What spiritual path are you following?

[Michele]

What type of spiritual path are you on? Or, what religion do you follow?

[April]

I refer to myself as Pagan but I'm pretty much Wiccan. No particular trad, just an eclectic solitary.

Anyone else?

[GracieMae]

I was raised Lutheran but attended the Methodist Church for years. I have dabbled in the Pentacostal faith at one point and even studied with the Jehovas Witness's till I decided that wasn't for me.

Marion attends AWANA and Sunday school at the Baptist Temple.

At this point I consider myself a Christian who studies the Bible at home.

[mom2burgess]

I am Wiccan but I also call myself Pagan. Pretty much the same as monkeymomma, nothing in particular, a bit of everything, solitary

[Lucid]

Eclectic solitary Pagan with some Wiccan influence.

[Desperado]

Roman Catholic

[Taneli]

Agnostic still at this time... but I'm interested in paganism...

[Jai Witch]

I consider myself to be an Eclectic, Solitary Wiccan. :D

[Lobo]

I'm pretty much a pagan. But... Not a wiccan. Though 99% of the population seems to think the terms are interchangable. :confused:

[Mabel]

Christian - no particular denomination :)

[April]

I'm pretty much a pagan. But... Not a wiccan. Though 99% of the population seems to think the terms are interchangable. :confused:

I've noticed that.
A lot of people finally get it when you tell them a Wiccan is to a Pagan what a Baptist or Methodist is to a Christian.

[Sanguine]

Well, I'm an atheist with agnostic tendencies; which isn't so much of a path, more a viewing platform.

I believe that everything has a natural explanation, including gods and other 'supernatural' entities should they exist (hence the agnostic bit). The fun part is working out what the natural explanation is! I do think that there is an awful lot of phenomena that are unexplained by science, but that doesn't mean to say they are unexplainable. I think that the scientific method has the potential to explain everything, the only limit being the human capacity for understanding.

I have researched several Western European pagan and magical traditions, which I find very interesting but have yet to form a concrete opinion on them. I have several family members and friends that are pagan of one denomination or another, and they encourage me to take part in some of their festivals. Living in Cornwall I am constantly reminded of a rich Celtic heritage, which I feel part of.

A question for Solitary Wiccans: How can one be a Solitary Wiccan? It seems like a contradiction of terms to me.

Does anyone here practice witchcraft or magic(k)? I'd be very interested to hear about it.

[Jai Witch]

Does anyone here practice witchcraft or magic(k)?
Yes, I practice witchcraft...but I only do white magick. I do NOT mess with the free will of others.

[April]

A question for Solitary Wiccans: How can one be a Solitary Wiccan? It seems like a contradiction of terms to me.


By doing spellwork, rituals, Sabbat celebrations by yourself rather than with a coven.



Does anyone here practice witchcraft or magic(k)? I'd be very interested to hear about it.

I used to but not so much anymore. With a little one running around, I rarely have the time and space to go through the set-up, the circle casting, etc.

[Jai Witch]

I tried the coven thing...it just didn't work for me. Only I know the true intent of the spell that I am trying to do..and I feel that when you bring others into your spell work, it leaves a dangerous opening for mishaps..meaning that THEIR mind may not be on the spell at hand...and that could mess my spell up. I have never been a follower, I'm more independant and enjoy only having to worry about myself being on time...lol.

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma

By doing spellwork, rituals, Sabbat celebrations by yourself rather than with a coven.
I see. Maybe I'm wrong, but in all the Wiccan rituals that I've witnessed or been told of the main emphasis was on the dynamic balance of male and female energies and that this balance is essential to the ritual. As far as I'm aware the dynamic balance of opposite energies, especially male and female, is the central theme of Wicca. How do you account for this in solitary practices? How do you maintain a balance of male and female energy by yourself? Surely the fact that there is only either one male or one female in a Solitary ritual means that the balance of energies is, well, unbalanced. How does one perform the Great Rite by one's self? How can one person embody the God and the Goddess at once?


Jai Witch

Yes, I practice witchcraft...but I only do white magick. I do NOT mess with the free will of others.
How does your magick work?

How do you avoid messing with the free will of others?

[April]

I see. Maybe I'm wrong, but in all the Wiccan rituals that I've witnessed or been told of the main emphasis was on the dynamic balance of male and female energies and that this balance is essential to the ritual. As far as I'm aware the dynamic balance of opposite energies, especially male and female, is the central theme of Wicca. How do you account for this in solitary practices? How do you maintain a balance of male and female energy by yourself? Surely the fact that there is only either one male or one female in a Solitary ritual means that the balance of energies is, well, unbalanced. How does one perform the Great Rite by one's self? How can one person embody the God and the Goddess at once?

Not necessarily. Yes, it's about balance, but you aren't required to have that "balance" of male and female physically present at a ritual. In fact, many traditions are Goddess-based and many covens are female only. And by calling upon the God and the Goddess during ritual, you can achieve that balance of male and female energies.
A lot of people, including myself, believe that both the God and the Goddess are within us. They are within everything and everyone around us.
If you're interested, Scott Cunningham 's book "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" is very informative.

[Sanguine]

I read one of Scott Cunningham's books. It was a while ago, maybe four or five years, and I can't remember exactly what it was called. Wicca: The Solitary Practitioner’s Guide, or something like that. I don't remember all that much about it, but I do remember being somewhat unimpressed. It seemed to me that the version of Wicca he portrayed didn't bear much resemblance to the Wicca I know. It seemed to be very unbalanced, ignoring the dark side of life, nature and the human spirit. It was all about life and not death, ignoring the fundamental polarity of these two forces that, in the Wicca I know, is as important as the balance of male and female energy.

He also presented a worldview that, to me, is totally unrealistic. A view that nature is essentially nice, ignoring the fact that it can also be harsh, uncaring, bloody and violent. It seems to me that he neglects this sort of balance throughout and so his views are dangerously one sided. He offers nothing on the dark side of the Human psyche, on revealing and confronting inner demons. In the Wicca, I know this too is fundamental. The ideal being to live life as a fully aware, fully alive, human being which means understanding and accepting that reality can be harsh, painful and terrible as well as happy and nice. That was my opinion of Cunningham's book anyway.

It seems to me that this version that Cunningham (and others) portrays is a consequence of the efforts of Wiccans in the 1970s and 80s to convince a concerned and suspicious public that their rapidly growing religion was not about worshipping demons through licentious orgies and human sacrifice. I think that in an effort to portray Wicca as a religion concerned with 'life and light' in order to allay the fears of the general public, many people became attracted to the religion through this PR. It seems that many have never even heard of the 'death and darkness' side of Wicca, which is essential to the central theology.

I was always under the impression that it is required to have both male and female energies physically present in a ritual. The point being to demonstrate the union of male and female both physically and spiritually; the balance of spirituality and physicality is surely just as important as any other. The Great Rite especially. I don't see how the psychodrama can be in any way effective without both male and female being physically present. The whole point being that the High Priest and Priestess embody the God and Goddess and venerate their union spiritually and physically, where all things become one.

I can't say I've ever come across an all female or Goddess only tradition. That to me seems to contradict the basic tenets of balance in Wicca.

[April]

You have a point about many Wiccans and Wiccan authors overcompensating and focusing only on the "tree hugging hippy" aspect of Wicca. But a lot of people really do feel that way about it. It is a very positive religion and many are drawn to that, the fact that there isn't a focus on 'the dark side', no Satan, no Hellfire and Damnation.

You also have to consider that the balance and things that you're talking about stem from the "old" Pagan religions and much of what is being practiced and written about today is Neo-Paganism which started in about the 70's.

I find it odd that you've never heard of Goddess-based traditions. The Dianic Trad is very well-known and one of the largest traditions (aside from Gardnerian) and they're a very feminist group.

[ScorpioQueen]

Pagan...

[Jai Witch]

Quote:
Sanguine

How does your magick work?

How do you avoid messing with the free will of others?

Magick is simple. It's a firm beleif on the intent...allowing yourself to HAVE what you NEED. Seeing that you already have it is the first step to obtaining it.
The answer to your second quetion: I do not cast spells on people. I did that once and it came back to me so fast it made my head spin. I cast only for NEEDS. For example: When my (ex)boyfriend kicked me and my son out, I needed a place that was safe for me and my son to stay. I cast a spell for us to find such a place to stay in until he and I had enough money saved to get our own place. (Yes, it worked.) I did not ask for a spacific person to step forward and help us...I didn't ask for the boyfriend to have a change of heart. Therefore, I didn't interfere with the free will of another human being.

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma

You have a point about many Wiccans and Wiccan authors overcompensating and focusing only on the "tree hugging hippy" aspect of Wicca. But a lot of people really do feel that way about it. It is a very positive religion and many are drawn to that, the fact that there isn't a focus on 'the dark side', no Satan, no Hellfire and Damnation.
Wicca is a positive religion but to say there is no focus on the dark side is untrue. As I said before the concept of balance and polarity is central to Wicca and therefore the dark side is just as important as the light. Focus on one without the other is unbalanced. There is the concept of damnation in Wicca. Law 35 of the 161 laws states: "And if any break these laws, even under torture, THE CURSE OF THE GODDESS SHALL BE UPON THEM, so they may never be reborn on earth and may remain where they belong, in the hell of the Christians."

MonkeyMomma

You also have to consider that the balance and things that you're talking about stem from the "old" Pagan religions and much of what is being practiced and written about today is Neo-Paganism which started in about the 70's.
The concept of balance is central to Wicca as concieved by Gardner in the 1940s. It is a concept that has less to do with old Pagan traditions and is derived more from the magical traditions of the Golden Dawn and the OTO. I agree, much of what is being practiced and written about today is Neo-Paganism that did start in the 70s, but it is not Wicca.

MonkeyMomma

I find it odd that you've never heard of Goddess-based traditions. The Dianic Trad is very well-known and one of the largest traditions (aside from Gardnerian) and they're a very feminist group. No, I've not ever encountered any. I guess it must be an American thing.

Jai Witch

Magick is simple. It's a firm beleif on the intent...allowing yourself to HAVE what you NEED. Seeing that you already have it is the first step to obtaining it.
That's it? No numerology, no geometra, no Qabalah etc? Just believe enough and want it enough and it will happen? How is this different from prayer? I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. Are you refering to the thing that you desire or to magick itself?

[April]

There is the concept of damnation in Wicca. Law 35 of the 161 laws states: "And if any break these laws, even under torture, THE CURSE OF THE GODDESS SHALL BE UPON THEM, so they may never be reborn on earth and may remain where they belong, in the hell of the Christians."

Funny, that sounds more like the Bible to me. I don't follow any "161 Laws" or any one book or anyone one "grandfather of Wicca" such as Gardner. One of the good things about Wicca is that there is no set of rules that must be followed, there is no one way, one path. So obviously the research and the readings you have done is very different from what I have found.

P.S. I don't believe in "the hell of the Christians" either.

[Beelzebub]

My name says it all. I express an interest in Satanism.

[Michele]

I am copying this thread to the Religion forum in the debate section for those that wish to debate. For the rest of you, please feel free to answer the post without any debating. If you wish to debate anything more in this thread, jump over to the religion forum in the debate section, I'll copy this thread over there for you all. :)

[Jai Witch]

Sanguine: That's it? No numerology, no geometra, no Qabalah etc? Just believe enough and want it enough and it will happen? How is this different from prayer? I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. Are you refering to the thing that you desire or to magick itself?

You are misinformed about Wicca, obviously. I think that you are forgetting that I am a SOLITARY WITCH. Some may need other things such as you spoke of (numerology, geometra, Qabalah) but I do NOT. You asked me how I used my magick. I told you. Some of us don't need those things....I do have knowledge of numerology and tarot and candle associations, however, 9 out of 10 times, it's isn't called for in MY magickal purposes. And to answer the second part: Seeing that you already have the object (mentally) is the first step to obtaining it. I already have the magick.

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma

Funny, that sounds more like the Bible to me. I don't follow any "161 Laws" or any one book or anyone one "grandfather of Wicca" such as Gardner. One of the good things about Wicca is that there is no set of rules that must be followed, there is no one way, one path.
No rules? What about the Rede and the Law of Return?

MonkeyMomma

So obviously the research and the readings you have done is very different from what I have found.
This certainly appears to be the case.

Jai Witch

You are misinformed about Wicca, obviously. I think that you are forgetting that I am a SOLITARY WITCH. Some may need other things such as you spoke of (numerology, geometra, Qabalah) but I do NOT. You asked me how I used my magick. I told you. Some of us don't need those things....I do have knowledge of numerology and tarot and candle associations, however, 9 out of 10 times, it's isn't called for in MY magickal purposes. And to answer the second part: Seeing that you already have the object (mentally) is the first step to obtaining it. I already have the magick.Well, it's possible that I am misinformed. However I am fairly sure that my sources are quite good and reliable. My sources being the writings of the people who concieved the religion in the first place, the writings of the people involved in the orders from which Wicca takes much of it's traditions and first hand contact with members of covens that maintain those traditions. Do you think it is possible that I am not the one who is misinformed?

Thank you for telling me how you use magic, but that is not what I asked. I asked how it works.

[April]

No rules? What about the Rede and the Law of Return?

This certainly appears to be the case.

Well, it's possible that I am misinformed. However I am fairly sure that my sources are quite good and reliable. My sources being the writings of the people who concieved the religion in the first place, the writings of the people involved in the orders from which Wicca takes much of it's traditions and first hand contact with members of covens that maintain those traditions. Do you think it is possible that I am not the one who is misinformed?

Thank you for telling me how you use magic, but that is not what I asked. I asked how it works.


There is a huge difference between strictly adhering to "161 Laws" as you suggest Wiccans are supposed to be doing, and following a basic "Harm none" principle.

How is it possible that you've read books written by people who "conceived" (i before e except after c) the religion when there is no one person who did so? Pagan religions pre-date Chrisitianity and there are very few, if any, documents or books that exist. If you're referring to people like Gardner or Buckland, they are certainly not the ultimate authority on Wicca. What you have read is their version of Wicca and you have mistakenly drawn the conclusion that this is how it is. Same with covens. They may have certain beliefs and practices that work for them but their way is not The Way.

If you're so well-read and informed, how can you not understand how magic works? It's a simple concept. Try doing a search for "Wicca 101" on the Internet.

You're are obviously misinformed to some extent, seeing as how you have never heard of Goddess-based female only traditions, and you can't grasp the concept of a solitary Pagan.

[Sanguine]

There's definitely been crossing of wires here. I did not say that all Wiccans should strictly adhere to the 161 laws. I merely brought them up as an example to show that Wicca does have the concept of damnation.

It is possible for be to have read the writings of the people who conceived Wicca, and I do refer to people like Gardner, because they are the people that conceived it. Before Gardner wrote 'High Magic's Aid' in 1949 and 'Witchcraft Today' in 1954 there was no such thing as Wicca. It was just an Old English word meaning male witch. While Wicca does borrow from earlier influences, the religion of Wicca is the creation of Gerald Gardner. So if anyone is an ultimate authority on Wicca, it is him and the members of his first coven.

There are pagan religions that pre-date Christianity, but Wicca is not one of them. It is a 20th Century invention. Paganism and Wicca are not interchangeable words, as you fully know. Wicca does draw on some pre-Christian pagan beliefs, but not many. The majority of Wiccan customs are derived from the ceremonial magical traditions of orders like the OTO and Golden Dawn that are based more in Christian mysticism than anything else. Compare, for example, the Wiccan 'Heiros Gamos' with Crowley's 'Gnostic Mass'.

I've not heard of an entirely Goddess based Wiccan tradition so I'm uninformed about the whole subject? I have no problem grasping the concept of a solitary pagan. It's the concept of a solitary Wiccan that I am having trouble with.

[April]

I disagree with giving Gerald Gardner credit for "creating" Wicca.

And it's ironic that you have a problem with being labeled as uninformed for not having knowledge of feminine traditions, yet you implied that Jai was misinformed for not using numerology or Qabala in her magick.

You clearly have a different idea of what Wicca is than I do. I'm going to leave it at that.

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma

I disagree with giving Gerald Gardner credit for "creating" Wicca.
Why? There was no Wicca before him. He wrote a lot of books on the subject. Formed the first covens to call themselves Wiccans. If not him then who did?

I have no problem being "labelled" (labelled has three 'l's ;))as uninformed about feminist pagan groups. I do have a problem with being labelled as uniformed about the subject of paganism in general because there is one aspect I don't know about. As for implying that Jai was uninformed, I meant to imply no such thing. All the witchcraft I have ever read about or been told about has made use of those things to a greater or lesser extent. I was surprised that Jai didn't. It seems odd to me that your definitions of Wicca and witchcraft are not what they were in all the books published over 30 years ago, and not the same as the definitions used by those who continue traditions older than that. I'm trying to figure out why that is.

[April]

Why? There was no Wicca before him. He wrote a lot of books on the subject. Formed the first covens to call themselves Wiccans. If not him then who did?

I have no problem being "labelled" (labelled has three 'l's ;))as uninformed about feminist pagan groups. I do have a problem with being labelled as uniformed about the subject of paganism in general because there is one aspect I don't know about. As for implying that Jai was uninformed, I meant to imply no such thing. All the witchcraft I have ever read about or been told about has made use of those things to a greater or lesser extent. I was surprised that Jai didn't. It seems odd to me that your definitions of Wicca and witchcraft are not what they were in all the books published over 30 years ago, and not the same as the definitions used by those who continue traditions older than that. I'm trying to figure out why that is.

Because all he did was take the Old Religion, embellish it a little, then give it a new name. If I take a Picasso and throw a little bit of paint and rhinestones (ack!) on it, does that mean I "created" it and it's now an 'April'? No, it's just a Picasso with some junk on it. This kind of thing is why I refer to myself as Pagan and not Wiccan.

There are a few traditions that I do agree with and a few that I don't. A lot of people are the same way, that's why you'll hear the term 'eclectic' a lot. Because people take a bit from one trad, a bit from another. Unless you call yourself Dianic or Alexandrian or Correllian (sp?), you're free to practice pretty much however you see fit, as long as you're not harming anyone or interfering with free will.

[Jai Witch]

Sanguine:
Well, it's possible that I am misinformed. However I am fairly sure that my sources are quite good and reliable. My sources being the writings of the people who concieved the religion in the first place, the writings of the people involved in the orders from which Wicca takes much of it's traditions and first hand contact with members of covens that maintain those traditions. Do you think it is possible that I am not the one who is misinformed?
You are, once again, forgetting that I am a SOLITARY WICCAN. Solitary means ONE. You claim to be getting your information from the people who "concieved" the religion....when, actually, that is impossible. The OLD ways were never written down on anything. They didn't need to write things down. THAT is a FACT. So, could it be that your "reliable sources" aren't as informed as you would like to think?

[Sanguine]

What Old Religion? The pre-Christian pagan religions of Europe were a disparate myriad of various beliefs, theologies and pantheons mostly unique to specific locations. There is not a single one of these that bears any real resemblance to Wicca. The concept of a dual male and female deity probably originated in Greco-Roman theologies but the pagan religions of that time (of which there are plenty of surviving accounts) are nothing like Wicca. The majority of their rituals consisted of sacrificing animals in order to gain the favour of the gods or appease their anger.

There is no evidence of any unified Old Religion. The idea that all the gods of the various pagan pantheons are aspects of a single God and Goddess is a perfectly valid belief but there is nothing to suggest that any old pagan religions thought this way. Gardner was certainly trying to impart the feeling of old pagan traditions into his rituals but there is no specific religion that he based them on and much of it was guesswork.

As I said before, much of Wiccan tradition comes from Christian mysticism rather than old pagan reconstructions. Casting circles, calling the quarters, invoking with incense, the colours and elements etc attributed to specific requirements are all concepts taken from Masonic ceremonial rituals. Likewise the ritual tools like the wand, the atheme, the boline, etc. Much of what we know about herb lore today comes to us from the works of herbalists like Culpepper and they were Christian, not pagan. In short, when Gardner created Wicca he drew inspiration from a whole host of pagan religions and Christian mysticism.

So if I were to study the artwork of the Old Masters and the contemporary artists and draw on these influences to create a new style, would this style be my own? Yes, that's how new styles and traditions come about.

MonkeyMomma

Unless you call yourself Dianic or Alexandrian or Correllian (sp?), you're free to practice pretty much however you see fit, as long as you're not harming anyone or interfering with free will.

You can practice what you like, however you like, that is your right. But just as you can't keep calling yourself a Christian if all you do is follow the principle of 'love thy neighbour' and make up the rest as you go along, I don't think it is right to call yourself Wiccan if all you do is follow the Rede. The Rede, "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will," incidentally is not of pagan origin either. It is probably derived from Crowley's Law of Thelama: "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law". He believed that once one knows his true will and follows it one will automatically be in tune with a universal guiding force, which made describing the consequences of doing harm unnecessary. Gardner himself attributed the morality of the Rede to a King Pausol, a literary character (see The Adventures of King Pausol, by Pierre Louys, 1901).

Jai Witch

You are, once again, forgetting that I am a SOLITARY WICCAN. Solitary means ONE. You claim to be getting your information from the people who "concieved" the religion....when, actually, that is impossible. The OLD ways were never written down on anything. They didn't need to write things down. THAT is a FACT. So, could it be that your "reliable sources" aren't as informed as you would like to think?

It's impossible that Wicca was conceived in the 1940s by Gerald Gardner? If the old ways were never written down on anything then how is it that you, or anyone else knows about them? Can you substantiate this 'fact'?

[April]

You can practice what you like, however you like, that is your right. But just as you can't keep calling yourself a Christian if all you do is follow the principle of 'love thy neighbour' and make up the rest as you go along, I don't think it is right to call yourself Wiccan if all you do is follow the Rede. The Rede, "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will," incidentally is not of pagan origin either. It is probably derived from Crowley's Law of Thelama: "Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law". He believed that once one knows his true will and follows it one will automatically be in tune with a universal guiding force, which made describing the consequences of doing harm unnecessary. Gardner himself attributed the morality of the Rede to a King Pausol, a literary character (see The Adventures of King Pausol, by Pierre Louys, 1901).


So someone can't call themselves a Christian unless they follow everything in the Bible?

Who are you to determine the origins of "..harm none.."? I suppose this came from another one of your "reliable sources"?

Incidentally, I don't call myself Wiccan. But I could if I wanted to, and I could do it without acting as though Gerald Gardner were some sort of God.

[April]

It's impossible that Wicca was conceived in the 1940s by Gerald Gardner? If the old ways were never written down on anything then how is it that you, or anyone else knows about them? Can you substantiate this 'fact'?

There are other ways to pass on information other than written.

Margaret Murray had Gardner beat by about 20 years when she published "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe".

[Jai Witch]

First of all....Gerald Gardner didn't "invent" Wicca. He established the Gardinarian Tradition of Wicca, not the entire religion. THAT is FACT.

[Minnie_Beebe]

I've always respected the pagan tradition and especially the Wiccans. They are Earth lovers like me. :D

[kingclick]

I've always respected the pagan tradition and especially the Wiccans. They are Earth lovers like me. :D

Really? Because you said on two other boards that religion and cults are synonymous.

[April]

Really? Because you said on two other boards that religion and cults are synonymous.

I would assume she's referring to organized religion. 'Pagan traditions' are not organized religions.

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma

So someone can't call themselves a Christian unless they follow everything in the Bible?

No, I said: someone can't call them selves a Christian if the only Christian belief they follow is 'love thy neighbour' and make up the rest as they go along. To be a Christian one must certainly follow some of the central doctrines, believe in the divine nature of Christ, understand the meaning of his sacrifice and it's relevance to the believer, etc. The same goes for Wicca. There are central doctrines, like the concept of the balance of polarities. The rites and rituals of Wicca, like the Great Rite and what it symbolises, are as important to Wicca as Christ's crucifixion is to Christianity. There's a whole lot more to Wicca than just the Rede. If you want to take a few bits and pieces from Wicca and then make up the rest then that's your prerogative, but doing so does not make you a Wiccan.

MonkeyMomma

Who are you to determine the origins of "..harm none.."? I suppose this came from another one of your "reliable sources"?
One might ask the same question of you. Why shouldn't I, or anyone else, attempt to determine the origins of the Rede? Or has it and its origins attained the level of dogma already, so anyone that disagrees may be branded a heretic? If you wish to prove me wrong then please go ahead and do so. If you can provide evidence that the Rede is of pagan origins or appears before 1964 then I would be happy to see it.

MonkeyMomma

Incidentally, I don't call myself Wiccan.MonkeyMomma

I refer to myself as Pagan but I'm pretty much Wiccan.MonkeyMomma

But I could if I wanted to, and I could do it without acting as though Gerald Gardner were some sort of God.No you can't. If you don't follow the central theologies of Wicca, you can't call yourself a Wiccan just because you've picked out of it a few bits that you like. In the same way I cannot call myself a Buddhist just because I have a statue of the Buddha in my garden that I sometimes meditate in front of. It's disrespectful to the real followers of those beliefs, and leads to a such a dilution of those beliefs that they are in danger of being lost completely. In the words of Tyler Durden: "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."

MonkeyMomma

There are other ways to pass on information other than written. Yes, there are. And I suppose everything you know about Wicca was passed down to you in an unbroken oral tradition from the Stone Age and not out of a few paperbacks from a New Age bookshop.

MonkeyMomma

Margaret Murray had Gardner beat by about 20 years when she published "The Witch-Cult in Western Europe".Had Gardner beat how? Murray doesn't mention Wicca in any of her books. Witchcraft and Wicca are not the same things. Yes, there are traditions of witchcraft that date back centuries and the use of magic has been a part of various Western cultures for a very long time. But magic and witchcraft are not the sole property of Wiccans.

The witch-cult that Murray talks about is nothing like Wicca either. She claims that the cult practiced human sacrifice and lists people like Saint Thomas Becket and Joan of Ark as being among those sacrificed. Much of her work was based on the testimonials of the witch hunters and the inquisition during the burning times, which makes it more than a little bit dubious. Her history has been mostly discredited by secular historians due to a painful lack of evidence and her making bold assumptions with no basis in fact. But even if there were a witch-cult in Europe like Murray describes, why would any Wiccans want to be associated with a cult that went around sacrificing Christian saints?

Jai Witch

First of all....Gerald Gardner didn't "invent" Wicca. He established the Gardinarian Tradition of Wicca, not the entire religion. THAT is FACT.
The Gardnerian Tradition was the first Wiccan tradition, before him there were no Wiccans. He layed down the central theology, the rules, and created the rituals. All Wicca is based on the foundations that he laid. THAT is FACT.

[April]

I can call myself Mickey F**kin' Mouse if I want to. I am Pagan and I agree with a lot of the Wiccan beliefs but I do not agree that it is some brand-new religion created by Gerald Gardner. Using the word 'wicca' to describe a religion may have been Gardner's doing but he did NOT create the word wicca and he did not create a new religion. He stole an old word, applied it to an old religion, threw some rituals in and called it his own. Since you're such a damn expert, you would know that there is just as much speculation about Gardner being initiated into it which means it would have already existed.

Some of the things that you claim are "central doctrines" are not. How do you get to decide which Wiccan beliefs one must adhere to in order to be considered Wiccan? Maybe under your definition, one has to believe in the whole concept of balance but under my definition, it is not a requirement.


If you can provide evidence that the Rede is of pagan origins or appears before 1964 then I would be happy to see it.

And what don't you get about not being able to prove things because they weren't documented? They were not written down, they were passed down orally. Being the first person to write it down does not make you the originator.
You wouldn't be happy to see sh*t, you just want to be right.


And I suppose everything you know about Wicca was passed down to you in an unbroken oral tradition from the Stone Age and not out of a few paperbacks from a New Age bookshop.

Oh, that's right, I forgot...you met Mr. Gardner and Mr. Crowley in person and spoke to them. Just because you've spoken to a few self-proclaimed High Priests doesn't make your information any more accurate.

Four words....what the f**k ever... :rolleyes:

I'm done arguing with you on this.

[April]

Wicca
wik'eh, Old Eng. term for female and male witches

The common term for the many different traditions of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft, also known as "the craft"; a nature religion that celebrates seasonal and life cycles and reveres a Goddess and a God (or a Goddess alone).



See also: Neo-Paganism; witchcraft


From The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion. Copyright © 1995 by The American Academy of Religion. Reprinted by arrangement with HarperSanFrancisco, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

[Jai Witch]

Thank you, April.....nuff said!

[Sanguine]

MonkeyMomma
I can call myself Mickey F**kin' Mouse if I want to. I am Pagan and I agree with a lot of the Wiccan beliefs but I do not agree that it is some brand-new religion created by Gerald Gardner. Using the word 'wicca' to describe a religion may have been Gardner's doing but he did NOT create the word wicca and he did not create a new religion. He stole an old word, applied it to an old religion, threw some rituals in and called it his own. Since you're such a damn expert, you would know that there is just as much speculation about Gardner being initiated into it which means it would have already existed.
You can call yourself Mickey Mouse if you want to, but you’ll quickly find yourself slapped with a lawsuit courtesy of the Disney Corporation legal team. But then I suppose you’ll argue that Walt Disney wasn’t the creator of Mickey Mouse. After all, people have been drawing pictures of mice for centuries and the name ‘Mickey’ was used long before it was given to a mouse.

If we are to consider that a coven existed, into which Gardner was initiated, then we have only Gardner’s word for it. No one else, to my knowledge, ever saw or heard of this ‘New Forest Coven’. I think in all likelihood Gardner invented ‘Old Dorothy’ and her coven in order to give some credence and added authenticity to the religion he was developing. Take some details of various old pagan religions from history, add some folklore, superstitions and customs, some notes from the documents left by the witch hunters of the middle ages, mix it all up with a little artistic licence, and voila, one ‘Old Religion’ for which there is conveniently no evidence because they didn’t write anything down so as to avoid persecution by Christianity. Although, if it is a pre-Christian religion why did they not write anything down before the spread of Christianity? There was no one to persecute them then.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that there was an Old Religion that Gardner based Wicca on, he admits that what he received from Old Dorothy was fragmentary and disconnected so he had to supplement it with a large amount of his own material. The material he used was a simplified form of the ceremonial rituals of the OTO and GD. So at best Wicca is the amalgamation of Gardner’s simplified OTO rituals and the fragments he received from the New Forest Coven. Take away either and it’s not Wicca any more. It’s simplified Masonic rituals and lore, or some unworkable fragments of an alleged Old Religion from a mysterious coven that hasn’t been heard of before or since. Either way Wicca is the combination of Christian mysticism and pagan beliefs. It is a clearly defined and altogether new entity that isn’t just an Old Religion with a few rituals added any more than Christianity is just Judaism with a few extra characters in it.


MonkeyMomma
And what don't you get about not being able to prove things because they weren't documented? They were not written down, they were passed down orally. Being the first person to write it down does not make you the originator.
You wouldn't be happy to see sh*t, you just want to be right.Just as there are more ways to convey information other than writing, there are more ways to prove something than with only documentary evidence. Is there any physical evidence? If Gardner really did base Wicca on this Old Religion where are they now? I can’t imagine that they’d have taken too kindly to having Christian mysticism blended with their religion so I doubt they would be Wiccans. What exactly are the beliefs and history of this Old Religion? What are the names of their Gods? Why does every New Age author that waffles on about this Old Religion present their own, often contradictory, version? How do we know which accounts, if any, are true?

If there is no evidence of this Old Religion, because nothing was written down, how can anyone know its existence? How can we be certain that the authors that write about it are telling the truth if they can provide no evidence to back their claims? Do we just take their word for it, that everything they tell us is gospel? Does this not give them a licence to invent a history based on their own ideas about what is wrong with society, to instil in it their own prejudices and justify them with this Old Religion? Notice how the more feminist authors invent entire matriarchal societies and claim that the Old Religion was their special female religion. They talk about these halcyon days where everything was peaceful and wonderful until the men came along with their aggressive male gods, patriarchal religions like Judaism and Christianity and ruined everything. And yet there is never any evidence of this because they didn’t write anything down. I find this a little odd considering the same authors usually claim that the women in their matriarchal societies invented writing and language as well as everything else.

And yes, of course I want to be right. Doesn’t everybody? What use is false knowledge? I have no interest in clinging to a belief that can be shown to be false. If you can prove me wrong then please do so. But petulantly stamping your feet, demanding that you can do and say and be what ever you want and spitting obscenities like some crazed harpy really isn’t helping to persuade.

RE. dictionary definition: I know wicca is an Old English word, I said as much in a previous post. However it (the OE word) is pronounced ‘wich-a’ and is, I think, the genitive plural form of the noun, which is masculine. It does mean ‘witches’ but more in the same vein as we use it in a derogatory form today. It probably shares an etymology with words like ‘beswica,’ which means to entrap or deceive. Taking this into account it is highly unlikely that anyone would use the word to describe themselves until after Gardner redefined it to have a more positive meaning.

In my last post in this thread I mentioned the dilution of beliefs and this dictionary definition of Wicca highlights my point perfectly. Fifty years ago Wicca was a vibrant and deeply interesting initiatory mystery tradition. It seems that now it’s another washed out New Age fad, devoid of any substance. I was talking to friend about this last night. She blames the books a few Wiccans published in the 70s that offered advice to those who were interested in Wicca but were stumbling about in the fog and looking for a coven to join. Pretty soon there was a glut of New Age authors, eager to cash in on the success of these first books, who wrote books full of fluff and nonsense and invented histories and because of this it seems to have become accepted that stumbling about in the fog is the way it’s done.

Now New Age bookshops are stuffed to capacity with things like Silver Ravenwolf’s 'Teen Witch Kit' and 'Teen Witch: Wicca for a New Generation' that contain ‘spells’ for shopping guidance and nothing at all on Wiccan principles like balance and the cycles of life and death. It just seems to be barely disguised cash-in on the fictional TV series like Charmed and Sabrina. Just as bad, in my opinion, are authors like Cunningham and Galenorn who paint a fairytale picture of Wicca and life in general. They portray a view that’s totally unbalanced, focusing only on the nice, fluffy side and ignoring darker, more violent side of life and death that is a necessary part of existence. They seem to me like nothing more than cheap self-help manuals that give the feeling of empowerment without the reader actually having to put in any effort. They’re designed to make people feel better and achieve it only by means of rose-tinted glasses. In short, I think they are frauds. They tell people what they want to hear in order to sell more books.

Jai, are you going to answer the question or are you just going to let Mickey Mouse speak for you?

[Jai Witch]

what question was that? I don't see any question being asked to me at all.

[RogueAngel]

I don't have much knowledge of this I'll admit it. But, wasn't Gerald Gardner only considered the founding father of the *Modern* Wicca? Note, I said modern. Actually, I thought he was looked down upon by many for publishing some of what he did because it was a violation of secret vows.