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 ]

[TheRavingLunatic]

What are the people called that pretty much are wiccan, except they aren't initiated? And, kind of related, is it possible to worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles without using their true names?

I never really understood Wicca because all the books I've read have so many different opposing views on what Wicca is, so thank you for giving me something to verify.

[jaden kendam]

TheRavingLunatic

What are the people called that pretty much are wiccan, except they aren't initiated? And, kind of related, is it possible to worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles without using their true names?

I never really understood Wicca because all the books I've read have so many different opposing views on what Wicca is, so thank you for giving me something to verify.

They could be called seekers if they are looking to become Wiccan. Dedicant is also a term, but right now, I am not sure of the difference.

If they are not looking to become initiated, then they are eclectic pagans. Because without initiation, one does not learn the mysteries.

It is possible, but only in a vague generic way, I would think. It would be like worshipping Fertility. It is so vague as to be generic.

[Loona Wynd]

jaden kendam

TheRavingLunatic

What are the people called that pretty much are wiccan, except they aren't initiated? And, kind of related, is it possible to worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles without using their true names?

I never really understood Wicca because all the books I've read have so many different opposing views on what Wicca is, so thank you for giving me something to verify.

They could be called seekers if they are looking to become Wiccan. Dedicant is also a term, but right now, I am not sure of the difference.

If they are not looking to become initiated, then they are eclectic pagans. Because without initiation, one does not learn the mysteries.

It is possible, but only in a vague generic way, I would think. It would be like worshipping Fertility. It is so vague as to be generic.

As I understand it from being a seeker myself, seeker means you are searching but don't know what your looking for, and dedicant refers to having found a coven to study with prior to initiation. I could be wrong though.

[Ashley the Bee]

loona wynd

jaden kendam

TheRavingLunatic

What are the people called that pretty much are wiccan, except they aren't initiated? And, kind of related, is it possible to worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles without using their true names?

I never really understood Wicca because all the books I've read have so many different opposing views on what Wicca is, so thank you for giving me something to verify.

They could be called seekers if they are looking to become Wiccan. Dedicant is also a term, but right now, I am not sure of the difference.

If they are not looking to become initiated, then they are eclectic pagans. Because without initiation, one does not learn the mysteries.

It is possible, but only in a vague generic way, I would think. It would be like worshipping Fertility. It is so vague as to be generic.

As I understand it from being a seeker myself, seeker means you are searching but don't know what your looking for, and dedicant refers to having found a coven to study with prior to initiation. I could be wrong though.

Someone suggested that individuals call themselves "seeker" both to describe either the time they spend seeking a coven and the time they spend seeking to be initiated.

Once one finds a coven, however, it might be best to simply ask them what you should, or can, call yourself in the meantime!

[TheRavingLunatic]

Ashley the Bee

loona wynd

jaden kendam

TheRavingLunatic

What are the people called that pretty much are wiccan, except they aren't initiated? And, kind of related, is it possible to worship the Lord and Lady of the Isles without using their true names?

I never really understood Wicca because all the books I've read have so many different opposing views on what Wicca is, so thank you for giving me something to verify.

They could be called seekers if they are looking to become Wiccan. Dedicant is also a term, but right now, I am not sure of the difference.

If they are not looking to become initiated, then they are eclectic pagans. Because without initiation, one does not learn the mysteries.

It is possible, but only in a vague generic way, I would think. It would be like worshipping Fertility. It is so vague as to be generic.

As I understand it from being a seeker myself, seeker means you are searching but don't know what your looking for, and dedicant refers to having found a coven to study with prior to initiation. I could be wrong though.

Someone suggested that individuals call themselves "seeker" both to describe either the time they spend seeking a coven and the time they spend seeking to be initiated.

Once one finds a coven, however, it might be best to simply ask them why you should, or can, call yourself in the meantime!

Thank you. This is quite helpful.

[ShadowSharrow]

loona wynd

Question:

Many people see Wicca as a "white light" based religion that only concentrates on the "Good" of life. That there are no "negative" spirits and the like. What is the true belief regarding dark and light and spirits?

Well it isn't and it doesn't.

There are all types.

[AspenGrey]

So, in particular what you're referring to is Gardnerian traditionalism, and ignoring all other paths?

I'll direct people to one of the sites you referenced often (Wicca for the Rest of Us) in that most Wiccan's, even trads like myself, do not consider Gardnerian, or Alexandrian, or any other tradition, to be the 'be all end all'. It's certainly true that he came up with it first, but does age make something more valid?

My second complaint is your insistence on initiatory, oathbound traditions. Yup, been there, done that, but I'm hardly going to say that someone who isn't is a 'fake' Wiccan.

Good attacks on the fluffies, though. Could've used a bit more explanation and a bit less condemning, but it wasn't a bad read. Fluffies are the bane of Wicca, and should either be dealt with by education or a nice hard smack to the head.


Also: There are so many problems and outright contradictions that it's truly not even funny. Again I direct you to 'Wicca for the rest of us" (http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/old_laws.shtml) and her commentary on them. Not to say that they are not completely invalid, but it's important to acknowledge that they have problems and that there is debate about them at all levels of Wicca.


Edit2: I've only given this a quick reading as it stands, I'm going to read through it in depth a bit later and my comments/opinions are subject to change. Of course discussion is welcome but I've got more interesting places to be attacked if you want to go that route.

Edit3: Looks like I will have been wise to put that disclaimer in there...
Frankly, 'What do I have to do/beleive/be to be a Wiccan' is something that's discussed -everywhere- and by -everyone-. You know what they say about opinions and assholes...

It's very, very arguable that you have to be initiated into Gardnerian Wicca to be a Wiccan, and, if you're -not-, you're not 'Not Wiccan', you're just not 'Garderian' Wiccan. Them's the breaks. I would say that a -vast, vast- majority of Wiccans at -all- levels agree with this. Again, head over to Wicca for the Rest of Us, or, Valiente's writings on the subject. Heck, what about Alexandrian? You acknowledge that as a valid path yet it diverges from what Gardner considered to be Wicca.

Your main supporting argument for initiatory religion seems to be in this sentence written by Gardner:

Quote:

The Priests and Priestesses who directed these festivals were called the Wica, meaning 'The Wise Ones',

Oh yeah, and Margaret Murray conducted valid historical research... He pulled this out of this air, and -you- are taking it both out of context and out of the intended spirit. Note, especially, the 'directed' fashion, and the reference to festivals, which in the Gardnerian book of shadows refers to many different things depending on the contect. (Which is why it's important here!)





Edit... er, 3? 4? Noones read it it yet so I'm just shoving it in here!:
As briefly mentioned, I'm a member of an oathbound, initiatory Wiccan tradition, and if members of my Coven heard me spouting some of the requirements to be wiccan stuff you've been writing, they'd have my degree at the least. But! They'd probably also get annoyed if I got into a serious pissing contest on the internet about it. See below.



Anyway, I'm pretty darn sure I'm inviting flames here, so, if they happen, I'm out. Not ignoring your- I'll almost certainly read them, but as I said earlier, there are people who's opinion I already know I respect that I have this argument with and I don't need to add a third, especially one that has passed beyond 'debate' into 'flame war'.

And yet... sometimes when I look in the mirror I see myself....
And yet... sometimes I see the world behind grey eyes...

[Smex Flavored Jellybeans]

You did amazingly well.
eek
I hate to admit, though.
Im impressed that you didnt really
confuse me with all the different types
of Pagans/Wiccans in the post,
and Im so glad you didnt attack any
other kinds.
LOL@ Fluff Bunnies.

[AspenGrey]

Smex Flavored Jellybeans

You did amazingly well.
eek
I hate to admit, though.
Im impressed that you didnt really
confuse me with all the different types
of Pagans/Wiccans in the post,
and Im so glad you didnt attack any
other kinds.
LOL@ Fluff Bunnies.

I was actually directing it at the OP, I thought? Or, frankly, people that believe her post is the be-all-end-all of Wicca.

Are there problems? Yes!

Is the OP going a bit over the top in trying to fix some of these problems?
As far as I'm concerned, yes. Non-initiatory religion is not the big problem with Wicca.

And yet... sometimes when I look in the mirror I see myself....
And yet... sometimes I see the world behind grey eyes...

[Smex Flavored Jellybeans]

AspenGrey

Smex Flavored Jellybeans

You did amazingly well.
eek
I hate to admit, though.
Im impressed that you didnt really
confuse me with all the different types
of Pagans/Wiccans in the post,
and Im so glad you didnt attack any
other kinds.
LOL@ Fluff Bunnies.

I was actually directing it at the OP, I thought? Or, frankly, people that believe her post is the be-all-end-all of Wicca.

Are there problems? Yes!

Is the OP going a bit over the top in trying to fix some of these problems?
As far as I'm concerned, yes. Non-initiatory religion is not the big problem with Wicca.

And yet... sometimes when I look in the mirror I see myself....
And yet... sometimes I see the world behind grey eyes...

Sorry. x_x;;
Before I could redo it, I read your post.
I agree with some of what you wrote,
but I honestly like her post. Im not part of Gardnerian
tradition, but by a lot of what she posted, I agreed.

[maenad nuri]

Can someone please point me to the section where it say you must be Gardnerian to be Wicca? I know it says lineage and initiation -- but neither of these things means you must be Gardnerian. And that's not what we argue.

Aspen, out of curiosity, what do you see as the big problem in Wicca? Cause that could be an interesting discussion.

[AspenGrey]

Smex- my bad, I assumed that your commetn was directed at me.

Nuri- Mind if I get back to you when I'm off work?

[maenad nuri]

Thread ain't going anywhere. We keep bringing the old biddie back.

[scorplett]

AspenGrey

Edit... er, 3? 4? Noones read it it yet so I'm just shoving it in here!:
As briefly mentioned, I'm a member of an oathbound, initiatory Wiccan tradition, and if members of my Coven heard me spouting some of the requirements to be wiccan stuff you've been writing, they'd have my degree at the least. But! They'd probably also get annoyed if I got into a serious pissing contest on the internet about it. See below.

Just wondering, to what tradition are you an initiate?
I know of none that would take what you have just said as oathbreaking so I'm a little confused as to why you would fear your degree... Besides, it's not your degree they would go for if you stepped out of line!

[AspenGrey]

I'll answer the last question first, because it's the easiest.

The elders of my tradition would consider that highly immature, and maturity is a prime factor in degree of rank. They could care less about age- if you're 40 and immature, g'luck getting past the first degree. If you're 18 and handle yourself well enough, you've fulfilled that requirement.

Nuri- I continued to use Gardnerian trads as an example due to, oh, 90% of the quotes coming directly from the Gardnerian BoS, and no acknowledgment of how other traditions- even Gardnerian derivatives such as Alexandrian, have changed things. (1 minor exception- you noted that Alexandrian Wicca incorporated homosexuality in a much more healthy fashion. I believe you also noted that Gardner later changed his own mind about the subject.)

I figured you probably meant any initiatory, oath-bound tradition but due to the amount of subject matter focused on Gardnerian (and the fact that a lot of Gardnerian;s manage to come across like this) it seemed logical to use that as my prime subject.


I consider the biggest problem in Wicca to be those who don't take it seriously, in one fashion or another. I'm trying to avoid the term 'fluffy bunny' because of a very interesting thread elsewhere on the subject, but that's essentially what I mean; the people who are not seekers, journeymen, those willing to invest their life and mind into this religion. If you want something that's just about the magic, have fun with the magic. Wicca is more than that (although magic is an important facet that cannot be ignored!). Or those who refuse to accept the balance, or state that the Rede means that magic cannot be used to evil means. (tool! It's a -tool-. What part of that do people have problems with? It is neither inherently good nor evil.)

Another problem I see is the fact the knee-jerk reaction people have- I live in Colorado Springs, home of evangelical Christianity in the USA, and trust me, there is not a chance in the world I would wear a pentacle openly. My college is literally across the street from New Life Church. I don't like this- it not only goes against the ideals of pretty much any religion in the world, it goes against the laws and constitution of the United States. I've noticed that this has gotten both better and worse- people no longer claim that it's a false religion, and we see that the VA committee approved the pentacle as an approved tombstone marker. But then I go and read reports of a local metaphysical store getting broken into and the stock destroyed and a cross burned in the parking lot, and I get a wee bit concerned.

My third problem is militant Wiccans- the ones looking for a fight, or those proclaiming that it's the best religion in the world, yadayada, or, to a much lesser degree, people who claim that any specific path of Wicca is the only 'true' path. The first two categories frankly don't deserve my time, and the third I try and tolerate in the hope of a good discussion, like this one. (Yay for my cynicism being proved wrong.)


Totally unrelated: Anyone know why Firefox's spellchecker always suggest "referring, revering, referring, revering' as possible word choices, even if the word is say, 'acknowledgment'

Edit1: I'm writing rather quickly and with little review. I'm trying not to ramble too much but some rambling may occur, thus edits to try and clarify. I stop editing -after- someone has pasted, up til then it's fair game so you might want to check just before you post!

Edit2: I also don't change anything I've written- I add a note at the bottom.

And yet... sometimes when I look in the mirror I see myself....
And yet... sometimes I see the world behind grey eyes...