]

IDK why Twinkle thinks she can pontificate on what Wicca is or isn't. We certainly can't, and we actually are of the religion in question.
She seems to fail to understand that Wicca has changed and adapted since its inception in the early 1940's; and that, even so, its base structure is quite pliable. If a solitary practitioner wishes to integrate Babylonian deities and cultural customs within the already-mixed background that Wicca provides...why is it a problem if it's done responsibly?

[Twinkle]

Well - this brings up an interesting point.

If Wicca is pliable, and you can't pontificate as to what it is - then perhaps anything can be mixed with it and it's fine.

So my question would then be - does Wicca mean anything and everything?

I've often thought it does - but I've been going with what people have been telling me - that it has core tenets.

If Wicca is a mixed bag - as you put it - then perhaps it is an eclectic spirituality that incorporates a bit of everything.

If that's the case, then I stand corrected and will go with my original thoughts on Wicca - that it means anything and everything and that one can mix anything with it and it's cool.

But you know - then I'd have to ask what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan, specifically - as opposed to an eclectic pagan.

I suppose then that Satanic Wicca would be perfectly acceptable, if it's done responsibly. Incorporating demons into the "already -mixed background that Wicca provides" would be appropriate according to what you've said here - cosmologies aside.

Unless, of course, your logic is selectively applied.

[Lunacie]

IDK why Twinkle thinks she can pontificate on what Wicca is or isn't. We certainly can't, and we actually are of the religion in question.
She seems to fail to understand that Wicca has changed and adapted since its inception in the early 1940's; and that, even so, its base structure is quite pliable. If a solitary practitioner wishes to integrate Babylonian deities and cultural customs within the already-mixed background that Wicca provides...why is it a problem if it's done responsibly?

I agree that we shouldn't "pontificate" on what is or isn't Wicca, but we can speak to the issue of what makes Wicca somewhat unique among all other religions. Although there are certainly differences from one Wiccan tradition to another, most seem to agree on some basic or core practices, and base those on some core beliefs. Although we don't have a central authority who can speak to what is or isn't Wicca, that doesn't mean there isn't some kind of consensus among Wiccans as a religious whole.

I think that if the practices (Wicca is mostly orthopraxey) have enough in common with traditional Wiccan practices, that's more important to the use of the title "Wiccan" than the beliefs (known as orthodoxey). The part that is "pliable" then is the belief part. If you want to believe in, or worship, the traditional Lord and Lady of Wicca, then that makes you more of a Traditional Wiccan. If you want to believe in, or worship, a diety from another culture such as Babylonia, that makes you more Eclectic in your beliefs.

So, unless you manage to merge those non-traditional beliefs with traditional Wiccan practices, not too many Wiccans are going to accept you as being part of the religion. Which may not even be important to you, but in that case why would you need to use the title "Wiccan" to describe yourself?

But... can one person really truly know the inner beliefs or practices of another person, especially someone who works as a solitary? Wicca always has been a religion that promotes the ethic of Personal Responsibility. When other Wiccans begin judging and condemning someone as being "not Wiccan enough" they are loosing sight of the ethic of Personal Responisibilty. As a personal ethic they can certainly say, "Your beliefs and/or practices are enough different than mine that I don't feel we could work together in doing ritual or other magical workings," but that's a long way from saying, "You're different than I am so stop calling yourself Wiccan."


Just thinking out loud here ...

[Twinkle]

But if Wicca is an orthopraxy and not an orthodoxy - yet the beliefs are different enough that you (the general you) can't work together - that would seem to imply that there is more to the religion than simple ritual practice.

If so, then the core tenets must apply somewhere, somehow.

Where is the line drawn?

[Louisvillian]

Although there are certainly differences from one Wiccan tradition to another, most seem to agree on some basic or core practices, and base those on some core beliefs. Although we don't have a central authority who can speak to what is or isn't Wicca, that doesn't mean there isn't some kind of consensus among Wiccans as a religious whole.
Yes, I agree that the core practices (and certain beliefs implied by them) are necessary for a tradition or solitary practice to be properly described as Wiccan.


The part that is "pliable" then is the belief part. If you want to believe in, or worship, the traditional Lord and Lady of Wicca, then that makes you more of a Traditional Wiccan. If you want to believe in, or worship, a deity from another culture such as Babylonia, that makes you more Eclectic in your beliefs. What I meant by pliable are, say, which deities to worship (I consider that more a question of practices than belief; veneration is an act, not merely a thought), and small details in practice.


So, unless you manage to merge those non-traditional beliefs with traditional Wiccan practices, not too many Wiccans are going to accept you as being part of the religion.That was why I made a point of using the word "responsibly". If one is going to merge traditional Wiccan practices with different beliefs and fine details, then one should put a lot of thought into it, and make sure that there aren't any gaping holes in whatever logic they happen to use while merging them.


If Wicca is a mixed bag - as you put it - then perhaps it is an eclectic spirituality that incorporates a bit of everything.
It's been eclectic since day one. Gardner's Wicca integrated heaps of things from all kinds of sources- British folklore and cultural customs, Thelema, Hermetic mysticism, Hindu mysticism, Celtic mythology (or what little of it was known at the time), etc.

The doesn't mean it's "anything and everything". There are core practices and certain beliefs (polytheism, ethic of reciprocity, respect for the nature) implied by those practices.
There are, however, some things that are left up to the individual to decide.

[Twinkle]

So where is the line drawn?

[Ben Gruagach]

But if Wicca is an orthopraxy and not an orthodoxy - yet the beliefs are different enough that you (the general you) can't work together - that would seem to imply that there is more to the religion than simple ritual practice.

If so, then the core tenets must apply somewhere, somehow.

Where is the line drawn?

The line is drawn by each practitioner and coven with regard to what they choose to include in their personal Wiccan practice.

That's a consequence of Wicca being based on autonomy and personal responsibility instead of a central unchangeable Holy Scripture or other central authority figure.

People who just can't handle this point are not likely going to be happy as Wiccans. And that is perfectly fine. There are lots of other spiritual paths out there for them to choose from. But we Wiccans will continue to do our thing regardless what others think, whether they are offended or not.

Wicca has been eclectic since day one when Gardner started promoting it. He didn't invent the whole thing, and he didn't get everything handed to him as a complete system. He borrowed extensively and other stuff he just made up. And according to the accounts of those who worked with him in the early days (Doreen Valiente and Fred Lamond are two examples) it's also clear Gardner actually encouraged people to change, add, and even drop things as they saw fit.

Wicca is based on Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Italian, Celtic, Hindu, Buddhist, and even Amerindian bits and pieces. The god and goddess pair often named as the Lord and Lady are not even necessarily from the same cultural backgrounds -- and have varied over time, even in Gardnerian covens! Some Wiccan groups have chosen to focus on specific cultures such as Greek, or Roman, or Celtic, or Egyptian and have been happily working their Wicca within the Wiccan mainstream for years. If someone wants to work with Babylonian-inspired mythology and deities, or even Christian or Satanic ones, then there is plenty of precedent for them to do so.

Read the books by Gardner, Valiente, the Farrars, Alex and Maxine Sanders -- the precedents are all documented. Watch the videos that are out there, particularly the ones featuring Alex Sanders (there are a number of clips on YouTube) and you'll find Wicca has lots of room for diversity. For example, Alex Sanders didn't seem to have much problem working his Wicca with a focus on a particular Aztec fire god when it suited him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQqZndWpIis

[Twinkle]

OK - so each solitary practitioner and each coven has it's own lines as to what is and is not acceptable as Wicca.

Then the core tenets are completely arbitrary according to which ones apply and which ones don't to each specific practitioner/coven?

If they are arbitrary - then how are they considered core tenets?

[Lunacie]

But if Wicca is an orthopraxy and not an orthodoxy - yet the beliefs are different enough that you (the general you) can't work together - that would seem to imply that there is more to the religion than simple ritual practice.

If so, then the core tenets must apply somewhere, somehow.

Where is the line drawn?

On an individual basis.

The neat thing about Wicca in my opinion, is that there are no hard and fast lines, there is a kind of soft polytheism.

I've previously posted a list of the core beliefs and practices of Wicca, and the beliefs are general enough that a variety of personal beliefs can work within Wicca.

However, in the three mainstream religions, the primary belief is in one god (who may have avatars such as a beloved son). In many pagan religions the belief is in Polytheism (many gods).

While Wicca encompases the belief in many gods, the primary worship is of one particular pair who embody both masculine and feminine energies resulting in creation. This divine pair may vary from group to group, but it seems to be a fairly unique concept to Wicca of honoring the polarity and balance of those two divine energies.

In general, people who follow one particular tradition such as Alexandrian, will have enough in common to work with each other. While those who follow different traditions such as Gardnerian and Seax-Wicca might not have quite enough in common to work well together.

The underlying beliefs and practices are held in common, but the way they are implemented can incorporate some differences.

All schools (public USA schools at least) teach reading, writing and arithmetic. But they may all use different methods of teaching those subjects - as well as teaching them in a different order or a different style. The kids who finish school can usually be expected to go on to a general college with little problems. Of course they can choose a specialized college.

Do you see the analogy between these things? That's as good an explanation as I can probably provide.

[Ben Gruagach]

OK - so each solitary practitioner and each coven has it's own lines as to what is and is not acceptable as Wicca.

Then the core tenets are completely arbitrary according to which ones apply and which ones don't to each specific practitioner/coven?

If they are arbitrary - then how are they considered core tenets?

That's the trick, isn't it? It's all about people building consensus.

We don't have a central authority to dictate to us, to decide for us what the core practices or tenets are. That means we'll never have an authoritative set of core practices and tenets. Expecting it to happen is pointless as it's contrary to Wicca... and you'll never get all Wiccans to agree. (I doubt we'd be able to get all Gardnerians and Alexandrians to agree 100%, and that's just two of the many Wiccan denominations!)

Various individuals and groups have tried to come up with what they believe the core list is or should be. Every single time that has happened, there has been dissent.

It's a double-edged sword. I know some people consider it to be a major problem but it's one of the main strengths of Wicca too. If we Wiccans were ever forced to give up our autonomy and submit to a central Wiccan authority, then many Wiccans (including many who were founders) would have been excluded -- and that does not strengthen Wicca as a spiritual path at all, and definitely does not honour the God and Goddess.

There is a reason why "The Charge of the Goddess" is so beloved by Wiccans.

[Lunacie]

Yes, I agree that the core practices (and certain beliefs implied by them) are necessary for a tradition or solitary practice to be properly described as Wiccan.

What I meant by pliable are, say, which deities to worship (I consider that more a question of practices than belief; veneration is an act, not merely a thought), and small details in practice.

That was why I made a point of using the word "responsibly". If one is going to merge traditional Wiccan practices with different beliefs and fine details, then one should put a lot of thought into it, and make sure that there aren't any gaping holes in whatever logic they happen to use while merging them.


It's been eclectic since day one. Gardner's Wicca integrated heaps of things from all kinds of sources- British folklore and cultural customs, Thelema, Hermetic mysticism, Hindu mysticism, Celtic mythology (or what little of it was known at the time), etc.

The doesn't mean it's "anything and everything". There are core practices and certain beliefs (polytheism, ethic of reciprocity, respect for the nature) implied by those practices.
There are, however, some things that are left up to the individual to decide.

Thanks for clarifying. It seems we pretty well agree then.

... some more thinking out loud here ...

Some Christian churches decree that all women will wear dresses, and may go so far as to insist on a certain style of dress. But often the choice of color is to the woman herself.

Some Christian churches decree that all members must meet for worship every Sunday. But there can be differences between morning and evening worship, just one hour or all day.

Yet most people are able to accept that they are all part of the Christian cosmology despite their differences, because they have a core that unites them. Why should any religion, such as Wicca, be considered that much different? We have our differences, and we have our core that unites us and makes us different from other religions.

[Louisvillian]

If they are arbitrary - then how are they considered core tenets?
I wouldn't say they're arbitrary. For it to be that, there'd have to be someone to arbitrate over their establishment.
Rather, the core ideas of what makes something "Wiccan" developed over time and became "established" by consensus and precedent.

[Twinkle]

That's the trick, isn't it? It's all about people building consensus.

We don't have a central authority to dictate to us, to decide for us what the core practices or tenets are. That means we'll never have an authoritative set of core practices and tenets. Expecting it to happen is pointless as it's contrary to Wicca... and you'll never get all Wiccans to agree. (I doubt we'd be able to get all Gardnerians and Alexandrians to agree 100%, and that's just two of the many Wiccan denominations!)

Various individuals and groups have tried to come up with what they believe the core list is or should be. Every single time that has happened, there has been dissent.

It's a double-edged sword. I know some people consider it to be a major problem but it's one of the main strengths of Wicca too. If we Wiccans were ever forced to give up our autonomy and submit to a central Wiccan authority, then many Wiccans (including many who were founders) would have been excluded -- and that does not strengthen Wicca as a spiritual path at all, and definitely does not honour the God and Goddess.

There is a reason why "The Charge of the Goddess" is so beloved by Wiccans.


Thank you.

So it would seem that there is *nothing* that clearly identifies a Wiccan as Wiccan. There are no core tenets, there is nothing that makes Wicca, Wicca - only the fact that someone claims it.

What then differentiates Wicca from Eclectic Paganism?

[Lunacie]

I wouldn't say they're arbitrary. For it to be that, there'd have to be someone to arbitrate over their establishment.
Rather, the core ideas of what makes something "Wiccan" developed over time and became "established" by consensus and precedent.

And that I can completely agree with. :smile:

[Twinkle]

I wouldn't say they're arbitrary. For it to be that, there'd have to be someone to arbitrate over their establishment.
Rather, the core ideas of what makes something "Wiccan" developed over time and became "established" by consensus and precedent.


Well - Ben just said that the lines are drawn by the practitioner/coven.

So, the arbitrator would be the solitary or the HP/HPS, would it not?

If so, then the core tenets would be arbitrary.

[Lunacie]

Thank you.

So it would seem that there is *nothing* that clearly identifies a Wiccan as Wiccan. There are no core tenets, there is nothing that makes Wicca, Wicca - only the fact that someone claims it.

What then differentiates Wicca from Eclectic Paganism?

While some of the finer points may differ from Tradition to Tradition, just as they differ from Denomination to Denomination within the Christian Church, I do believe there is is a core that makes Wicca different from other religions and unique to itself.

One of those things, as I mentioned a few posts before this, is that Wiccans believe that Divine energy manifests in two forms, masculine and feminine. Even the Wiccan Traditions that worship only the Goddess do not deny that there is also a God energy.

The Wheel of the Year is basically a Wiccan concept (if I'm wrong someone will surely post the correct info) that has been co-opted by other Pagan religions.

Some of the other Wiccan precepts are shared with some other Pagan religions, but the particular set of beliefs that are gathered and called Wicca are not found in this particular combination in any other religions to the best of my knowledge.

[Twinkle]

Yes, but Ben just got through saying that none of those things are a consensus among all Wiccans.

So - whose right? Are you both right? If so, and you're both claiming to be Wiccan, then this would imply that these core tenets you just listed are definitely *not* core.

[Louisvillian]

There are no core tenets, there is nothing that makes Wicca, Wicca - only the fact that someone claims it.
You're obviously not getting the point, even though we've explained it to you over 9000 times, and are drawing an extreme conclusion far from the point.

Wicca has a coherent history, and a consensus based on precedent for basic practices and ideals. It has a certain character to it that is recognisable. This differentiates it as a religion from more open-ended eclectic paganism, which has no consensus or precedent to look to.


Well - Ben just said that the lines are drawn by the practitioner/coven.
Yeah...and I'm not Ben, now, am I?.

[Lunacie]

Well - Ben just said that the lines are drawn by the practitioner/coven.

So, the arbitrator would be the solitary or the HP/HPS, would it not?

If so, then the core tenets would be arbitrary.

Ah, but... as I said before, in my oinion there are no hard and fast lines. It is a "soft" belief system. It's flexible.

One analogy I've been using for many years and still find it pretty apt is that Wicca provides the basic building materials and the builder can make quite a few different structures out of them. You can add some other materials to the set you're given to start with, and you can even leave out one or more - however, leaving things out will likely give you a finished product that is different at its core.

[Lunacie]

You're obviously not getting the point, even though we've explained it to you over 9000 times, and are drawing an extreme conclusion far from the point.

Wicca has a coherent history, and a consensus based on precedent for basic practices and ideals. It has a certain character to it that is recognisable. This differentiates it as a religion from more open-ended eclectic paganism, which has no consensus or precedent to look to.

Ah, but she is getting each of us to think, to look at the questions in a different way. And our responses may help those who are lurking to think about things in a different way too. As long as we stick to the topic here and don't start doing character assassination, it's all good.

[Twinkle]

Ah, but... as I said before, in my oinion there are no hard and fast lines. It is a "soft" belief system. It's flexible.

One analogy I've been using for many years and still find it pretty apt is that Wicca provides the basic building materials and the builder can make quite a few different structures out of them. You can add some other materials to the set you're given to start with, and you can even leave out one or more - however, leaving things out will likely give you a finished product that is different at its core.


Flexible meaning nothing hard and fast that defines a Wiccan?

If Wicca provides the basic building materials and then someone can expand them - how are they not building something else entirely new?

What, if anything, continues to make it Wiccan?

[Twinkle]

You're obviously not getting the point, even though we've explained it to you over 9000 times, and are drawing an extreme conclusion far from the point.

Wicca has a coherent history, and a consensus based on precedent for basic practices and ideals. It has a certain character to it that is recognisable. This differentiates it as a religion from more open-ended eclectic paganism, which has no consensus or precedent to look to.


Yeah...and I'm not Ben, now, am I?.


No sir, you're not Ben. I'm merely repeating back what's being said and asking for the thought to be put through to its logical conclusion.

[Lunacie]

Flexible meaning nothing hard and fast that defines a Wiccan?

If Wicca provides the basic building materials and then someone can expand them - how are they not building something else entirely new?

What, if anything, continues to make it Wiccan?

And again the answer is, it's largely subjective. At least we're consistent in that eh? :hahugh:

Some Wiccans will say if you add or take away anything, what's left is no longer Wicca.

Some will say minor changes are fine, as long as the basic structure is recognizable.

Some will allow additions but no subtractions.

Some, sadly, feel that anything goes and it can all be called Wicca.

I think, I hope, that the majority can agree on the basic building blocks at the very least, and that major modifications may be "Wicca-based" but are no longer recognizable as Wicca.

[Twinkle]

OK - so would it be correct to say that as long as there are recognizable Wiccan components, it's still Wicca?

If so, what about the eclectic Pagan that follows some Wiccan elements but does not identify as such?

Would it be that an Eclectic could just as easily be Wiccan as someone who is Eclectic but claims the title Wiccan?

If so - then subjectivity is really not subjective at all - it's just a question of semantics.

[cesara]

What then differentiates Wicca from Eclectic Paganism?

Perhaps you can find the answer if you ask, instead, what makes Eclectic Paganism not Wicca?

[Twinkle]

Yep, I could - but since we're talking about Wicca specifically, and I'm trying to find out what makes Wicca, Wicca.

If we look at the thread and what's being said here, it seems that what I'm finding is this:

1. There is no consensus as to what Wicca means.

2. Wicca is soft, flexible, and a building block to expand upon

3. Wicca has been eclectic from the very beginning.

4. Wicca does have core tenets - but the core of what Wicca is is completely dependent upon the solitary practitioner/coven.

Therefore, if we follow this to its conclusion - Wicca is another word for Eclecticism.

To expand on that - Wicca is a form of Eclecticism and can be used interchangeably.

If we go back to the OP's question, then the answer would be a definite yes - one can incorporate the Babylonian deities with Wicca - since what is being created is an Eclectic Practice.

Since Wicca is Eclectic - there is nothing that would make what the OP is questioning "wrong", since what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan is entirely subjective.

So - it would seem that we've come to the conclusion that Wicca (with nothing specific to make it Wicca) is inclusionary, it incorporates anything and everything.

[Lunacie]

OK - so would it be correct to say that as long as there are recognizable Wiccan components, it's still Wicca?

For most Wiccans, I think that's pretty true. As long as you have enough of those recognizable components present anyway.



If so, what about the eclectic Pagan that follows some Wiccan elements but does not identify as such?

If they don't identify as Wiccan, then their path is eclectic with some aspects of Wicca included.



Would it be that an Eclectic could just as easily be Wiccan as someone who is Eclectic but claims the title?

Not unless they are embracing most of the core practices and beliefs of Wicca. Otherwise they're eclectic Pagans, eh?


If so - then subjectivity is really not subjective at all - it's just a question of semantics.

Just left me in the mud here. I don't think that's what we've been trying to explain.

[Twinkle]

I came to some conclusions in the post above yours.

Your input would be appreciated. I followed the line of logic in the thread - but perhaps there is something I missed that you would care to expand upon.

[Lunacie]

Yep, I could - but since we're talking about Wicca specifically, and I'm trying to find out what makes Wicca, Wicca.

If we look at the thread and what's being said here, it seems that what I'm finding is this:

1. There is no consensus as to what Wicca means.

That's not what I'm reading here, nor is it what I'm saying.


2. Wicca is soft, flexible, and a building block to expand upon

Basically true


3. Wicca has been eclectic from the very beginning.

Got this one right. :thumbsup:

4. Wicca does have core tenets - but the core of what Wicca is is completely dependent upon the solitary practitioner/coven. [/quote]

Nope, the core is basically the core. It's the color of the dress or the time of worship service that may vary somewhat.


Therefore, if we follow this to its conclusion - Wicca is another word for Eclecticism.

In a nit-picky kind of way.


To expand on that - Wicca is a form of Eclecticism and can be used interchangeably.

Wicca is a form of eclecticism, but they can no more be used interchangably than Wicca and Pagan can be accurately used interchangably.


If we go back to the OP's question, then the answer would be a definite yes - one can incorporate the Babylonian deities with Wicca - since what is being created is an Eclectic Practice.

Yes, they can possibly be blended. It has not been determined that the result would be a new tradition of Wicca.


Since Wicca is Eclectic - there is nothing that would make what the OP is questioning "wrong", since what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan is entirely subjective.

So - it would seem that we've come to the conclusion that Wicca (with nothing specific to make it Wicca) is inclusionary, it incorporates anything and everything.

Nope, nope, nope! I don't know whether we're incapable of explaining clearly, or whether you're incapable of understanding. But I'm heading out with the family now. Be back later - tonight or tomorrow.

[Twinkle]

Thanks for your response, Lunacie.

It's true - what you're saying is that Wicca has core tenets. Ben has said that there is no consensus as to what the core tenets are, and every time there has been an attempt there is dissent. Both of you have said that the core tenets are largely subjective, dependent on practitioner and coven.

This leads me to believe at this point, Wicca has no core tenets.

I would agree with you that Wiccan and Pagan are no more interchangeable with Eclectic Pagan and Wiccan if there was something concrete that explained *why*. As of now I've been told that everything regarding what is Wiccan is largely subjective.

I'm not really being nit-picky. If Wicca has been eclectic from the beginning, then Wicca truly is a form of Eclecticism.

If it is Eclectic (which you've agreed with me on), then I'm not sure how you can say that Wicca is not inclusionary and that anything and everything can't be incorporated into it.

Eclecticism means "to pull from the best".

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for your response, Lunacie.

It's true - what you're saying is that Wicca has core tenets. Ben has said that there is no consensus as to what the core tenets are, and every time there has been an attempt there is dissent. Both of you have said that the core tenets are largely subjective, dependent on practitioner and coven.

This leads me to believe at this point, Wicca has no core tenets.

I would agree with you that Wiccan and Pagan are no more interchangeable with Eclectic Pagan and Wiccan if there was something concrete that explained *why*. As of now I've been told that everything regarding what is Wiccan is largely subjective.

I'm not really being nit-picky. If Wicca has been eclectic from the beginning, then Wicca truly is a form of Eclecticism.

If it is Eclectic (which you've agreed with me on), then I'm not sure how you can say that Wicca is not inclusionary and that anything and everything can't be incorporated into it.

Eclecticism means "to pull from the best".

The logic doesn't hold.

If a religion that has proven to be eclectic isn't really a religion but merely "Eclecticism" then there aren't really such things as different religions -- every religion out there has been eclectic in drawing from other religions as sources. Is Christianity merely "Eclecticism"? Is Judaism?

Things are not black and white. Wicca has never been a religion, like some, to claim it has absolute answers. It's not a One True Way religion. (Personally, I think that whole One True Way mindset is a consequence of monotheism, where to be the One True Way everything else must be wrong. Very black and white thinking.)

There is a core of practices and beliefs, and it is correct that there is no such thing as a universally accepted list for all Wiccans. It's fallacious reasoning to see those two statements as mutually exclusive because they aren't.

Wicca is a religion with soft boundaries. There is a common pool of practices and beliefs (that "core beliefs" set we keep talking about) and when you compare the various lists different Wiccans have drawn up, the overlap is obvious. Because of the independence and autonomy of Wiccans, though, each list does tend to be a bit different... and that's what I mean by there is unlikely to ever be a single list that will be universally accepted by all Wiccans.

But the overlap is there. Look at our Core Beliefs of Wicca (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=151625) thread here at MysticWicks, compare with other lists like the Principles of Wiccan Belief (http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm) and in any of the HUNDREDS of books on the market about Wicca (including Gardner's, and Alex Sanders', etc.) and you will see the obvious overlap. The core practices and beliefs will shine through.

Wicca started out as an underground religion and only recently has moved more into the mainstream. Wiccans haven't really felt the need for external validation for what they were doing. Some, like Alex Sanders and even Gerald Gardner in the way they flaunted themselves flamboyantly in very stereotypical ways for the gutter press, obviously didn't feel they needed outsiders to approve. So insisting that Wiccans "need" validation by formalizing our core practices and beliefs, formalizing our identity through written down definitions and lists to establish who is and isn't a "real" Wiccan, is not likely going to go over too well. It hasn't gone over too well in the past, it hasn't gone over too well in other attempts to even formalize a list of truly universally accepted core beliefs and practices, and it hasn't gone over well here on MysticWicks either.

[Twinkle]

OK - so if there is a core, and the core is personal and subjective - then how is it Wicca and not a personal spirituality that one calls *Wicca?*

I mean - If the core is solely personal that it is *personal* beliefs and practices, not *religious* beliefs and practices.

[Ben Gruagach]

OK - so if there is a core, and the core is personal and subjective - then how is it Wicca and not a personal spirituality that one calls *Wicca?*

I mean - If the core is solely personal that it is *personal* beliefs and practices, not *religious* beliefs and practices.

Those are false dichotomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

Anyone who wants to know what Wicca is about merely needs to talk to a variety of Wiccans (not just ones from a single denomination) and read a few books from different authors and publishers to get an overview. But just like with any religion, one can study the topic for a whole lifetime and never have a complete understanding. That's the nature of a living religion that is practiced by more than one person.

[Twinkle]

Now see - that is an evasive response.

How do you go from "subjective" core tenets, to there are core tenets, to Wicca is eclectic to saying it's not inclusionary?

Now you're telling me to talk to a bunch of other different people who all claim the Title of Wiccan to show just how Eclectic it is.

I'm in the Wiccans paths board? Can you not discuss the religion here?

[Ben Gruagach]

Now see - that is an evasive response.

How do you go from "subjective" core tenets, to there are core tenets, to Wicca is eclectic to saying it's not inclusionary?

Now you're telling me to talk to a bunch of other different people who all claim the Title of Wiccan to show just how Eclectic it is.

I'm in the Wiccans paths board? Can you not discuss the religion here?

Links have been provided. Authors have been provided. Extensive responses from a number of people have been provided to respond specifically to your questions.

What's the problem?

[Twinkle]

Well -

The problem I'm having is that you're saying I'm presenting false dichotomies when I've only repeated exactly what's been said to me.

If anyone has presented the false dichotomies, I respectfully submit that it's been the posters on this thread trying to answer my very pointed and specific questions, Ben.

I do not mean to offend and I am trying to be very careful in my wording, here - but there seems to be this very fuzzy area where *something* makes all of Wicca, Wicca - but no one seems to want to say what it is, exactly.

[Vampiel]

The logic doesn't hold.


We are debating the logic of what makes a religion a religion and when does it become something else and what fits in a particular one.

Very interesting thread..

Its one of the reasons I made this thread.

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=216007

Divinity seems to be a personal achievement which defeats the purpose in my mind.

[Lunacie]

Thanks for your response, Lunacie.

It's true - what you're saying is that Wicca has core tenets. Ben has said that there is no consensus as to what the core tenets are, and every time there has been an attempt there is dissent. Both of you have said that the core tenets are largely subjective, dependent on practitioner and coven.

This leads me to believe at this point, Wicca has no core tenets.

I would agree with you that Wiccan and Pagan are no more interchangeable with Eclectic Pagan and Wiccan if there was something concrete that explained *why*. As of now I've been told that everything regarding what is Wiccan is largely subjective.

I'm not really being nit-picky. If Wicca has been eclectic from the beginning, then Wicca truly is a form of Eclecticism.

If it is Eclectic (which you've agreed with me on), then I'm not sure how you can say that Wicca is not inclusionary and that anything and everything can't be incorporated into it.

Eclecticism means "to pull from the best".

Certainly nearly anything can be blended with Wicca, some of course will make a better result than others. What I've always said though, is if that changes the core traditional beliefs and practices too much then the result may not be a new version or tradition of Wicca. It may become too different to be recognized as being Wicca.

There is certainly a difference between adding or incorporating things into the framework of Wicca - and saying that Wicca is anything and everything.

For the rest, I agree with what Ben wrote about all religion being electic. Perhaps in the very early days of human life, there were only a few religions that were fairly static by location. But it's the nature of humans to disagree with each other, as well to find spirituality in their own way and their own time. Some are more comfortable following a doctrine and a set of rules, but even those will find something to disagree over and argue about. I doubt if any religion has stayed static and true to it's roots. I wouldn't like such a religion I think. Religion needs to be adaptive.

[Twinkle]

Not all religions are eclectic - although many are syncretic. In any event, that's not really the point - and going off the topic of what we're talking about here - Wicca.

If the core practices are subjective to begin with, then it would seem difficult to state that something built off the framework of something subjective (like Wicca) would change anything core about it - unless we're talking about specific covens - and not solitary practitioners.

Your thoughts?

[Lunacie]

Maybe it would be helpful to realize that Wicca is an experiential religion, not a revealed religion. With a revealed religion, you have a holy book or a holy text that reveals the core beliefs of that religion. In Wicca, we have elders or teachers or mentors (often known as High Priests or Priestesses) who show us how to experience our own spirituality, in whatever way that happens for each of us as individuals.

This article (http://www.sacredwell.org/wicca.html)is rather good at explaining the development, evolution and adaptation of Wicca.
.

[Twinkle]

Maybe it would be helpful to realize that Wicca is an experiential religion, not a revealed religion. With a revealed religion, you have a holy book or a holy text that reveals the core beliefs of that religion. In Wicca, we have elders or teachers or mentors (often known as High Priests or Priestesses) who show us how to experience our own spirituality, in whatever way that happens for each of us as individuals.

This article (http://www.sacredwell.org/wicca.html)is rather good at explaining the development, evolution and adaptation of Wicca.
.

An experiential religion? So it's personal to each coven/practitioner's experience within it. That would make it a personal spirituality and *not* a religion - but would have certain ritual framework based arbitrarily from coven to coven and pracitioner to practitioner.....which would make it Wiccanesque, but Wiccan?

I'm not seeing it.

[Twinkle]

I'm perusing the article and finding some rather blatant errors really quickly....namely Carl Jung and his archetype theory - but I'll read it more thorougly later and come up with a more cohesive response.

I look forward to entertaining more of this discussion with you. It's proving quite beneficial.

[Lunacie]

I'm perusing the article and finding some rather blatant errors really quickly....namely Carl Jung and his archetype theory - but I'll read it more thorougly later and come up with a more cohesive response.

I look forward to entertaining more of this discussion with you. It's proving quite beneficial.

That's interesting to hear because I've been feeling like this... :bangyourh

[Burning Angel]

Okay...observation, and perhaps a complete right angle.

I'm reminded of metalheads arguing over whether Trivium, Bullet For My Valentine, or Shadows Fall (metalcore bands...metal and hardcore punk) - or perhaps Linkin Park, Slipknot and Korn (nu metal bands...metal and rap) are "true metal" bands...I'm sitting here listening to LP - In The End and trying to figure out what the deal is. It all rocks my socks off...what does the name matter? Same with Wicca, IMO...or any religion. I won't call something what it isn't, but if it works for me I don't really bother with the name.

(That said, I do love to know if something is epic black metal, brutal death metal, or new wave of British heavy metal...but that's all rather off-topic except as an example.)

Second...we were talking earlier about eclectic paganism and Wicca...the line between them. I personally believe in the classic Soft Polytheistic Lord and Lady, and in magic I use a Wiccan ritual framework...and I'm wavering on the Wheel of the Year. However. I'm also exploring other thoughts, and totally into Chaos Magic. Does this make me Wiccan, or Wiccanesque eclectic? Not my intention to ruin any other lines of thought, but it seems that a branch from that topic would be more fun to talk about :hahugh:

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Okay...observation, and perhaps a complete right angle.

I'm reminded of metalheads arguing over whether Trivium, Bullet For My Valentine, or Shadows Fall (metalcore bands...metal and hardcore punk) - or perhaps Linkin Park, Slipknot and Korn (nu metal bands...metal and rap) are "true metal" bands...I'm sitting here listening to LP - In The End and trying to figure out what the deal is. It all rocks my socks off...what does the name matter? Same with Wicca, IMO...or any religion. I won't call something what it isn't, but if it works for me I don't really bother with the name.

(That said, I do love to know if something is epic black metal, brutal death metal, or new wave of British heavy metal...but that's all rather off-topic except as an example.)

Second...we were talking earlier about eclectic paganism and Wicca...the line between them. I personally believe in the classic Soft Polytheistic Lord and Lady, and in magic I use a Wiccan ritual framework...and I'm wavering on the Wheel of the Year. However. I'm also exploring other thoughts, and totally into Chaos Magic. Does this make me Wiccan, or Wiccanesque eclectic? Not my intention to ruin any other lines of thought, but it seems that a branch from that topic would be more fun to talk about :hahugh:

~Jon :boing:

A new Tradition - Chaos Wicca? :hairred:

/just kidding

Do those few things make you Wiccan? Not on their own, not in my opinion. There's more to it.

There's a list and quite a discussion in this thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=151625), and a list that I find quite a few Wiccans pretty well agree with ~ with some caveats, such as whether the Wiccan Rede is a law or simply good advice.

.

[Twinkle]

Burning Angel -

Based on your post and what I've read here - you could go either way.

If you have an experience that reveals to you that you are Wiccan - you can certainly claim it.

However, if you feel that you are an Eclectic Pagan using Wiccan Components, you could identify as an Eclectic Pagan, as well.

Hence my opinion that Wicca and Eclectic Pagan are interchangeable terms.

What the difference is exactly is subjective to each practitioner and coven - and certainly no one has the right to tell you that you *aren't* Wiccan should you claim the label.

So yeah - you're Wiccan if you say so.

And you're an Eclectic Pagan that's into Chaos Magick but also digs some parts of Wicca.

You are a two for one deal. :D

[Burning Angel]

A new Tradition - Chaos Wicca? :hairred:

/just kidding

Actually I've considered that term :)



Do those few things make you Wiccan? Not on their own, not in my opinion. There's more to it.

There's a list and quite a discussion in this thread (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=151625), and a list that I find quite a few Wiccans pretty well agree with ~ with some caveats, such as whether the Wiccan Rede is a law or simply good advice.

.

I'll have to check that out - I don't think the Rede is a law :) It's a rede, after all :)


Burning Angel -

Based on your post and what I've read here - you could go either way.

If you have an experience that reveals to you that you are Wiccan - you can certainly claim it.

However, if you feel that you are an Eclectic Pagan using Wiccan Components, you could identify as an Eclectic Pagan, as well.

Hence my opinion that Wicca and Eclectic Pagan are interchangeable terms.

What the difference is exactly is subjective to each practitioner and coven - and certainly no one has the right to tell you that you *aren't* Wiccan should you claim the label.

So yeah - you're Wiccan if you say so.

And you're an Eclectic Pagan that's into Chaos Magick but also digs some parts of Wicca.

You are a two for one deal. :D

Hey...that's some good advice :) Personally I prefer the term "eclectic pagan" more than any variant of Wicca...it leaves me more latitude :)

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Burning Angel -

Based on your post and what I've read here - you could go either way.

If you have an experience that reveals to you that you are Wiccan - you can certainly claim it.

However, if you feel that you are an Eclectic Pagan using Wiccan Components, you could identify as an Eclectic Pagan, as well.

Hence my opinion that Wicca and Eclectic Pagan are interchangeable terms.

What the difference is exactly is subjective to each practitioner and coven - and certainly no one has the right to tell you that you *aren't* Wiccan should you claim the label.

So yeah - you're Wiccan if you say so.

And you're an Eclectic Pagan that's into Chaos Magick but also digs some parts of Wicca.

You are a two for one deal. :D

Anyone can claim that they are Wiccan. If they aren't interested in working with others at some point, that's the end of the matter. Unless they get involved in a discussion and start spouting stuff that doesn't fit Wiccan beliefs and practices at all, and then someone will almost certainly call them out and denounce them.

With so many Traditions of Wicca around these days, there is often debate between the Traditions of what is and what isn't Wicca. But I believe there is enough in common between those various Traditions that it's possible to distinguish Wicca, even Eclectic Wicca, from Eclectic Paganism. Someone who has had training as a Traditional Wiccan will be able to spot those who simply don't know enough, those who are getting too many things wrong, those who are Wanna-be Wiccans.

[Twinkle]

Here we go again, Lunacie. You seem to want to claim that there are concrete core tenets, yet you claim the core tenets are subjective. You say that there is enough that people agree on – yet the ritual practice is not core, the cosmology is not core, the ethics are not core, and even the Gods are not core. There is the argument of soft polytheism vs. hard polytheism within Wicca – each practitioners belief is arbritrary and the line is drawn between each solitary/coven – and yet you want to say there is *something* that binds all of Wicca together.

I am asking you (once again) for just one principle, practice, or belief that makes all Wiccans, Wiccan.

If you are unable to do so, then I would submit that there is *nothing* that makes Wicca, Wicca.

Burning Angel –

What makes you think that claiming the title Wicca gives you less latitude? It’s apparent to me that Wicca is whatever you want it to be.

[Burning Angel]

Here we go again, Lunacie. You seem to want to claim that there are concrete core tenets, yet you claim the core tenets are subjective. You say that there is enough that people agree on – yet the ritual practice is not core, the cosmology is not core, the ethics are not core, and even the Gods are not core. There is the argument of soft polytheism vs. hard polytheism within Wicca – each practitioners belief is arbritrary and the line is drawn between each solitary/coven – and yet you want to say there is *something* that binds all of Wicca together.

I am asking you (once again) for just one principle, practice, or belief that makes all Wiccans, Wiccan.

If you are unable to do so, then I would submit that there is *nothing* that makes Wicca, Wicca.

Burning Angel –

What makes you think that claiming the title Wicca gives you less latitude? It’s apparent to me that Wicca is whatever you want it to be.

First question - the Wiccan ritual format, the soft polytheist God and Goddess, the Wheel of the Year, specific tools...I could go on and on, but they gave you links three pages ago and you didn't read them, I fear...

Second - that's not apparent to anyone else in this thread. Frankly, it's a total misconception that only hurts Wicca's rep with pagans and the wider world. Sorry to burst your bubble :)

~Jon :boing:

[Twinkle]

You’re not bursting my bubble at all. I’m trying to learn, and if you can help me do that I would be most grateful. I am open to correction and gaining an understanding. That's what we're here for, isn't it? :)

I have read what’s been listed before, along with the other article with the faulty premise of Jungian archetypes.

Unfortunately, even with the list Lunacie gave, there is no consensus on ritual format, the God/Goddess duality thing, or anything else you listed.

What really surprised me was your claim of ritual tools that makes a Wiccan, a Wiccan. I had no idea that using an athame made one a Wiccan. That’s like saying that pouring a libation makes one a Hellenic Reconstructionist. It just doesn’t add up to the totality of a religion.

I was under the impression that you didn’t know if you fell into the Wiccan paradigm or not – because you asked the question about whether you were Wiccan, Wiccanesque, or eclectic.

So perhaps you can tell me what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan.

[cesara]

Unfortunately, even with the list Lunacie gave, there is no consensus on ritual format, the God/Goddess duality thing, or anything else you listed.
There most certainly is consensus. So, you are rejecting these points, outright because???



What really surprised me was your claim of ritual tools that makes a Wiccan, a Wiccan. I had no idea that using an athame made one a Wiccan. That’s like saying that pouring a libation makes one a Hellenic Reconstructionist. It just doesn’t add up to the totality of a religion.


Not sure why you are insinuating someone said that using an athame made one a Wiccan. Straw man.

An athame is used in CONJUNCTION with other tools during ritual, and yes, the tools used together are part of what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan.

Please, PLEASE research Logical Fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies) before you post again so we can address the real issues and keep this thread productive.

[Lunacie]

Here we go again, Lunacie. You seem to want to claim that there are concrete core tenets, yet you claim the core tenets are subjective. You say that there is enough that people agree on – yet the ritual practice is not core, the cosmology is not core, the ethics are not core, and even the Gods are not core. There is the argument of soft polytheism vs. hard polytheism within Wicca – each practitioners belief is arbritrary and the line is drawn between each solitary/coven – and yet you want to say there is *something* that binds all of Wicca together.

I am asking you (once again) for just one principle, practice, or belief that makes all Wiccans, Wiccan.

If you are unable to do so, then I would submit that there is *nothing* that makes Wicca, Wicca.

Burning Angel –

What makes you think that claiming the title Wicca gives you less latitude? It’s apparent to me that Wicca is whatever you want it to be.


I have already given you at least two principles, practices or beliefs that make Wicca unique and that very nearly all Wiccans agree on. You can keep asking if you want, but I don't have to keep giving you the same answer. Read my response in post #69 for example.

Ritual practice is basically common to all Wiccan group traditions (there are far too many solitiaries for me to speak to their practices). Some may wear robes and some may go skyclad, but they do attend ritual.

Some may celebrate only 4 Sabbats, some may celebrate 8 Sabbats. Some may not celebrate Esbats as a group, some gather to celebrate Esbats when there is a need, some come together to celebrate all 18 Full Moons. Some also do group workings at Moon Void, at Waxing or at Waning, depening on the need. But (at a guess) most groups do celebrate the Sabbats as often as they can.

Some may celebrate the Great Rite by having the high priest and priestess invite the Lord and Lady to use their bodies, but many groups enact the Great Rite symbolically with the Athame and the Chalice. Both are valid ways of celebrating the Great Rite - which is not common in most Pagan paths but is very common in Wicca.

Different things can be served during the Cakes and Ale portion of the ritual, but most groups share some kind of food and drink during ritual.

And most groups do something during ritual to raise power, whether that's chanting, drumming, dancing or even meditating. The power used to charge whatever work they are doing, and that work is nearly always different, not just from group to group, but from ritual to ritual. Nevertheless, the concept of raising energy to power the spell or the working is pretty universal among Wiccans.

Is that enough yet? You can continue to deny that there is something "concrete" enough to make Wicca unique among other Pagan paths, but all your denial doesn't prove anything. Except, of course, in your own opinion.
.

[Burning Angel]

I think the whole discussion is pretty stupid...it's kinda frustrating repeating yourself over and over to make a point. :bigredgri

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

There's a stickied thread at the top that discusses the possible core tenets of Wicca, gathered from various sources; there are several which are common to just about everyone who claims to be Wiccan, solitary and coven-going alike.

Twinkle, I recommend you go browse it to find the answer to your question.

[Lunacie]

You’re not bursting my bubble at all. I’m trying to learn, and if you can help me do that I would be most grateful. I am open to correction and gaining an understanding. That's what we're here for, isn't it? :)

I have read what’s been listed before, along with the other article with the faulty premise of Jungian archetypes.

Unfortunately, even with the list Lunacie gave, there is no consensus on ritual format, the God/Goddess duality thing, or anything else you listed.

What really surprised me was your claim of ritual tools that makes a Wiccan, a Wiccan. I had no idea that using an athame made one a Wiccan. That’s like saying that pouring a libation makes one a Hellenic Reconstructionist. It just doesn’t add up to the totality of a religion.

I was under the impression that you didn’t know if you fell into the Wiccan paradigm or not – because you asked the question about whether you were Wiccan, Wiccanesque, or eclectic.

So perhaps you can tell me what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan.




It doesn't feel like you're trying to learn. You've been debating the same theme for several years now. No matter how we explain it, you don't seem to accept any of our beliefs. It's starting to feel like you're path-bashing here.

No, there isn't a complete or total concensus. I'm not sure any religion has that. Show me where that's a requirement to be met in order to be considered a valid and unique religion. It's a straw man and I won't explain or debate it any further.

Wicca has been recognized by the U.S. government as a valid religion, so maybe you should take up your questions with them.

[Burning Angel]

It doesn't feel like you're trying to learn. You've been debating the same theme for several years now. No matter how we explain it, you don't seem to accept any of our beliefs. It's starting to feel like you're path-bashing here.

No, there isn't a complete or total concensus. I'm not sure any religion has that. Show me where that's a requirement to be met in order to be considered a valid and unique religion. It's a straw man and I won't explain or debate it any further.

Wicca has been recognized by the U.S. government as a valid religion, so maybe you should take up your questions with them.

Agreed about the straw man, Lunacie...but beware the Appeal To Authority fallacy ;) Just a friendly note :)

However, she's absolutely right - and even if it's not path-bashing (which it's annoyingly close to) - it's a pain in the butt to constantly explain it. I'm with Lunacie here...

Okay - now all we gotta do is go back 5 or 6 pages and find something cool to talk about that has to do with the thread, because there's potential here :thumbsup:

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Agreed about the straw man, Lunacie...but beware the Appeal To Authority fallacy ;) Just a friendly note :)

However, she's absolutely right - and even if it's not path-bashing (which it's annoyingly close to) - it's a pain in the butt to constantly explain it. I'm with Lunacie here...

Okay - now all we gotta do is go back 5 or 6 pages and find something cool to talk about that has to do with the thread, because there's potential here :thumbsup:

~Jon :boing:

Yes, there is potential here, and I'd be interested in hearing more about how one might try to combine Babylonian Recon (which I know nothing about) with Wicca.


:fofftopicfor just a second here.
I'd just like to point out that MW has a nifty feature where we can pick how many posts we want to display on each page. I hate waiting for pages to load, and I get very confuzzled if I have to jump back and forth between pages to see what's already been said - so I have my settings to show 40 posts per page. Which means ... there are really only 3 pages in this thread. So there - :nyah:

[Burning Angel]

Yes, there is potential here, and I'd be interested in hearing more about how one might try to combine Babylonian Recon (which I know nothing about) with Wicca.


:fofftopicfor just a second here.
I'd just like to point out that MW has a nifty feature where we can pick how many posts we want to display on each page. I hate waiting for pages to load, and I get very confuzzled if I have to jump back and forth between pages to see what's already been said - so I have my settings to show 40 posts per page. Which means ... there are really only 3 pages in this thread. So there - :nyah:

Or any recon....reconstructionist paganism and Wicca really don't go together much that I'm aware of. But then...I'm sorta new :)

Lolz...I don't go on many forums except the Trek one, and it's not a usual system like this one XD So I forgot that entirely...but I know how you mean with waiting for pages to load, and you can consider me "so there'd" :alol:

~Jon :boing:

[Ben Gruagach]

Or any recon....reconstructionist paganism and Wicca really don't go together much that I'm aware of. But then...I'm sorta new :)

There are actually quite a few Wiccan groups who have chosen to structure their Wicca around specific cultures rather than the eclectic ones that Gardner introduced (Aradia and Cernunnos -- they're not from the same cultural background!)

Many have chosen to focus on Celtic myths and deities and fit it all to the eight Wiccan sabbats, the moon observances, the Wiccan tool set and magickal belief system. Others, such as the late Wiccan author Ellen Cannon Reed, focussed on Egyptian myths. (Ellen Cannon Reed's "The Heart of Wicca" is often recommended by traditionalist Wiccans; her "Circle of Isis" outlines how she melded Egyptian myths and deities with her Wicca.)

Back in the 1970s Ray Buckland, who was responsible for bringing Gardnerian Wicca to the United States, as a result of frustration over petty elistism that was rearing its head in Wicca put together a new Wiccan denomination he called Seax-Wica (or Seax-Wicca). It is structured specifically as a Wiccan tradition based on Anglo-Saxon myths and deities. (It was also highly controversial for providing explicitly for individuals to self-initiate into the denomination.)

Other groups that I know about include the Minoan Wicca tradition, started as a gay-positive Wiccan tradition focussing on Cretan myths and deities. It's been around since the 1970s.

MysticWicks' own Raven Grimassi has also written and promoted Italian-focussed Wicca -- check out his section in the Authors' Circle (http://mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=66) for more on that.

I suspect if you go through the essays describing different traditions (many Wiccan ones, but there are other Pagan ones in there as well) over at http://www.witchvox.com/_x.html?c=trads you will find more that have an emphasis on one or another cultural group.

Babylonian or Mesopotamian Wicca strikes me as another interesting addition to the richly diverse Wiccan community. More power to them!

[Burning Angel]

There are actually quite a few Wiccan groups who have chosen to structure their Wicca around specific cultures rather than the eclectic ones that Gardner introduced (Aradia and Cernunnos -- they're not from the same cultural background!)

Many have chosen to focus on Celtic myths and deities and fit it all to the eight Wiccan sabbats, the moon observances, the Wiccan tool set and magickal belief system. Others, such as the late Wiccan author Ellen Cannon Reed, focussed on Egyptian myths. (Ellen Cannon Reed's "The Heart of Wicca" is often recommended by traditionalist Wiccans; her "Circle of Isis" outlines how she melded Egyptian myths and deities with her Wicca.)

Back in the 1970s Ray Buckland, who was responsible for bringing Gardnerian Wicca to the United States, as a result of frustration over petty elistism that was rearing its head in Wicca put together a new Wiccan denomination he called Seax-Wica (or Seax-Wicca). It is structured specifically as a Wiccan tradition based on Anglo-Saxon myths and deities.

Other groups that I know about include the Minoan Wicca tradition, started as a gay-positive Wiccan tradition focussing on Cretan myths and deities. It's been around since the 1970s.

MysticWicks' own Raven Grimassi has also written and promoted Italian-focussed Wicca -- check out his section in the Authors' Circle (http://mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=66) for more on that.

I suspect if you go through the essays describing different traditions (many Wiccan ones, but there are other Pagan ones in there as well) over at http://www.witchvox.com/_x.html?c=trads you will find more that have an emphasis on one or another cultural group.

Babylonian or Mesopotamian Wicca strikes me as another interesting addition to the richly diverse Wiccan community. More power to them!

I agree there :D Now cultural influences...that's not quite the same thing as actual recon, is it? Like you can worship some sort of ancient God, but recon has more to do with the way the ancients worshiped that god, rather than a modern framework/spin on the same thing. Right? Or am I about to learn something? :)

~Jon :boing:

[Ben Gruagach]

I agree there :D Now cultural influences...that's not quite the same thing as actual recon, is it? Like you can worship some sort of ancient God, but recon has more to do with the way the ancients worshiped that god, rather than a modern framework/spin on the same thing. Right? Or am I about to learn something? :)

~Jon :boing:

I think you'll find there is a spectrum with regard to reconstruction as well. Some are extremely picky about trying to follow a religion exactly as it was practiced in a specific location at a specific point in history (in the past of course). Others adapt from a larger time-frame, or from a more liberal interpretation of a particular culture, or in order to make the particular religion work more effectively in a modern context.

So depending on your outlook you might find some Wiccans who have focussed on specific cultures might or might not fall somewhere on the reconstruction spectrum. That's a whole other can of worms to open though.

I don't think any Wiccan groups who have focussed on a specific culture claim they are really trying to be reconstructionists though. If they were, they wouldn't call their path Wiccan.

[Lunacie]

I think you'll find there is a spectrum with regard to reconstruction as well. Some are extremely picky about trying to follow a religion exactly as it was practiced in a specific location at a specific point in history (in the past of course). Others adapt from a larger time-frame, or from a more liberal interpretation of a particular culture, or in order to make the particular religion work more effectively in a modern context.

So depending on your outlook you might find some Wiccans who have focussed on specific cultures might or might not fall somewhere on the reconstruction spectrum. That's a whole other can of worms to open though.

I don't think any Wiccan groups who have focussed on a specific culture claim they are really trying to be reconstructionists though. If they were, they wouldn't call their path Wiccan.

Interesting post, Ben. Thanks. My limited experience with those who follow a Recon path has been with the ones who insist on trying to find out exactly how a particular group of people worshipped a particular diety or pantheon, with no apparent thought as to how well that translates to the here-and-now. That I think would not blend well with Wicca at all.

And I do realize that there are those who follow the Wiccan religion who also insist on doing it by-the-book irregardless of whether it might be more effective if they adapted it in some way, and who tend to condemn those who do make small adaptations as watering-down the religion. And of course they are entitled to their opinion, but they should remember that is all it is, an opinion, not some "concrete" law or rule.

Those who are more adaptive in following a very old Pagan religion might have more luck in syncretizing such a path with Wicca.

[Burning Angel]

I think you'll find there is a spectrum with regard to reconstruction as well. Some are extremely picky about trying to follow a religion exactly as it was practiced in a specific location at a specific point in history (in the past of course). Others adapt from a larger time-frame, or from a more liberal interpretation of a particular culture, or in order to make the particular religion work more effectively in a modern context.

So depending on your outlook you might find some Wiccans who have focussed on specific cultures might or might not fall somewhere on the reconstruction spectrum. That's a whole other can of worms to open though.

I don't think any Wiccan groups who have focussed on a specific culture claim they are really trying to be reconstructionists though. If they were, they wouldn't call their path Wiccan.

That's what I was thinking. I just know that pretty much all paganism involves pagan gods...but not all paganism is reconstructionist. An interesting idea would be a fusion of Wiccan ideas with a recon practice of some sort...would that even be possible?

And also, where would Satanism fit with Wicca? Not that I wanna experiment with that...just theoretical ;)

:alol:

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

An interesting idea would be a fusion of Wiccan ideas with a recon practice of some sort...would that even be possible?
Not really. Reconstructionism, regardless of it strictness, aims to revive a specific religion that was abandoned at some time in the past. Wicca, however, was established on its own accord as a mixing of various occult and folklore concepts in the early 1940's.
One would be hard-pressed to mix the two, to the point that I'd say it's damn near contradictory.


And also, where would Satanism fit with Wicca?
Not so well. Satan is an inherently Christian figure, part of a monotheistic dynamic, and represents opposition to that religion's deity. Because on their terms, there is a clear dividing line between good and evil, right and wrong.

Wicca is, on the other hand, inherently polytheistic (soft or hard is dependent on the practitioner, but it's still polytheistic) and pluralistic. The very concept of a Satan is alien to Wicca's traditional worldview. There is no "evil figure" that leads us away from the "right way", because there is no "right way" for everyone; the gods aren't good or evil, they simply are. Just as nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is there.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

..
And also, where would Satanism fit with Wicca? Not that I wanna experiment with that...just theoretical ;)
...

I think that would depend upon what one is defining as Satanism. If it were based upon the god Set then I would say it is Pagan. If based off the Levay model then I'm not sure. If based off the anti-Catholic model then definitely not. Yet the first two are known and accepted pathways. The third, well lets say the church is fully convinced there were ordained priests that did deliver the black mass.

[Burning Angel]

Not really. Reconstructionism, regardless of it strictness, aims to revive a specific religion that was abandoned at some time in the past. Wicca, however, was established on its own accord as a mixing of various occult and folklore concepts in the early 1940's.
One would be hard-pressed to mix the two, to the point that I'd say it's damn near contradictory.

I see. I was thinking like Wiccan ritual with recon elements related to the specific culture - say, Greek Wicca (for lack of a better term...nah make that Hellenic) with libations, say during the cakes and ale. Or would that just be Wicca Wicca, and not actually recon?

Sorry...I'm a noob of sorts :) In fact, it probably wouldn't be recon unless you were reconstructing a full religion, right?



Not so well. Satan is an inherently Christian figure, part of a monotheistic dynamic, and represents opposition to that religion's deity. Because on their terms, there is a clear dividing line between good and evil, right and wrong.

Wicca is, on the other hand, inherently polytheistic (soft or hard is dependent on the practitioner, but it's still polytheistic) and pluralistic. The very concept of a Satan is alien to Wicca's traditional worldview. There is no "evil figure" that leads us away from the "right way", because there is no "right way" for everyone; the gods aren't good or evil, they simply are. Just as nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is there.


I think that would depend upon what one is defining as Satanism. If it were based upon the god Set then I would say it is Pagan. If based off the Levay model then I'm not sure. If based off the anti-Catholic model then definitely not. Yet the first two are known and accepted pathways. The third, well lets say the church is fully convinced there were ordained priests that did deliver the black mass.


Well I was thinking in the LaVeyan model, specifically. There's something about LaVeyan philosophy that makes me go "yeah...that works...and it's metal, too! :metal:" I don't know if theistic Satanism works well at all for me.

I think what we're doing here is just tossing around ideas about Eclectic Wicca and how it would meld with various spiritual concepts...we left those Babylonians behind ages ago rofl :thumbsup:

~Jon :boing:

[Twinkle]

Not really. Reconstructionism, regardless of it strictness, aims to revive a specific religion that was abandoned at some time in the past. Wicca, however, was established on its own accord as a mixing of various occult and folklore concepts in the early 1940's.
One would be hard-pressed to mix the two, to the point that I'd say it's damn near contradictory.


Not so well. Satan is an inherently Christian figure, part of a monotheistic dynamic, and represents opposition to that religion's deity. Because on their terms, there is a clear dividing line between good and evil, right and wrong.

Wicca is, on the other hand, inherently polytheistic (soft or hard is dependent on the practitioner, but it's still polytheistic) and pluralistic. The very concept of a Satan is alien to Wicca's traditional worldview. There is no "evil figure" that leads us away from the "right way", because there is no "right way" for everyone; the gods aren't good or evil, they simply are. Just as nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is there.


I don't know - Christianity has these same components, and we have Christian Wicca.

[Louisvillian]

I don't know - Christianity has these same components, and we have Christian Wicca.
I don't personally see Christian Wicca as being Wiccan, though. The two things contradict on so many levels that I don't see how that could work.

[Twinkle]

On that we agree. I was a self identified Christian Wiccan for about 6 years. It was a mess and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't reconcile the two.

I know many people do and are quite happy. It just didn't work for me.

[Lunacie]

Not really. Reconstructionism, regardless of it strictness, aims to revive a specific religion that was abandoned at some time in the past. Wicca, however, was established on its own accord as a mixing of various occult and folklore concepts in the early 1940's.
One would be hard-pressed to mix the two, to the point that I'd say it's damn near contradictory.


Not so well. Satan is an inherently Christian figure, part of a monotheistic dynamic, and represents opposition to that religion's deity. Because on their terms, there is a clear dividing line between good and evil, right and wrong.

Wicca is, on the other hand, inherently polytheistic (soft or hard is dependent on the practitioner, but it's still polytheistic) and pluralistic. The very concept of a Satan is alien to Wicca's traditional worldview. There is no "evil figure" that leads us away from the "right way", because there is no "right way" for everyone; the gods aren't good or evil, they simply are. Just as nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is there.


I see. I was thinking like Wiccan ritual with recon elements related to the specific culture - say, Greek Wicca (for lack of a better term...nah make that Hellenic) with libations, say during the cakes and ale. Or would that just be Wicca Wicca, and not actually recon?

Sorry...I'm a noob of sorts :) In fact, it probably wouldn't be recon unless you were reconstructing a full religion, right?






Well I was thinking in the LaVeyan model, specifically. There's something about LaVeyan philosophy that makes me go "yeah...that works...and it's metal, too! :metal:" I don't know if theistic Satanism works well at all for me.

I think what we're doing here is just tossing around ideas about Eclectic Wicca and how it would meld with various spiritual concepts...we left those Babylonians behind ages ago rofl :thumbsup:

~Jon :boing:

I like Wicca pretty much the way it is. Don't see any need to be tweaking it or inserting completely different pantheons or practices. But it's certainly not my job to tell anyone else "How dare you!" If it works for you, then great, just make sure you call yourself a Satanic-Wiccan or a Babylonian Wiccan... not an Eclectic Wiccan and not one of the other Traditions of Wicca. It would be a whole new ball of wax, er... new Wiccan Tradition.

[Twinkle]

I'm not sure that it could be called Recon, either.

[Lunacie]

On that we agree. I was a self identified Christian Wiccan for about 6 years. It was a mess and no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't reconcile the two.

I know many people do and are quite happy. It just didn't work for me.

Wasn't that hypocritial? Earlier you posted this:


See, I have problems with the phrase "trying to make it so."

It either works, or it doesn't. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole is insulting to the Babylonian culture and the adherents of Wicca.

As a Babylonian Recon, the OP should know the cosmology of the beliefs, the cultural and historical interpretation of deity, and so on.

If one wants to turn away from history and culture, then fine - but don't call it Babylonian Wicca.


Call it Wicca that uses Babylonian Deities.

According to your own criteria, you shouldn't have been using the label "Christian Wiccan", it should have been "Wicca that uses Christian Dieties or Philosophies".

And after complaining about the idea of "trying to make it work" from that earlier post, now you're saying that you yourself tried to make it work and couldn't. Seems hypocritical to be blasting someone now for something that you yourself have done, no?

I'm just trying to understand.

[Louisvillian]

I know many people do and are quite happy.
I'll put it this way: they can call themselves whatever the hell they want. It doesn't necessarily mean I think it makes sense.


If it were based upon the god Set then I would say it is Pagan. If based off the Levay model then I'm not sure.
I wouldn't think of something involving Set as Satanic, IMO; since Set is, well...Egyptian. Whose connotations varied depending on what dynasty was in power in Egypt.

The LeVay model wouldn't work out at all, because it outright rejects theism, but still has occult ritual structures for...IDK what reason. I think they just enjoy mocking Christianity for the lulz. But LaVeyan Satanism wouldn't work with Wicca's conventional beliefs and practices, even though both have a common history in the 20th century occult revival.


say, Hellenic Wicca with libations, say during the cakes and ale. Or would that just be Wicca Wicca, and not actually recon?
It'd just be Wicca with Greek cultural customs in it. It'd make more sense in that context if, say, you worshipped a Greek deity pair. But it'd still be just Wicca.
Much like how Seax Wica, founded by Ray Buckland in the 1970's, uses a Wiccan ritual format with Germanic deities and cultural elements.


Seems hypocritical to be blasting someone now for something that you yourself have done, no?
I'm just trying to understand.
Not necessarily. She could be just trying to inform others that, in her experience, it doesn't really click. Trying to save some people a lot of grief ahead of time.

Not necessarily the politest way of going about it, but certainly has good intentions.
Then again, terrible things have been done with the best of intentions. So, meh.

[Twinkle]

No, I don't believe it makes me a hypocrite. It means I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and found out it didn't work at all.

The more I tried to make it work, the worse I felt. Six years later, I was in spiritual ruin.

Why do you think I've been sitting on this thread urging people to study the cosmologies and figure out how to reconcile the conflicts between the two? Why do you think I've been sitting here harping on the importance of reasoned belief?

Hindsight being what it is - I could have saved myself a lot of grief by not forcing to conflicting religions into one blending.

There are many that can find spiritual happiness between (insert path here) Wicca - but there are many who will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble as a result.

I've found it especially true among Recons trying to blend something into Wicca - shifting the worldview into the Wiccan Paradigm can lead to spiritual confusion and disastrous results.

[David19]

The line is drawn by each practitioner and coven with regard to what they choose to include in their personal Wiccan practice.

That's a consequence of Wicca being based on autonomy and personal responsibility instead of a central unchangeable Holy Scripture or other central authority figure.

People who just can't handle this point are not likely going to be happy as Wiccans. And that is perfectly fine. There are lots of other spiritual paths out there for them to choose from. But we Wiccans will continue to do our thing regardless what others think, whether they are offended or not.

Wicca has been eclectic since day one when Gardner started promoting it. He didn't invent the whole thing, and he didn't get everything handed to him as a complete system. He borrowed extensively and other stuff he just made up. And according to the accounts of those who worked with him in the early days (Doreen Valiente and Fred Lamond are two examples) it's also clear Gardner actually encouraged people to change, add, and even drop things as they saw fit.

Wicca is based on Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Italian, Celtic, Hindu, Buddhist, and even Amerindian bits and pieces. The god and goddess pair often named as the Lord and Lady are not even necessarily from the same cultural backgrounds -- and have varied over time, even in Gardnerian covens! Some Wiccan groups have chosen to focus on specific cultures such as Greek, or Roman, or Celtic, or Egyptian and have been happily working their Wicca within the Wiccan mainstream for years. If someone wants to work with Babylonian-inspired mythology and deities, or even Christian or Satanic ones, then there is plenty of precedent for them to do so.

Read the books by Gardner, Valiente, the Farrars, Alex and Maxine Sanders -- the precedents are all documented. Watch the videos that are out there, particularly the ones featuring Alex Sanders (there are a number of clips on YouTube) and you'll find Wicca has lots of room for diversity. For example, Alex Sanders didn't seem to have much problem working his Wicca with a focus on a particular Aztec fire god when it suited him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQqZndWpIis

From what I've been told, and read, by Traditional Wiccan's, the God and Goddess of Wicca (BTW anyway) are 2 very specific deities, and, according to Gardner in his 'The Meaning of Witchcraft', are 2 specific deities of the British Isles, he says he doesn't want to give the impression that everyone in the Isles worshipped the same Gods, the Wicca (or the Wica, whatever your preferred spelling) worshipped these 2 specific deities, a Goddess of rebirth, of the moon, and a Horned God of the hunt, of animals, etc). The names are revealed during initiation. I know that Traditional Wiccan's aren't barred from worshipping other deities outside of Wicca, so, maybe all the talk of Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccan's worshipping other deities is valid, but, it doesn't mean, they replaced the Wiccan Gods (e.g. Sanders may have had dealings with an Aztec Fire God, but, it doesn't mean he replaced the actual Wiccan God, if that made any sense).

[Louisvillian]

@ Twinkle: Well, why not let them find out on their own? Personal experience is often the best teacher there is. Not all attempts to blend Wicca's cosmology and structure with that of a different cultural context are bad or misinformed; it varies from person to person, and it doesn't do anyone any good to brand all of it as "doing it wrong".
You have to look it on a case-by-case basis.

[Burning Angel]

I like Wicca pretty much the way it is. Don't see any need to be tweaking it or inserting completely different pantheons or practices. But it's certainly not my job to tell anyone else "How dare you!" If it works for you, then great, just make sure you call yourself a Satanic-Wiccan or a Babylonian Wiccan... not an Eclectic Wiccan and not one of the other Traditions of Wicca. It would be a whole new ball of wax, er... new Wiccan Tradition.

See? That's why I prefer "Eclectic Pagan" ;) And doesn't Eclectic Wicca include both Satanic Wicca and Babylonian Wicca? Or do I have that wrong? :)


I'll put it this way: they can call themselves whatever the hell they want. It doesn't necessarily mean I think it makes sense.


I wouldn't think of something involving Set as Satanic, IMO; since Set is, well...Egyptian. Whose connotations varied depending on what dynasty was in power in Egypt.

The LeVay model wouldn't work out at all, because it outright rejects theism, but still has occult ritual structures for...IDK what reason. I think they just enjoy mocking Christianity for the lulz. But LaVeyan Satanism wouldn't work with Wicca's conventional beliefs and practices, even though both have a common history in the 20th century occult revival.

I think Mon_Sno_Lee_Dra (did I get that right?) meant Set in his Temple of Set framework :) I'd agree that the LaVeyan approach to deity wouldn't work, but what about the general spirit of indepence, and say Satan as a Chaos Magic egregore/ritual figure? Or should I just stick with Eclectic Pagan? :alol:



It'd just be Wicca with Greek cultural customs in it. It'd make more sense in that context if, say, you worshipped a Greek deity pair. But it'd still be just Wicca.
Much like how Seax Wica, founded by Ray Buckland in the 1970's, uses a Wiccan ritual format with Germanic deities and cultural elements.

I see. Honestly I'm not familiar with Seax Wicca, but that answers my question quite well :)

The more I look at the "this can't possibly fit with Wicca" stuff, the more I go "yeah...I'm glad I'm an eclectic pagan :)" Rules? Who needs 'em? Logical consistency yeah...but rules?

*tosses the rulebook over his shoulder, climbs on the motorcycle and speeds down the highway as Metallica - Escape rocks the thread :jon:*

That said, I'll still hang out and talk with you guys - it's not like my own beliefs are that far from Wicca that I'm totally out of left field here :)

~Jon :boing:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

..

I wouldn't think of something involving Set as Satanic, IMO; since Set is, well...Egyptian. Whose connotations varied depending on what dynasty was in power in Egypt.

I agree not Satanic as implied by the name and the social notion of what Satanism is. However, the following of said diety did create a following that was known as Satanic. I think, though not know for sure, that part of that grouping became the Setian grouping and it's offshoots.

The LeVay model wouldn't work out at all, because it outright rejects theism, but still has occult ritual structures for...IDK what reason. I think they just enjoy mocking Christianity for the lulz. But LaVeyan Satanism wouldn't work with Wicca's conventional beliefs and practices, even though both have a common history in the 20th century occult revival.

I agree that it wouldn't work against the core structure I know of Wicca. But then that was not the question if I read it correctly.

Though I do think the Satanic Witches as formed by his daughter did meld to a degree some of the tenenants of both callings.

...
...

[Twinkle]

@ Twinkle: Well, why not let them find out on their own? Personal experience is often the best teacher there is. Not all attempts to blend Wicca's cosmology and structure with that of a different cultural context are bad or misinformed; it varies from person to person, and it doesn't do anyone any good to brand all of it as "doing it wrong".
You have to look it on a case-by-case basis.


Yes. but the OP asked for advice, and I gave my opinion based on my own experience. That's all anyone has done here. The difference is is that I warned against it - with great passion and vehemence, to be sure.

And my perspective was not well taken. That's what's happened here.

How people want to view me or my intent is up to them.

[Lunacie]

No, I don't believe it makes me a hypocrite. It means I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt and found out it didn't work at all.

The more I tried to make it work, the worse I felt. Six years later, I was in spiritual ruin.

Why do you think I've been sitting on this thread urging people to study the cosmologies and figure out how to reconcile the conflicts between the two? Why do you think I've been sitting here harping on the importance of reasoned belief?

Hindsight being what it is - I could have saved myself a lot of grief by not forcing to conflicting religions into one blending.

There are many that can find spiritual happiness between (insert path here) Wicca - but there are many who will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble as a result.

I've found it especially true among Recons trying to blend something into Wicca - shifting the worldview into the Wiccan Paradigm can lead to spiritual confusion and disastrous results.

Exactly. Just because merging Christianity and Wicca didn't work for you, doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. And it certainly doesn't coorelate that blending other religions with Wicca is completely impossible.



See? That's why I prefer "Eclectic Pagan" ;) And doesn't Eclectic Wicca include both Satanic Wicca and Babylonian Wicca? Or do I have that wrong? :)
>>


I don't think that's right at all in my opinion. I was saying that Eclectic Wicca is a distinct tradition for some Wiccans. That's Eclectic with a capital "E", eclectic with a lower case 'e' might encompass any new Wiccan path that hasn't yet grown into a label such as Satanic Wicca or Babylonian Wicca. Those would be the best labels, I think, to explain what it's all about rather than trying to shoehorn it into another already existing Tradition.

Does that make more sense?

[Lunacie]

Yes. but the OP asked for advice, and I gave my opinion based on my own experience. That's all anyone has done here. The difference is is that I warned against it - with great passion and vehemence, to be sure.

And my perspective was not well taken. That's what's happened here.

How people want to view me or my intent is up to them.

I thought you were expressing concern about semantics. :huh:

[Twinkle]

Umm...and your point is what, Lunacie? I don't think I've said anything different throughout the whole thread.

[Lunacie]

Umm...and your point is what, Lunacie? I don't think I've said anything different throughout the whole thread.

edit: shouldn't try to post and eat supper at the same time.

The reason your posts weren't well accepted may be ... because the OP was asking for opinions from a Wiccan perspective, not a debate over semantics.

[David19]

There are actually quite a few Wiccan groups who have chosen to structure their Wicca around specific cultures rather than the eclectic ones that Gardner introduced (Aradia and Cernunnos -- they're not from the same cultural background!)

Many have chosen to focus on Celtic myths and deities and fit it all to the eight Wiccan sabbats, the moon observances, the Wiccan tool set and magickal belief system. Others, such as the late Wiccan author Ellen Cannon Reed, focussed on Egyptian myths. (Ellen Cannon Reed's "The Heart of Wicca" is often recommended by traditionalist Wiccans; her "Circle of Isis" outlines how she melded Egyptian myths and deities with her Wicca.)

I've got 'Circle of Isis', although I haven't read it yet, but, definitely will, and, I've heard a lot of good things about Reed, so, I definitely will check out more of her work.



Other groups that I know about include the Minoan Wicca tradition, started as a gay-positive Wiccan tradition focussing on Cretan myths and deities. It's been around since the 1970s.

I've heard of them, unfortunately, they seem to only operate in the U.S. :sadman:.

Have you or anyone else noticed that a lot of the cool traditions seem to be U.S.-only?, maybe it's just the diversity of people over there, but, I kind of feel left out.




Babylonian or Mesopotamian Wicca strikes me as another interesting addition to the richly diverse Wiccan community. More power to them!

Do you think there could be a tradition of Wicca that could combine Wiccan and Buddhist elements?.

[Burning Angel]

Exactly. Just because merging Christianity and Wicca didn't work for you, doesn't mean it can't work for someone else. And it certainly doesn't coorelate that blending other religions with Wicca is completely impossible.

Indeed - it was born eclectic and it's still a great religion for eclecticism. Not always to a large extent, but I'm...basically 60-75% Wiccan with my eclecticism anyway :) Part of that is because I take the soft polytheist approach - works with a lot of things...and the other part is that Wiccan ritual gives an easy structure to form rituals and/or Magic out of :) But I do like the latitude, like I said...that way I can toss a little of whatever in there :)





I don't think that's right at all in my opinion. I was saying that Eclectic Wicca is a distinct tradition for some Wiccans. That's Eclectic with a capital "E", eclectic with a lower case 'e' might encompass any new Wiccan path that hasn't yet grown into a label such as Satanic Wicca or Babylonian Wicca. Those would be the best labels, I think, to explain what it's all about rather than trying to shoehorn it into another already existing Tradition.

Does that make more sense?

Silly me - I know I'd heard of Eclectic Wicca somewhere, but I forget what it is as a tradition. Should I check WitchVox, or would you explain it to me? Either way is cool...don't wanna go too off-topic :)

I do agree, though, that you don't need to shoehorn something crazy like Satanic Wicca into anything else :weirdsmil

~Jon :boing:

[Burning Angel]

Do you think there could be a tradition of Wicca that could combine Wiccan and Buddhist elements?.

A lot of Wicca is already quite Buddhist at least as I understand it...meditation, reincarnation, some of that stuff. Not strictly Buddhist per se, but it wouldn't be a bad fit at all in my noobishly humble opinion :)

~Jon :boing:

[Twinkle]

If it had just been a question of semantics I wouldn't have tried so hard to get more substance as to what Wicca is.

If it was a question of semantics I wouldn't have bothered with the thread to begin with, because I'd have other things to do with my time than argue over words.

What was at stake here was a person's spirituality, and the problems that arise when someone wants to blend two religions with specific cosmologies (or maybe not so specific) and blend them into something else entirely - not quite Babylonian, not quite Wiccan.

Or maybe a new Tradition, or maybe not something workable at all.

[David19]

Not so well. Satan is an inherently Christian figure, part of a monotheistic dynamic, and represents opposition to that religion's deity. Because on their terms, there is a clear dividing line between good and evil, right and wrong.

This may be going OT, but, you don't have to be Christian or Monotheistic, to accept a clear, dividing line between good and evil, or believe in the concepts, for example, I do. I see that there is a line between good and evil, yes, there is often a large shade of grey, but, there are things in life that are just evil, no doubt about it (pediphilia, the act of rape, murder for murder's sake, not for self-defence, genocide, etc).

Good and evil didn't just come into existence 2000 years ago.

[Burning Angel]

This may be going OT, but, you don't have to be Christian or Monotheistic, to accept a clear, dividing line between good and evil, or believe in the concepts, for example, I do. I see that there is a line between good and evil, yes, there is often a large shade of grey, but, there are things in life that are just evil, no doubt about it (pediphilia, the act of rape, murder for murder's sake, not for self-defence, genocide, etc).

Good and evil didn't just come into existence 2000 years ago.

Right on :uhhuhuh:

~Jon :boing:

[David19]

A lot of Wicca is already quite Buddhist at least as I understand it...meditation, reincarnation, some of that stuff. Not strictly Buddhist per se, but it wouldn't be a bad fit at all in my noobishly humble opinion :)

~Jon :boing:

Thanks, I mean, I still have a lot of searching to do before I figure out my path, but, I just want to get some ideas :).


Right on :uhhuhuh:

~Jon :boing:

Glad you agree, I don't like it how it's assumed that all Pagans don't believe in absolutes of good and evil or that things can fit into those categories (there are some Pagans, 'cause they seem to have so many issues with the word evil, they'll say "negative entity", which, IMO, is just a New Age term, again, IMO, to say the same thing). Like I said, there may be shades of grey, maybe life itself is one big shade of grey, but, there are things in this world, and the unseen realm(s) that can be accurately described as evil or good, IMO, anyway. Although that's probably for a whole other thread.

[Lunacie]

If it had just been a question of semantics I wouldn't have tried so hard to get more substance as to what Wicca is.

If it was a question of semantics I wouldn't have bothered with the thread to begin with, because I'd have other things to do with my time than argue over words.

What was at stake here was a person's spirituality, and the problems that arise when someone wants to blend two religions with specific cosmologies (or maybe not so specific) and blend them into something else entirely - not quite Babylonian, not quite Wiccan.

Or maybe a new Tradition, or maybe not something workable at all.

:awilly:

I said
I thought you were expressing concern about semantics. :huh:

You said
I don't think I've said anything different throughout the whole thread.

I said
may be ... the OP was asking for opinions from a Wiccan perspective, not a debate over semantics.

And now you say
If it had just been a question of semantics I wouldn't have tried so hard to get more substance as to what Wicca is.

Please make up your mind and stop driving me out of my mind. :awilly:

If the OP had wanted more information on what Wicca is or isn't, he could have asked himself. Basically you hijacked his thread to debate whether or not Wicca has -or doesn't have any - core beliefs and practices. Whenever one of us posted what the concensus is on Wiccan beliefs and practices you completely ignored us and insisted that there must not be any core beliefs or practices, and there isn't any concensus. No one has taken you seriously because you aren't a practicing Wiccan. And perhaps because you seem to keep contradicting yourself.

Wicca started out as an Eclectic system of beliefs and practices, and if someone wants to try a new version of eclecticism with Wicca as a basis, those of us who are actually practicing Wiccans have said "Go for it." Beyond that I can't tell if you're saying that it's a bad idea for the OP or anyone else to do that - or if you're saying that Wicca is eclectic so anything can be blended with it. Do you know what you're actually trying to convey?

[Louisvillian]

What was at stake here was a person's spirituality, and the problems that arise when someone wants to blend two religions with specific cosmologies (or maybe not so specific) and blend them into something else entirely - not quite Babylonian, not quite Wiccan.

Or maybe a new Tradition, or maybe not something workable at all.
Right, but you can't assume that their cosmologies and tenets necessarily contradict. With certain things, like Christianity, it may be the case that they contradict. But others, such as the Babylonian mythology in question, might not necessarily be contradictory. Especially since Wicca's primary influences, Hermeticism and Western esoterica, often embraced elements of Egyptian, Babylonian, and other Near East religions.

Like I said, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. A universal, static rule on the subject simply will not work.


This may be going OT, but, you don't have to be Christian or Monotheistic, to accept a clear, dividing line between good and evil. Good and evil didn't just come into existence 2000 years ago.
Nor did I say that. I am simply saying that Christianity has that as a core concept, and the notion of a figure representing evil is a result of their particular take on the notion of good and evil. Whereas Wicca doesn't have a doctrine framed around it.

[cesara]

Beyond that I can't tell if you're saying that it's a bad idea for the OP or anyone else to do that - or if you're saying that Wicca is eclectic so anything can be blended with it. Do you know what you're actually trying to convey?

Good point. If, indeed, Twinkle, you are here to give your opinion to the OP, it would be really helpful to give your exact stance, because you have said 2 things that contradict:

1. Do not blend Wicca with anything. (based on your own experience which, coincidentally would mean that you have at the very least SOME idea as to the core tenets of Wicca or else you wouldn't be so adamant that Wicca can't, and shouldn't be blended with another religion or philosophy.)
2. Wicca can be blended with 'anything and everything'.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Good point. If, indeed, Twinkle, you are here to give your opinion to the OP, it would be really helpful to give your exact stance, because you have said 2 things that contradict:

1. Do not blend Wicca with anything. (based on your own experience which, coincidentally would mean that you have at the very least SOME idea as to the core tenets of Wicca or else you wouldn't be so adamant that Wicca can't, and shouldn't be blended with another religion or philosophy.)
2. Wicca can be blended with 'anything and everything'.

Actually I disagree with your statements and conclusions.

Wicca as defined and practiced initially did not blend anything outside of its initial foundation. The path was pretty well stable and structured on what was and or was not a part of it. A fact that pretty much remained until the mid 70's when one saw more of the individual perspective take hold and the structured facet fall away.

If not fall away then give way to a more individual practice and belief structure. While core elements remained the understanding and practice of them moved away from the closed coven concept. I suppose one might make the comparrion of a quasi-static structure that exploded into a full blown dynamic structure.

As defined and practiced today in appearance it is a matter of blend anything one desires. The ecclectic nature of the individual practioner has allowed for that persception to emerge and in some instances become the accepted face of modern Wicca.

I think the problem to my perspective is that explosion of notions and loss of strick structure that occured in the 70's. From one parent structure many more evolved over the years, but each in some manner owes its birth to that initial structure. Yet the actual people that lived and experienced the shift are not as well received as those of today who claim anything goes.

[Twinkle]

Actually I disagree with your statements and conclusions.

Wicca as defined and practiced initially did not blend anything outside of its initial foundation. The path was pretty well stable and structured on what was and or was not a part of it. A fact that pretty much remained until the mid 70's when one saw more of the individual perspective take hold and the structured facet fall away.

If not fall away then give way to a more individual practice and belief structure. While core elements remained the understanding and practice of them moved away from the closed coven concept. I suppose one might make the comparrion of a quasi-static structure that exploded into a full blown dynamic structure.

As defined and practiced today in appearance it is a matter of blend anything one desires. The ecclectic nature of the individual practioner has allowed for that persception to emerge and in some instances become the accepted face of modern Wicca.

I think the problem to my perspective is that explosion of notions and loss of strick structure that occured in the 70's. From one parent structure many more evolved over the years, but each in some manner owes its birth to that initial structure. Yet the actual people that lived and experienced the shift are not as well received as those of today who claim anything goes.


In one post you said everything I've been trying to express in five pages worth of stuff.

Beautifully stated.

[Lunacie]

Actually I disagree with your statements and conclusions.

Wicca as defined and practiced initially did not blend anything outside of its initial foundation. The path was pretty well stable and structured on what was and or was not a part of it. A fact that pretty much remained until the mid 70's when one saw more of the individual perspective take hold and the structured facet fall away.

If not fall away then give way to a more individual practice and belief structure. While core elements remained the understanding and practice of them moved away from the closed coven concept. I suppose one might make the comparrion of a quasi-static structure that exploded into a full blown dynamic structure.

As defined and practiced today in appearance it is a matter of blend anything one desires. The ecclectic nature of the individual practioner has allowed for that persception to emerge and in some instances become the accepted face of modern Wicca.

I think the problem to my perspective is that explosion of notions and loss of strick structure that occured in the 70's. From one parent structure many more evolved over the years, but each in some manner owes its birth to that initial structure. Yet the actual people that lived and experienced the shift are not as well received as those of today who claim anything goes.

What about the post I made earlier pointing out that changes took place much earlier than the 70's when Wicca travelled from the UK to the US? Doreen Valiente made some changes while she was still part of Gardner's coven, and she made more changes when she left that group and started her own coven.

Sure, the changes became even more pronounced when the Americans got ahold of Wicca, but until I read something that explains this better, I think the changes have been largely cosmetic. What Ben and I, and many others, see as being the core has remained fairly consistent.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

What about the post I made earlier pointing out that changes took place much earlier than the 70's when Wicca travelled from the UK to the US? Doreen Valiente made some changes while she was still part of Gardner's coven, and she made more changes when she left that group and started her own coven.

I agree changes were ongoing the whole time as the original coven started to collapse. Yet many of those changes were more cosmetic in nature than actual changes to dogma for want of a better word.

That and many of the changes that were occuring were still masked behind the veil of "Occultism". Yet with the advent of the many books and documents that emerged on the market in the 70's the occultism facet fell away and anyone and everyone started to write books on it.

That boom I think is where it really expanded into the ecclectic nature that it has become today.

Sure, the changes became even more pronounced when the Americans got ahold of Wicca, but until I read something that explains this better, I think the changes have been largely cosmetic. What Ben and I, and many others, see as being the core has remained fairly consistent.

I think to me the problem lies in the notion that fewer and fewer have actual lineage to the old coven. So what are accepted core elements to them is relatively hard lined. The core elements to many other's are derived from what the most recent author has claimed to be core elements and practices.

I suppose one might equate it to being initiated as a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. There are many books and articles out there about what it entials and what was done. Yet only those of us who actually went through the initiation and were privy to it know what was actually done and why.

Yet if you sit back and listen to the Petty Officers that speculate on what occured it's sort of funny and while elements are correct and factual, they do not have the practical to go with the speculative.

I see that as part of the Wiccan problem to me. Many who wrote or write on the subject but never actually went fully through it. Their legacy is the many self initiated people that have a sense of the taste of a thing but never actually tasted the real meal. But the table still looks relatively the same in setup as what they read about.

[Burning Angel]

Thanks, I mean, I still have a lot of searching to do before I figure out my path, but, I just want to get some ideas :).



Glad you agree, I don't like it how it's assumed that all Pagans don't believe in absolutes of good and evil or that things can fit into those categories (there are some Pagans, 'cause they seem to have so many issues with the word evil, they'll say "negative entity", which, IMO, is just a New Age term, again, IMO, to say the same thing). Like I said, there may be shades of grey, maybe life itself is one big shade of grey, but, there are things in this world, and the unseen realm(s) that can be accurately described as evil or good, IMO, anyway. Although that's probably for a whole other thread.

The trick is, some of it's incontrovertibly evil or good, but most is grayer than that. Although I call demons demons...and spades spades :)

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

I think to me the problem lies in the notion that fewer and fewer have actual lineage to the old coven. So what are accepted core elements to them is relatively hard lined. The core elements to many other's are derived from what the most recent author has claimed to be core elements and practices.

I suppose one might equate it to being initiated as a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. There are many books and articles out there about what it entials and what was done. Yet only those of us who actually went through the initiation and were privy to it know what was actually done and why.

Yet if you sit back and listen to the Petty Officers that speculate on what occured it's sort of funny and while elements are correct and factual, they do not have the practical to go with the speculative.

I see that as part of the Wiccan problem to me. Many who wrote or write on the subject but never actually went fully through it. Their legacy is the many self initiated people that have a sense of the taste of a thing but never actually tasted the real meal. But the table still looks relatively the same in setup as what they read about.

Yup, I'd say the problem is that many seekers take these authors and their books at face value. They have no good way of knowing which information is based on traditional training and experiences, and which is just made-up make-believe. It is possible by asking experienced Wiccans online or via local groups which authors are reliable and which aren't, and by reading what those authors have to say to then experience at least some of the mysteries first-hand and to have at least a basic understanding of the core beliefs and practices of Wicca.

And of course the ones who think they're found "the real thing" by reading books by less than ethical authors aren't willing to listen to those who say "sorry, but you've been flim-flammed."

[MonSno_LeeDra]

.. It is possible by asking experienced Wiccans online or via local groups which authors are reliable and which aren't, and by reading what those authors have to say to then experience at least some of the mysteries first-hand and to have at least a basic understanding of the core beliefs and practices of Wicca.

It would be nice if they did do that. I think the most significant problem lies in the notion that if you try to tell them you are accused of trying to tell them how or what to believe.

Not only that but it seem's from my observations that most do not want it as it means they were wrong or not entirely correct in their conclusions. To accecpt the advise means they first must accept their own falicy and errors.

And of course the ones who think they're found "the real thing" by reading books by less than ethical authors aren't willing to listen to those who say "sorry, but you've been flim-flammed."

That but I think part of it also goes back to a social position of struggling against their placement and position. To listen to an elder sort of flies in the face of thier struggle to find them selves and thier truths.

I suppose one might see it as an example of I'm not going to listen to you cause you are old school. That and I can't accept your correctness because I must resist your influence and generation to be myself.

[Louisvillian]

Another good thing to do, I think, is to read from multiple authors, across the entire spectrum. So that one won't be limited to just new authors or old ones. It helps to get a feel of the whole thing, across its history.

It's what I do, at least. And don't take what they all say at face value; think about it after you read it.

[Twinkle]

Another good thing to do, I think, is to read from multiple authors, across the entire spectrum. So that one won't be limited to just new authors or old ones. It helps to get a feel of the whole thing, across its history.

It's what I do, at least. And don't take what they all say at face value; think about it after you read it.

.wysiwyg { BACKGROUND: #f5f5ef; FONT: 11pt verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000 } P { MARGIN: 0px } .inlineimg { VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle } But what information would you really get?

Wicca, at least Traditional Wicca, is oathbound. Anything that is out there is really the publicly available information, and even if something was "leaked", it's entirely possible that the information is misleading, or even false - to steer people away from the oathbound information.

This is the issue between Traditional Wicca, and the publicly available Neo (new) Wicca that has sprung from the original traditions.


In essence, all that's being talked about is "outer court" teachings that have sprung from the "original", and that is why I'm having an issue trying to pin down the core from such an eclectic form of neo (New) Wicca that I'm seeing.

[Louisvillian]

But what information would you really get?
You really have to ask this question? What information would you get from reading informational books?


Anything that is out there is really the publicly available information
You mean like the information publicised by the first several Wiccan authors, like Gardner himself, Doreen Valiente, and Ray Buckland?


and even if something was "leaked", it's entirely possible that the information is misleading, or even false - to steer people away from the oathbound information.
I have a hard time believing that the leaked info was conspired to purposefully mislead people interested in Wicca. IMO, it smacks of conspiracy theory nonsense.

[Twinkle]

I don't know - Gerald Gardner was notorious for giving bad info and leaving it out there to distract from the oathbound material. General outer court info is just that - outer court, general and not the meat and potatoes.

I think what information you'd get from the non initiated Wiccan is the publicly available stuff, and opinions on practice, principle, and belief from those that have not been initiated. Which would mean that you're not getting the full scoop on what the religion really means.

This is why Traditional Wicca is an initiatory, oathbound, mystery religion, and not an experiential one like neo-Wicca is.

[Louisvillian]

I, again, have a hard time believing in the "outer court" and "inner court" dichotomy. IMO, I don't think there's much original info that is completely oathbound anymore. I think most of it has gradually leaked into the public domain.

Whether you like it or not, Wicca has become more expansive and broad than Traditional Wicca. Calling it "neo-Wicca" does not hide the fact that it's still Wiccan in character and structure. Further, the existence of it does nothing at all to take away from the value of initiatory lines of Wicca. So, there is no reason at all to bash it; all that accomplishes is broadly insult several thousand people simply because of their religious choices.

[ninurta2008]

The more I tried to make it work, the worse I felt. Six years later, I was in spiritual ruin.

Hindsight being what it is - I could have saved myself a lot of grief by not forcing to conflicting religions into one blending.
This is why I asked, so I don't run into irreconsilable conflict with my spiritual path.



There are many that can find spiritual happiness between (insert path here) Wicca - but there are many who will find themselves in a whole lot of trouble as a result.

I've found it especially true among Recons trying to blend something into Wicca - shifting the worldview into the Wiccan Paradigm can lead to spiritual confusion and disastrous
That is why I asked, and you answered my question toward the beginning.

The OP was not about blending babylonian recon religion with wicca, thats just not possible because it would no longer be recon. It was about blending babylonian paganism in general, though at times she missed the point, twinkle did answer my original question.

Back to the OP topic, the issues you would have to reconsile with the two religions, in which make it rather tricky are:

babylonian pagans, in the old times, were patriarchical, which is reflected in their pantheon. Wicca on the other hand ranges from matriarchical to being completely equal with the high priestess being at the top.

The the gods being aspects of 2 gods, that may have been easier to do if I believed in that, but also, many of the babylonian gods are rivals, how can they be part of the same deity?

Now as for offending other religions with my own. Babylonian pagans of ancient times took alot of deities from the sumerians, so its not like it didnt happen in ancient babylonia. Though if i did what they did today it wouldn't be recon i am aware and i wouldn't lie and say, "this is what they believed....." if they didn't actually believe that.

Just to note, I am just a babylonian pagan, not wiccan and not recon, just a babylonian pagan.

[David19]

Nor did I say that. I am simply saying that Christianity has that as a core concept, and the notion of a figure representing evil is a result of their particular take on the notion of good and evil. Whereas Wicca doesn't have a doctrine framed around it.

Well, thanks for clearing that up, it's just something that bugs me a bit, 'cause, there are some people (both in the Pagan community and outside of it) who seem to think that just 'cause you're Pagan, you don't accept the existence of good and evil, or evil beings (I also would have no trouble accepting that there might be a being, or more likely beings, like Satan who encourage evil and help spread it).

[Lunacie]

I, again, have a hard time believing in the "outer court" and "inner court" dichotomy. IMO, I don't think there's much original info that is completely oathbound anymore. I think most of it has gradually leaked into the public domain.

Whether you like it or not, Wicca has become more expansive and broad than Traditional Wicca. Calling it "neo-Wicca" does not hide the fact that it's still Wiccan in character and structure. Further, the existence of it does nothing at all to take away from the value of initiatory lines of Wicca. So, there is no reason at all to bash it; all that accomplishes is broadly insult several thousand people simply because of their religious choices.

I agree that there isn't much of the original oathbound information that hasn't been leaked in the last 60 years. Certainly some of that information has been twisted by people who didn't actually experience it, they just read what someone else had been through and repeated it in their own words, thereby changing it as it went through that process repeatedly. Which is why reading a lot with a discerning eye can be very helpful in weeding the additions and mistakes from the original stuff.

There are still a couple of Wiccan traditions (notably BTW and Gardnerian Wicca) that are probably closest to what Gardner himself was doing in the early days, but I believe that most (if not all) of the newer Traditions, as you say, retain enough of the character and structure (the framework as I called it earlier) to be recognizable as a variation of the original.

There will always be those who insist that any variation of the original is too different to claim the same label. They are allowed to have their opinion about that. But there's not much they can do about the much greater numbers who say that their version is just as good, just as viable, just as useful -- well, not much other than insulting them and creating bad feelings and making it look like all Wiccans do is argue with each other.

[David19]

The trick is, some of it's incontrovertibly evil or good, but most is grayer than that. Although I call demons demons...and spades spades :)

~Jon :boing:

That's true, there is a lot grey, but, there are thinks that can be aptly described as evil or good, for example, I think, in ancient Egyptian (Kemetic) beliefs, Apep is pretty much seen as pure evil, and what Apep represents definitely is - Isfet.

[David19]

I, again, have a hard time believing in the "outer court" and "inner court" dichotomy. IMO, I don't think there's much original info that is completely oathbound anymore. I think most of it has gradually leaked into the public domain.

Whether you like it or not, Wicca has become more expansive and broad than Traditional Wicca. Calling it "neo-Wicca" does not hide the fact that it's still Wiccan in character and structure. Further, the existence of it does nothing at all to take away from the value of initiatory lines of Wicca. So, there is no reason at all to bash it; all that accomplishes is broadly insult several thousand people simply because of their religious choices.

I'm not sure about that, the identities of the true deities of the Wicca/Wica are still kept secret, the practices of Gardnerian Wiccan's are talked about, etc. Also, can you really trust Buckland as a trustworthy source?, I mean, he does seem to have embarked on publicity/commercialist route ('Gypsy Magic', Gypsy Witchcraft, candle magic, colour magic, spirit communications, self-initiations, I'm sure there might be a new publication called 'Self-initiation into Gypsy Witchcraft, using colour and candle magic'!).

[Lunacie]

This is why I asked, so I don't run into irreconsilable conflict with my spiritual path.


That is why I asked, and you answered my question toward the beginning.

The OP was not about blending babylonian recon religion with wicca, thats just not possible because it would no longer be recon. It was about blending babylonian paganism in general, though at times she missed the point, twinkle did answer my original question.

Back to the OP topic, the issues you would have to reconsile with the two religions, in which make it rather tricky are:

babylonian pagans, in the old times, were patriarchical, which is reflected in their pantheon. Wicca on the other hand ranges from matriarchical to being completely equal with the high priestess being at the top.

The the gods being aspects of 2 gods, that may have been easier to do if I believed in that, but also, many of the babylonian gods are rivals, how can they be part of the same deity?

Now as for offending other religions with my own. Babylonian pagans of ancient times took alot of deities from the sumerians, so its not like it didnt happen in ancient babylonia. Though if i did what they did today it wouldn't be recon i am aware and i wouldn't lie and say, "this is what they believed....." if they didn't actually believe that.

Just to note, I am just a babylonian pagan, not wiccan and not recon, just a babylonian pagan.

I think it might have been helpful if that had been made more clear in the beginning.

I really don't know anything about the Babylonian pantheon or religious practices. Are there no goddesses that were honored by the Babylonions? As Wicca is notable for honoring both a god and a goddess in their rituals, that could make things a bit more tricky.

Are you saying that Wiccans see the gods as being aspects of a Uber God? While that is true for some, it's been my impression that the majority actually believe there are many gods and goddesses, and that they are all unique and individual and quite real.

[Lunacie]

I'm not sure about that, the identities of the true deities of the Wicca/Wica are still kept secret, the practices of Gardnerian Wiccan's are talked about, etc. Also, can you really trust Buckland as a trustworthy source?, I mean, he does seem to have embarked on publicity/commercialist route ('Gypsy Magic', Gypsy Witchcraft, candle magic, colour magic, spirit communications, self-initiations, I'm sure there might be a new publication called 'Self-initiation into Gypsy Witchcraft, using colour and candle magic'!).

It's pretty well known which dieties Gardner's covens honored.

[Burning Angel]

That's true, there is a lot grey, but, there are thinks that can be aptly described as evil or good, for example, I think, in ancient Egyptian (Kemetic) beliefs, Apep is pretty much seen as pure evil, and what Apep represents definitely is - Isfet.

What's Isfet? I've learned some about Apep from reading our local Sith Lord's threads :D But I never heard the name Isfet before.


It's pretty well known which dieties Gardner's covens honored.

Cernunnos and Aradia, right? I know one of 'em's Aradia :boing:

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

I'm not sure about that, the identities of the true deities of the Wicca/Wica are still kept secret
Firstly, the identities have been made public, notably by Doreen Valiente. Cernunnos, an animal/forest deity well-attested across Celtic Europe, who may or may not have had connotations of agriculture and fertility; and Aradia, a goddess attested to by post-Renaissance occult texts as being a patroness of witchcraft, knowledge, and motherhood. However, it is entirely possible that Gardner's group worshipped different deities before (as Valiente also states) and after this information was made public.

Secondly, Gardner himself didn't mind other covens worshipping different deities. Or that's what I've gathered. I know Ben has more info on the subject.


Also, can you really trust Buckland as a trustworthy source?The man's pretentious and occasionally commercialistic (we all gotta put bread on the table somehow), but that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't trustworthy.

[Burning Angel]

Firstly, the identities have been made public, notably by Doreen Valiente. Cernunnos, an animal/forest deity well-attested across Celtic Europe, who may or may not have had connotations of agriculture and fertility; and Aradia, a goddess attested to by post-Renaissance occult texts as being a patroness of witchcraft, knowledge, and motherhood. However, it is entirely possible that Gardner's group worshipped different deities before (as Valiente also states) and after this information was made public.

Cool - I was right XD


Secondly, Gardner himself didn't mind other covens worshipping different deities. Or that's what I've gathered. I know Ben has more info on the subject.

The man's pretentious and occasionally commercialistic (we all gotta put bread on the table somehow), but that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't trustworthy.

Right - think about the number of people who buy Silver Ravenwolf as opposed to Dan Brown, then think about the number of people who buy a Real Good Occult Book by someone like Buckland or Lon Milo DuQuette ;) Yeah...I'd be coming up with some more mainstream stuff :alol:

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Firstly, the identities have been made public, notably by Doreen Valiente. Cernunnos, an animal/forest deity well-attested across Celtic Europe, who may or may not have had connotations of agriculture and fertility; and Aradia, a goddess attested to by post-Renaissance occult texts as being a patroness of witchcraft, knowledge, and motherhood. However, it is entirely possible that Gardner's group worshipped different deities before (as Valiente also states) and after this information was made public.

Secondly, Gardner himself didn't mind other covens worshipping different deities. Or that's what I've gathered. I know Ben has more info on the subject.

The man's pretentious and occasionally commercialistic (we all gotta put bread on the table somehow), but that doesn't necessarily mean he isn't trustworthy.

That's also what I've gotten from my own reading and from things Ben has posted here - that Gardner was cool with other covens having their own patron dieties.
.

[Burning Angel]

That's also what I've gotten from my own reading and from things Ben has posted here - that Gardner was cool with other covens having their own patron dieties.
.

So eclecticism has never been a real big deal...Wiccan "orthodoxy" is roughly nonexistent, beyond the core tenets. :)

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

So eclecticism has never been a real big deal...Wiccan "orthodoxy" is roughly nonexistent, beyond the core tenets. :)

~Jon :boing:

I wrote several posts back that Wicca always has been more about the orthopraxy (the practices) than the orthodoxy (the dogma).

[Burning Angel]

I wrote several posts back that Wicca always has been more about the orthopraxy (the practices) than the orthodoxy (the dogma).

Damn...sorry...I knew that. Just following things logically and having a brain fart :P I actually like orthopraxy a lot better...it's our little secret, if you look at the other religions in the world :D

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Damn...sorry...I knew that. Just following things logically and having a brain fart :P I actually like orthopraxy a lot better...it's our little secret, if you look at the other religions in the world :D

~Jon :boing:

I don't mind repeating it. Others possibly missed it, or forgot it in the pursuit of other arguments in this thread. :smileroll

[David19]

I think it might have been helpful if that had been made more clear in the beginning.

I really don't know anything about the Babylonian pantheon or religious practices. Are there no goddesses that were honored by the Babylonions? As Wicca is notable for honoring both a god and a goddess in their rituals, that could make things a bit more tricky.

Are you saying that Wiccans see the gods as being aspects of a Uber God? While that is true for some, it's been my impression that the majority actually believe there are many gods and goddesses, and that they are all unique and individual and quite real.

QFT for the last part, and, I, personally, think there are Mesopotamian deities that could fit the Wiccan mould, for example, Inanna and Dumuzi/Tammuz are, probably IMO, the most famous ones, Dumuzi is Inanna's Consort, he descends to the Underworld (Kur in Sumerian) for 1/2 the year (the other 1/2 his sister replaces him in the Underworld), Inanna is a Goddess of sexual passion and fertility (in the Descent of Inanna, when Inanna descended to the Netherworld, in an attempt to take it over, it is said that fertility disappeared from the land, humans stopped having sex, animals stopped reproducing, plants didn't grow, etc), I may be wrong on this one, but, I believe Dumuzi may have been associated with horns (in the ancient Middle East, especially Mesopotamia, horns were associated with divinity, and they were also associated with divinity or Enlightenment in ancient Israel too, hence why Moses, as well as YHWH himself, are associated with them).

[David19]

It's pretty well known which dieties Gardner's covens honored.

I know people mention Aradia and Cernnunos, but, can we be sure those were the actual names of the deities and not code words?, like I could say my Coven (I don't have one, BTW) worshipped Aphrodite and Ra, but, I might actually worship Isis and Shiva.

[David19]

What's Isfet? I've learned some about Apep from reading our local Sith Lord's threads :D But I never heard the name Isfet before.

Isfet, in Kemetic theology, is uncreation, it's, basically, seen as evil, it's what the Gods oppose, and fight, it has many agents in the world (and, I'm guessing, the multiverse), Apep is the most (in)famous of them, but, there are many others.

Here are some links with good definitions:

From here (http://kemet.misguidedangel.nu/about/):


Well, isfet is the opposite of ma'at. It's imbalance, impurity, destructive power, and worse - it's "uncreation". Isfet is personified by Apep (Apophis), the great serpent which we all, Names and humans alike, fight each day.

Here (http://www.ecauldron.net/reconegyptfaq.php):


Isfet is a form of destructive chaos, uncreation, un-naming. It is personified in Apep (Apophis), the great serpent that tries to devour the sunboat while it is travelling in the underworld at night. It is imbalance or impurity. How isfet manifests in each person's life will be different, but many people can identify the sort of turmoil that leaves them feeling undone, as if their selfness is being stripped away and destroyed, their sense of identity: that is isfet. Isfet acts counter to ma'at.

Apep can only be slain by Set, though most all of the netjerw are involved in the process in some way.

Here's a good article on Ma'at (basically, Order), the opposite of Isfet:

http://www.persekhmet.org/articles/maat.htm

Finally, here (http://www.angelfire.com/journal/saadaya/House.html):


The word isfet is a Kemetic, or ancient Egyptian word which is the oppossite of Ma'at. Isfet can be translated as evil, iniquity or oppression. Ma'at, on the other hand, can be translated as divine order, righteousness, or justice. Ma'at is also the Measurer, the Goddess who embodies righteousness and the Law. Ma'at is symbolized by a feather, against which our hearts are weighed at the time of the judgement of the dead

Hope this helps :).

[David19]

Firstly, the identities have been made public, notably by Doreen Valiente. Cernunnos, an animal/forest deity well-attested across Celtic Europe, who may or may not have had connotations of agriculture and fertility; and Aradia, a goddess attested to by post-Renaissance occult texts as being a patroness of witchcraft, knowledge, and motherhood. However, it is entirely possible that Gardner's group worshipped different deities before (as Valiente also states) and after this information was made public.

But, like I said above, how do we know those weren't "code words"?, and, also, if Valiente took oaths and vowed not to break them, how can we be sure she broke them (in her books, she seemed like she took Witchcraft very seriously, so, I can't really imagine her breaking her oaths).

[Louisvillian]

But, like I said above, how do we know those weren't "code words"?
How do you know they are? You can't assume things like that. It's paranoid.

[Burning Angel]

I don't mind repeating it. Others possibly missed it, or forgot it in the pursuit of other arguments in this thread. :smileroll

Silly people XD Well I'm glad for the reminder :)


Isfet, in Kemetic theology, is uncreation, it's, basically, seen as evil, it's what the Gods oppose, and fight, it has many agents in the world (and, I'm guessing, the multiverse), Apep is the most (in)famous of them, but, there are many others.

Here are some links with good definitions:

From here (http://kemet.misguidedangel.nu/about/):



Here (http://www.ecauldron.net/reconegyptfaq.php):



Here's a good article on Ma'at (basically, Order), the opposite of Isfet:

http://www.persekhmet.org/articles/maat.htm

Finally, here (http://www.angelfire.com/journal/saadaya/House.html):



Hope this helps :).

OMG...that sounds like it would make an amazing comic book or something :D Don'tcha just love mythology?


How do you know they are? You can't assume things like that. It's paranoid.

Agreed...it doesn't really make sense.

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

I know people mention Aradia and Cernnunos, but, can we be sure those were the actual names of the deities and not code words?, like I could say my Coven (I don't have one, BTW) worshipped Aphrodite and Ra, but, I might actually worship Isis and Shiva.

I believe those names came from Gardner's own BoS.

[Lunacie]

Isfet, in Kemetic theology, is uncreation, it's, basically, seen as evil, it's what the Gods oppose, and fight, it has many agents in the world (and, I'm guessing, the multiverse), Apep is the most (in)famous of them, but, there are many others.
>>
:).

Always interesting to read a bit about other belief systems, I'm really only familiar with Wicca and Christianity. One of the things I most appreciate about Wicca is the balance between order and chaos, between creation and destruction. Nature itself does a lot of destruction in order to clear away and allow a fresh start for creation.

And if we really think about creation, unless we are actually gods we must destroy one thing in order to make another ... and that may well be how the gods create as well for all I know.

For instance, taking the things I'm used to, to make a new shirt you start with a plant... destroy the plant to make a length of fabric... destroy the fabric to cut out the pattern pieces. Baking a cake is the same ... cut down the wheat to make flour, break a couple of eggs, make a beautiful (and tasty) cake.

Those are all well considered actions, just as nature using wild fire to clear away growth that has become too dense and is choking out all wild life, although to us the fires seem only chaotic and destructive. So it is best if we only destroy something if we have carefully considered what will replace it rather than depleting it.

Just some ramblin' thoughts here, please feel free to return to the thread topic now. :smile:

[Burning Angel]

Always interesting to read a bit about other belief systems, I'm really only familiar with Wicca and Christianity. One of the things I most appreciate about Wicca is the balance between order and chaos, between creation and destruction. Nature itself does a lot of destruction in order to clear away and allow a fresh start for creation.

And if we really think about creation, unless we are actually gods we must destroy one thing in order to make another ... and that may well be how the gods create as well for all I know.

For instance, taking the things I'm used to, to make a new shirt you start with a plant... destroy the plant to make a length of fabric... destroy the fabric to cut out the pattern pieces. Baking a cake is the same ... cut down the wheat to make flour, break a couple of eggs, make a beautiful (and tasty) cake.

Those are all well considered actions, just as nature using wild fire to clear away growth that has become too dense and is choking out all wild life, although to us the fires seem only chaotic and destructive. So it is best if we only destroy something if we have carefully considered what will replace it rather than depleting it.

Just some ramblin' thoughts here, please feel free to return to the thread topic now. :smile:

Great thoughts...I don't know exactly why, but I've always liked the balance between creation and destruction. It just seems so...metal :metal:

I've often wondered if it can affect my magical ethics...if the Goddess can destroy, why can't I? :) But that may be best for another thread :P

~Jon :boing:

[David19]

How do you know they are? You can't assume things like that. It's paranoid.

It's just some of the things I've read, and been told, made me think that may be the case, now, I will admit I may be wrong, and, as I'm not a Traditional Wiccan, I wouldn't know until I could get initiated. Also, if Traditional Wiccans take their oaths seriously, why would they then publish the names of their deities, which are supposed to be kept secret, and revealed only to initiates?, would that mean Wicca was no longer a Mystery religion, as you wouldn't get the initiates of Mystery religions in the ancient world selling the secrets of the Eleusian Mysteries, the Mithras Mysteries, even the Christian Mysteries (the early Christians anyway), etc.


OMG...that sounds like it would make an amazing comic book or something :D Don'tcha just love mythology?

It probably would, it also is quite cool for real life too.


I believe those names came from Gardner's own BoS.

Again, how can we be sure that's his private BOS, and/or that changes weren't made to it, to keep certain things secret?.


Always interesting to read a bit about other belief systems, I'm really only familiar with Wicca and Christianity. One of the things I most appreciate about Wicca is the balance between order and chaos, between creation and destruction. Nature itself does a lot of destruction in order to clear away and allow a fresh start for creation.

And if we really think about creation, unless we are actually gods we must destroy one thing in order to make another ... and that may well be how the gods create as well for all I know.

For instance, taking the things I'm used to, to make a new shirt you start with a plant... destroy the plant to make a length of fabric... destroy the fabric to cut out the pattern pieces. Baking a cake is the same ... cut down the wheat to make flour, break a couple of eggs, make a beautiful (and tasty) cake.

Those are all well considered actions, just as nature using wild fire to clear away growth that has become too dense and is choking out all wild life, although to us the fires seem only chaotic and destructive. So it is best if we only destroy something if we have carefully considered what will replace it rather than depleting it.

Just some ramblin' thoughts here, please feel free to return to the thread topic now. :smile:

True, there is a balance between creation and destruction, although, in Kemetic theology, there's a difference between necessary destruction (as represented by Gods like Set, Sekhmet, etc), and the just plain destruction for evil purposes, as represented by Apep, and other agents of Isfet.


Great thoughts...I don't know exactly why, but I've always liked the balance between creation and destruction. It just seems so...metal :metal:

I've often wondered if it can affect my magical ethics...if the Goddess can destroy, why can't I? :) But that may be best for another thread :P

~Jon :boing:

If you're interested, there's a bit of parallel with some Eastern thoughts there, as, it's considered possible for all of us to share in the same power as God/Spirit/Super Consciousness/Goddess/however you define it.

[Lunacie]

I haven't actually seen Gardner's BoS, but I believe that people like Fred Lamond and Doreen Valiente who actually were part of his coven at one time, say that it was his BoS and that those are the dieties who were most commonly worshipped as the Lord and the Lady. I don't have any reason to doubt them myself.

If I've gotten this wrong in any way, I hope BenG will correct the misinformation.

[Louisvillian]

Also, if Traditional Wiccans take their oaths seriously, why would they then publish the names of their deities, which are supposed to be kept secret, and revealed only to initiates?
Some of them might leave one group and consider their previous oath null and void. I think that was part of why Valiente publicised the information. We also have to look at her actions in the context of the events of the 1960's and 1970's. There was, at the time, an explosion of popular interest in Wicca, neopaganism, and other new religious movements. Publishing certain information would have increased popular knowledge and understanding of Wicca, to clear up any inaccurate information floating around. At the time, it probably seemed like the prudent thing to do.

[Ben Gruagach]

Here's some stuff right from the horse's mouth with regard to the god and goddess names used in Gardner's coven way back when, and why the info was published:

p. 52 of "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" by Doreen Valiente

"... When I first met Gerald, the name his coven were using for the Goddess was Airdia or Areda, both evidently variants of Aradia. The god-name was Cernunnos or Kernunno which they also used, is really a title and means 'the Horned One'."

I recall reading somewhere that many Gardnerians chose to change the "secret" names of the Lord and Lady after they were revealed when Charles Cardell published [at least large chunks from] the Gardnerian Book of Shadows in his booklet "Witch" (in an attempt to discredit Gardner). My memory fails me though with regard to where I read that tidbit.

Another comment about the supposedly secret names is that Gardner and his coven didn't try too hard to keep them confidential. A few years ago I bought a boxed set of Gardner's "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft" that came with an audio CD with recordings of various radio shows etc. where Gardner and some of his coven members spoke. In a few of the recordings they perform chants where they explicitly say "Aradia" (or a variant) and "Cernunnos." You'd think they would avoid using the names if they were supposed to be so ultra secret.

Regarding secrecy and oaths:

p. 54 of "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" by Doreen Valiente

"The big question which remains to be answered is, how much of the Gardnerian 'Book of Shadows' represents the rites of the old New Forest coven and how much is Gerald Gardner's own concoction? I braved some hostile criticism from devoted Gardnerians by trying to answer this question when I collaborated with Janet and Stewart Farrar in their book The Witches' Way [published also as A Witches Bible.] I remain totally unrepentant, because I too seek the answer and shall continue to do so. There has been too much childish cloak-and-dagger business in the world of the occult, too much of what Aleister Crowley satirized as swearing someone to the most frightful penalties if they betray the secret knowledge and then confiding the Hebrew alphabet to their safe keeping.

The only reason for secrecy today is when witches themselves prefer not to have their identities and their private addresses revealed -- and this, oddly enough, is the area in which their fellow-witches tend to be the most lax..."

Valiente's "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" is a must-read for those interested in Wiccan history. After all, Valiente was there and knows the topic inside and out.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, and I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again -- I find it a bit hard to accept the claims that Gardner was merely passing on an intact pre-Christian religion, purportedly based on British Isles culture and myth, when the goddess he used was Aradia (an Italian goddess) and the god was Cernunnos (a Celtic god.)

It would have been more convincing if the Lord and Lady were from the same mythological system, or at least the same cultural background.

Since mixing in Italian and Celtic stuff seemed to have not bothered Wiccans right from day one, I don't see why it should be such a fuss to mix in Mesopotamian material (adding to the Descent of the Goddess stuff which was added in by Gardner way back when) or material drawn from any other culture.

[Burning Angel]

It probably would, it also is quite cool for real life too.

Well yeah...I'm just getting used to the OMFG this stuff is actually real part...why would we base a comic book on it when it REALLY FREAKING HAPPENS? :boing:



True, there is a balance between creation and destruction, although, in Kemetic theology, there's a difference between necessary destruction (as represented by Gods like Set, Sekhmet, etc), and the just plain destruction for evil purposes, as represented by Apep, and other agents of Isfet.

Right - or in Wiccan theology/nature similar to a natural fire to clear the forest for growth :)




If you're interested, there's a bit of parallel with some Eastern thoughts there, as, it's considered possible for all of us to share in the same power as God/Spirit/Super Consciousness/Goddess/however you define it.

Also, Christians believe they can create things and therefore share at least a bit in the creative work of God...I say why can't I? I'm still working out my personal ethics, though...all Wiccans plant flowers but I wanna burn the brush, too XD

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Here's some stuff right from the horse's mouth with regard to the god and goddess names used in Gardner's coven way back when, and why the info was published:

p. 52 of "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" by Doreen Valiente

"... When I first met Gerald, the name his coven were using for the Goddess was Airdia or Areda, both evidently variants of Aradia. The god-name was Cernunnos or Kernunno which they also used, is really a title and means 'the Horned One'."

I recall reading somewhere that many Gardnerians chose to change the "secret" names of the Lord and Lady after they were revealed when Charles Cardell published [at least large chunks from] the Gardnerian Book of Shadows in his booklet "Witch" (in an attempt to discredit Gardner). My memory fails me though with regard to where I read that tidbit.

Another comment about the supposedly secret names is that Gardner and his coven didn't try too hard to keep them confidential. A few years ago I bought a boxed set of Gardner's "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft" that came with an audio CD with recordings of various radio shows etc. where Gardner and some of his coven members spoke. In a few of the recordings they perform chants where they explicitly say "Aradia" (or a variant) and "Cernunnos." You'd think they would avoid using the names if they were supposed to be so ultra secret.

Regarding secrecy and oaths:

p. 54 of "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" by Doreen Valiente

"The big question which remains to be answered is, how much of the Gardnerian 'Book of Shadows' represents the rites of the old New Forest coven and how much is Gerald Gardner's own concoction? I braved some hostile criticism from devoted Gardnerians by trying to answer this question when I collaborated with Janet and Stewart Farrar in their book The Witches' Way [published also as A Witches Bible.] I remain totally unrepentant, because I too seek the answer and shall continue to do so. There has been too much childish cloak-and-dagger business in the world of the occult, too much of what Aleister Crowley satirized as swearing someone to the most frightful penalties if they betray the secret knowledge and then confiding the Hebrew alphabet to their safe keeping.

The only reason for secrecy today is when witches themselves prefer not to have their identities and their private addresses revealed -- and this, oddly enough, is the area in which their fellow-witches tend to be the most lax..."

Valiente's "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" is a must-read for those interested in Wiccan history. After all, Valiente was there and knows the topic inside and out.

Thanks for sharing all that. I have a new student and she asked what she could read to really learn about Wicca and it's history. That is one of the books I recommended - as you say "straight from the horse's mouth." Also the one by Fred Lamond (I still haven't snagged a copy of that yet).
.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for sharing all that. I have a new student and she asked what she could read to really learn about Wicca and it's history. That is one of the books I recommended - as you say "straight from the horse's mouth." Also the one by Fred Lamond (I still haven't snagged a copy of that yet).
.

Thankfully, "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" is back in print and is available for good prices (under US $20) on Amazon. Fred Lamond's "Fifty Years of Wicca" is also available on Amazon for reasonable prices (also under US $20.)

And of course for a really exhaustive look at the roots of Wicca, there's always Ronald Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon."

[Louisvillian]

Oh, and I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again -- I find it a bit hard to accept the claims that Gardner was merely passing on an intact pre-Christian religion, purportedly based on British Isles culture and myth, when the goddess he used was Aradia (an Italian goddess) and the god was Cernunnos (a Celtic god.)

And when you notice that much of Wicca's ritual structure, practices, and cosmology are very similar to those of the Hermetic Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism (which Gardner was involved in), Freemasonry, Thelema, and other occult/esoterica groups present at the time. Not surprising, really, considering that Wicca came about during the Western occult revival. Gardner had a long history of interest in the paranormal and the occult, quite normal for a man of his time; so it's none too strange that the religion he helped found was composed largely of traditional occult and esoteric beliefs and practices.

[Burning Angel]

And when you notice that much of Wicca's ritual structure, practices, and cosmology are very similar to those of the Hermetic Golden Dawn, Rosicrucianism (which Gardner was involved in), Freemasonry, Thelema, and other occult/esoterica groups present at the time. Not surprising, really, considering that Wicca came about during the Western occult revival. Gardner had a long history of interest in the paranormal and the occult, quite normal for a man of his time; so it's none too strange that the religion he helped found was composed largely of traditional occult and esoteric beliefs and practices.

Yeah - the whole "Witch Cult" thing is kinda silly. If that ever happened it took form in family trads and stuff like that, not Wicca...which is like Thelema's little brother in a lot of respects. :)

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

Yep. And some Wiccans, like me, can fully accept the real history of it.
But some can't, for whatever reason.

[Burning Angel]

Yep. And some Wiccans, like me, can fully accept the real history of it.
But some can't, for whatever reason.

They want it more fantastic and exciting...I like fantasy and excitement but this is the real McCoy (no pun intended as to the next paragraph XD) and I treat it as such :P

Unless, of course, I'm digging the Chaos Magic aspects of my eclecticism and invoking the Lord and Savior of the Universe, James T. Kirk :)

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

And some actually feel that unless their religion is older than Christianity it is somehow inferior.

Star Trek was just to early to catch the wave of Wicca and Paganism. If it had premiered in the 70's or 80's like Star Wars did, there might be a religion based on it the way there is on Jedism, with The Prime Directive being not to interfere with the way others find spirituality in their lives. :thumbsup:

[Burning Angel]

And some actually feel that unless their religion is older than Christianity it is somehow inferior.

Which really sucks...it's what the religion means that counts, not how old it is :)


Star Trek was just to early to catch the wave of Wicca and Paganism. If it had premiered in the 70's or 80's like Star Wars did, there might be a religion based on it the way there is on Jedism, with The Prime Directive being not to interfere with the way others find spirituality in their lives. :thumbsup:

Well, that would be interesting. Would there be a line where the Prime Directive didn't apply, like warp travel in actual Trek? Or would the Prime Directive be something else? I sometimes jokingly refer to harm none as my Prime Directive :P

And of course...Star Trek's religion was Humanism, for the most part. That's where I got my belief in Human power...it broke the last chains of fundamentalist Christianity on me. Also another cool metaphor was the way Kirk would always kick the ass of an old God or other being of great power...YHWH got smacked in Star Trek V and Apollo got pwned in an old TOS episode...forget the name. Obviously I have a reverence for the old gods, and don't believe that religion itself is slavery, but those ideas meant a lot to me as I began to free myself. Then I ended up here, in Pagan-land, and the real fun began :boing:

~Cpt. Jon, USS Chaostar :boing:

[ninurta2008]

It's not against mesopotamian paganism to mix pantheons either, or at least thats the conclusion I drew from reading one of the Amarna letters from mesopotamia to egypt. It had a reference in it about the ambassador to egypt from either assyria or babylonia, the ambassador worshipped both Ishtar and Amun (Amanu).

[Burning Angel]

It's not against mesopotamian paganism to mix pantheons either, or at least thats the conclusion I drew from reading one of the Amarna letters from mesopotamia to egypt. It had a reference in it about the ambassador to egypt from either assyria or babylonia, the ambassador worshipped both Ishtar and Amun (Amanu).

Now...are you sure he was acting in the normal parameters of his society? Or was he simply an iconoclast? I don't know much about that era of history beyond what I read in the Bible...rofl...and the only thing it says is all those religions are full of crap. Which if that was true I wouldn't be here :P

Even if it's not normal to mix religions per se, all religions mix some. We had talked about that a bit further back...but Wicca itself is eclectic. I'd go so far as to say that given Gardner's statements mentioned in this thread, and the nature of Wicca itself, that Wicca without eclecticism of some sort is stagnant, and if not "Not Wicca" then it's not what was originally intended :)

Remember, it's orthopraxical (Is that a word?), not orthodoxical (how about that? XD). What you do in ritual counts, not what you believe :)

~Jon :boing:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

...YHWH got smacked in Star Trek V and Apollo got pwned in an old TOS episode...

Greatly off topic but that is not a true statement of fact for the movie. The characters assumed it was "GOD" but the creature clearly says that was thier assumption not that he ever claimed to be "God".

edited to add:

Though in comparisson it might just be pretty reflective of how many think they see thier "God" though they just might be deluding them selves as to what their "God" really is.

[Lunacie]

Now...are you sure he was acting in the normal parameters of his society? Or was he simply an iconoclast? I don't know much about that era of history beyond what I read in the Bible...rofl...and the only thing it says is all those religions are full of crap. Which if that was true I wouldn't be here :P

Even if it's not normal to mix religions per se, all religions mix some. We had talked about that a bit further back...but Wicca itself is eclectic. I'd go so far as to say that given Gardner's statements mentioned in this thread, and the nature of Wicca itself, that Wicca without eclecticism of some sort is stagnant, and if not "Not Wicca" then it's not what was originally intended :)

Remember, it's orthopraxical (Is that a word?), not orthodoxical (how about that? XD). What you do in ritual counts, not what you believe :)

~Jon :boing:

Not exactly. What I said was that Wicca is more about the orthopraxy than the orthodoxy, not that there isn't any orthodoxy at all or that it doesn't matter. The practices are based on some broad beliefs.

For instance, if you don't believe that there are any gods, or that there is only one god, that's not going to fit very well with Wiccan practices where both a god and a goddess are honored as actual divine beings. And not just honored, but invited to take possession of our bodies at certain times.

[Burning Angel]

Greatly off topic but that is not a true statement of fact for the movie. The characters assumed it was "GOD" but the creature clearly says that was thier assumption not that he ever claimed to be "God".

edited to add:

Though in comparisson it might just be pretty reflective of how many think they see thier "God" though they just might be deluding them selves as to what their "God" really is.

It's never too off-topic for Star Trek! :D However, you are totally correct...that's the second time I've been owned on this point today XD I guess the takeaway for me, watching to movie and regardless of that fact is "Kirk pwned God...awesome!" Lol...it's the thought that counts :thumbsup:

On to Lunacie's thing in the next post :)

~Jon :boing:

[Burning Angel]

Not exactly. What I said was that Wicca is more about the orthopraxy than the orthodoxy, not that there isn't any orthodoxy at all or that it doesn't matter. The practices are based on some broad beliefs.

For instance, if you don't believe that there are any gods, or that there is only one god, that's not going to fit very well with Wiccan practices where both a god and a goddess are honored as actual divine beings. And not just honored, but invited to take possession of our bodies at certain times.

Well that's a given...I'm a bit of a terrible generalizer and it's starting to bite me in the ass :weirdsmil However, you are correct. I suppose that's the same with anything...there are some beliefs that you have to hold for any practice to work, even a religion as loose as Wicca :)

~Jon, grasshopper :boing:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

It's never too off-topic for Star Trek! :D However, you are totally correct...that's the second time I've been owned on this point today XD I guess the takeaway for me, watching to movie and regardless of that fact is "Kirk pwned God...awesome!" Lol...it's the thought that counts :thumbsup:

On to Lunacie's thing in the next post :)

~Jon :boing:

nope nope nope Spock owned him, he was the one sitting in the gunner's seat that blew him up

[ninurta2008]

Now...are you sure he was acting in the normal parameters of his society? Or was he simply an iconoclast? I don't know much about that era of history beyond what I read in the Bible...rofl...and the only thing it says is all those religions are full of crap. Which if that was true I wouldn't be here :P
It depends with the ambassador specifically, because he was from Assyria (or from Babylonia, forgot which). He was an Ishtar worshipper, but when he lived in Egypt he worshipped the main god at the time there in egypt, Amanu (Amun).

Though if you turn away from the egyptian pantheon specifically yes they did. Most of their main deities are from Sumerian, such as Ellil (Enlil), Anu (An), and you could say Ishtar but I think Inanna was just later equated with her, and not that she was borrowed. Also, when the greeks came, they introduced the greco-egyptian deity Serapis who was popular for a while, but that was long after the fall of Assyria and Babylonia and into persian times.



Even if it's not normal to mix religions per se, all religions mix some.

The largest difference between babylonian and assyrian paganism, is that babylonian paganism is flooded with sumerian influences while assyrian paganism doesnt as much so.



We had talked about that a bit further back...but Wicca itself is eclectic. I'd go so far as to say that given Gardner's statements mentioned in this thread, and the nature of Wicca itself, that Wicca without eclecticism of some sort is stagnant, and if not "Not Wicca" then it's not what was originally intended :)

Though I, after doing a little research, don't see how it would work for me, I suppose that if you can work around some issues then I guess it can be done.



Remember, it's orthopraxical (Is that a word?), not orthodoxical (how about that? XD). What you do in ritual counts, not what you believe :)

~Jon :boing:

Pagan religions in Babylonia, Assyria, Sumeria, Egypt and in that general area weren't orthopraxical, and I wouldn't really say orthodox either. They are like Hinduism, a cultural religion that varied in different areas of the culture. Like Sumeria for example:

The greatest in the pantheon of the people of Sippar was Utu, in Eridu it was Enki and in Ur it was Nanna.

I don't know what you would call it.

[Burning Angel]

nope nope nope Spock owned him, he was the one sitting in the gunner's seat that blew him up

Nope...that's the revisionist version :P In the Way Things Really Were But They Never Told You version, that everyone tries to suppress, Kirk just put his hands together and hammered God on the backbone and that was it...trust me. I know Kirk :P


It depends with the ambassador specifically, because he was from Assyria (or from Babylonia, forgot which). He was an Ishtar worshipper, but when he lived in Egypt he worshipped the main god at the time there in egypt, Amanu (Amun).

Though if you turn away from the egyptian pantheon specifically yes they did. Most of their main deities are from Sumerian, such as Ellil (Enlil), Anu (An), and you could say Ishtar but I think Inanna was just later equated with her, and not that she was borrowed. Also, when the greeks came, they introduced the greco-egyptian deity Serapis who was popular for a while, but that was long after the fall of Assyria and Babylonia and into persian times.


The largest difference between babylonian and assyrian paganism, is that babylonian paganism is flooded with sumerian influences while assyrian paganism doesnt as much so.


Though I, after doing a little research, don't see how it would work for me, I suppose that if you can work around some issues then I guess it can be done.



Pagan religions in Babylonia, Assyria, Sumeria, Egypt and in that general area weren't orthopraxical, and I wouldn't really say orthodox either. They are like Hinduism, a cultural religion that varied in different areas of the culture. Like Sumeria for example:

The greatest in the pantheon of the people of Sippar was Utu, in Eridu it was Enki and in Ur it was Nanna.

I don't know what you would call it.

That's pretty much like any other religion...cultural change and communication change the religion as well. Gods are shared just like technology and mundane ideas...but like you said, Babylonian Wicca doesn't work for you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work for someone else...but of course you knew that :P

I personally think if you have a Celtic god, an Italian goddess, Ceremonial Magic ritual, and a quasi-Celtic ritual calendar, plus a healthy serving of everything else in the book, you can fit anything else in there that makes sense...but that's just me :P

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Nope...that's the revisionist version :P In the Way Things Really Were But They Never Told You version, that everyone tries to suppress, Kirk just put his hands together and hammered God on the backbone and that was it...trust me. I know Kirk :P



That's pretty much like any other religion...cultural change and communication change the religion as well. Gods are shared just like technology and mundane ideas...but like you said, Babylonian Wicca doesn't work for you. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work for someone else...but of course you knew that :P

I personally think if you have a Celtic god, an Italian goddess, Ceremonial Magic ritual, and a quasi-Celtic ritual calendar, plus a healthy serving of everything else in the book, you can fit anything else in there that makes sense...but that's just me :P

~Jon :boing:''

By jove, now he's got it!

That's right, you start with the basics, the core beliefs and practices, and you can change things up somewhat from there. But you need the core stuff or you're going to end up with something that has some Wiccan stuff added ~ instead of having Wiccan with some other stuff added.

[Burning Angel]

''

By jove, now he's got it!

That's right, you start with the basics, the core beliefs and practices, and you can change things up somewhat from there. But you need the core stuff or you're going to end up with something that has some Wiccan stuff added ~ instead of having Wiccan with some other stuff added.

Thanks :) Haven't we all been saying variations on that, though? I guess another title for this thread would be How Not To Be A Fluffy Bunny...

:alol:

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

Thanks :) Haven't we all been saying variations on that, though? I guess another title for this thread would be How Not To Be A Fluffy Bunny...

:alol:

~Jon :boing:

Me personally ... I don't care if someone is being a fluffy bunny - as long as they aren't telling everyone what they're doing is Wicca. Gives 'em the wrong sort of idea, eh?

... oh, and as long as they're not doing it where I have to watch or listen. :smileroll

[Burning Angel]

Me personally ... I don't care if someone is being a fluffy bunny - as long as they aren't telling everyone what they're doing is Wicca. Gives 'em the wrong sort of idea, eh?

... oh, and as long as they're not doing it where I have to watch or listen. :smileroll

Exactly...that's the big thing. Don't call it Wicca if it isn't :)

I should get my girlfriend to join up here when she gets better...she'd have fun. I still haven't gotten her to give me a full explanation of her path...rofl XD

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Exactly...that's the big thing. Don't call it Wicca if it isn't :)

I should get my girlfriend to join up here when she gets better...she'd have fun. I still haven't gotten her to give me a full explanation of her path...rofl XD

~Jon :boing:
Unless however, you are naming a tradition like kemetic wicca (egyptian wicca), but yeah, not good to call yourself what you are not. I also am uncertain of making a new path because I don't want to feel like i am being fluffy.

[Burning Angel]

Unless however, you are naming a tradition like kemetic wicca (egyptian wicca), but yeah, not good to call yourself what you are not. I also am uncertain of making a new path because I don't want to feel like i am being fluffy.

Well if Gardner had feared fluffiness and stuck with the OTO, where would we be? XD

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Well if Gardner had feared fluffiness and stuck with the OTO, where would we be? XD

~Jon :boing:

Babylonianized OTO?

[Burning Angel]

Babylonianized OTO?

Lol...that would be interesting indeed :) I'm not familiar with the OTO's methods and cosmology, so I can't tell you where Babylonian cosmology would fit into that :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Lol...that would be interesting indeed :) I'm not familiar with the OTO's methods and cosmology, so I can't tell you where Babylonian cosmology would fit into that :)

~Jon :boing:
I don't know, I was just responding to what might have replaced babylonian wicca.

[Burning Angel]

I don't know, I was just responding to what might have replaced babylonian wicca.

Well yeah :) Or perhaps there would be Babylonian 1734, or something...heck, Chaos Magic fits fine with Babylonian gods :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Or babylonian Kemetic, but thats a the ancient religion of the assyrian diplomats to egypt. You know the ambassadors then? I found a reference to one in the amarna letters where the ambassador worshipped ishtar and Amun

[Louisvillian]

Well, in a period when religion was more ad-hoc than static, it made sense for diplomats to conform to the cultural customs of the nation he was establishing relations with, at least while in-country.

In any case, back to the OP's topic before we got derailed for 20 pages: as long as you do so responsibly, there's no reason you cannot worship Babylonian gods in the context of Wicca's ritual structure. Integrating the cultural customs and cosmology might be trickier, if you're going for a deeper Babylonian feel; I strongly suggest more research into that.

[Burning Angel]

Well, in a period when religion was more ad-hoc than static, it made sense for diplomats to conform to the cultural customs of the nation he was establishing relations with, at least while in-country.

In any case, back to the OP's topic before we got derailed for 20 pages: as long as you do so responsibly, there's no reason you cannot worship Babylonian gods in the context of Wicca's ritual structure. Integrating the cultural customs and cosmology might be trickier, if you're going for a deeper Babylonian feel; I strongly suggest more research into that.

Lol...the reason we went off on a tangent is because Ninurta already decided that Babylonian Wicca per se won't work for her. I'd love to see her try, but it's her path :)

~Jon :boing:

[Lunacie]

TOT / Totally Off Topic ...

Because I have my posts-per-page set at the max of 40, there are only 7 pages in this thread for me. Just kills me when people say there are more than a dozen pages in a thread. I've only seen about 5 that have gotten that big. :hahugh:

[ninurta2008]

Lol...the reason we went off on a tangent is because Ninurta already decided that Babylonian Wicca per se won't work for her. I'd love to see her try, but it's her path :)

~Jon :boing:
Umm......she (ninurta) is not a she, but a he. :alol:

Just ta let ya know. Its okay, I've done the same thing before on a forum, when I didn't know the anime character name they used was male and not female.

But yeah you are correct besides saying I am a her.

but i forgive you.:bigredgri

For now at least. Ninurta is a god not a goddess, I can see how even some people who know a little about sumerian paganism that dont know about ninurta would think its a female. because the "nin" part.

Yeah back to making the two fit. wicca and babylonian paganism might fit if you follow the religion in its later period, the post-chaldean. At that time it was a mix of persian, sumerian, anatolian and even egyptian and greek ideas. So adding in one more wouldn't add any more confusion than there was with the very polytheistic zoroastrianism religion of later babylonia.

[Burning Angel]

Umm......she (ninurta) is not a she, but a he. :alol:

Just ta let ya know. Its okay, I've done the same thing before on a forum, when I didn't know the anime character name they used was male and not female.

But yeah you are correct besides saying I am a her.

but i forgive you.:bigredgri

For now at least. Ninurta is a god not a goddess, I can see how even some people who know a little about sumerian paganism that dont know about ninurta would think its a female. because the "nin" part.

Whoops...sorry lol :P The name just had a feminine vibe to it :P


Yeah back to making the two fit. wicca and babylonian paganism might fit if you follow the religion in its later period, the post-chaldean. At that time it was a mix of persian, sumerian, anatolian and even egyptian and greek ideas. So adding in one more wouldn't add any more confusion than there was with the very polytheistic zoroastrianism religion of later babylonia.

Well, then maybe it could work :P Although that might be the straw that broke the camel's back...rofl :) I wanna see you try it, though :D

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Whoops...sorry lol :P The name just had a feminine vibe to it :P



Well, then maybe it could work :P Although that might be the straw that broke the camel's back...rofl :) I wanna see you try it, though :D

~Jon :boing:
Don't want to, not really intersted in looking into babylonian wicca anymore. Though its still fun to discuss. I think I am going to be a hellenic babylonian pagan, or just babylonian pagan.

Before you Iron age Babylonian pagans start getting all mad, just want to note, thats babylonian paganism at the time of the hellenistic era.

[Burning Angel]

Don't want to, not really intersted in looking into babylonian wicca anymore. Though its still fun to discuss. I think I am going to be a hellenic babylonian pagan, or just babylonian pagan.

Before you Iron age Babylonian pagans start getting all mad, just want to note, thats babylonian paganism at the time of the hellenistic era.

I'm not familiar with Babylonian history in that era...was Babylon even a cultural entity under Hellenistic rule? That sounds kinda cool, though :)

And it's cool that you're going with a recon approach - I want to be a totally historical Wiccan, as opposed to straight modern Wicca :P

~Jon :boing:

[Ben Gruagach]

For now at least. Ninurta is a god not a goddess, I can see how even some people who know a little about sumerian paganism that dont know about ninurta would think its a female. because the "nin" part.

I don't think it's the "nin" part that makes people think the name is a feminine one. It's more likely the fact that Ninurta ends with an "a". Most names in English that end with an "a" are girls' names.

Laura
Maria
Barbara

And in English, some boy names are made into girl names by putting an "a" on the end.

Paula
Briana

Of course the rules are likely different in other languages.

[ninurta2008]

I'm not familiar with Babylonian history in that era...was Babylon even a cultural entity under Hellenistic rule?
~Jon :boing:
Yeah, but sort of, seeing that chaldean is babylonian post-assyrian-rule.

Here are some of the hellenized babylonian gods:

Tiamat - Tauthe
Apsu - Apason
Mummu - Moymis
Lahmu - Dachus
Lahamu - Dache
Ea - Aus
Ellil - Illinus
Anu - Anus (no comment necessary, its pronounced Ahn-us and not Ay-nus) lol
Marduk - Belus

[Burning Angel]

Yeah, but sort of, seeing that chaldean is babylonian post-assyrian-rule.

Here are some of the hellenized babylonian gods:

Tiamat - Tauthe
Apsu - Apason
Mummu - Moymis
Lahmu - Dachus
Lahamu - Dache
Ea - Aus
Ellil - Illinus
Anu - Anus (no comment necessary, its pronounced Ahn-us and not Ay-nus) lol
Marduk - Belus

Cool! To be honest I've never heard of any of those gods in their Hellenized forms...I have, however, heard of a few in my mythological/cultural readings and also in METAL :jon: :P

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Cool! To be honest I've never heard of any of those gods in their Hellenized forms...I have, however, heard of a few in my mythological/cultural readings and also in METAL :jon: :P

~Jon :boing:
Since most of the work of Damascius and Berossus on it doesnt survive i think that might be all there is surviving.

[Burning Angel]

Since most of the work of Damascius and Berossus on it doesnt survive i think that might be all there is surviving.

Dang...I used to love ancient Greece and all that stuff when I was 14-15. It's been forever and I'm out of practice...but I didn't even know who those guys were back then :P

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

two historians, one of them lived while Alexander The Great still was in power.

[Burning Angel]

two historians, one of them lived while Alexander The Great still was in power.

Cool - sorry for missing this. I've been rather out of it thanks to the WoW Monster lol...and I haven't had time for MW much. But I still can't believe this thread got away :P

So you have a rather large collection of Greek stuff, or at least knowledge of it? I just have the big names - the Odyssey, Herodotus, the plays...etc.

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

I get my greek stuff from the perseus site, theoi, and a few others.

Also I get alot of mesopotamian stuff from oxford, and a bunch of other places like books.

[Burning Angel]

I get my greek stuff from the perseus site, theoi, and a few others.

Also I get alot of mesopotamian stuff from oxford, and a bunch of other places like books.

I guess I never considered the amount of ancient stuff that could be found online - that's probably a good idea. Theoi is an amazing site...I love it.

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

I guess I never considered the amount of ancient stuff that could be found online - that's probably a good idea. Theoi is an amazing site...I love it.

~Jon :boing:
Yeah, I think I could so a commercial for that site.

Yeah there is alot online, you'd be suprised at the material. I print alot of it out becuase there is too much to consume compared to time online.

It's interesting that the greeks said that the babylonians viewed their creation myth allegorically, I wonder how many of their myths were viewed that way?

[Burning Angel]

Yeah, I think I could so a commercial for that site.

Yeah there is alot online, you'd be suprised at the material. I print alot of it out becuase there is too much to consume compared to time online.

It's interesting that the greeks said that the babylonians viewed their creation myth allegorically, I wonder how many of their myths were viewed that way?

That's almost mindblowing - maybe coming from a literal Christian background, I always got the idea that modern society invented the idea of taking myths allegorically. But it's very cool...however I'd prefer a literal epic-level dragon battle for my creation - Big Bangs just don't have the same awesome factor :P

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

That's almost mindblowing - maybe coming from a literal Christian background, I always got the idea that modern society invented the idea of taking myths allegorically. But it's very cool...however I'd prefer a literal epic-level dragon battle for my creation - Big Bangs just don't have the same awesome factor :P

~Jon :boing:
Ancient middle eastern religions are nothing like they are today....
I think all of them were supposed to be viewed allegorical, I don't know.

The writer actually lived in Babylonia for once, and though he stretched the myth and added the part where Marduk took off his head to make mankind, everything else in the story is a nice little summary of the enuma elish. Though he might be correct because it was centuries after the enuma elish we have was written.

He also claims the babylonians believed that the the universe had neither a beginning or an end.

How accurate he was, I don't know.

Though I think some myths at least were taken literally, but I don't know. I only know they took them allegorically through the greek historian.

[Burning Angel]

Ancient middle eastern religions are nothing like they are today....
I think all of them were supposed to be viewed allegorical, I don't know.

The writer actually lived in Babylonia for once, and though he stretched the myth and added the part where Marduk took off his head to make mankind, everything else in the story is a nice little summary of the enuma elish. Though he might be correct because it was centuries after the enuma elish we have was written.

He also claims the babylonians believed that the the universe had neither a beginning or an end.

How accurate he was, I don't know.

Though I think some myths at least were taken literally, but I don't know. I only know they took them allegorically through the greek historian.

Hmmm...either way, those are some quite cool philosophical concepts. It's why I'm eclectic :) And I do know a lot of Greek historians were just really off - more folklorists, in a sense. Recons (as you well know, probably) tend to go on archaeology and scholarship as opposed to source texts - or so I've heard from my MW cohorts :)

~Jon :boing:

[Louisvillian]

Though, on the other hand, much of the information we get about the myths is derived from the works of scholars, intellectuals, teachers, etc. In other words, learned men with a higher experience with philosophy and knowledge.
Their way of looking at the world was probably very different from that of the common people of the ancient world, who were largely illiterate, poor, and uneducated.

[Burning Angel]

Though, on the other hand, much of the information we get about the myths is derived from the works of scholars, intellectuals, teachers, etc. In other words, learned men with a higher experience with philosophy and knowledge.
Their way of looking at the world was probably very different from that of the common people of the ancient world, who were largely illiterate, poor, and uneducated.

And this is why other people exist - to keep me sane :lol: That's a good perspective - after all, Socrates was the one who said the Gods didn't exist...or something along those lines. My ancient history is so shot I forget if the exact crime was a bit different - but the Greek scholars were the best of their time. Not scientists by modern standards, but miles ahead the average illiterate peasant-type dude :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Some scholars are smarter or at least more knowledgable than others. Zahi Hawass is a smart guy and knows alot about archaeology, but when I hear what he says in documentaries and writes and says that egypt wasn't influenced by the outside, it makes me want to give him a copy of the contendings of Horus and Seth, Astarte and the insatiable sea and others.

Some scholars often misunderstand the ancient peoples they study.

The everyday peasant may not have worshipped foreign gods, but they worshipped the gods they viewed most important to their everyday lives. Dionysus gave them wine to enjoy their lives, while Demeter made their crops fertile ( I think, correct me if I am wrong on her, I am thinking Ceres thats why).

It was those scholars in those days that spent time thinking of foreign deities in relation to their own. And it was traders and diplomats that brought deities from land to land. Or in the case of Mithras, once he made it to Romes asian provinces, the military spread him across the empire as far as britain.

There was many ways those peoples saw their deities just simply not found through digging up statues and through non-written records. Or at least in terms of how they saw their deities in relation to foreign ones.

[Burning Angel]

Some scholars are smarter or at least more knowledgable than others. Zahi Hawass is a smart guy and knows alot about archaeology, but when I hear what he says in documentaries and writes and says that egypt wasn't influenced by the outside, it makes me want to give him a copy of the contendings of Horus and Seth, Astarte and the insatiable sea and others.

Some scholars often misunderstand the ancient peoples they study.

The everyday peasant may not have worshipped foreign gods, but they worshipped the gods they viewed most important to their everyday lives. Dionysus gave them wine to enjoy their lives, while Demeter made their crops fertile ( I think, correct me if I am wrong on her, I am thinking Ceres thats why).

It was those scholars in those days that spent time thinking of foreign deities in relation to their own. And it was traders and diplomats that brought deities from land to land. Or in the case of Mithras, once he made it to Romes asian provinces, the military spread him across the empire as far as britain.

There was many ways those peoples saw their deities just simply not found through digging up statues and through non-written records. Or at least in terms of how they saw their deities in relation to foreign ones.

Right on :thumbsup: For all we know, Unverified Personal Gnosis was present in the ancient world as well, which would further complicate people's ideas of how the ancients worshiped - you could have had any number of things that were lost to history entirely.

Scholars don't know it all :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Right on :thumbsup: For all we know, Unverified Personal Gnosis was present in the ancient world as well, which would further complicate people's ideas of how the ancients worshiped - you could have had any number of things that were lost to history entirely.

Scholars don't know it all :)

~Jon :boing:
If you are going to rely on ancient texts and avoid unverified personal gnosis, or just simply stuff on nongreek religions, avoid Herodotus at all costs.

He is the only greek writer that didn't know at least something of what he was talking about when he wrote about ancient near eastern religions.

I think it's best to try to view gods the way the original followers viewed them because isn't that why you worship those deities to begin with?

[Burning Angel]

If you are going to rely on ancient texts and avoid unverified personal gnosis, or just simply stuff on nongreek religions, avoid Herodotus at all costs.

He is the only greek writer that didn't know at least something of what he was talking about when he wrote about ancient near eastern religions.

I liked his history lol...what I read of it. It was quite entertaining - but probably not good for religious stuff, then. I was 14 and not pagan when I read it :P


I think it's best to try to view gods the way the original followers viewed them because isn't that why you worship those deities to begin with?

Not always - I don't know many Christians who worship YHWH because he destroyed the world with a flood :lol: In my mind, gods can change over time, while remaining true to their essential natures - i.e. Thor might be a god of Thunder, but a lot of personality change, in terms of likes, dislikes, and approach to the world can happen in 1500 years :)

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

I liked his history lol...what I read of it. It was quite entertaining - but probably not good for religious stuff, then. I was 14 and not pagan when I read it :P



Not always - I don't know many Christians who worship YHWH because he destroyed the world with a flood :lol: In my mind, gods can change over time, while remaining true to their essential natures - i.e. Thor might be a god of Thunder, but a lot of personality change, in terms of likes, dislikes, and approach to the world can happen in 1500 years :)

~Jon :boing:
My point is more aimed at yeah Thor may be more mild in a modern interpretation, but he is still not a moon god and still is a thunder god. If you get my drift?

I like to read herodotus too, but thats when i learned just how much spin he puts on his stories, he is right up there with Lucian.

[Burning Angel]

My point is more aimed at yeah Thor may be more mild in a modern interpretation, but he is still not a moon god and still is a thunder god. If you get my drift?

Well yeah. I don't worship Thor because he's a wussy, either...mild and Thor must never mix :D I see your point now :)

I like to read herodotus too, but thats when i learned just how much spin he puts on his stories, he is right up there with Lucian.[/quote]

He's crazy XD I forget who Lucian is...refresh my Greek-fail of a memory :) (Or in this case Roman Fail, I'm guessing :))

~Jon :boing:

[ninurta2008]

Well yeah. I don't worship Thor because he's a wussy, either...mild and Thor must never mix :D I see your point now :)

I like to read herodotus too, but thats when i learned just how much spin he puts on his stories, he is right up there with Lucian.

He's crazy XD I forget who Lucian is...refresh my Greek-fail of a memory :) (Or in this case Roman Fail, I'm guessing :))

~Jon :boing:[/quote]
The ancient greek satyr writer who wrote a satyrical version of a myth of Astarte in his book The Syrian Goddess.

[Louisvillian]

Not always...gods can change over time, while remaining true to their essential natures - i.e. Thor might be a god of Thunder, but a lot of personality change, in terms of likes, dislikes, and approach to the world can happen in 1500 years...
True, but you can't assume things like that. It's best to err on the safe side and go with historically recorded knowledge about these deities.

Obviously, this isn't to say that an eclectic can't worship the same deities as a recon. Just that historical knowledge of the deity in question should be used when possible, rather than ignored or tossed out on a whim.

[ninurta2008]

True, but you can't assume things like that. It's best to err on the safe side and go with historically recorded knowledge about these deities.

Obviously, this isn't to say that an eclectic can't worship the same deities as a recon. Just that historical knowledge of the deity in question should be used when possible, rather than ignored or tossed out on a whim.
On the same note, you can't assume that just because an eclectic is eclectic, that he/she isn't relying on historically accurate sources and respecting them. Which is something I run into alot, even as I start being an eclectic little by little, and is the same reason I didn't and don't want to be eclectic, because so many have twisted versions of history. from patriarchical societies being matriarchies, to Ishtar being a peaceful deity (that happens to see war as a game).

[Louisvillian]

On the same note, you can't assume that just because an eclectic is eclectic, that he/she isn't relying on historically accurate sources and respecting them.
I implied no such thing. Under some definitions, I'd be an eclectic on the basis of being Wiccan, despite being very conventional. And I certainly pay a lot of attention to history.

All I said that was that one can't assume that a deity's information is radically different from the info in the historical record. And that it's very irresponsible and downright rude to throw out that historical info on a whim.

[Burning Angel]

I implied no such thing. Under some definitions, I'd be an eclectic on the basis of being Wiccan, despite being very conventional. And I certainly pay a lot of attention to history.

All I said that was that one can't assume that a deity's information is radically different from the info in the historical record. And that it's very irresponsible and downright rude to throw out that historical info on a whim.

Which is why I try to go with historical fact/truth/whatever the term is for this kind of thing whenever possible :) I even got me a big book on ancient Greek and Roman magic because of Hekate :) (Not that I've read it :P)

~Jon :boing: