|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:01 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:22 pm
 |
|
|
|
I've waffled on this for a while...
There is so much out there that says that solitary and neo/eclectic paths are valid - that (even when you know the facts) it is hard to refute those who claim to be Wiccan after reading those books. However, I can also understand and respect the other side of the argument. If I had spent years doing it the "traditional" way - finding a coven, studying and under going initiation, etc... and earned my Wiccan title, then I would be just slightly pissed off too at those who just picked up a book and proclaimed themselves Wiccan. It doesn't help that the Trad community seems to be somewhat divided over the whole issue as well. My feeling is that if they really wanted for people to stop using the word "Wiccan" to describe the more eclectic paths, then they would do something about it (legally). While I can completely understand why there can't be open access to information, I also feel that there should be an easier way for seekers to find local covens, or at least for them to find valid non-oath bound information.
Currently I have made the decision to stop calling myself Wiccan. I have not been initiated, and feel it is disrespectful to those who have followed the traditional path for me to claim something that I have not properly earned. I am also comfortable enough with the words "witch" and "pagan" and so that is what I call myself for now, though I would love to find a Trad coven eventually. The more that I have learned from those who are actually Trad, the more pissed off I get at all the authors out there who have written all these "Wiccan" books. Not that the info isn't necessarily a "valid" spiritual/religious path (it's just not Wicca proper). I just really don't like being lied to. Don't tell me I am learning about "traditional" Wicca, when I'm not. Too many people are out there just looking to make a quick buck or two, and don't care how they go about doing it.
The best that we can do is let people know that there is a big difference between the two, and direct them to valid resources on the subject.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:42 am
|
|
|
 |
Hold on for the Wall O' Text! scream
No, I agree with you, Neo-Wicca isn't Wicca. It's totally a valid religion, worshipping what one assumes is the God and Goddess of Wicca (one can't check, because we don't have Their names... but there aren't any other Triple Goddesses that I know of that are Maiden-Mother-Crone. There are Horned Gods but I don't believe any are Sun deities....) So we know basics there. There is something to aim at. I agree that, not knowing Their names, you can't be sure. But since I strongly suspect Gardner made the names up anyway, it may not matter. (At this point I'm sure a Wiccan is really ******** off with me.) An alternative, of course, is that Gardner nicked off with known deities for his religion, as I believe "Wicca For the Rest of Us" suggests, but that wouldn't be very nice of him.
Anyway, the point is, the aim of Neo-Wicca seems to be to worship the God and Goddess of Wicca outside the context of Wicca. (Interpretation of said deities varies, but you know what I mean.) As Wicca is orthopraxic, etc etc, this form of worshipping the God and Goddess clearly cannot be Wicca. But there are enough aspects of Neo-Wicca, tenets and practices and beliefs and so on, that I believe constitute a valid specific religion, rather than just eclectic Paganism. As an eclectic Pagan, I don't want to be confused with a Neo-Wiccan any more than a Wiccan does wink not because there's something wrong with that faith, but because I have my own faith and it is not Neo-Wicca. And I really ******** resent it when Wiccans say "you're not practising Wicca, you're practising eclectic Paganism". Like it or not, it's a goddamn religion.
Having said that, there are far too many people who say they practise Neo-Wicca (well actually they say they practise Wicca, but you know what I mean) who really do not. Like Wicca, it's not "whatever you want it to be". There are specific beliefs, practices and tenets that you cannot deviate from too much. You cannot have it both ways; either you're following a specific religion or you're not. If you're not, that's fine. If you are, then you have to define that religion.
Now, the issue is, as it has always been, the name. It is not Wicca. Neo-Wicca is misnomer, as it suggests that it's a modern form of Wicca, which is just nutty. But the problem is getting THAT many people, who have been calling their religion "Wicca" for many years - decades, in the case of some particularly dense people - to rename their religion entirely. Not to mention: who gets to do the naming? Who is entitled to do that in a religion with no heirarchy? What about people who refuse to accept the new name? What if half of Neo-Wicca doesn't like the name? Neo-Wicca is a compromise; neither side is really happy. It's certainly not perfect, but at this point it's the best that can be done, and it's better than calling it Wicca. This is a specific religion we're talking about, and it should have a name. Ideally its own name. But this situation isn't ideal. (Still, I'm open to suggestions! If we made up a new name we could test it out.)
I have my own issues with Wicca and its penchant for secrecy. I understand why they do this for rituals, even though I personally think it's silly. (Not to mention it leaves the door way too wide open for people who get off on being a "master" or a mentor... as the only way to understand Wicca, or so they claim, is by a one-on-one relationship with a teacher. Being fairly intelligent I'm annoyed by this excuse for secrecy, as I could totally get it from books and observation. xd ) You have no total guarantee that what they teach you is Wicca beyond their claims as you have no way of checking it. Yes, Wicca is orthopraxic and yes, the rituals are important and they should stay the way they are. But the religion is still very young, with no historical basis or elements of reconstruction that might suggest it would last a long time (as I suspect recon religions shall).
I feel that there are elements of first-degree studies that it might be handy to make non-oathbound. If there's no exchange of ideas here, Wicca is going to stagnate, splutter, and die. From taking a look at Amber and Jet, while the people on the list are great, it's really clear how much power-play, politics and bitching that goes on and the amount of secrecy involves only makes that so much worse. It's like several cliques of horrible teenage girls bitching and fighting amongst themselves. "OMG! She slept with my ex! DIE, b***h!" (Okay.... slight exaggeration....) Anyway, what I'm saying is, Wicca is going to destroy itself from the inside or simply die out if there's not something done. Even if everything was hunky-dory, the fact that so little is written down and so little is commonly known means there is a chance it really could die out in time. I know Wicca was never meant to grow all that much, but still. Of course, since there's no real organizational structure, there's no one to decide what info could be released and what could not, and anyone who DID release info would be automatically branded an oath-breaker and shunned.
It doesn't help that there's no real book explaining what Wicca actually is. So many Trads must think "well, Gardner wrote a book and that's good enough". No, obviously it's NOT good enough. Gardner's books are filled with inaccuracies and so on... we say "avoid anything that uses "witch" and "Wiccan" interchangeably", but Gardner is allowed to do it? Not to mention Murray's theories were still valid when he wrote... So they could do with a damn good update. Also, I consider the vaguely anthropologist POV of his books to be false. He made up way more of the religion than he claims in those books, to the point where I can't read them without exclaiming, from time to time, "No you didn't!" or "Phoney! Phooooney! Hey, this guy's a phoney!" It's just.... irritating. (Note to those unaware: I am not accusing Gardner of being a phoney. That was a Family Guy quote. I was being a bit silly.)
But where is the book on Wicca that is actually on Wicca? How can we blame people for not knowing what Wicca is if no one actually says what Wicca is? Can we blame people for trusting books over "some guy on the internet"? Of course not. Those who sit back and complain, and do nothing, are just as much to blame for the misinformation as the people who read books on Neo-Wicca and spread that information as "Wicca". This has to be done by an actual Wiccan, too. No doubt other Wiccans will complain, but they can write their own books. Once the books are written, the problem, of course, will be publishers. I doubt Llewellyn would want to publish anything that so directly contradicts all their other books. There's always Lulu, of course.
Right, that's my... dollar and a half. All I really did was waffle but there we go xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:50 am
|
|
|
|
Sanguina-chan I have my own issues with Wicca and its penchant for secrecy. I understand why they do this for rituals, even though I personally think it's silly.
How much do you know about oath-bound traditions?
Sanguina-chan (Not to mention it leaves the door way too wide open for people who get off on being a "master" or a mentor... as the only way to understand Wicca, or so they claim, is by a one-on-one relationship with a teacher. Being fairly intelligent I'm annoyed by this excuse for secrecy, as I could totally get it from books and observation. xd )
They have a tendency to steer away from that kind of relationship, but I won't say it doesn't exsist - there are bad apples in every lot.
Sanguina-chan You have no total guarantee that what they teach you is Wicca beyond their claims as you have no way of checking it.
Actually....there is a way to check it. smile Other than the fact that there are whole networks which are set up to 'debunk' claims. In fact, I could tell you that anyone who said they were a Gard can apparently be 'tested' by an question/response kind of thing.
Sanguina-chan Yes, Wicca is orthopraxic and yes, the rituals are important and they should stay the way they are. But the religion is still very young, with no historical basis or elements of reconstruction that might suggest it would last a long time (as I suspect recon religions shall).
That is an interesting speculation, being that it was comprised of several different magical systems to develop it, it makes me curious to see.
Sanguina-chan I feel that there are elements of first-degree studies that it might be handy to make non-oathbound.
Like what, for instance? Most traditionalist groups will give you a list of books to read, and that done, you should be affluent in the types of topics and things they'll discuss. What elements are you looking for?
Sanguina-chan If there's no exchange of ideas here, Wicca is going to stagnate, splutter, and die.
Read the book "Study of Witchcraft" by Deborah Lipp. It's an easy read, but if you really think it's going to 'die out', watching her lightly trace the history of Wicca in America is interesting. In fact, it spread more like wildfire.
Sanguina-chan From taking a look at Amber and Jet, while the people on the list are great, it's really clear how much power-play, politics and bitching that goes on and the amount of secrecy involves only makes that so much worse. It's like several cliques of horrible teenage girls bitching and fighting amongst themselves. "OMG! She slept with my ex! DIE, b***h!" (Okay.... slight exaggeration....)
I am a Seeker on Amber and Jet and have never felt that kind of experience. Perhaps, because it is writing, there is a lot lost for tone and inflection. I find that a lot on any newsgroup or message board.
Sanguina-chan Anyway, what I'm saying is, Wicca is going to destroy itself from the inside or simply die out if there's not something done. Even if everything was hunky-dory, the fact that so little is written down and so little is commonly known means there is a chance it really could die out in time. I know Wicca was never meant to grow all that much, but still. Of course, since there's no real organizational structure, there's no one to decide what info could be released and what could not, and anyone who DID release info would be automatically branded an oath-breaker and shunned.
Aidan Kelly was called those things. He did what he could to retrace it. I can't vouch for the validity of his work, but there are a lot of people who still find him as acceptable in the traditionalist community. There are those, however, who brand him an Oath-Breaker for several reasons, including ousting of hidden witches who would have rather remained hidden. Have you read any of his work? "Inventing Witchcraft" is one book...
Sanguina-chan It doesn't help that there's no real book explaining what Wicca actually is. So many Trads must think "well, Gardner wrote a book and that's good enough". No, obviously it's NOT good enough. Gardner's books are filled with inaccuracies and so on... we say "avoid anything that uses "witch" and "Wiccan" interchangeably", but Gardner is allowed to do it? Not to mention Murray's theories were still valid when he wrote... So they could do with a damn good update. Also, I consider the vaguely anthropologist POV of his books to be false. He made up way more of the religion than he claims in those books, to the point where I can't read them without exclaiming, from time to time, "No you didn't!" or "Phoney! Phooooney! Hey, this guy's a phoney!" It's just.... irritating. (Note to those unaware: I am not accusing Gardner of being a phoney. That was a Family Guy quote. I was being a bit silly.)
Read "Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton...a LOT of people made a LOT of stuff up, especially during the victorian era.
Sanguina-chan But where is the book on Wicca that is actually on Wicca? How can we blame people for not knowing what Wicca is if no one actually says what Wicca is?
Because, it's changed so much in the past 60 years that it would be like expecting a book entitled "CHRISTIANITY" to be able to sort out the Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormans, Quakers, Baptists, Protestants, Orthodox Catholics and a myriad of others, contrasting them to faiths such as Judaism and Islam. Again....the Deborah Lipp book. I suggest it because frankly, it kind of helped me gather my thoughts about Wicca. Instead of trying to chase down traditions, she classifies Wiccans in three seperate categories: Traditionalist, Radical, and Gentle Eclectic.
Sanguina-chan Those who sit back and complain, and do nothing, are just as much to blame for the misinformation as the people who read books on Neo-Wicca and spread that information as "Wicca".
Well, I've never seen your question "But where is the book on Wicca that is actually on Wicca? How can we blame people for not knowing what Wicca is if no one actually says what Wicca is?" appear on Amber and Jet. Why don't you ask it and we'll see what arises from it?
Sanguina-chan Once the books are written, the problem, of course, will be publishers. I doubt Llewellyn would want to publish anything that so directly contradicts all their other books. There's always Lulu, of course.
Llewellyn is HARDLY the authority on Wicca or paganism. And don't forget that sometimes you have to dig outside the realms of books with WICCA slapped on them to come to understandings. Carl Jung is good reading and applies pretty soundly to what we do. A friend of mine applies Terrence McKenna, but he's more of a radical spirit in thoughts of Wicca than I am.
But shoot me an email, I'd be more than happy to muddle through the net with you in the efforts to find more information. smile I like a challenge, especially when it's not only a serious challenge, the people in the challenge are serious about it too. mrgreen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:16 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:16 am
|
|
|
|
Korealia How much do you know about oath-bound traditions?
Bits and pieces. I know Gardner more than likely got his penchant for oaths from his magical orders and so on. I know Wicca claims to maintain this secrecy because they don't want people to make assumptions or develop their own ideas before exposure to the mysteries. I get that.
How much do you know about oath-bound traditions?
Quote: They have a tendency to steer away from that kind of relationship, but I won't say it doesn't exsist - there are bad apples in every lot.
Duh. Who would go out and look for a relationship like that?
Quote: That is an interesting speculation, being that it was comprised of several different magical systems to develop it, it makes me curious to see.
Magical systems =/= religions. Ceremonial magick might survive but that's no guarantee that Wicca will.
Quote: Like what, for instance? Most traditionalist groups will give you a list of books to read, and that done, you should be affluent in the types of topics and things they'll discuss. What elements are you looking for?
I don't know because I don't know the oath-bound material rolleyes But I know Speechy agrees with me on that score, which suggests there's particular info that she feels would be beneficial and useful to others if released, at least to give people more of an understanding of Wicca. I trust Speechy.
Quote: Read the book "Study of Witchcraft" by Deborah Lipp. It's an easy read, but if you really think it's going to 'die out', watching her lightly trace the history of Wicca in America is interesting. In fact, it spread more like wildfire.
Spread like wildfire? There are a fair number of covens around now but I wouldn't say wildfire. The whole initiation thing severely restricts the speed at which it can grow. Not all covens take seekers, and those that do aren't going to take a whole bunch. It takes a while to be initiated and everything as well, and longer for someone to reach the third degree, and then they have to be considered ready to hive off and manage their own coven. How quickly can this actually happen?
Quote: I am a Seeker on Amber and Jet and have never felt that kind of experience. Perhaps, because it is writing, there is a lot lost for tone and inflection. I find that a lot on any newsgroup or message board.
No, Amber and Jet is nice. I'm not saying Amber and Jet has that kind of vibe. I'm saying, reading the archives, they complain about that sort of thing a lot. They were talking about all the bitching and power-play and back-biting that had been going on. I don't think many people on Amber and Jet were involved.
Quote: Aidan Kelly was called those things. He did what he could to retrace it. I can't vouch for the validity of his work, but there are a lot of people who still find him as acceptable in the traditionalist community. There are those, however, who brand him an Oath-Breaker for several reasons, including ousting of hidden witches who would have rather remained hidden. Have you read any of his work? "Inventing Witchcraft" is one book...
I have issues with people who say "witchcraft" but mean "Wicca". But no, I haven't read his work. Buckland has been called an oathbreaker as well. I don't know when it has been justified and when it has not, but we're not talking about skating the edges the way Buckland did. This would be big stuff. Anyway, it's not a nice thing to be called. I feel kinda sorry for them, but of course I don't know what the issues involved really are.
Sanguina-chan Read "Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton...a LOT of people made a LOT of stuff up, especially during the victorian era.
I know. The Victorians were romantics. Fairies with sparkly wings, Neo-Druidry, yada yada. I'm not condemning Gardner for making stuff up, it just irritates me the way he writes. Course, he wasn't the best writer anyway.
Quote: Because, it's changed so much in the past 60 years that it would be like expecting a book entitled "CHRISTIANITY" to be able to sort out the Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormans, Quakers, Baptists, Protestants, Orthodox Catholics and a myriad of others, contrasting them to faiths such as Judaism and Islam. Again....the Deborah Lipp book. I suggest it because frankly, it kind of helped me gather my thoughts about Wicca. Instead of trying to chase down traditions, she classifies Wiccans in three seperate categories: Traditionalist, Radical, and Gentle Eclectic.
Wicca has not changed in the past 60 years. Yes there are other Traditions, but they still follow the core of Wicca. They don't deviate too much from the Wicca of Gardner. If they did, they wouldn't be Wicca. Wicca is a specific religion - like "Roman Catholic" - not an umbrella term.
Quote: Well, I've never seen your question "But where is the book on Wicca that is actually on Wicca? How can we blame people for not knowing what Wicca is if no one actually says what Wicca is?" appear on Amber and Jet. Why don't you ask it and we'll see what arises from it?
Oh, well, ********> me. I joined like two ******** days ago and I'm only up to page 15 on the archives.
Quote: Llewellyn is HARDLY the authority on Wicca or paganism.
Why do you think I mentioned them?
Please understand: I am not a Wiccan. It is not my business, my place or my duty to do anything about the future of Wicca. It is not up to me to write books or make decisions of any kind. I was musing. This is not ED.
What are your thoughts on this issue? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:13 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: How much do you know about oath-bound traditions?
Without being oathbound? Some, I would have to say, because there are a lot of contextual clues and we're only human - there are several people I've talked with at length, and although I get repelled a lot ("I'm sorry, that's Oathbound material."), I know what I'm looking for.
Quote: Duh. Who would go out and look for a relationship like that?
No need to be condescending. You were the individual that made it out like everyone who is of an oathbound tradition is a power-tripper. Just because someone contradicts you with their own opinions doesn't mean that you should act like a childish moron.
Quote: Magical systems =/= religions. Ceremonial magick might survive but that's no guarantee that Wicca will.
I don't know about that. I think it will, be it will be more radical and eclectic than it will be traditional. Just like any other 'religion', it's evolutionary. Even lines that are oathbound that have changed along the way will state that. Jeanette Waldie (a wonderful woman whom I have met personally) talks about her Gardnerian coven:
Another misconception is that Gardnerianism is rigid in structure. Once, telling someone I was an eclectic Gardnerian, someone asked "isn't that an oxymoron?" Though there may be some covens who continue to use the same rituals over and over, this is not the case for most Gardnerian groups. In the Gardnarian group with whom I trained, not only did we regularly write and perform different rituals, they were seldom repeated. To obtain my 2nd degree, I had to write and lead a circle!
Where there is change, there is growth.
Quote: I don't know because I don't know the oath-bound material.
Isn't it harder to determine what is ' beneficial and useful to others if released' if you don't even know what's there? Don't get me wrong, it may wind up being your bread and butter. But by the same token, it may be something you're really not into.
And I'm not chiding you. Up until a year ago, when I started studying Wicca many moons ago, I felt the exact same way. In the past year, I've had quite a few revelations about their 'secrecy', and honestly, I wouldn't mess with it at all. That's personally. There's a lot of people who believe they're haughty because of it - I think it's just because they can't grasp the concepts of the reasons behind the secrecy.
Quote: Spread like wildfire? There are a fair number of covens around now but I wouldn't say wildfire. The whole initiation thing severely restricts the speed at which it can grow. Not all covens take seekers, and those that do aren't going to take a whole bunch. It takes a while to be initiated and everything as well, and longer for someone to reach the third degree, and then they have to be considered ready to hive off and manage their own coven. How quickly can this actually happen?
Wicca, neo-wicca if you want to call it that - the stuff that's not oath-bound or is self-taught, is a growing religion in America. In Texas, if you're in the Army and they hear you're pagan, you're almost automatically sent to Fort Hood.
It takes a MINIMUM of three years and three days for 1 person to hive off and start their own coven. You cannot move upward in your *(degrees) before then. From what I understand, only 3* can teach (or become HPS or HP)...so...if you have the HPS and HP and say eight 3* elders....that's what, 10 people in 3 years if they're diligent? No, Traditional Wicca is not moving so fast, but it is changing and evolving too. That's how we get Whitecroft, StarKindler, and Majestic. That's how we know there's growth.
Really....Deborah Lipp's book is really very good. Some people don't like the fact it suggests a LOT of other books to read, but it's kind of a book that talks a little about a whole lot and plops down signposts to take you where you want to go. It talks about the history of how Wicca came to the East and West coast in America and how it progressed from there. It is a good book.
Quote: No, Amber and Jet is nice. I'm not saying Amber and Jet has that kind of vibe. I'm saying, reading the archives, they complain about that sort of thing a lot. They were talking about all the bitching and power-play and back-biting that had been going on. I don't think many people on Amber and Jet were involved.
Any big 'family' has that stuff, and they're about as close as family without being blood, I think. I've picked up on a few things here and there, but it's not the reason I'm on Amber and Jet. And because of the controversy, there are a LOT of people you can't discuss, such as Buckland and the Farrars. People are pretty divided and heated in their opinions, so they let that sleeping dog lie. I wouldn't read too much into the archives, unless it's on the topics your interested in. There's quite a bit of banter in there, and sometimes it takes forever to get through it and find what you're looking for. However, if you've the time and room, I suggest you get each individual e-mail instead of the daily digests delivered to your mailbox...because that means those who are cleared to post...well, if they post something deemed inappropriate or are skirting too close to oathbound stuff, the moderator will see the post and delete it. If you get individual emails - well, they can't take those back. wink Just be very careful not to repost them.
Quote: I have issues with people who say "witchcraft" but mean "Wicca".
There are so many variations, I doesn't matter. Your opinion is your, mine is mine. But generally, what you refer to that is Traditional, the Traditionalist refer to as Wica, so we would both be bang out of order. mrgreen
Quote: I feel kinda sorry for them, but of course I don't know what the issues involved really are.
If you really want to get an idea of the stuff about Aidan Kelly, I'll give you a hint - Amber and Jet is not the only group on that site which is Gardnerian/Traditionalist that is worthwhile. I'm on at least 5, and one of those groups goes into detail as to why someone branded him an Oathbreaker. Interesting stuff to say the least, because it's kind of detailed in portions. Aidan Kelly himself is on one such newsgroup and I'm not so stupid as to ASK him, but his posts are usually insightful and thoughtful. (And I say 'hint' not to be condescending, but to emphasize the fact that there is ALWAYS information out there....one just needs to know where to look. And only those who are determined will be able to find it. It all depends on how bad you want it.)
Quote: I know. The Victorians were romantics. Fairies with sparkly wings, Neo-Druidry, yada yada.
Uh, that's not quite what I was referring to. If you read Hutton, you'll find that during that time period, they were obsessed with Greco-Roman art and Philosophy. They thought it the height of civilization and anything outside that particular scope was considered barbaric. They painted the far east as barbaric and crude, and some of the most beautiful traditions and thought/philosophy have come from the Orient. Hutton speaks that people who claimed to be objective anthropologists and archeologist actually went into a LOT of speculation when uncovering sites and since some of those works were supposedly scientific, people took for granted (even NOW) that the work was thorough and accurate, citing them as reference points.
Quote: Wicca has not changed in the past 60 years. Yes there are other Traditions, but they still follow the core of Wicca. They don't deviate too much from the Wicca of Gardner. If they did, they wouldn't be Wicca. Wicca is a specific religion - like "Roman Catholic" - not an umbrella term.
I don't agree. They may follow the same ritual structure, but it's not the same thing. Heck, a PEP RALLY follows the same ritual structure, but that doesn't make it Wicca. I've seen ritual impliments changed. I've seen correspondences change. Pantheons change. TRADITIONALLY, the sword is air and the wand is fire, but I've seen them used opposite a lot. I've even seen individuals mixing cultures on their altar (something that Traditionalist would EVER do) in their eclectic beliefs. Wicca IS an umbrella term, because people differentiate their paths. "I'm Gardnerian." "I'm Feri." "I'm American Tradition of the Goddess." "I'm a TOI." (Temple of Isis.)
But your opinion is your own, as mine is mine.
Quote: Oh, well, ex-f*cking-cuse me. I joined like two f*cking days ago and I'm only up to page 15 on the archives.
Hey, you were the one ranting about people doing nothing. I merely made a suggestion. And frankly, I wouldn't dig through the archives further than a year from the current topic, unless you were looking for something specific.
Why do people have to get nasty and irate over a suggestion? Why must people always revert to cursing and personal affronts when something doesn't meet to the way they want it to go?
You posed a question. I suggested you asked the question. And you're going to cuss and rant over it? Isn't that a little childish?
Quote: Please understand: I am not a Wiccan. It is not my business, my place or my duty to do anything about the future of Wicca. It is not up to me to write books or make decisions of any kind. I was musing. This is not ED. What are your thoughts on this issue?
If you're not Wiccan, why care at all? If you're not Wiccan, why join Amber and Jet?
What should any of it matter if you're not Wiccan? THAT is baffling. I offer to help out, and you cuss and are snide about it? THAT is baffling.
If you're not really wanting answers, why look at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Quote: Wicca, neo-wicca if you want to call it that - the stuff that's not oath-bound or is self-taught, is a growing religion in America. In Texas, if you're in the Army and they hear you're pagan, you're almost automatically sent to Fort Hood.
The problem is that most of what passes for "Neo-Wicca" isn't technically Wicca and it is offensive to many Trad that it continues to call itself "Wicca". Wicca itself is about correct practice and the practices of Neo-Wicca are more or less "do whatever you want". That whole bit makes me cringe. My own definition about what could be called Neo-Wicca and still have a somewhat valid claim on the title is very narrow , and most of what is out there doesn't really fall into that definition. What is sad is that I feel that those other paths are valid, they just shouldn't call themselves Wicca.
Quote: It takes a MINIMUM of three years and three days for 1 person to hive off and start their own coven.
From what I understand that is really pushing it (and I understand that you are basing it on the year and a day "rule"), and personally, it's covens that have this mentality that are what is wrong with "Wicca" today. There is so much that goes into being a HPS, three years is in no way enough time to master those skills. Maybe if you have other relevant experiences that you are bringing into the mix, but still I think that is just way too short a time period. I shudder to think of all the 21 year old HP/HPS running around who think they know it all.
Quote: TRADITIONALLY, the sword is air and the wand is fire, but I've seen them used opposite a lot.
The association with air comes from more from the "Golden Dawn" side of things, but almost everything I have read/been taught over the years (with only a few exceptions) links athame/swords to fire. But my understanding of it at this point (unless your coven says differently) it is whichever one you feel it should be associated with. (I flipped through the A&J archives and most seem to be of a similar opinion from what I can tell)
Quote: Wicca IS an umbrella term, because people differentiate their paths. "I'm Gardnerian." "I'm Feri." "I'm American Tradition of the Goddess." "I'm a TOI." (Temple of Isis.)
Except that if they don't follow the core practices/beliefs, then they really shouldn't be calling themselves Wicca. Also I am pretty sure that Feri, doesn't actually consider itself Wicca. Again the main problem is that so many people tend to equate the word "wicca" with "witchcraft", when they aren't the same thing. Very frustrating. gonk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:03 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:23 am
|
|
|
|
Verbeley Ok, how about an example from the country across the ocean, in the old land. In the pagan community there are (not that many as you could think) people who are interested in wicca, but there are just few, who have initiated in the trad path and are still not ready to make a coven. So what would you say to the rest of those? You're not wiccans get away, you don't know tradition, if they don't have a chance to know it? Here's what initiated coven did for the people in other country, who actually formed the coven and have been not-initiated wiccans for some time. They initiated them all with all the stuff and right to be coven, it was as-it-was-called a formality, so how it sticks to the whole of your problem? Peace Mea
There. That is not possible. To be Wiccan one must have been initiated into a coven that can trace its lineage back to Gerald Gardner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:59 am
|
|
|
|
Kheperu Verbeley Ok, how about an example from the country across the ocean, in the old land. In the pagan community there are (not that many as you could think) people who are interested in wicca, but there are just few, who have initiated in the trad path and are still not ready to make a coven. So what would you say to the rest of those? You're not wiccans get away, you don't know tradition, if they don't have a chance to know it? Here's what initiated coven did for the people in other country, who actually formed the coven and have been not-initiated wiccans for some time. They initiated them all with all the stuff and right to be coven, it was as-it-was-called a formality, so how it sticks to the whole of your problem? Peace Mea There. That is not possible. To be Wiccan one must have been initiated into a coven that can trace its lineage back to Gerald Gardner.
They were not, they used all sources that are possible to find to learn and for the trad coven from England it was enough.
Mea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
