Nadreth
Eeek - I always manage to start something when I post.
sweatdrop Well I can't actually reply to everyone. But what I was trying to say (and I apoligise if this is not what you were talking about before-hand) is that religions and the ways to practice them are as varied as people are. That while you may believe one thing and it is absolutely true for you, it is likely that someone in precisely the same religion believes something different about the same subject. Both opinions are of equal value.
My point over-all was that Gardnerian is of equal value to for example an Eclectic Wiccan path.
So yes prehaps Gardner said that things were a certain way. But since when was one person always right? Since when did religions stop evolving as time moves on? Wicca is about allowing the change that comes naturally - it's about understanding the natural course of things. Trying to hold things in one way does not allow for growth.
Gardnerian is of value - it is valid - but not more-so then any other way to follow Wicca.
Finally as to the point made by Kalyani Srijoi - yes Wicca is about practice. However, if the practice is radically different from tradictional practice, but still is about nature, following the rede, and the God and Goddess is it not Wicca?
So what I am saying is that there isn't one way - traditional isn't always right, and traditional isn't the only Wiccan path. So when someone comes to me with a 'radical' idea - I think I'll listen, because if I don't am I not counted the true fool in the situation?
No, I don't think you're getting what I mean.
When Gardner talked about members of the order known as 'Wicca,' he was talking about initiated priests and priestesses. He wasn't talking about a religion in the sense that you are used to thinking of it - what he was talking about was more like a priestly order. Therefore, when people who are not of that priestly order call themselves 'Wiccan,' they are wrong.
Let me give you an example. A bishop is an initiated priest within the Catholic church. In order to become a bishop, you have to jump through a number of hoops, go through seminary, become a priest and then become ordained as a bishop. Being a Catholic does not make you a bishop. When you say "if the practice is radically different from tradictional practice, but still is about nature, following the rede, and the God and Goddess is it not Wicca?" That's kind of like saying, "Well, I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior, I strive to treat all men with love and compassion, and I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church - am I not a bishop?"
Again, nobody is saying that the followers of eclectic paths are following false religions, but those religions aren't Wicca, just like followers of Catholicism aren't necessarily bishops. Dig?