Wiccan FAQ - ?????? PROFIT

******** THIS s**t IS HILARIOUS INNIT

STEP 1: CALL YOURSELF WICCAN	11.7%	[ 259 ]
STEP 2: BUY STRANGE CLOTHES	6.3%	[ 139 ]
STEP 3: WHINE ABOUT HOW OPPRESSED YOU ARE	10.7%	[ 237 ]
STEP 4: ????????	37.7%	[ 836 ]
STEP 5: PROFIT!	33.6%	[ 744 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2215 ]

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

scorplett

So ok, its not an instant mark of a fluffy but to my mind is cause for the raising of eyebrows!

I'm all for raising eyebrows. But once again this is falling on your authority.

By the post of a new comer- we have Wiccans who are considered so by lineaged Wiccans who may disagree.

Tiz an opinion based statement true... Give me a bit to catch up and I may be able to reply with more substance, the thread has been very busy the last few days and Im back on page 84 backtracking through posts...

But I think it best considered something of a cultural difference. Not done in Europe much, regularly done in US ~shrugs~

[TeaDidikai]

scorplett

But I think it best considered something of a cultural difference. Not done in Europe much, regularly done in US ~shrugs~

Don't get me wrong. I find it annoying personally.

But if it is a cultural difference between European Wiccans and American Wiccans, is it something you're retracting as a sign of fluff in general?

[uninsured_speech]

loona wynd - Actually yes, I am well aware that BSW is an American form of BWT and that they are lineaged to Gardnerian tradition. That is part of the point. They are a lineaged tradition that does not hold to the same ideals proposed here to be the definition of Wicca.

Seax Wicca can also be traced back to Gardnerian Wicca, and is considered lineaged despite the fact that they do not practice the Gardnerian way. That is the whole point of the examples given. There are several Wiccan groups that are lineaged to Gardner that do not hold to the same deities and practices.

[Subject to Psychosis] - Actually no. There is Dianic Tradition, that did drop the term Wicca because they no longer wanted to be associated with the Wiccan ideology. However, there are Dianic Covens that maintain the right to call themselves Wiccan, the McFarland Dianic Covens that I have interacted with also maintain the right to call themselves Wiccan. Both are lineaged to Gardner, though one through the other.

Several groups HAVE dropped the title of Wicca, but it would be false to claim that all have done so because they were not Wiccan as defined by Gardner.

TeaDidikai - It is a F.A.Q but it claims to be an F.A.Q that is the absolute answer. It is an F.A.Q that uses aggressive language to tell people whether they are or are not Wiccan using only one source, and that source is highly questionable when used in this way. While everyone should know Gardner and his writings, he is not the end all be all bible of Wicca.

While contact with the deities may take place within the Mysteries (which again, I agree but that is not the issue), that is not made clear here at all. Nor is it made clear by Gardner, who (to drop below) makes it perfectly clear that he believes a God or Goddess to be less powerful off their native soil. You are correct, he did not say that they were invalid... but he did say that the groups that worshiped him were not Wiccan, that all Wiccan's MUST worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles and that all others are only "other occult groups".

It is Triste that says that Wicca MUST incorporate Kabalistic ceremony. Based only on the fact that Gardner used a great deal of it. I do not challenge that Gardnerian Wicca used a lot of ceremonial and Kabalistic magic, only that it should NOT be made a requirement of Wicca when they are separate issues. In addition, Exegesis, by definition, is a extensive and critical interpretation of the argument (in this case). It is certainly not a reason to discount what I say, but rather to heed it.

Ahh yes. The appeal to authority. You are right... it does largely come down to this. Only, I am not the originator, nor am I one to rely heavily on such an appeal. Triste places herself as an authority and promotes absolute definitions to something that she has no right to define so absolutely. This F.A.Q presents absolutes based on ONE MAN's theories. While I will grant, that one man is very important and should be thanked for what he (at the very least introduced if not created), Gardner is not necessarily the absolute authority. A great deal of what he wrote has been proven absolutely false. This entire thread is an appeal to authority. And while I have used personal experience where it was warranted (as has everyone else) I have also backed that up with both written sources and examples, which is more than anyone else here has done.

All of my sources are entitled to call themselves Wiccan, though it is terribly convenient that this thread so easily disregards any proof that does not fall in line with its ideas. I do not counter that certain publishers demand calling things Wicca that are not, but that is not the case of the texts that I own. I research what I buy very carefully. Some traditions, as well as some individuals, have decided to disconnect with the term Wicca, though I am about to launch a research project into how many of those traditions did so because they felt that they did not fit within Gardner's lines. I predict the findings will say otherwise.

This is an F.A.Q... such a frequent excuse for the holes left in the materials. It is a good thing that it is not a Master's Thesis on Wicca... considering I have been on a committee to judge such things, I can tell you it would never pass. But that is neither here nor there. The language used is absolute. Triste lays down, with no room for argument what MUST be (in her opinion though she never says that) in order to claim to be a Wicca. The post makes it perfectly clear that if you disagree you are simply wrong and misguided. And yes... the last time you asked me to quote her as saying that, I did. Even our discussion here proves that this thread is not open to posts that question or contest what has been written. Doing so results in an appeal to authority claiming that my own arguments are an appeal to authority. Discounting whatever proof I bring in or discuss because it was not in Gardner's original writings. And I will remind. Gardner is the ONLY source issued here.

So while this might be a decent thread or F.A.Q were it listed Gardnerian Wicca, it stretches its own appeal to authority too far.

[scorplett]

Vampire Princess Akasha

My source for that is my coven's summoner...... I will also be getting lessons from my priestess, and will ask her as well.

Ah right so... Your Coven summoner is teaching you and you are also receiving lessons from a HPS.
This may have been asked already, but what tradition are you an initiate of and what line? What degree is the summoner and is he also your initiator? and why are you being recommended Buckland as source reading material?

[TeaDidikai]

uninsured_speech

It is a F.A.Q but it claims to be an F.A.Q that is the absolute answer.

And within the pages much of your contests have been covered.

Not every first page needs to be rewritten for every detail and people are still welcomed to post questions and contests.

Quote:

It is an F.A.Q that uses aggressive language to tell people whether they are or are not Wiccan using only one source, and that source is highly questionable when used in this way. While everyone should know Gardner and his writings, he is not the end all be all bible of Wicca.

Actually- unless you want to argue application of the title to other groups- I think it is a very valid position.

We know that Wicca did not form until Gardner. Thus, he gets to say what Wicca is and is not.

Why do groups that don't worship the same gods or have the same rituals get to call themselves Wiccan?

Quote:

Only, I am not the originator, nor am I one to rely heavily on such an appeal.

Actually- you are.

You expect that you say other groups that use the title are entitled to claim the title of Wicca and you haven't provided any citation that I saw.

Quote:

All of my sources are entitled to call themselves Wiccan, though it is terribly convenient that this thread so easily disregards any proof that does not fall in line with its ideas.

Support this assertion please.

Quote:

Even our discussion here proves that this thread is not open to posts that question or contest what has been written.

Pause.

Challenging you to support your position is not the same as proving that the thread itself is not open to posts that question it.

It's a little insulting actually.

Nuri & Deo>> ********' hell?! Why is it me that always gets called on this?! It was funny the first twenty times. Now it's just annoyin'. crying

Quote:

Doing so results in an appeal to authority claiming that my own arguments are an appeal to authority.

No. Your argument is an appeal to authority because it is resting on your personal opinion without credentials.

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

scorplett

But I think it best considered something of a cultural difference. Not done in Europe much, regularly done in US ~shrugs~

Don't get me wrong. I find it annoying personally.

But if it is a cultural difference between European Wiccans and American Wiccans, is it something you're retracting as a sign of fluff in general?

Yep, thats the gist of the post before last.
It's not fair to tar all who use it as fluffy because for the most part people just don't know about it or think about it and ignorance is not the same as willful ignorance. However, there are circumstances where the statement can be used in willful defiance and ignorance.
I personally find the practice not only annoying, but incredibly irreverent and inappropriate to the point of disgust. So yeah, my personal reaction is to staple the label to the users forehead. But that isn't in line with the intellectual honest this forum aims to achieve and therefore, the blanket statement is retracted in favour of a more narrow one.

[scorplett]

Vampire Princess Akasha

TeaDidikai

Vampire Princess Akasha

TeaDidikai

Vampire Princess Akasha

I never said I dissagreed with Buckland's foundation, I dissagreed with the thought of being a devil worshipper.

Buckland's primary source states that you would be a Devil Worshiper.

He has many sources, so you would be wrong right there. Also, he himself states we are NOT devil worshippers, so try again.

You're missing the point.

Page 9 of Lesson one cites Murray's work for his assertions.

Murray's work in Paragraph 1, Chapter 2 talks about how the people she is talking about are Devil worshipers.

So- Buckland says "Wicca is ancient- Murray says so!"

You say "Buckland says Wicca is thousands and thousands of years old! Wicca is a term dedicated to older practices!"

And Murray says "The god these witches worship is known as The Devil".

Page nine is about wiccan principles... So you're wrong there.

He doesn't state her when he talks about wicca being over 20 thousand years old. He also says that the devil is a christian invention, he was not even brought around till christianity. People only claim that because our god is horned...

Yeah he does. On the very first page.

Raymond Buckland; Bucklands Complete book of Witchcraft, Chapter1 page1 paragraph2

"The late Dr. Margaret Murray traced back and saw Witchcraft's origins in palaeolithic times; 25,000 years ago.

[TeaDidikai]

Scorplett? Which addition are you working with?

[scorplett]

Vampire Princess Akasha

Proved what right? I still have proved that we were persucuted
and did have to go into hiding.
But Buckland says that a religion that has lasted for over 20 thousand years wouldn't die so easily. We lived "underground", we "hid in the shadows" to keep our religion alive. Wicca was not created by Gardner, that was my main point upon first posting in this thread.

Whats with this 'We' business?
Please explain who 'We' are?
When did 'We' come out of hiding?
How did 'we' hide in the shaddows?- Sounds cosy in this pile of s**t!
How does Wicca stay alive?
If Wicca (rather than Witchcraft:- and there is a HUGE difference!) survived for thousands of years and you practice as people did hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Please tell me how you construct ritual space?
To what to you call for fortification and protection of that space?
What festivals do you celebrate?
What tools do you use?
All of the correct answers to these questions can be traced to earlier practices. There is NO evidence of organized ritualized religious worship and magical practices beyond the last century by the name of Witchcraft or Wicca. Gerald Gardner did create what is known as the modern practice of Wicca. There is no proof to suggest that beyond those he worked with that there was any practice resembling what is now known as Wicca.
You use refine to describe GBG's influance. However, what elements of modern Wicca did he 'refine'?
What did he add? What record of the use of the term Wicca with relation to ritualized magical worship can you find and prove?
Please open your mind beyond Buckland. He really isn't a good source for information from an academic pov or indeed a Wiccan pov!

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

Scorplett? Which addition are you working with?

1st Edition

[scorplett]

EDITED*

Vampire Princess Akasha

You are an ignorant fool if you find that is not proof. He took his rituals from his coven, hence the stuff was written BEFORE he changed them, hence it existed before him, thus he didn't create it.

It is foolish to think that Buckland was ever a part of a coven previous to setting up his own. There is no evidence other than his own say so.
He was 'trained' by correspondence, something which is merely lip service to the experiential nature of Wicca. He never experienced ritual until his alleged initiation which he says Gardner was present for. However, on the dates he says he was in Castletown for his 'intensive' and initiation, GBG was not on the Island. He was initiated by Monique Wilson and most likely her husband being the only other officiator. The Wilsons were notorious oathbreakers and these are the people Ray and Rosemary Buckland continued their training with as GBG died shortly after the alleged initiations took place.
Buckland never had proper training, proper initiation or a coven!
So really, start finding better sources than Buckland!

[TeaDidikai]

scorplett

TeaDidikai

Scorplett? Which addition are you working with?

1st Edition

Ah. In the second ed- he revises it.

scorplett

You are a fool if you think that Buckland was ever a part of a coven previous to setting up his own.

Don't flame. It's against the rules.

[rocket_willing]

I enjoyed reading your front page. I haven't finished it, but I found your historical facts VERY interesting. I my self have been very interested in Wicca, and witch craft for a long time, but sadly its only been in the last few weeks that I have really looked in to it. I never even knew there where threads about Wicca on gaia, but then I look in this section, and BOOM there is tones.

[Athame Moonshadow]

~Merry Meet~

What's really odd is, I see that you guys don't accept the words of Raymond Buckland. I hate to break it to you guys, but Buckland was a student of Gerald Gardner. If you guys revere the Father of Wicca so much, why do you despise his student?

~Blessed Be~

[TeaDidikai]

Athame Moonshadow

~Merry Meet~

~Snip~

~Blessed Be~

Irony! Thou shall be the death of me!

Quote:

What's really odd is, I see that you guys don't accept the words of Raymond Buckland. I hate to break it to you guys, but Buckland was a student of Gerald Gardner. If you guys revere the Father of Wicca so much, why do you despise his student?

Would you address the contest issued by Scorplett above?

At best- Gardner might have been present at his initiation. (I doubt it myself).

At worst- he is a liar trained by Oathbreakers.

As for why I dislike him- he's a racist prat.
Edit: And a self aggrandizing liar. First person to speak up for "The Craft" in the US my arse!