Initiation Vs. Dedication

[Draeconin]

Over time, the use of the term "self-initiation" has become quite widespread. This is a mistake in language. One cannot self-initiate. It is an inherent impossibility, given the meaning of the word. YourDictionary.com defines 'initiation' as:

Main Entry: ini.ti.a.tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS

As you can see, to 'initiate' means to be 'started' or 'let in'. It requires that someone else open the door. I'm certain that the word they meant was 'dedication', defined as:

Main Entry: ded.i.ca.tion
Pronunciation: "de-di-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or rite of dedicating to a divine being or to a sacred use
2 : a devoting or setting aside for a particular purpose
3 : a name and often a message prefixed to a literary, musical, or artistic production in tribute to a person or cause
4 : self-sacrificing devotion
- ded.i.ca.to.ry /'de-di-k&-"tOr-E, -"tor-/ adjective

So if you decide to take a pagan path and wish to do so, the next step would be a self-dedication to that path and to the gods of your choice.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Draeconin
Initiation;
Main Entry: ini.ti.a.tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS


First, you're using a dictionary definition and not much else to prove your point. I bet I could find a new definition of this in 5 different dictionaries. Unless you expect every Pagan to use one and only one dictionary this isn't plausible.

Second, this definition suggests an act or instance or process of initiation, or the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is initiated into a society or sphere of activity. Nowhere in the definition does it say "you can't do this yourself, someone initiates you". One can easily perform the "act" of initiating themself and/or perform the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, and instructions involved to initiate themself. In no way does this definition deny that's possible.

Third, each of us is a priest or priestess in our own right, and reach the God and Goddess in our own way. When we can't or don't want to belong to a coven or group especially we speak to divinity in our own way. We don't need some person of the clergy who can be paid to initiate us into our own religion - we don't have to, we just do it ourself.

Fourth, many people use "dedication" and "initiation" in various ways. Some suggest dedication is a year and a day and afterwards you seek initiation, others suggest the opposite way - you are initiated, learn, and then seek to dedicate yourself to the religion if you feel it's right. Others (including myself) believe to dedicate is to pledge your life and existence to whomever you're dedicating yourself to - and not all of us have the time to do that either.

It is this kind of thinking that leads to strife and problems for us solitaries when we can't find a coven to join. It's also where arguments of "you're not a real witch, you weren't initiated" come into play.

Lastly, if I told you in my dictionary a Pagan is a devil worshipper (and it still is listed as that in some) would that mean all Pagans are definitely devil worshippers? No. While what you posted was interesting it is YOUR opinion and not necessarily anyone else's. It's one thing to post your own opinions or ideas and completely another to claim they are absolute fact. As Pagans we know about that stuff. :D

[Shy Hawk]

Well I tend to think that one can't self initiate...but can only self dedicate...but some will disagree...and that's fine. I don't have anything to back that up with (In Doctor Evil voice).:p

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
First, you're using a dictionary definition and not much else to prove your point. I bet I could find a new definition of this in 5 different dictionaries. Unless you expect every Pagan to use one and only one dictionary this isn't plausible.

Language is our only means of communication, and dictionaries the keepers of the meanings of those words. Webster's and Wordsmyth.net both say the same things. You *may* be able to find one that says differently, but the majority agree.




I disagree. The wording *does* deny it.


[B]Third, each of us is a priest or priestess in our own right, and reach the God and Goddess in our own way. When we can't or don't want to belong to a coven or group especially we speak to divinity in our own way. We don't need some person of the clergy who can be paid to initiate us into our own religion - we don't have to, we just do it ourself.

I never said that one had to be initiated in order to be valid in their own religion. Just that the wrong word is being used for a valid act.


Fourth, many people use "dedication" and "initiation" in various ways.

And those various ways are, linquistically, wrong. It has nothing to do with the acts themselves, merely with the language.



It is this kind of thinking that leads to strife and problems for us solitaries when we can't find a coven to join. It's also where arguments of "you're not a real witch, you weren't initiated" come into play.

Using the wrong word won't change other people's perceptions. You either have the strength of your beliefs and convictions or you don't. Why do you need the approval of others?


While what you posted was interesting it is YOUR opinion and not necessarily anyone else's. It's one thing to post your own opinions or ideas and completely another to claim they are absolute fact. As Pagans we know about that stuff. :D

It's not my opinion - it's language. Misusing it doesn't help anyone. :/

[Myst]

First, feel free to point exactly the wording that suggests you have to be initiated by another person. I don't see it, maybe you can?

Second...
"Pagan \Pa"gan\, a. [L. paganus of or pertaining to the country, pagan. See Pagan, n.] Of or pertaining to pagans; relating to the worship or the worshipers of false goods; heathen; idolatrous, as, pagan tribes or superstitions." - Websters

Websters says you worship false gods. In fact, idolatrous suggests you are given to blind or excessive devotion to false idols. Is that so?

"Pagan adj : not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam [syn: heathen, heathenish] n : a person who does not acknowledge your God [syn: heathen, gentile, infidel]" - Wordnet

So Pagans cannot be Christians? In fact, an infidel is often someone who "has no religious beliefs" , from the American Heritage Dictionary, so now we have no religion at all?

Again, from Websters,

"Witch \Witch\, n. [OE. wicche, AS. wicce, fem., wicca, masc.; perhaps the same word as AS. w[=i]tiga, w[=i]tga, a soothsayer (cf. Wiseacre); cf. Fries. wikke, a witch, LG. wikken to predict, Icel. vitki a wizard, vitka to bewitch.] 1. One who practices the black art, or magic; one regarded as possessing supernatural or magical power by compact with an evil spirit, esp. with the Devil; a sorcerer or sorceress; -- now applied chiefly or only to women, but formerly used of men as well."

Oh so every witch out there practices black arts as they've gained through compact with the devil?

Oh and from Websters again,

"witchcraft \Witch"craft`\, n. [AS. wiccecr[ae]ft.] 1. The practices or art of witches; sorcery; enchantments; intercourse with evil spirits.

2. Power more than natural; irresistible influence."

Oh so NOW we have sex with evil spirits along with supernatural powers.... well of course we do, after all, it's in the DICTIONARY!

As you can see, I've cited three resources here and all suggest all Pagans and/or Witches make pacts with the devil and/or cannot be Christian and/or have sex with evil spirits, etc. Websters, The American Heritage Dictionary, and Wordnet (of Princeton University)... does that mean all Pagans and Witches do in fact do this stuff? Heck no.

As you can see, citing the dictionary or posting it on someone's linguistics doesn't make it true.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
First, feel free to point exactly the wording that suggests you have to be initiated by another person. I don't see it, maybe you can?

"act of initiating - being initiated - made a member"

Let's take this out of the context of religion and say we're talking about the Masons, Elks, Boy- or Girl Scouts, etc. Would you be able to initiate yourself into any of these groups? You can certainly dedicate yourself to learning, following and practicing their customs and/or beliefs, but initiation?

Let's take it back into religion, now. You can study Gardnerian Wicca 'til you're blue in the face and even dedicate yourself to following that path. But you cannot initiate yourself into it, nor into any other religion. But that does not make your dedication to your path any less, nor any less valid.


Second...
"Pagan \Pa"gan\(snip)

As you can see, I've cited three resources here

You've cited three words from one source. Those same three words from another source:

Main Entry: pa.gan
Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at
PACT
Date: 14th century
1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person


Main Entry: 1witch
Pronunciation: 'wich
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German wIh holy -- more at VICTIM
Date: before 12th century
1 : one that is credited with usually malignant supernatural powers; especially : a woman practicing usually black witchcraft often with the aid of a devil or familiar : SORCERESS -- compare WARLOCK
2 : an ugly old woman : HAG
3 : a charming or alluring girl or woman
4 : a practitioner of Wicca
5 : WITCH OF AGNESI

Main Entry: witch.craft
Pronunciation: 'wich-"kraft
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the use of sorcery or magic b : communication with the devil or with a familiar
2 : an irresistible influence or fascination
3 : WICCA



As you can see, citing the dictionary or posting it on someone's linguistics doesn't make it true.


So show me some academic sources that define the words differently. :)

[Myst]

Originally posted by Draeconin

Let's take this out of the context of religion and say we're talking about the Masons, Elks, Boy- or Girl Scouts, etc. Would you be able to initiate yourself into any of these groups? You can certainly dedicate yourself to learning, following and practicing their customs and/or beliefs, but initiation?

Let's take it back into religion, now. You can study Gardnerian Wicca 'til you're blue in the face and even dedicate yourself to following that path. But you cannot initiate yourself into it, nor into any other religion. But that does not make your dedication to your path any less, nor any less valid.

.. snip..

So show me some academic sources that define the words differently. :)

I've cited
pagan - websters, wordnet
infidel - american heritage dictionary
witch, witchcraft - websters

That's three sources and four words. I chose Websters quite often because that's one you cited and I thought you must then feel it to be the authority - I don't have access to the other one you cited or I'd check it too :)

We're not talking masons, elks, boy scouts, girl guides, or Gardnerian Wiccans, but all Pagans and people interested in Paganism (being as I think that includes all the people here at MW).

Now if my point was that you can't define everyone's practice by using dictionaries and definitions why would I cite academic resources? For those of us who did initiate ourselves or plan to and are excited the fact that you feel the need to tell us our terminology is wrong is like a smack in the face of our memories and beliefs.

At any rate, this at least is a lively discussion for 3 in the morning :D

[Alex]

Originally posted by Shy Hawk
Well I tend to think that one can't self initiate...but can only self dedicate...but some will disagree...and that's fine. I don't have anything to back that up with (In Doctor Evil voice).:p

Self Initiation is, IMHO, an impossiblity, specifically in the context of Wicca.

I "borrowed" the following quotes from the FAQ on the New Wiccan Church's website (http://www.newwiccanchurch.com). All parentheses are mine:

"Q: Why can't a person self-initiate into BTW?
A: To a BT Wiccan, self-initiation is a contradiction in terms. To us the ritual of initiation is performed not only to signal an individual's dedication to serving the Gods, but also their admittance to the community of BTW. (please note, the abbreviation BTW stands for British Traditional Wiccan)."

"Q: What is Wicca?
A: "Wicca" is an Anglo-Saxon word originally applied to one of the branches of the ancient Pagan clergy. The word is the ancestor to the modern English "witch", and many Wiccans call themselves witches and use "witchcraft" as an alternate name for their religion. In terms of the modern Craft, before the 1960s only the British Traditional Wicca used this name, and we still believe that it only properly belongs to us. More recently, "Wicca" has been applied to a large number of various survivals, revivals and reconstructions of Pagan religious beliefs and practices. "

This FAQ also makes this reference to initiation:

"There is a formal ceremony of initiation which includes a solemn oath never to reveal certain secrets to outsiders."

Now, why would this apply if you are not being trained in material that is considered a secret. If it is in a book you can get in a store or public library, it isn't secret (and yes, there ARE true Craft secrets, and NO I will not give an example).

I hope this demonstrates why "Self Initiation" (into Wicca, anyway) is impossible.

B*B*

ALex

[Socharis]

Does it really matter? We all know what is meant by it so why bother, as long as the information is being transmitted the words are doing their job.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Socharis
Does it really matter? We all know what is meant by it so why bother, as long as the information is being transmitted the words are doing their job.

Yes, it does indeed matter, It matters a great deal to those of us who refuse to see the English language diluted any further. It is of passionate concern to those of us, such as myself who will not drink "lite" beer on principle. Words have power and meaning, and in Magick, precision of meaning is essential. Semantics may not matter to you, but to the powers you may work with in the practice of Magick, they are of the utmost importance (and any ambiguity may leave you open to all kinds of unexpected consequences).

B*B*

ALex

[Socharis]

Originally posted by Alex


Yes, it does indeed matter, It matters a great deal to those of us who refuse to see the English language diluted any further. It is of passionate concern to those of us, such as myself who will not drink "lite" beer on principle. Words have power and meaning, and in Magick, precision of meaning is essential. Semantics may not matter to you, but to the powers you may work with in the practice of Magick, they are of the utmost importance (and any ambiguity may leave you open to all kinds of unexpected consequences).

B*B*

ALex

It is a way of nature for language to change and evolve the way it does, the English dictionary adds loads of new words every year most are slang. Which give extra meaning to words.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Socharis


It is a way of nature for language to change and evolve the way it does, the English dictionary adds loads of new words every year most are slang. Which give extra meaning to words.

While words may be added, it is (IMHO) foolhardy for a Magickian to tollerate the drifting of the meaning of a word in our working vocabulary, for the reasons I outlined earlier. However, if you wish to employ linguistic ambiguity in your Magick, do so at your own risk.

-Alex

[Rævyn Cigány]

Originally posted by Alex


It is of passionate concern to those of us, such as myself who will not drink "lite" beer on principle

Well, you'll have to excuse me for desperately attempting to skirt this subject (by the way, mine was a self-dedication and not an initiation, IMHO), but Alex, if you're in the States, "lite" and "beer" are mutually redundant.

Loving the kick-ass strong beer in Canada ;)

BB

Rae )0(

[Twig]

I would propose this thread be moved to political Pagan as this is a matter of semantics[sp?] and fits more in that realm.

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

[Myst]

Originally posted by Alex
I hope this demonstrates why "Self Initiation" (into Wicca, anyway) is impossible.


Oh sure NOW you're changing the context too. ;) I can agree that self initiation into an established and strict form of Wicca such as Gardnerian or Alexandrian could be considered impossible (just because of the fact that their strict rules could require things that a solitary Wiccan could not follow themselves). Then again, I'm into neither so I can't be positive.

Citing material from the New Wiccan Church won't help either. While I'm sure it's a great organization I've never heard of it - this would be like me telling you to take the word of Priestess Bubblepot of the Milk And Cookies Pagan Organization ;)

And I am SURE that the Gods are not up there taking notes on our grammar usage, mastery of the english language, or our spelling mistakes...

Twig ; sounds fair to me...

Rae ; Canadian beer is the ONLY beer worth drinking. I suddenly feel the need to dance around with a flag and get irresponsibly drunk... at 11:30 in the morning? oops ;)

[Skye]

You all have very good points, however, I do not necessarilly(sp) agree that if you say a word, or phrase out of context, you are flubbing up your point.

Many people speak broken english (my grandma for one) and not everything they try to communicate comes out grammarically correct. Some words and phrases do not translate well to english:)

By the way, Scotch Ale is the best:D :D

[bloodstone20]

OK, my 2 pents are as follows:
To get initiatied into a trad, sure, then you need someone. But how did these trads start? The starter must have made them and Initiated themselves. BTW, Britsh Trad Wicca might take that, but once again, generalizations are being made. All Wiccans are Britsh Trad. So, ur info is only relevent to your trad.
And go on a Cite ur sources from New Wiccan Chruch all you want. They are New Wiccans, as well as Wiccans. Wiccans as a whole can't be defined by one trad much the same as Christianity can't. So Methodism has women Pastors. Does that mean that Catholics to also? Episcipalian? Baptist? No. Its just one tradition, and thats all.
Saying your trad is the base of all or the one that matters hasn't been said yet, and lets keep it so.
So, if ur trad says no to Self-Initation, so be it. But don't say its wrong for other trads to practice it, or for Solitaries to. In essence, self initiation just mean that start of a new life, and a new trad. Whilst some don't name there knew trad, it is one. You follow what you beileve is write, and isn't that what we all do?
Gardenarians (know its spelled wrong) follow G.G. Alezandrians folow Alexander ( forget his last name). If you self initiate, you follow your own teachings, as Gerald and Alexander did.

[rantnraven]

Originally posted by Twig
I would propose this thread be moved to political Pagan as this is a matter of semantics[sp?] and fits more in that realm.

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

Sorry, Twig. I think not. This is a matter of interpretation and not politics.

I believe we are discussing the meaning and/or definition of "Initiation" and "Dedication".

Rant

[MystyPines]

Hello! I'm back from Disney World, missed you all.

Now, let me ask this: "Who initiated the first Witch?"

[bloodstone20]

WORD.
Actually, they weren't asking about Witches, but Wiccans, but the same applies.

[Spirahl]

I was initiated... by the Gods...who are ever-present... even at a "self-initiation". ;)

[Alex]

Originally posted by Rævyn Cigány


Well, you'll have to excuse me for desperately attempting to skirt this subject (by the way, mine was a self-dedication and not an initiation, IMHO), but Alex, if you're in the States, "lite" and "beer" are mutually redundant.

Loving the kick-ass strong beer in Canada ;)

BB

Rae )0(

Don't look at me... I don't drink that American p*** water... I only drink "Craft" Beers, and Irish/British imports. I prefer Guiness, the beer you can eat with a fork.

B*B*

Alex

[Alex]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
If you self initiate, you follow your own teachings, as Gerald and Alexander did.

Ok, going back to other parts of our post first, I could creech about Trad bashing, but...

Anyway.

Old Gerald was validly initiated into the Wicca by Old Dorothy Clutterbuck. ALex Sanders was a valid Gardnerian first.

I really try to steer clear of this Cunninghamite chicken egg business. I stand with the rest of the Trad community, and a significant protion of the Feminist Craft in my contention that "self initiation" is an oxymoron.

B*B*

Alex

[Alex]

Originally posted by MystyPines
Hello! I'm back from Disney World, missed you all.

Now, let me ask this: "Who initiated the first Witch?"



I don't know, but I do know that prior to Scott Cunningham people accepted that there was no good answer to that question.

B*B*

Alex

[Draeconin]

But how did these trads start? The starter must have made them and Initiated themselves.

Nope. The first dedicates hirself to learning and exploring their particular path, creating what is right for hirself. If anyone wishes to learn what that person has to teach, s/he initiates them - gives them access.

Willowraven: yourDictionary.com and Wordsmyth.net are online. However, if you won't accept authoritative sources there's nothing more to talk about, and sorry I am to see it. Language is important.

[Skye]

Originally posted by Draeconin


Willowraven: yourDictionary.com and Wordsmyth.net are online. However, if you won't accept authoritative sources there's nothing more to talk about, and sorry I am to see it. Language is important.

Whoa, yes, language it 'somewhat' impotant(see my earlier post), but to end a conversation just because you do not agree....well, that sounds rather self-rightious(sp)

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by Skye


Whoa, yes, language it 'somewhat' impotant(see my earlier post), but to end a conversation just because you do not agree....well, that sounds rather self-rightious(sp)

*I'm* not ending it. I just cannot see that there is a further basis for conversation. My argument is based on authoritative sources, and those have been rejected as unimportant. To me it's like someone insisting on calling cats, dogs, and visa-versa. When someone tells you that it doesn't matter what anyone else says, what do you do?

[Krom]

Originally posted by WillowRaven


Oh sure NOW you're changing the context too. ;) I can agree that self initiation into an established and strict form of Wicca such as Gardnerian or Alexandrian could be considered impossible (just because of the fact that their strict rules could require things that a solitary Wiccan could not follow themselves). Then again, I'm into neither so I can't be positive.

And I am SURE that the Gods are not up there taking notes on our grammar usage, mastery of the english language, or our spelling mistakes...

Twig ; sounds fair to me...

Rae ; Canadian beer is the ONLY beer worth drinking. I suddenly feel the need to dance around with a flag and get irresponsibly drunk... at 11:30 in the morning? oops ;)

Well I guess I have to jump in here. There was no such thing as Gardnarian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca or whatever Wicca before G.B.G. died. There as only Wicca and it was initiatory. Wicca was Wicca. If one does not know what it means to be a Wiccan and the practices of Wicca how can one self-initiate into it? I realize that some of you will not agree with me on self-initiation.

Anyhow Canadian Beer.....Scotish, Irish and British Ale out does Canadian hands down. :) heheheheeh

[Alex]

Originally posted by Krom


Well I guess I have to jump in here. There was no such thing as Gardnarian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca or whatever Wicca before G.B.G. died. There as only Wicca and it was initiatory. Wicca was Wicca. If one does not know what it means to be a Wiccan and the practices of Wicca how can one self-initiate into it? I realize that some of you will not agree with me on self-initiation.

Anyhow Canadian Beer.....Scotish, Irish and British Ale out does Canadian hands down. :) heheheheeh

Occasionally someone posts something even I can find nothing to disagree with about.

Well done Krom!

B*B*

ALex

[Dria El]

Originally posted by MystyPines
Hello! I'm back from Disney World, missed you all.

Now, let me ask this: "Who initiated the first Witch?"



Well, there's actually a very good book about this very subject. It's called Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by Mercea Eliade. It's VERY dry. (It took me FOREVER to get through it!) But if you can get through the university style (boring!) writing style it's chock full of great information. Give it a shot.

:)

[bloodstone20]

Originally posted by Alex


Ok, going back to other parts of our post first, I could creech about Trad bashing, but...

Anyway.

Old Gerald was validly initiated into the Wicca by Old Dorothy Clutterbuck. ALex Sanders was a valid Gardnerian first.

I really try to steer clear of this Cunninghamite chicken egg business. I stand with the rest of the Trad community, and a significant protion of the Feminist Craft in my contention that "self initiation" is an oxymoron.

B*B*

Alex
And who was the first Gardenerian? Who initatied them? And if it was Gardner, how'd he get in the trad? What I said was the farthest thing from trad bashing. How'd I bash? Just becuase I asked questions about its origin doesn't mean that I bashed. I beileve that you are mad becuase I questioned its validity.
Just my 2 pents.
BTW, did my thread make you make this? There are beings higher than humans... I can stir them to initate me. And still, there is no real contridiction.
You can start yourself down a new road of The Path. Intiation is just saying your born again into this set of beilefs. If its another persons, then so be it, but if you formally state your own beilefs, then that make it that much closer to you.

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20

And who was the first Gardenerian? Who initatied them? And if it was Gardner, how'd he get in the trad? What I said was the farthest thing from trad bashing. How'd I bash? Just becuase I asked questions about its origin doesn't mean that I bashed. I beileve that you are mad becuase I questioned its validity.
Just my 2 pents.
BTW, did my thread make you make this? There are beings higher than humans... I can stir them to initate me. And still, there is no real contridiction.
You can start yourself down a new road of The Path. Intiation is just saying your born again into this set of beilefs. If its another persons, then so be it, but if you formally state your own beilefs, then that make it that much closer to you.



Gardner was not a Gardnarian. The first Gardnarian would be the one who coined it after G.B.G. died. Before that they were all just Wiccan practicing Wicca. I don't believe that Alex is mad because you questioned it's validity. He was trying to get a point across. There are many who do bash those who follow Traditional Wicca.

Like I said in a previous post Wicca use to be just Wicca. That Wicca was and still is an initiatory pathway. Now before you think I am not hearing you; I do believe that one can self-whatever themselves into paganism. I also believe that one can self-dedicate to learning more about Wicca.

Krom

[Myst]

Originally posted by Draeconin
However, if you won't accept authoritative sources there's nothing more to talk about, and sorry I am to see it. Language is important.

I won't accept that YOUR authoritative sources are the ONLY authoritative sources nor are they the right authoritative sources. Excuse me if I don't trust a source that describes Pagans as "relating to the worship or the worshipers of false goods; heathen; idolatrous, as, pagan tribes or superstitions" and a Witch as "One who practices the black art, or magic; one regarded as possessing supernatural or magical power by compact with an evil spirit, esp. with the Devil; a sorcerer or sorceress; -- now applied chiefly or only to women, but formerly used of men as well." to tell me my beliefs are right or wrong. ;)
I'm not an uneducated person, just one who's learn that education are not the be all and end all..

I think this is beating a dead horse ;)

[Spirahl]

Okay, I'm going to make one of those assinine comments that actually has some truth to it...strange concept, but it does happen...

The problem with literary definitions is that they are often taken too literally.

I think WillowRaven makes an excellent point about a book-bound education. Thankfully we have the ability to think outside the box, or book in this case. While I love knowledge, language, and formal education, sometimes the real world and experience spent there is of more value to me.

Books...a nice thing to visit...wouldn't like to live there...not permanently anyhoo...

[bloodstone20]

Well, i am Pagan, so i guess i m a little prejudiced towards self-initation. Just a teensy bit.
And people, don't start a discussion with no intention to listen to what people say. If you are closed to a change, then it seems kind of ... arogant to start a thread about it.
Just my 2 pents.
I really need to add the above to my sig, i find myself saying it so much.

Originally posted by Krom




Gardner was not a Gardnarian. The first Gardnarian would be the one who coined it after G.B.G. died. Before that they were all just Wiccan practicing Wicca. I don't believe that Alex is mad because you questioned it's validity. He was trying to get a point across. There are many who do bash those who follow Traditional Wicca.

Like I said in a previous post Wicca use to be just Wicca. That Wicca was and still is an initiatory pathway. Now before you think I am not hearing you; I do believe that one can self-whatever themselves into paganism. I also believe that one can self-dedicate to learning more about Wicca.

Krom

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by WillowRaven


I won't accept that YOUR authoritative sources are the ONLY authoritative sources nor are they the right authoritative sources. Excuse me if I don't trust a source that describes Pagans as "relating to the worship or the worshipers of false goods; heathen; idolatrous, as, pagan tribes or superstitions" and a Witch as "One who practices the black art, or magic; one regarded as possessing supernatural or magical power by compact with an evil spirit, esp. with the Devil; a sorcerer or sorceress; -- now applied chiefly or only to women, but formerly used of men as well."

I think this is beating a dead horse ;)

We're not going to change hundreds of years of usage in less than 50. I find it heartening that some of the dictionaries are including the newer definitions.

As for authoritative sources, I did ask you for others. I don't know of any others that define words. :)

[BrightStar]

Hi all!
Alex Sanders was never trained as a Gardnerian.He got somebody to steal a copy of a Gardnerian Book of Shadows and wrote it down really fast.So a few mistakes were made.So he wasn't trained by anyone,he just took the Book of Shadows and set up his own brand.Now,since he was a bit of a fraud,are all the covens that hived off from him also fraudulent?I really don't think so.For instance,Janet and Stewart Farrar were originally trained by Sanders,then later saw where he had made things up.But they are/were still Witches,and I liked their writing too.
I'm a Solitatry,and called myself a Dedicant for a year and a day,then an initiate for a year and a day,and only in the last few months do I consider myself a Witch.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

[Krom]

Originally posted by BrightStar
Hi all!
Alex Sanders was never trained as a Gardnerian.He got somebody to steal a copy of a Gardnerian Book of Shadows and wrote it down really fast.So a few mistakes were made.So he wasn't trained by anyone,he just took the Book of Shadows and set up his own brand.Now,since he was a bit of a fraud,are all the covens that hived off from him also fraudulent?I really don't think so.For instance,Janet and Stewart Farrar were originally trained by Sanders,then later saw where he had made things up.But they are/were still Witches,and I liked their writing too.
I'm a Solitatry,and called myself a Dedicant for a year and a day,then an initiate for a year and a day,and only in the last few months do I consider myself a Witch.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

No one said that he was a Trained Gardnarian only that he received an initiation.

Krom

[bloodstone20]

Originally posted by Krom


No one said that he was a Trained Gardnarian only that he received an initiation.

Krom
Isn't there a period of training before that?

[Semele]

Draeconin,
Just a question...Did you make your original informative post just to inform us all of the way it is or did you want replies? Because if you wanted replies, I would assume that would be of the OPINIONS of others. Most the time when I read a post someone has made stating things they have learned or know to be true they expect to recieve replies with others thoughts and opinions. Of course your original post certainly didn't ask for anyone's opinion. Perhaps if your intent was to just tell us all something then you should precept such posts with a disclaimer stating no replies are asked or even welcome.

I just hate to see everyone get so caught up in defining what is authorative and what isn't. This is a community of people with many different opinions. I personally find it interesting and rewarding to read those opinions. Don't you? I don't think anyone is arguing your points just to do so. We all get heated up when we think we are being told outright that our way of thinking is wrong. If I want to think that the sky is green then what good does it do anyone to point out how very wrong I am? Just my thoughts on the matter. Take it or leave it!

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20

Isn't there a period of training before that?

As I am not Gardnerian I cannot comment on their pre-initiate training or what one can expect from a Gardnerian Coven.

I would say ( from my knowledge of Traditional Craft) yes there is some training before one is initiated, but its not the same kind of training an initiate would get after initiation. So one can be an initiate that has not been trained in initiate studies.

MP B*B
Krom

[bloodstone20]

my point exactly. You, Alex, and one other person have been setting the site on its edge. If you are not interested in disscussion, then don't start conversations.

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
my point exactly. You, Alex, and one other person have been setting the site on its edge. If you are not interested in disscussion, then don't start conversations.

May I ask whom you are talking about in your post here.

MP B*B
Krom

[bloodstone20]

I was writing and u posted so it couldn't be like posted where i wanted. I was talking in refrence to Semele to Draeconin and Alex. One of my mod friends said that they had been warned about there posts several times.

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
I was writing and u posted so it couldn't be like posted where i wanted. I was talking in refrence to Semele to Draeconin and Alex. One of my mod friends said that they had been warned about there posts several times.

Cool... I was just checking cuz really I have only tried to offer info and my experience not cause problems.

:)

Krom

[Semele]

F.Y.I. I am a moderator of this forum yes, but was definately in no way speaking as a mod in my previous post. I was just participating as a member. Not sure about which mod friends of your were telling you about warnings...but perhaps that was a little inappropriate??? If I personally felt the need to "warn" anyone I probably would consider it to be a discussion between me and that individual...not up for public discussion. but again that is just my style.

Also I don't necessarily think the community is "on its side". Sure there are differences of opinion and discussions may at some times get heated but we are all equals here and all friends. We have survived far worse 'disagreements" than this and will continue to do so with a little respect for each other.

[bloodstone20]

To have offended you, if i did. I was speaking to someone after they read Alex's post in The SRW thread in the Books Forum. They said that there where three people, Alex and Dreaconin included, that had had posts that were bashes and attacks, and had been told not to do it again. But I don't hink it was appropriete to tell everyone. My opinion changed. However, I said it willingly, so i have no regrets.
No, the community is not on its side. Maybe I should have talked to Krom in private, not publically.
But in referance to the heated disscussions, there are those who start disscussion to state their opinion, and that is all I was saying that I was annoyed with.
Just my 2 pents.

[mol]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
To have offended you, if i did. I was speaking to someone after they read Alex's post in The SRW thread in the Books Forum. They said that there where three people, Alex and Dreaconin included, that had had posts that were bashes and attacks, and had been told not to do it again. But I don't hink it was appropriete to tell everyone. My opinion changed. However, I said it willingly, so i have no regrets.
No, the community is not on its side. Maybe I should have talked to Krom in private, not publically.
But in referance to the heated disscussions, there are those who start disscussion to state their opinion, and that is all I was saying that I was annoyed with.
Just my 2 pents.

SITE GOD MODE

It appears that in your last two posts in this thread you have publicly bashed another member(s) of this community. This is not allowed. Refrain from doing this in the future.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by Semele
Draeconin,
Just a question...Did you make your original informative post just to inform us all of the way it is or did you want replies? Because if you wanted replies, I would assume that would be of the OPINIONS of others.
It was informative only, but I'm not so naive as to expect that there would not be disagreement. After all, the misuse has been IN use for many years and is found in most of the books on witchcraft and paganism. There is a quote I rather like that describes the phenomenon: "Aristotle thought there were eight legs on a fly and wrote it down. For centuries scholars were content to quote his authority. Apparently not one of them was curious enough to impale a fly and count its six legs." - Stuart Chase


I just hate to see everyone get so caught up in defining what is authorative and what isn't. This is a community of people with many different opinions. I personally find it interesting and rewarding to read those opinions. Don't you?


Definitely. I'm not so full of myself as to think that my opinions are the only ones that are worthwhile. However, there are some things about which it is counterproductive to have opinions on. The definitions of words being one. Communications would become very difficult were the meanings of them to come into doubt - at least, until we've developed telepathy to a workable level! :D Even so, the written word preserves our history.

[mol]

You know what?

I am so glad that NO BOOK describes my Path.

[bloodstone20]

Yep, ur right, i bashed. I apologise to you and Alex and Draeconin. I guess i need to talk to them in private if they choose to speak with me. Sorry to pi** you off. 8O :eek:

[Myst]

Originally posted by mol
You know what?

I am so glad that NO BOOK describes my Path.

Amen.

[Semele]

ah...noone is pi**ed off!!! We are just communicating here!!!

its all rainbows and smiley faces!!!

*ducking as Mol throws the nearest object, hoping it wont be a kitten!!*

[Pasch]

Mol's quote, and WillowRaven's post........
here, here!! well met, well said!!

As Ever the Rebel Crone,
Pasch

[bloodstone20]

like to see someone try to write a book on Eclectic Paganism. It'd be funny.

[Pasch]

it would be interesting to say the least! but the time it would take to write such a book........! definately a labor of love.
Peace & Gd'Nite,
Pasch the Rebel Crone:sunny:

[bloodstone20]

IT would be incomplete because of all the new trads that would appear. When I am famous,it might be because of my trad.


And yes, its not and if, its a when :):):D :eek: <--- i love that!!!

[eaglewolf]

We have had long discussions about this subject in the past, however, the search function seems to be down so I am unable to post a link...

Add my two cents? Sure... why not.

I personally do not think self-initiation is possible. In my opinion, many who speak of self-initiation are actually speaking of self-dedication, but have confused the two somewhere along the line. Initiating yourself into Wicca is not possible, but dedicating yourself to a Wiccan path, or starting your own, certainly is.

Who initiated the first witch? Well, I don't think that's possible, so the question is moot. Founding a tradition does not require initiation, but there is a difference between a founder and an initiate, IMO.

Those who speak of initiating themselves into their own (new) tradition are not initiates, again, but founders... there's a difference in my book.

Whether a "percieved" self-initiation makes someone any less Wiccan, witch or whatever is not really my place to decide (except within my tradition). Personally, I really don't care for discussions on this subject, for what does it really matter, unless you are speaking of a specific tradition? It doesn't as far as I can see... I am, after all, not one to decide what floats anyone's boat but my own.

Any how... that is my take on it, and of course, it is just my personal opinion.

I like mol's idea of just being who you are and not troubling yourself with the rest...

~ew

[Rævyn Cigány]

Originally posted by mol
You know what?

I am so glad that NO BOOK describes my Path.

Yes, thank the Goddess, Mol...I agree with you!!!

BB

Rae )0(

[bloodstone20]

examples say Self-Initation into Wicca is impossible. Well, we are talking about Self-Initation as a whole, not just into Wicca and its trads. I beileve that you can self-initate yourself into a Trad of Witchcraft, as Wicca, to me, is just the teachings of Gardner, and the branches of people that he trained. Witchcraft, to me, is the Craft of the Witch, and all that it implies. Its Dianic Witchcraft, Gardenerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca, Strega Witchcraft and many many more all together, in one group of religions. So, if if I were to say, ok, I think that The God is The Harvest Lord, the Goddess, is The Radient Lady, I will follow the Witches Rede (as it did not start at the dawn of Wicca), and My goal will Be to Honor The Lord and Lady, And I will have 4 four moon rituals a month, ONe for each faze (new, full, waxing, waning), And will celebrate the Sabbats, this to me is the beginings of a trad.
Just my 2 pents.

[Amethyst Rose]

Well. This has definately been an interesting and stimulating conversation to read. I don't usually read 4 pages of posts on a topic and stay interested enough to reply.

My view tends to be among the more unpopular views. In my years as an Eclectic Wiccan I have come to believe that self-initiation is possible. HOWEVER, ONLY in an Eclectic tradition. I believe that self-initiation into a trad. is not possible, simply because those trads rely on initiation to stay sacred and important to the initiates (among other things). I think it cheepens a trad for someone to say they self-initiated into it.

However, for an Eclectic there is no trad but their OWN. Therefore, because it is your own, it is no ones business to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. So by all means, you can self-initiate!!

For the record, I only self-dedicated to Wicca as a whole, I never initiated myself into my own eclectic trad. because it is constantly changing.

[bloodstone20]

Thanks, i was begingin to think I was the only one to think that. I think that if you make a trad, u pretty much have to selfinitate, but ppl can't do that if its already founded.
For the record, I found Wicca thro Buffy and Silver Raven Wolf, and have since abandoned it for Eclectic Paganism, so I can be myself and not who someone else wants me to be. I was never involved with a particular tradition, just the Lady and her Consort deal. This is rather restricting, in my opionin. I would not want have to work only with deities that are related thro marriage., such as Diana and Dianus, for example.

[Happydog]

I think it's pretty great when people self-dedicate, no matter what they call it. It really implies that there is a commitment and a willingness to have a relationship with the Divine, and that's the primary purpose of the whole thing, right?

Basically the important thing is, no matter what you're calling it, you're knocking on the door and saying "Hello there, God and/or Goddess, I'm willing to hear from you!" And I find it comforting that no matter how offbeat your original commitment might be, if your heart is sincere, the Lord and Lady honor it.

[Alex]

Thank you, mol.

I was beginning to feel unwelcome.

My post regarding SRW was not intended to be taken on the literal level the party in question did.

I would be only to happy to explain, if anyone else has the impression I think that she should litterally be whipped. Anyone who knows me knows I only advocate whipping a consenting party for mutual pleasure... <EWG>

B*B*

Alex


Originally posted by mol


SITE GOD MODE

It appears that in your last two posts in this thread you have publicly bashed another member(s) of this community. This is not allowed. Refrain from doing this in the future.

[Alex]

The only way a book could adequitely describe the Traditional Wiccan path would be if the authors had broken their oaths.

B*B*

ALex



Originally posted by mol
You know what?

I am so glad that NO BOOK describes my Path.

[Alex]

Interesting point.

As I have never been an eclectic witch (I was Dianic before being Brit Trad, and a hack Ceremonial Student before that), I can't comment. In that context, self initiation may be possible, but it would be an initiation in a different sense. It may well be a valid rite of passage. However, in the(Traditional) Wiccan sense, an initiation is also about being welcomed into a community. This is (IMHO) irrelevant in a solitary rite.

B*B*

ALex

Originally posted by Amethyst Rose
Well. This has definately been an interesting and stimulating conversation to read. I don't usually read 4 pages of posts on a topic and stay interested enough to reply.

My view tends to be among the more unpopular views. In my years as an Eclectic Wiccan I have come to believe that self-initiation is possible. HOWEVER, ONLY in an Eclectic tradition. I believe that self-initiation into a trad. is not possible, simply because those trads rely on initiation to stay sacred and important to the initiates (among other things). I think it cheepens a trad for someone to say they self-initiated into it.

However, for an Eclectic there is no trad but their OWN. Therefore, because it is your own, it is no ones business to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. So by all means, you can self-initiate!!

For the record, I only self-dedicated to Wicca as a whole, I never initiated myself into my own eclectic trad. because it is constantly changing.

[bloodstone20]

There is a thread about Wicca, please focus on Self-initation. It has been stated it is possible in and ecletic path, but not into Wicca as defined by the people that have posted that. Well, lets take Christianity as an example. Can a person be devoted to The Christian God and call themselves a Christian? Yes! So why do some say its impossible? Here is the def again:
Main Entry: ini.ti.a.tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS

acording to two, if the sphere of activity is Wicca, its possible, and 1 c says it also. One can self-initate and call themselves a Wiccan. If you have a ceremony, to initate yourself into Wicca, with no specific trad, you can do it. And what about into a Coven or Circle? Not just wiccan, but all kinds.

[slvr_phoenix]

Well, as a newbie to this forum, I'll jump in and see how many people dislike me. Heh heh. :)

There's a massively overlooked detail in all of this: Dictionaries create definitions for words that aren't gramatically correct.

Initiate simply means to begin something new. No more. No less. To tack any extra words on to it begins to constrain the word in ways it was never meant to be constrained, harming the language.

Dictionaries are incredibly good at constraining words. They try to define everything in as much detail as possible. This is the wrong way to do things though, because they give things a meaning that they were never meant to have simply because of the context in which the word has been frequently used.

It restricts the language and frankly, makes it darned hard for people to learn all of these nuances and restrictions that were never meant to be there.

So back to my point, to self-initiate, is merely to make yourself begin to do something new. No more. No less.

So when a pagan, wiccan, whoever self-initiates, it merely means that they are taking the time to start and learn a path new to themselves. Does this gramatically REQUIRE rites? No. Does this gramatically REQUIRE rituals? No. Does this gramatically REQUIRE someone else initating you? No.

Granted, despite not being required to be gramatically correct, many groups do put stipulations on their students in order to be accepted into the group. For these group initiations, these things may be necessary. However, that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that self-initiation is gramatically correct.

Gramatically, initiation is beginning to study a new path to follow it. Dedication is devoting yourself to that path. Gramatically, both can be done solitary or in a group.

And since this whole debate started purely on gramar, that's how I'm answering. Self-initiation is no more of an oxy-moron than a group-hug. Which is something I think we could all use now. :)

So self-initiation is not gramatically incorrect. It is perfectly feasable. However, certain paths have stipulations on them which go beyond grammar. In those cases, self-initiation is not a possability to follow that path. However, it is still gramatically correct.

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
There is a thread about Wicca, please focus on Self-initation. It has been stated it is possible in and ecletic path, but not into Wicca as defined by the people that have posted that. Well, lets take Christianity as an example. Can a person be devoted to The Christian God and call themselves a Christian? Yes! So why do some say its impossible? Here is the def again:
Main Entry: ini.ti.a.tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS

acording to two, if the sphere of activity is Wicca, its possible, and 1 c says it also. One can self-initate and call themselves a Wiccan. If you have a ceremony, to initate yourself into Wicca, with no specific trad, you can do it. And what about into a Coven or Circle? Not just wiccan, but all kinds.

Merry Met

You were saying at the top to stick to the thread self-initiation and not Wicca but you then started talking about self-initiating into Wicca. I am confused now. Are we talking about self-initiation into Wicca or are we talking about self-initiation in general and its validity.

Krom

[Krom]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
There is a thread about Wicca, please focus on Self-initation. It has been stated it is possible in and ecletic path, but not into Wicca as defined by the people that have posted that. Well, lets take Christianity as an example. Can a person be devoted to The Christian God and call themselves a Christian? Yes! So why do some say its impossible? Here is the def again:
Main Entry: ini.ti.a.tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS

acording to two, if the sphere of activity is Wicca, its possible, and 1 c says it also. One can self-initate and call themselves a Wiccan. If you have a ceremony, to initate yourself into Wicca, with no specific trad, you can do it. And what about into a Coven or Circle? Not just wiccan, but all kinds.

If you use the definition about then you cant self-initiate because quoting the above "or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status". How can one be made a member if it is just one or how can you make yourself a member of a established pathway. Now let me say that I am not attacking anyone just pointing out an oversight.

MP B*B
Krom

[Myst]

The thread started on the statement that you can't self initiate yourself into any Pagan religions. Later on the individual who said that changed his mind and decided he meant you can't self initiate into Wiccan religions. Some suggest you can self initiate yourself as an eclectic Wiccan but not into an established trad, then again if you're creating your own trad does that mean you can't self-initiate yourself? ;)

If you wish to discuss the topic in relation to Wicca (ie. like I just did above) feel free. Let's try to keep this discussion friendly and open :)

[Myst]

Originally posted by Krom


If you use the definition about then you cant self-initiate because quoting the above "or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status". How can one be made a member if it is just one or how can you make yourself a member of a established pathway. Now let me say that I am not attacking anyone just pointing out an oversight.

MP B*B
Krom

Can you pick up a book and read instructions yourself? Can you consider global Paganism a society? A sect is "A faction united by common interests or beliefs", am I not united with other Witches because we have some of the same beliefs, even if they don't live right next to me? Can you not give yourself the status "practicer of Paganism"?

[Krom]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
The thread started on the statement that you can't self initiate yourself into any Pagan religions. Later on the individual who said that changed his mind and decided he meant you can't self initiate into Wiccan religions. Some suggest you can self initiate yourself as an eclectic Wiccan but not into an established trad, then again if you're creating your own trad does that mean you can't self-initiate yourself? ;)

If you wish to discuss the topic in relation to Wicca (ie. like I just did above) feel free. Let's try to keep this discussion friendly and open :)

Humm... Ok. Since Trads are realativly new and Wicca use to just be Wicca, which was initiatory, how can someone self-initiate into something that requires initiation? Not trying to start an argument just trying to see your point of view.

MP B*B
Krom

[Krom]

Originally posted by WillowRaven


Can you pick up a book and read instructions yourself? Can you consider global Paganism a society? A sect is "A faction united by common interests or beliefs", am I not united with other Witches because we have some of the same beliefs, even if they don't live right next to me? Can you not give yourself the status "practicer of Paganism"?

I see what you are saying regarding Paganism. I would agree with that. I do believe that we should remain united in some sense. I would say yes you can give yourself the status of practicer of Paganism. I would support that 100%.

MP B*B
Krom

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by Krom


If you use the definition about then you cant self-initiate because quoting the above "or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status". How can one be made a member if it is just one or how can you make yourself a member of a established pathway. Now let me say that I am not attacking anyone just pointing out an oversight.

MP B*B
Krom

Exactly. :D You cannot make yourself a member of an initiatory religion (or other initiatory group). However, you can found your own or dedicate yourself to following the precepts of any religion.

[Shy Hawk]

Originally posted by Krom
Since Trads are realativly new and Wicca use to just be Wicca, which was initiatory, how can someone self-initiate into something that requires initiation...
Krom

....I'm not saying that I think that people can "self-initiate" themselves,.....which I personally see as impossible....but that is not what I'm here to say. lol You've all heard enough outta me on that. If there was ever a case where a person could self initiate, in my opinion, it would be in the case that they are creating their own tradition. But...nevermind that...

I'm wondering what you mean by trads being relatively new.....considering that Wicca itself is relatively new...so how new exactly do you mean?

[Myst]

Originally posted by Krom


Humm... Ok. Since Trads are realativly new and Wicca use to just be Wicca, which was initiatory, how can someone self-initiate into something that requires initiation? Not trying to start an argument just trying to see your point of view.

MP B*B
Krom

The Craft came back "into the light" in the 50's. That makes it older then both of us. It started out with the teachings of Crowley, Valiente, Gardner, etc. From there it branched into new types of Wicca that don't require someone to initiate you necessarily. If you are Alexandrian or Gardnerian, sure you have to be initiated - that's part of the requirements of that type of Wicca. If you are eclectic there's no rules set up anywhere that state you have to be initiated by someone. And I don't see how the "newness" of the trad matters, whether it's 5 years old or 45
doesn't mean it isn't "valid".

Otherwise, I agree with what slvr_phoenix stated "Gramatically, initiation is beginning to study a new path to follow it. Dedication is devoting yourself to that path. Gramatically, both can be done solitary or in a group. " Some eclectic Wiccans initiate themself into the Craft to learn, then dedicate themself to the relevant Gods when they are certain it is the path they want to follow. Others dedicate themselves to learning about the Craft then initiate themself into it when they decide it is the path they want to follow. I would never call an initiate a dedicant.

[Krom]

Originally posted by Shy Hawk


....I'm not saying that I think that people can "self-initiate" themselves,.....which I personally see as impossible....but that is not what I'm here to say. lol You've all heard enough outta me on that. If there was ever a case where a person could self initiate, in my opinion, it would be in the case that they are creating their own tradition. But...nevermind that...

I'm wondering what you mean by trads being relatively new.....considering that Wicca itself is relatively new...so how new exactly do you mean?

What I mean by that is that the terms like Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc Wicca are new. They were not in use when G.B.G was alive. He died in the early 60's. Before that it was just Wicca. People who were Wiccans before that were practicing Wicca and they were initiated into Wicca. Gardnerian Wicca came into being to define those who were directly lineaged from Gardner. I believe that Cochran (1734 Tradition of Witchcraft) (sp) was the first to use it.

MP B*B
Krom

[bloodstone20]

Krom, everytime i see you i think it is me cuz that was my old icon, but anyway -
Draeconin - There is no one Wiccan tradition or set of rules, only trads of Wicca that have such rules, so, Wicca itself can not be considered intiatory (Sp?) so one can self initate into Wicca, if one wishes, just not ceretain types, such as Garderian, Alexandrian, ect.
Krom - I was stating that the thread was drifting to only talk about wiccan trads, and calling it Wicca., I was asking for people to look at self-iniation as a whole, then went on with my opinions about Wicca as a whole. I am not saying they aren't Wicca, just that they are a peice of it and we need to focus on the Big picture, if one chooses to talk of it.
And Wicca came to be a bunch of different things once the trads formed, and the use of that word is relativly new, also. And also, are you in a tradition of Wicca? Who started the traditions, and how did the people after get the authority to teach them?
I think thats all.

[Myst]

By the way, since we seem to just be discussion this in terms of Wicca, you might want to see a post I made about the history of Wicca at http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4983&pagenumber=2 to see who started Wicca etc. It's also posted in the History forum.

I think it finally gives a definitive answer to why I can initiate myself. Those after Gardner who weren't Gardnerians and started new covens formed "recognized" traditions by creating their own then initiating people into them. For example, Z Budapest created Dianic Wicca with the help of her friends, and she was not ever initiated into Gardnerian Wicca. A few of you have already agreed that this is a way one can say they've initiated themself. By initiating myself I am creating my own tradition. If no one else joins it it is still MY tradition, and still valid.

[bloodstone20]

thanks Willow, i posted in that thread.

[Alex]

"For example, Z Budapest created Dianic Wicca with the help of her friends, and she was not ever initiated into Gardnerian Wicca. "

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but what Z. "created" with the Susan B. Anthony coven was not Dianic Wicca, it was a form of feminist Witchcraft she called Dianic Wicca, and that is a source of infinite confusion.

Mind you, I speak as an initiate of a Dianic tradtition which is lineaged to a Dianic tradition predating Budapest and the SBA coven. This is what I was doing prior to taking my first initiation into the sublime mysteries of the Central Valley Wicca.

DIanic WIcca refers to a tradition of the Craft which has Gardnerian lineage founded by Morgan Mc. Farland and Mark ROberts. Their trad was feminist, matriarchal and matrilineal, and deviates enough from it's roots as to no longer be Brit Trad. One could argue, however that it is a form of WIcca.

Budapest has nothing to do with Wicca. Witchcraft, yes, but WIcca, no.



ALex

[Myst]

Thanks for clearing that up ;)

In that case, substitute Dianic Wicca for any other tradition out there which was created by someone who was not initiated by the initial Gardnerian coven. I think the point is still clear and valid. :)

[Alex]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
Thanks for clearing that up ;)

In that case, substitute Dianic Wicca for any other tradition out there which was created by someone who was not initiated by the initial Gardnerian coven. I think the point is still clear and valid. :)

It's valid for what it is, but it isn't (IMH first degree opinion) WIcca.

[Myst]

Understandable.

So any tradition that can't trace it's lineage back to Gardner is not Wiccan??

I think a lot of people (mainly the hundreds or thousands of Wiccans in that category) would disagree....*shrug*

[slvr_phoenix]

I've got to totally agree with you WillowRaven.

I'll even add that those on their high-horses who feel that they're all special and superior for being degreed to a coven need to get off of their high-horse before they fall down and hurt themselves. Just some friendly advice.

I can completely understand not accepting a self-initiate as not being a part of your tradition. I however cannot even begin to fathom denying them the right to call themselves Wiccan. That's just overly pompus, harmfully arrogant, and just plain rude. And it most certainly isn't humble, Alex.

It makes me wonder how one can even attain their first degree with that kind of an attitude. Obviously covens today just aren't what they used to be.

Which is all the more reason for people to be eccelctic and solitary practicioners, what with covens as screwed up and meaningless as most (not all, just most) are today.

What with the internet and books as readily available as they are, this is the "Era of the Solitary Practicioner". It's when traditionalists have to face up to the fact that the solitary practicioner is just as valid as they are, and just as knowledgable, especially now that they're a vast minority.

Self-initiation is common these days. Call it initiation into the Ecclectic Tradition if it makes you feel any better. Call it initiation into general Wicca if it helps. But self-initiation is legit, and it is possible. It's just that simple.

[bloodstone20]

Alex, once again, it seems to me that u are speaking for your trad as Wicca, which it is a part of, yes, but not consisting of.

[Mairwen]

Originally posted by Alex
It's valid for what it is, but it isn't (IMH first degree opinion) WIcca.

You the same Alex from Yahoo! TradWicca? I've been wondering.

[eaglewolf]

Wow! There are so many wonderful points of view in this discussion. It seems you all are going in circles though, lol!

Can someone, anyone (I'm not picky), tell me why it is so important to be initiated in the first place? This topic seems to be pushing alot of buttons, and I am wondering why this is so...

Individuals who begin their own tradition are not, in fact, initiates. Founders of specific/individual traditions are in a position to initiate others into their tradition, coven, grove etc., but do not need initiation themselves... why would they?

It is from this standpoint I submit, self-initiation is not necessary or possible for that matter. Who cares? Why is the need to be initiated so important, unless you are talking about traditional specifics? If you just created your own path, there are no traditions yet, again, who cares? All traditions have to start somewhere, right?

I founded our tradition, but in namesake only. It was established long before I named it. My great grandmother founded the tradition, with help from other family members, initiating those who followed, but not themselves. In the beginning, our tradition was not even Wiccan, that came later.

There is a discernable difference between founders and initiates in my opinion, one no more valid than the other, but different none the less. Certain traditions require formal initiation, others do not... in all cases it is up to the founders/leaders and ultimately, those who follow in these groups to decide.

If it is your tradition, decide for yourself, it is your choice... initiation or not, what you do as a person to benefit yourself and others is what counts, not the specifics and definately not the damn titles.

May you live true!

~ew

[Mairwen]

AMEN, EW!!

[slvr_phoenix]

Heh heh. Isn't circling one another what trained warriors do when they fight, as they try to find weaknesses in their opponent to exploit?

And eaglewolf, your whole point revolves around the theory that initiation only applies to a tradition. For most people though, it doesn't apply to a specific tradition, but just into Wicca itself.

It is an affirmation to the Goddess and God, The Elements, the Powers and Presences, and everything around, not just to us humans. With all of those spirits, powers, and deities involved in the ceremony, who needs humans there to witness or guide it? And who says that initiation has to be into a specific tradition? A self-initiate is initating themself into that group of supernatural/magickal beings and deities that are what Wicca is all about. No tradition or specific path is important to that.

I'm not sure why I'm even debating this so much though. I'm not self-initiated. I'm self-dedicated. What differences there is, I'm not sure. **shrug** It just comes from not finding a tradition that meets my specific beliefs and desires. So I chose to be a solitary ecclectic where I won't have to hinder my own growth with the limitations of a tradition's beliefs. I have dedicated myself to the Goddess and God, the Elements, and the Powers and Presences, and it is their path that I follow. It is a path that has been built upon through several past lives, and will no doubt continue through future lives. I don't need anyone's approval or their "tradition secrets" to follow this path.

I suppose technically I'm an initiate of my own path, but those semantics don't really matter to me. They do however matter to other people, and so I stand up for them because I know how insulted they would be to hear people say that what they have done is impossible. And frankly, it's not impossible.

How can a Wiccan believe in a Goddess and a God, believe in spirits and powers, and not believe that one of them could take them through an initiation? Why are so many people so closed-minded that they believe a human must fill that role?

[eaglewolf]

Originally posted by slvr_phoenix
Why are so many people so closed-minded that they believe a human must fill that role?

I must say, self-initiation is a human role. Why not say, "I was initiated by the 'divine' into my tradition" if initiation is so important, rather than "I initiated myself?" No one seems to be taking that stance, which I think is a perfectly valid stance.

To be honest, I think anything is possible. If someone wants to initiate themself, fine. I simply do not see the need.

You point out self-dedication, which is the only type of dedication possible IMO, and this is what I think is important. It is also what I feel most people are talking about when they speak of initiation. Some perhaps are not, but many are. Dedication to the path is the key, not initiation when 'doing it yourself,' again IMO.


It is an affirmation to the Goddess and God, The Elements, the Powers and Presences, and everything around, not just to us humans. With all of those spirits, powers, and deities involved in the ceremony, who needs humans there to witness or guide it? And who says that initiation has to be into a specific tradition? A self-initiate is initating themself into that group of supernatural/magickal beings and deities that are what Wicca is all about. No tradition or specific path is important to that.

I whole heartedly agree, but I see this as dedication and not initiation. There is a simple difference of opinion as to the structure of these two words and their meanings going on here, nothing more really. I think alot of people are trying to say the same thing, in their own way, but understanding of the whole process is conflicting.

Again, this is just my opinion, and only really matters to me. I am trying to mediate a bit, throw in my point of view, and allow everyone the opportunity to train in their warrior ways around me... though I really see no reason to be fighting.

;)

~ew

[Happydog]

The reason that I got initiated was to (a) legitimize my beliefs to myself (yes, I know that's silly, but it was important at the time) and (b) if in the future anyone should try to pull one of those "ha, well, you're just a solitary, what do you know, you white light new ager fluff bunny!" I can pull a 'lineage" out of my hat and hit them with it. If it's necessary.

Right now I practice as a solitary, because the coven I was involved in dissolved. But I can still say I was initiated if I have to.

Personally I think the only thing that makes any difference is if the individual decides to dedicate themselves to the God and Goddess. I wanted to be initiated because of my own insecurities about myself at the time. Initiation isn't really necessary to follow the God and Goddess, but I think self-dedication might be.

[eaglewolf]

Personally, I think it only matters to each of us as individuals regardless of our reasons. Doing it 'just because' or to make yourself 'feel legit' are just as valid IMO as any other reason for it, as long as it is right for you.

I would go as far as to say, dedication as a formal rite, is not even necessary. True dedication within yourself to your cause, whatever that may be, is the only thing you need. After all, not even a hard thought dedication rite really means you are actually dedicated... that comes from and resides within you, no matter what.

Just a thought.

~ew

[bloodstone20]

I agree ew ... i think that this thread is coming to an end.

[slvr_phoenix]

eaglewolf, I think a lot of people call it self-initiation even when it is divine-initiation simply because too many people would scoff at someone claming to be divine-initiated. I have no idea why, but I've seen it happen, so I know it's not unheard of.

And you're probably right in how you view dedication and initiation. However, some people kind of reverse those views to where dedication is affirming that you will follow a path and initiation is the actual starting of that path.

It's just a huge mess of semantics. And thus, frankly, a kind of silly thing to have gotten this many posts over. Heh heh. But hey, I guess that's just how the cookie crumbles. :)

But I agree with you totally when you say, "True dedication within yourself to your cause, whatever that may be, is the only thing you need." No one really needs to be initiated or dedicated in ritualistic form. They just need things to sit right in their heart.

And we may be training our warrior ways (at least in the skillful use of words), but that doesn't mean that we're actually fighting. I'd say it's just good-natured practice. (At least for the most part.)

[slvr_phoenix]

Happydog, that sounds as good of a reason as any. :) I once planned on the whole initiated and degreed route. I just found that the coven I was in was holding me back from being who I am by limiting what I was allowed to work with and making me work with things I didn't feel akin to. So I never really bothered. And I haven't found a coven that really fits my path fully since. But sometimes I wish I had gone for initiation and a degree (or three) anyway, so that now I could actually start my own path with more pomp than what a solitary ecclectic can muster.

[Krom]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
Thanks for clearing that up ;)

In that case, substitute Dianic Wicca for any other tradition out there which was created by someone who was not initiated by the initial Gardnerian coven. I think the point is still clear and valid. :)

I can answer that one. No, one does not have to be lineaged to Gardner to be a Wiccan. Gardner was not the only Wiccan. Some wish that he was but he was not, but even he under went an initiation at the hands of someone else.

MP B*B
Krom

[Myst]

This thread was started by someone who told us everyone who used the term self initiation was wrong, and became 7 pages long because people have been arguing back and forth whether it is possible or not.

My whole point in arguing it in the first place was to point out that if you believe it's possible it is, if you don't that's your opinion too. The fact is that everyone has their own opinion and has the right to that opinion.

Obviously no one's going to come to a definitive answer that we all will agree on, however I think it's clear to see we all have our own opinions and the reasons behind them.

And the fact that we can share them and usually discuss politely is the important one :)

If you gain nothing else from the thread, gain the understanding that we are all responsible and entitled to our own beliefs, and no one should be able to force theirs upon us.

[Krom]

Originally posted by WillowRaven
This thread was started by someone who told us everyone who used the term self initiation was wrong, and became 7 pages long because people have been arguing back and forth whether it is possible or not.

My whole point in arguing it in the first place was to point out that if you believe it's possible it is, if you don't that's your opinion too. The fact is that everyone has their own opinion and has the right to that opinion.

Obviously no one's going to come to a definitive answer that we all will agree on, however I think it's clear to see we all have our own opinions and the reasons behind them.

And the fact that we can share them and usually discuss politely is the important one :)

I agree we have reached a point where we have to agree to disgree. :)

Krom

[Shy Hawk]

Hey, sorry I'm late again....just wanted to point out that I like what EW said about being initiated by the divine.
VERY GOOD POINT!!!! Wish I could've thought about it that way. A person can be initiated by the Gods...in which case, they didn't need a coven to initiate them....(of course this is into Wicca, not a specific trad).

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by bloodstone20
Draeconin - There is no one Wiccan tradition or set of rules, only trads of Wicca that have such rules, so, Wicca itself can not be considered intiatory (Sp?) so one can self initate into Wicca, if one wishes, just not ceretain types, such as Garderian, Alexandrian, ect.

I have said, time after time, that you can start your own tradition. But as the founder, YOU are the one who initiates others into it. As the founder, you cannot be initiated (introduced) into your own tradition. It is illogical.

But you bring up an interesting subject... Just how far can a religion drift in beliefs and practices from the original and still be called the same religion? A subject for a new thread, perhaps?

[Alex]

Originally posted by Mairwen


You the same Alex from Yahoo! TradWicca? I've been wondering.

One and the same.

[Alex]

Originally posted by slvr_phoenix
I've got to totally agree with you WillowRaven.

I'll even add that those on their high-horses who feel that they're all special and superior for being degreed to a coven need to get off of their high-horse before they fall down and hurt themselves. Just some friendly advice.

I can completely understand not accepting a self-initiate as not being a part of your tradition. I however cannot even begin to fathom denying them the right to call themselves Wiccan. That's just overly pompus, harmfully arrogant, and just plain rude. And it most certainly isn't humble, Alex.

It makes me wonder how one can even attain their first degree with that kind of an attitude. Obviously covens today just aren't what they used to be.

Which is all the more reason for people to be eccelctic and solitary practicioners, what with covens as screwed up and meaningless as most (not all, just most) are today.

What with the internet and books as readily available as they are, this is the "Era of the Solitary Practicioner". It's when traditionalists have to face up to the fact that the solitary practicioner is just as valid as they are, and just as knowledgable, especially now that they're a vast minority.

Self-initiation is common these days. Call it initiation into the Ecclectic Tradition if it makes you feel any better. Call it initiation into general Wicca if it helps. But self-initiation is legit, and it is possible. It's just that simple.

Ah, eclectic "wicca", where all is tollerated as long as it isn't Brit Trad, and doesn't step on anyone's paradigm.

Abuse like this, I don't need, and I sincerely doubt there is anything remotely friendly about your advice.

Oh, I forgot, it is important to tollerate everyone and everything except Brit Trad and Ceremonial Magick...

You have no right but to do thy Will...

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

[Myst]

Originally posted by Alex
Ah, eclectic "wicca", where all is tollerated as long as it isn't Brit Trad, and doesn't step on anyone's paradigm.

Abuse like this, I don't need, and I sincerely doubt there is anything remotely friendly about your advice.

Oh, I forgot, it is important to tollerate everyone and everything except Brit Trad and Ceremonial Magick...


Ok, no one said anything about Brit Trad *or* Ceremonial Magick but yourself. The best response, if it were said, is probably not to now say something negative about Eclectic Wicca. It is well known this community is open to all Pagan religions and non-Pagan seekers as well, not just to followers of certain trads. It is also well known having strong conflicting opinions is not against the rules here.

[Woodmouse29]

****LOL!!
HOLY COW! Alex! I am so surprised you havent shown your true colors here yet! LOL Good Gosh! You people think he is being a hard ass now? LOL YOU have not seen him in his full splendor! THIS is unsusally TAME! If you wish to see what I am talking about, here are two links... Be warned! This is the TRUE Alex...LOL (and I still love him!)

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/fluffbunnyhuntingground
OR
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/wiccanroundtable

I have known Alex a very long time, and I admire this man and his "works" If any of you knew him personally, you would know what I am talking about. Alex has worked long and hard to get to where he is today, and for this and his dedication, I am VERY proud of him.

~*~ Mouse~*~

PS: Just because someone reads up on Wicca or Witchcraft on the internet or in a few books... this does NOT make them Witch Or Wiccan...... Hell... thats why SilverRavenFluff is out there making the big bucks...lol she is out making INSTANT Witches, with all of her "how to" books and her instant Witch kit... etc... BAH!
Better get off this topic... Ole "mama Silver" is NOT one of my favs..LOL



Originally posted by slvr_phoenix
I've got to totally agree with you WillowRaven.

I'll even add that those on their high-horses who feel that they're all special and superior for being degreed to a coven need to get off of their high-horse before they fall down and hurt themselves. Just some friendly advice.

I can completely understand not accepting a self-initiate as not being a part of your tradition. I however cannot even begin to fathom denying them the right to call themselves Wiccan. That's just overly pompus, harmfully arrogant, and just plain rude. And it most certainly isn't humble, Alex.

It makes me wonder how one can even attain their first degree with that kind of an attitude. Obviously covens today just aren't what they used to be.

Which is all the more reason for people to be eccelctic and solitary practicioners, what with covens as screwed up and meaningless as most (not all, just most) are today.

What with the internet and books as readily available as they are, this is the "Era of the Solitary Practicioner". It's when traditionalists have to face up to the fact that the solitary practicioner is just as valid as they are, and just as knowledgable, especially now that they're a vast minority.

Self-initiation is common these days. Call it initiation into the Ecclectic Tradition if it makes you feel any better. Call it initiation into general Wicca if it helps. But self-initiation is legit, and it is possible. It's just that simple.

[Dria El]

Welcome to Mystic Wicks Woodmouse29!!!

:)

[Woodmouse29]

Thanks...

Neat little discussions you all have going here!

:)

[Alex]

Originally posted by Woodmouse29
****LOL!!
HOLY COW! Alex! I am so surprised you havent shown your true colors here yet! LOL Good Gosh! You people think he is being a hard ass now? LOL YOU have not seen him in his full splendor! THIS is unsusally TAME! If you wish to see what I am talking about, here are two links... Be warned! This is the TRUE Alex...LOL (and I still love him!)

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/fluffbunnyhuntingground
OR
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/wiccanroundtable

I have known Alex a very long time, and I admire this man and his "works" If any of you knew him personally, you would know what I am talking about. Alex has worked long and hard to get to where he is today, and for this and his dedication, I am VERY proud of him.

~*~ Mouse~*~

PS: Just because someone reads up on Wicca or Witchcraft on the internet or in a few books... this does NOT make them Witch Or Wiccan...... Hell... thats why SilverRavenFluff is out there making the big bucks...lol she is out making INSTANT Witches, with all of her "how to" books and her instant Witch kit... etc... BAH!
Better get off this topic... Ole "mama Silver" is NOT one of my favs..LOL




Thanks for putting things in perspective, mouse!

Although, I must add that there is a growing temptation to take the gloves off.

I f someone brings up Aidan Kelly, it may just happen...

[Dria El]

Originally posted by Woodmouse29
Thanks...

Neat little discussions you all have going here!

:)

hehe Yeah... we have some pretty good ones around here. It gets hairy sometimes but so far we've been able to remain friendly after they're through. :)

[Shy Hawk]

::giggles:: Silver Ravenfluff....lol......::cough cough sputter::

Well anyhow....though I don't agree with all of that....I do agree that there is much too much instant witchcraft going on. Though I'm not sure...we may have a threat on this somewhere else, and I don't want to bring it up again, if we do....hmm..

[Dria El]

Originally posted by Shy Hawk
Though I'm not sure...we may have a threat on this somewhere else, and I don't want to bring it up again, if we do....hmm..

Freudian slip much? ;)

[Yvonne Belisle]

You know upon reading this thread it makes me very glad I am Pagan not Wiccan. I am saddened however that during a time when uniting would do more good I am seeing people squabbling to this degree.

[slvr_phoenix]

Yvonne Thomas, I agree that it's pretty sad to see such disharmony at a time when we could make a considerable difference in the world by working together. It's sad when some people are so closed-minded that they cannot even begin to accept the concept of an Ecclectic Wiccan, or even that not all traditions of Wicca have yet been formed and thus some people just don't have a tradition that completely fills their needs. That some people instead of walking a path which was not meant for them, blaze their own path, defining their own tradition, which still has the very same basis and fundamental beliefs that all other Wiccan traditions have, and is therefore just as valid.

I also find it sad that anyone would assume that all Ecclectic Wiccans must be products of the sell-out known as Silver RavenWolf. To give her that much credit for the way things are is quite depressing. :(

And what a sad thing when people cannot see that words were directed at actions and not the people that perform those actions. And when someone can be so cynical that they cannot believe people still practice the act of constructive criticism, the offering of advice with no ill-will or hostilite intent.

Be that as it may, the world can oft be a sad place. It is not within my power to change the whole world. However, darned if I won't struggle through that sadness of it all to at give effort in changing my little corner of it.

And as a forum dedicated and open to all forms of paganism, I find it considerably unfortunate when an extremist can come along and disrespect so many people and not be audibly smacked upside the head by a moderator for it and not be required to appologize for it if they wish to continue to be a part of the community.

I can understand allowing us to have our own points of view, as we are all entitled to our own way of seeing things. That is the nature of individualism. However, there is a difference between allowing individualism, and allowing people to actively harm one another (which, coincidentally, is an act that is quite contradictory to the Wiccan Rede) without consequence.

But I digress from the topic. Please forgive the venting of my sorrows.

I still firmly believe that there are paths which have not yet been officially defined. That people can follow these undefined paths and that doing so is just as valid as any long-standing tradition, or any newly-formed tradition. We are a spiritual people having a physical existence, and as such paths can take lifetimes to properly form. And as such there are times when we have to initiate ourselves into those paths, or have other spirits initiate us into those paths. And as such we can even be merely following the exact same path that we were initiated into in a past life.

However, even this is a minor transgression from the original topic, which was merely that self-initiation is a "a mistake in language". Which I believe I have offered enough evidence to point out that it is not a mistake in language at all.

And I offer it up to everyone to debate my points on this topic as I will readily admit that I am not perfect, nor am I always right, and if you can provide substantial evidence other than pure opinion which disproves my points, I will gladly consider changing my point of view. :)

[Krom]

Originally posted by Yvonne Thomas
You know upon reading this thread it makes me very glad I am Pagan not Wiccan. I am saddened however that during a time when uniting would do more good I am seeing people squabbling to this degree.

I dont see it as squabbling so I have to disagree with you on this point. I see it as a discussion which has no point of resolution. Being that I am Wiccan I cannot except self-initiation into my path. This does not mean that I do not except them as individuals and as dedicants to the Gods. Nor would I say that they are not following a spiritual pathway. That would be wrong to say.

Now having said that I would say that Wicca is developing a Laity. Those who do not want to follow the priest/esshood through intitiation.

I do not see how it is possible to follow a path that one knows nothing about. The books out there do not explain what Wicca is. They give a general description of Paganism. Wicca has become the the term to describe and define anything relating to witchcraft ( a ask someone to prove me wrong on that one). Wicca is just one flavor (path in) of Witchcraft it is not all of Witchcraft.

I have to disagree with those who say that one can be a Wiccan and not a Witch. It is not possible IMHO.

Now having said that I do accept all pagans as my extended family so to speak (my sisters and my brothers). I do and will fight for them. I also believe that unity is a good thing to strive for but diversity must be maintained.

MP B*B
Krom

[Woodmouse29]

>>>I also find it sad that anyone would assume that all Ecclectic Wiccans must be products of the sell-out known as Silver RavenWolf. To give her that much credit for the way things are is quite depressing. <<<

I wasnt giving her any credit...lol she is just another who bends to serve the all mighty buck.... There are alot of others who fit into her catagory as well.... :( Sad stuff....

Mouse

[mol]

SITE GOD MODE

Just to cover both bases, Alex.

Remove your title and your avatar. They are both unacceptable. I find your attitude is as well, but unfortunately there are no rules about it...

[Myst]

Originally posted by Woodmouse29
[BI wasnt giving her any credit...lol she is just another who bends to serve the all mighty buck.... There are alot of others who fit into her catagory as well.... :( Sad stuff....
[/B]

I'd like to see you survive any amount of time without money. :D

Then again, this is off topic, and Yvonne has a good point that I think I shall take it to heart at this point.

[Krom]

Greetings I would like to suggest that this post be closed since this seems to be getting personal rather than staying an abstract discussion.

Krom

[rain]

Quote,

"As you can see, to 'initiate' means to be 'started' or 'let in'. It requires that someone else open the door. "

To friends who have initiated themselves, their reply would be that it was their deity that opened the door for them!
I can fully empathise with them as to be drawn naturally to a spiritual path should eventually lead to the open door where the
Goddess/God/Deity welcomes and invites.

I personally was born into the craft, and only feel the need to re-afirm my devotion, periodically.

BB
rain