Welcome to Gaia! ::

Proof by repeated assertion is something we joke about in my math and computer science classes, so I'm grateful to see you elaborating.

The idea of Alexandrian, Gardinerian, and British Trad Wicca all needing some distinction, yet all being homogeneous enough to define Wicca in their mutually exclusive favor seems a bit much to me. How is there not one Trad if they all stay true to their lineage and trace back to Gardiner?

That's the best info on Wicca that's available to some, like it or not. You know what? Cultures, myths, legends, stories, beliefs, and everything change over time. Some times that's through a calculated revision, others its lost and only partially rediscovered. Still other times, it just wanders through being recounted by so many different speakers in a "telephone game" about their lore. What resonates sticks. Ideas grow and evolve, just as Wicca split from Thelema, which consumed the Order of the Golden Dawn. The more a religion is set in stone to inhibit innovation *and* outright nonsense, the more surely it's already dead. Aleister Crowley, Gerald Gardiner, Doreen Valiente were oathbreakers all for the way they printed things changed them. Yet these three, more than any others have a direct influence on what Wicca is.

You list "belief in the Lord and Lady of the British Isles" in Wicca's practices, when only a sentence before you orthopraxy as the primacy of practice over belief. This is logically inconsistent, no matter how you reword it.

Chase Clifton, one of the few actual *Scholars in and on Neopaganism* acknowledges Neo-Wicca in all of it's varied structures? Google the guy. You do realize that the free-form approach of paganism is what attracts many people to these paths, right? You do understand that you are Not a God, and thus have no power to force people to listen to you or follow what you say? Where did you get your information on Wicca?

Most importantly:

Why do you continue to ignore my point about an alternative to this combative approach, in favor of repeated bickering about what is, and is not Wicca? Whether it shows or not, that was the point behind this thread. At this point, my motive for the rest of this debate really is just to support that notion.

Misinformation can be corrected by using the bible , the word for correction, it truly is the best manual I have used for correction of my brothers and sisters as well as myself. The good thing about the truth (the word) It proves itself over and over again. smile

I’ll erase this feeling…
I still have a long life don’t I?
kono omoi wo keshiteshimau ni ha
mada jinsei nagai deshou?

Except the Bible has little to do with Paganism. If you consider Hutton's Triumph of the Moon to be the Bible of Seekers. wink

Speaking of which if it warms up I'm going to see if I can get my hands on that book. :3

I’m missing the feeling…
so this pain is also welcomed!
natsukashiku naru
konna itami mo kangeijan

You are completely missing the point of everything that is being said to you...



Wicca is Wicca, I don't propose that it is anything other than what it is. It is others who try to do that by labeling things that aren't Wicca as Wicca. I don't care if anything is similar - if it doesn't contain the core practices/beliefs then it is NOT Wicca.



Wicca is almost completely experiential, so I'm not sure how you got this from what I said. I'll clarify a bit... It is though the correct practices (orthopraxy) that one experiences the Mysteries of Wicca. It is from those experiences that one defines ones beliefs in the Lord and Lady (among other things). The term "belief" being used somewhat loosely, since it is not so much a matter of believing (ie: faith without proof), since (due to the experiences that one has had in following the correct practices) one knows the Lord and Lady exist, because one has actually been in their presence (primarily through invocation - which is a form of ritual possession, by where a God/ess is called into the body of the HP/HPS and is physically present during ritual). It has been described rather well, with the following analogy... "You don't have to believe in the postman - you know he is real."



First, as has been mention... Wicca is not now, nor has it ever been seeking converts. If someone is called to Wicca it is up to them to "Seek" it, not the other way around. If anything letting someone know "the Facts" is more of a way to keep people out (those who are really unsuited to the Priesthood), then to get more in.

Second and more importantly, we are NOT debating the validity of anyone's beliefs. We are debating/discussing what they are calling their path, and historical accuracy and ethics of cultural misappropriation.

You seem to assume that we all go into "full battle-mode" at the mention of Wicca, this is not true. As I stated in my original answer it is often when we ask a simple question or two, that the entire thread spirals out of control. It takes a willingness of all parties involved to have a good discussion on a subject. When one side has their fingers in their ears and are shouting "la la la... I can't hear you" at the top of their lungs - it gets frustrating pretty quickly. Especially when you go through it multiple times in a day. Don't assume that we all shoot first and ask questions later - we don't (not saying that there might not be one or two that do, but on the whole this is not the case).

How long I spent at the PFRC is irrelevant to this debate, unless you wish to see how it played out when more people asked the same questions you two do, only over and over and with much less civility. I did get heated, admittedly, as I perceived the PFRC's venture to spread scholarship as an excuse for bullying throughout all of Gaia's Pagan Guilds. I held that universal among PFRC members, without any regard for who was who, and how the individual ultimately decides upon their actions; I chose instead to judge the thick social climate that I found toxic, when I had yet to formulate a way in which to properly address it. This thread addresses much of what I found lacking in that guild, though not all of it.

I do appreciate your concern though! I hear that you, more recently than I, have also left that guild?


My point in using the bible was to demonstrate that, even a religion based so heavily on faith, it too is "an experiential religion". Needing to call a religion "experiential" in the first place, no matter how you word it, is redundant. A real Christian, according to the Bible, can't just believe from the couch, as said in the apparent implication of the distinction of orthopraxy and orthodoxy.

You neglect my display of the diversity of Christianity, both in practices and in beliefs, where I present information that even core ideas and rites may differ. Do you mean to imply in this fashion that Christianity is openminded compared to Wicca?

And who are you to say how much an individual has or has not worked on their path? I’ve seen Solitary practitioners work *harder* than even the most studious initiate. If they want to progress in their path, they have to *find* the correct resources as well. Also remember that ideas, including religious ideas, change. As I have presented, with the internet being the primary community (often the only community) that many young Pagans find, this process of memetic evolution accelerates.



Or, I am setting up an argument in a way that you don’t seem to understand it. Maybe I’m just communicating it poorly, which I hope this post rectifies.

To run with the idea of Wicca being “Experiential”, (which I’ve already addressed earlier as total malarkey,) and to notice the similarities with Religious Taoism implies either that Wicca or Taoism is a form of the other. I sincerely doubt your coven friends would agree with an assertion that they are Taoist.


This is, again, related to the debate among Anthropologists on the topic of “belief” – for an outsider to say “they believe _____” neglects the experience of “Knowing its real” that the participants have. By using this as a means of distinction from other forms of religion, do you imply that Christians do not experience Christ in their life?

The whole structure of any religion is that practices and beliefs feed off of one another. Practices give one experiences which encourage belief, and belief encourages said practices. Wicca is not special in this way. In fact, from the picture you paint, much of Neo-Wicca shares this form of interaction with Wicca practically to the letter.


Where in my post did I say “convert”? If it was in my direct replies to you about Wicca, then I apologize for the misunderstanding – Wicca itself is not seeking converts, but rather you are seeking to convert people away from Neo-Wicca to a more honest understanding of their practices. You’ll find some fervor attached to calling oneself Wiccan – both on your part and on theirs.

Related to the general habit of going around to other guilds to derail threads, where the person in question to be “converted” is not necessarily claiming Wiccan, then the pattern you exhibit may well be one of outright conversion away from their beliefs. For instance, there was the whole “are you a Gael?” incident, where rmc gears up to tell someone else he cannot believe as he does.


You and I may be discussing Wicca, but if you recall, the thread is about teaching others, implied to be on Gaia. I raised the question of how respectful it is to spread more academically sound info in a debate on the religion of the other participants. I also proposed a more amicable solution, and explained why I believe it would be more effective. If you don’t want to address this aspect of the debate, you can simply “say I don’t know,” and anyone whose integrity is worth more than a taco bell value meal will not think less of you for it.


Rather, the “full battle mode”, minus guns, curses, etc comes out when someone claims to follow the Celtic gods from anywhere but Ireland. The PFRC members’ practice of disseminating information on Wicca remains very similar, if somewhat muted by comparison. Once again, I assert that the only reason you run into those willfully ignorant people is the approach you take. A more passive approach encouraging *them* to do the work helps them accept the information better. You have yet to address this point, and this is at least the third time I have brought it up. All of my debate on Wicca and everything else in this thread exists to encourage an open mind related to religion, that you may have some understanding. Be gentle in this venture relating to Neopagan beliefs, and your results may improve. I believe the approach I’ve repeatedly presented is the gentlest one yet discussed here?

I’ll erase this feeling…
I still have a long life don’t I?
kono omoi wo keshiteshimau ni ha
mada jinsei nagai deshou?

Also, we're not seeking to convert people away from Neo-Wicca. We're trying to get people to use correct titles for themselves and be intellectually honest for once. If that's so wrong, then fine, we're converting people away from a bullshit fluffy bunny religion. neutral

I’m missing the feeling…
so this pain is also welcomed!
natsukashiku naru
konna itami mo kangeijan

Actually you still weren't a Christian unless you did the Reconcilitation, Communion and Confirmation rituals. Baptism as I already stated is your parents taking oaths vowing to raise you as a Christian. Confirmation is confirming that you will take on your parents vows and commit of your life as a Christian. If you do not do your Confirmation ritual, you are NOT a Christian.

Wicca unlike Christianity is a STRICTLY orthopraxic religion. Whereas Christianity or at least Catholicism, is an orthoproxy, in other words it's a mix of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. However Christianity is ultimately considered by most as an orthodoxy because in order to be a Christian you must believe in YHVH and accept Jesus. That's it. That's all.

From the Ardanes:

I’ll erase this feeling…
I still have a long life don’t I?
kono omoi wo keshiteshimau ni ha
mada jinsei nagai deshou?

According to the Ardanes, only those who are Wicca can know what goes on in covens. This shows that much of what goes in Wicca is strictly oathbound. Versus Christianity where anyone can know what happens in Church. Many of the rituals in Christianity aren't bound by an oath.

Christianity witnessed a major split during the Protestant reformation thanks to Martin Luther. However this split occured at least 150 years or so after it was founded. Because Luther had a problem with the way Catholics ran things. The so called split in Wicca is thanks to oathbreakers like Buckland and Cunningham who wanted to make a dollar off of the religion. And you have twits like Silver Ravenwolf who lied about being involved in a Wicca coven and knows nothing about Wicca, likes telling teens to lie to their parents. And then other nitwits like Conway and Starhawk who defiently don't know what they're talking about and like profiting off of teenagers who don't know what they're getting themselves into.

You can't exactly say that what's happening with Wicca is the same as what happened with Christianity during the Protestant Reformation because it's not. In fact it's quite the opposite. neutral It would be wise to read over the past few pages Semi before making a comment and going back over the history of the Protestant Reformation. neutral

I’m missing the feeling…
so this pain is also welcomed!
natsukashiku naru
konna itami mo kangeijan

Horray! Proof by repeated assertion! lol I believe Semiremis addressed the "orthodoxy" matter well. However, ncsweet presented evidence that the three major lineages require one to establish and maintain a relationship with the Lord and Lady of the British Isles. This may be carried out as a practice, but by it's very nature contains a belief. We've been over this before - you keep trying to imply that Wicca has no beliefs, or practically none. rolleyes We can debate the semantics of my last statement, definitions of "practically" included if you wish.

Also, you neglected to look up that wonderful little bible passage in the book of James which demonstrates that, within the Christian religion, faith without works is dead. Read my previous Posts and you'll find it. Ctrl+F the name "James" and it'll come up. After that, I recommend biblegateway.com to read the passage, context and all, if I neglected to post a link.

On your notion that Christians all have to believe the same - are you serious? I addressed that one too. Mormons and Lutherans differ from the Roman Catholic Church's orthodoxy in central ways, but all are Christian.

Can't the same "BS fluffy religion" comment be used about darn near anything? So let's use examples that have popularly been called "BS" by others. Hare Krishnas are some of the most genuine folks I've ever met. Same with Mormons. Initiated Wiccans, who's religion is... 54 years old? and those without a lineage fall into the same category of "good, genuine folk". This outburst has no bearing on the debate.

However, if you're aware of your interactions with others, you'll notice how conversion from the religion and conversion from the title "Wiccan" garner much the same reaction. It's often disheartening and taken disrespectfully when you tell them they don't belong, especially when the evidence for both sides of this debate can't all be put on the first page, overwhelmingly supporting your point of view. No, this debate runs on.

So you'll dispute the evidence of the Protestant Reformation. lol That's just one example.

Try all of Christianity before the Council of Nicaea. In a time where social change was much more slow, it took roughly 300 years for Christianity to splinter into factions which had core beliefs running contrary to one another and practices that were *anything* but standardized - as is what happens when a religion doesn't have a strong structure to maintain hold the faith and practices solid. The minority groups were labeled as heretics after the Nicaean event. Ever heard of the Nicaean Creed? That was formulated there, to affirm what the Christian religion would actually believe so they could claim that "heretics" who believed differently "weren't Christian", and thus Enemies of the Roman state that needed to be wiped out. The Gnostics are the most well known sect of these heretics, and unless I'm mistaken it was the largest as well. On the other side of the Reformation, suddenly a reconstructed Gnostic sect of Christianity is able to survive.


I'm not going to bother typing that bit again about how modern occult practices were shaped by oathbreakers. Go read it again if you wish. That aside, if it is as fraudulent as we both know, why has no lineaged Wiccan taken them to court? I agree it is a problem, but the fact is you're not going to change the way someone believes when they are dead set on it. You may as well just accept it for these individuals. I'm not saying that you let citing Silver Ravenwolf slide in an academic debate, especially one on Wicca's history - heck, it's not academically sound to discuss the bible as evidence for an argument unless you want to talk about the Christian religion. There are some differences, but the effect of keeping the debate within admissible evidence is the same.

A less aggressive approach would be more effective, especially if you get off of your high horse. As my comparison with heavy metal music went, all too often those young (or in this case, young in their faith) people stumble on the more authentic tradition themselves. Make it easier! No, you're not going to get every one. But right or wrong, right cat or wrong cat, this cat is still out of the bag. You can't undo it completely without doing some incredibly immoral things.