Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief [Archive]

Silverm00n

03-17-2006, 01:40 PM

From the Council of American Witches:

"The Craft is a Path that has been misunderstood and mangled, mostly by the media. Witches have been depicted as mean, hateful, evil people who worship the devil, and wreak havoc in the lives of others. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth. In 1974, the Council of American Witches decided to do something about this. They adopted the following principles to define the Craft and help its members live more easily within the societal measures."

1. We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the Phases of the Moon and Seasonal Quarters and Cross-Quarters.

2. We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and conciousness within an evolutionary concept.

3. We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than is apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it is sometimes called "supernatural," but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.

4. We conceive of the Creative Power in the Universe as manifesting through polarity-as masculine and feminine-and that this Creative Power lives in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magical practices and religious worship.

5. We recognize both outer worlds and inner, psychological worlds-sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconcious, the Inner Planes, and so on-and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical excercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.

6. We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageusly given of themselves in leadership.

7. We see religion, magic, and wisdom-in-living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it-a worldview and philosophy-of-life that we identify as Witchcraft, the Wiccan Way.

8. Calling oneself a "Witch" does not make a Witch-but neither does heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees, and initiations. Witches seek to control the forces within themselves that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.

9. We acknowledge that it is the affirmation and fulfillment of life, in a continuation of evolution and development of conciousness, that gives meaning to the Universe we know, and to our personal role within it.

10. Our only animosity toward Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy-of-life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be "the only way" and have sought to deny freedom to others and to supress other ways of religious practice and belief.

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

12. We do not accept the concept of "absolute evil," nor do we worship any entity known as "Satan" or "the devil," as defined by the Christian Tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor do we accept the concept that personal benefit can be only derived by denial to another.

13. We acknowledge that we seek within Nature for that which is contributory to our health and well-being.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-16-2011, 07:24 AM

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 04:42 PM

Thank you for posting the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" Silverm00n.

When I joined this forum (just recently) questions arose as to whether or not my spiritual views are compatible with "Wiccan Beliefs".

I'm very glad to read these thirteen principles, as I'm very much in tune with all of them. So now I have a basis to work from. If anyone questions my "Wiccan Beliefs" again, I'll just offer them these thirteen principles, and say that this pretty much sums it up. If they care to argue at that point they can argue with the authors of these thirteen princples.

I really like the way these principles are stated, and don't really see any conflict with any of them concerning my own personal spiritual view of life.

So thanks again for posting them. I think I'll even copy these and paste them into my Book of Shadows, because I'm certainly in full agreement with all of these principles.

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 04:55 PM

I really like this. I reminds me an awful lot of the "Thirteen Goals of a Witch":

Thirteen Goals of a Witch

I. Know Thyself
II. Know thine Craft
III. Learn
IV. Apply knowledge with wisdom
V. Achieve balance
VI. Keep your words in order
VII. Keep your thoughts in order
VIII. Celebrate life
IX. Attune with the Cycles of the Earth
X. Breathe and eat correctly
XI. Exercise the body
XII. Meditate
XIII. Honor the Goddess and God

I mean, it's not EXACTLY the same, but there are certainly similarities between the two. Oh, by the way, I'm not certain as to who wrote "Thirteen Goals of a Witch".

:cheers:

Those are also great goals Puppy.

I'm certainly in agreement with all of those goals as well. Although, if I am to be perfectly honest with myself, I can't claim to have achieved them.

I fail miserably in quite a few categories, but none the less, I'm still in agreement that they are all worthy goals for sure. :)

I truly need to bite the bullet, seek some discipline, and make this list my sincere quest to achieve. But that goal itself is quite ambitious.

It's too easy to just sit at the computer and type. :geek:

Now I'm starting to feel guilty for not setting these goals as a serious priority in my life.

It's easy to wannabe a witch: :witch_prv:

But to actually become one requires some serious discipline.

Alexandria

11-19-2011, 06:22 PM

I'm very glad to read these thirteen principles, as I'm very much in tune with all of them. So now I have a basis to work from. If anyone questions my "Wiccan Beliefs" again, I'll just offer them these thirteen principles, and say that this pretty much sums it up. If they care to argue at that point they can argue with the authors of these thirteen princples.

Well, there are a few issues here. These 13 principles are not the be all end all of Wicca. It's a fair introduction, but it doesn't touch on practices or any details. It's very vague... and that's for good reason.

You suggest taking it up with the authors, but what do you know of them yourself? What do you know the creation of this document?

The interesting thing is, the Council of American Witches were not all Wiccan, but from a variety of neo-pagan backgrounds. The document was meant to be a list of things all the traditions present had in common, things they could agree with. That is why it is vague. It was also meant to clear up some common misconceptions about what they did not do - some of which pagans still deal with today. It was not necessarily meant to be the definitive list of Wiccan beliefs. Of course, this counsel also disbanded around a year after it was formed, because they could not reconcile their different practices to fit one group.

Don't get me wrong, as I said it's a fair introduction, but it is not complete. If you combined this list with a list that detailed a bit more specific beliefs and practices it would serve better as a "this is what makes me Wiccan" list.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 06:40 PM

Those are also great goals Puppy.

I'm certainly in agreement with all of those goals as well. Although, if I am to be perfectly honest with myself, I can't claim to have achieved them.

I fail miserably in quite a few categories, but none the less, I'm still in agreement that they are all worthy goals for sure. :)

I truly need to bite the bullet, seek some discipline, and make this list my sincere quest to achieve. But that goal itself is quite ambitious.

It's too easy to just sit at the computer and type. :geek:

Now I'm starting to feel guilty for not setting these goals as a serious priority in my life.

It's easy to wannabe a witch: :witch_prv:

But to actually become one requires some serious discipline.

Don't worry about not being up to par on some, if not most of these goals :lol:. I think that the word "lifetime" should be inserted just before "goals" in the title of this document, because all these things truly take a lifetime (and possibly multiple one haha) to obtain. There's a reason why we use the term "practice" to describe our faith, because it is, in every sense of the word, a practice. So, all you can do is just look at this list of goals, and decide on which ones you're going to work on for that day (or week, or month, or year lol). :cheers:

:artist: <------ A good metaphor for our faith, making something beatiful out of something not so beautiful :wink2:

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 07:14 PM

Well, there are a few issues here. These 13 principles are not the be all end all of Wicca. It's a fair introduction, but it doesn't touch on practices or any details. It's very vague... and that's for good reason.

You suggest taking it up with the authors, but what do you know of them yourself? What do you know the creation of this document?

I don't feel any need to know much about the authors. The information was presented here as "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief".

If that's wrong, then who is misguiding people?

Certainly not me. I didn't create the title of the thread. This is also posted under the "Wicca Path".

The authors of the doctrine themselves refer to the term Wiccan right in their document:

7. We see religion, magic, and wisdom-in-living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it-a worldview and philosophy-of-life that we identify as Witchcraft, the Wiccan Way.

Can I be blamed if these things are causing me to view them as speaking of the Wiccan Way?

As far as any details are concerned, where have I ever suggested that I follow Wicca or practice Wicca in any precise exact details?

I don't recall ever having made any such claim.

All I have ever suggested is that I was drawn to Wicca because, as far as I can see, my beliefs are totally compatible with the beliefs held out by Wicca.

Never have I suggested anything more than this.

I have not attempted to proclaim that I am a 'teacher' of Wicca, or an official representative of Wicca in any way.

All I did was suggest that I was drawn to Wicca, because as far as I can see, the main beliefs of Wicca are compatible with mine.

For that I catch HELL?

And people are attempting to argue that my beliefs are not compatible with the beliefs of Wicca? And they don't even know what my beliefs are in detail?

I don't see where that makes any sense at all. :banghead:

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 07:19 PM

Don't worry about not being up to par on some, if not most of these goals :lol:. I think that the word "lifetime" should be inserted just before "goals" in the title of this document, because all these things truly take a lifetime (and possibly multiple one haha) to obtain. There's a reason why we use the term "practice" to describe our faith, because it is, in every sense of the word, a practice. So, all you can do is just look at this list of goals, and decide on which ones you're going to work on for that day (or week, or month, or year lol). :cheers:

Because of my physical age, I'm nearing the end of my lifetime. So I guess I had better step up to the plate pretty darn quick.

:cheers:

:artist: <------ A good metaphor for our faith, making something beatiful out of something not so beautiful :wink2:

I like that. A very nice metaphor indeed.

And I am 'chipping away' at these goals, so the metaphor is actually quite on spot.

:signthankspin:

Alexandria

11-19-2011, 07:49 PM

I don't feel any need to know much about the authors. The information was presented here as "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief".

If that's wrong, then who is misguiding people?

Did I say anywhere that you were misguiding people? I'm sure I didn't.

Knowing the authors, their background, and the specifics of the creation of the document help one to understand the list, and what it was meant to do.

Can I be blamed if these things are causing me to view them as speaking of the Wiccan Way?

This is why I'm pointing out the issues, because I don't expect you to know. I'm not blaming you, I'm sharing information with you.

As far as any details are concerned, where have I ever suggested that I follow Wicca or practice Wicca in any precise exact details?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. By details, I mean shared practices such as the Wiccan ritual structure. Details such as the Wiccan Rede. Things that are part of the foundation of Wicca. Things which, as I recall from your introduction thread, you do adhere to... So I'm not sure where the issue is with that?

I have not attempted to proclaim that I am a 'teacher' of Wicca, or an official representative of Wicca in any way.

Again, I never said you did.

All I did was suggest that I was drawn to Wicca, because as far as I can see, the main beliefs of Wicca are compatible with mine.
For that I catch HELL?

Am I giving you hell? I wasn't aware... Here I thought I was just giving some additional information which should be considered when reading this particular list of beliefs.

And people are attempting to argue that my beliefs are not compatible with the beliefs of Wicca? And they don't even know what my beliefs are in detail?

I don't recall doing that, either. You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth. I never said your beliefs were not comparable with Wicca, nor did I say that these 13 principles were not compatible with Wicca. In fact, I said they were a good introduction. Not complete though, which is why pointing to this single list to explain to someone why/how you are Wiccan might not be the best move.

My view on lists are similar to my view on books. If you stop at one or two, there will be gaps in the information. The nature of the creation of this list assures that it will be a vague and incomplete list. I'll I'm suggesting is supplementing it with a bit more information.

In other words, if you want to explain to people why you consider yourself Wiccan, you might not want to give this single list and be done with it. On the other hand, if you combined it with another list - for example, as was linked in your intro (Link (http://wicca.cnbeyer.com/wiccans.shtml) for others reading this) - it would give a more complete picture. (As well as giving your personal views on some of the articles mentioned, like not accepting the initiation line for example.)

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 08:22 PM

Knowing the authors, their background, and the specifics of the creation of the document help one to understand the list, and what it was meant to do.

I feel that I already understand the list and why it consists of the things it does. Knowing the authors is irrelevant for me.

I applaud them. I think they did a wonderful job in the way they stated everything.

My view on lists are similar to my view on books. If you stop at one or two, there will be gaps in the information. The nature of the creation of this list assures that it will be a vague and incomplete list. I'll I'm suggesting is supplementing it with a bit more information.

I agree. :cheers:

I certainly never suggested that anyone should stop learning. Nor did I ever suggest that I had stopped at just reading one or two books. On the contrary, my bookshelves are full and my bank account is empty. :)

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 08:24 PM

Question for Alexandria: Is the article that the American Council of Witches released actually titled "Thirteen Principals of Wiccan Belief", or is that what Silvermoon decided to title the thread?

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 08:34 PM

Am I giving you hell? I wasn't aware... Here I thought I was just giving some additional information which should be considered when reading this particular list of beliefs.

I don't recall doing that, either. You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth. I never said your beliefs were not comparable with Wicca,

By the way, I never put any words in your mouth.

I said "people" are accusing me of these things. I didn't say it was you.

:b1:

Alexandria

11-19-2011, 08:37 PM

Question for Alexandria: Is the article that the American Council of Witches released actually titled "Thirteen Principals of Wiccan Belief", or is that what Silvermoon decided to title the thread?

I'm not sure. I've seen it referred to both the 'Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief' and more simply as the 'Thirteen Principles of Belief.' I don't know which came first - I've seen people saying both.

I don't argue that it's not Wiccan in nature (the document itself does include the word), just that the reason it's so vague is that the council that wrote it was not solely Wiccan. I suspect that's the reason few mentions of actual practice and such made it to the final list. (Also because I'm not sure that was necessarily the intent behind the list.)

Actually there's been rumors around the pagan community that a group of people is looking to form a new council, and one of their goals would be to update this list. Unfortunately, with the way paganism has grown since the original writing, I'm not sure they'd actually be able to do it. :P (There's also been a good bit of scandal surrounding the new group, so who knows what would ever come of it.)

Alexandria

11-19-2011, 08:43 PM

By the way, I never put any words in your mouth.

I said "people" are accusing me of these things. I didn't say it was you.

If it was not relevant to what I wrote, I'm not sure why you'd include it in your reply to me - at least I assumed it was all meant to be a reply to me, as I was the one quoted.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 08:48 PM

I'm not sure. I've seen it referred to both the 'Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief' and more simply as the 'Thirteen Principles of Belief.' I don't know which came first - I've seen people saying both.

I don't argue that it's not Wiccan in nature (the document itself does include the word), just that the reason it's so vague is that the council that wrote it was not solely Wiccan. I suspect that's the reason few mentions of actual practice and such made it to the final list. (Also because I'm not sure that was necessarily the intent behind the list.)

Actually there's been rumors around the pagan community that a group of people is looking to form a new council, and one of their goals would be to update this list. Unfortunately, with the way paganism has grown since the original writing, I'm not sure they'd actually be able to do it. :P (There's also been a good bit of scandal surrounding the new group, so who knows what would ever come of it.)

Ah, I see. I was gonna say that if the article, itself, was actually originally titled "Thirteen Principals of Wiccan Belief", then it would've been safe to assume that the Council who wrote it intended for it to apply to all of Wicca. But, since you can't remember if "Wiccan" is a recent addition to the title, then I suppose it's hard to say.

However, one thing about what you said doesn't quite make sense (but this is entirely dependent on whether or not "Wiccan" was originally in the title), and that is about how the Council was made up of people from other pagan faiths. Now, when you say this, do you mean other Wiccan traditions, or other pagan religions all together? Because, if this article was intended to reflect Wiccan principals and beliefs, then why would there be people from entirely different practices helping to write said article? That just doesn't make sense to my feeble mind :lol:. But, as I stated, this whole line of logic is completely dependent on whether or not the article was originally titled with "Wiccan" in it it's title. If it wasn't, I've just wasted a lot of effort and time typing a response to something that is pointless :woot: :cool2:

Lunacie

11-19-2011, 08:52 PM

I'll just say that not everyone on the Council of American Witches was a practicing Wiccan, so it's not likely that the list they put together would be definitive for Wicca. Wicca was just one of the Pagan paths represented by the membership, but at the time Wicca was at the forefront of any news to do with Paganism. If you mentioned that you were a Pagan, people just assumed that meant you were Wiccan. That was frustrating for all Pagans, to be lumped together like that. Llewellyn publishing company was very guilty of slapping the name Wicca on nearly everything they published.

This web page contains the preface to the list, as well as the list itself. However, it will probably leave dagillus even more confused. It wasn't until the early 90s, nearly 20 years after the council put this list together, that there was a movement to separate the terms "Witchcraft" and "Wicca". Unfortunately the confusion between the two terms still continues.
http://www.pinellasintergroupsociety.org/CAW.shtml

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 09:13 PM

Lunacie

11-19-2011, 09:18 PM

I totally liked how Silver Ravenwolf used the terms Witchcraft and Wicca interchangeably :lol: that made me laugh a bit.

$RW only wrote the short bit at the bottom of that page. As I explained, at the time the Council met nearly everyone used the two terms interchangably.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 09:21 PM

$RW only wrote the short bit at the bottom of that page. As I explained, at the time the Council met nearly everyone used the two terms interchangably.

Yes, I understand that. However, if I'm gathering correctly, that last bit was written well after the article written by the Council was made. So, if that's the case, the issue of using the two terms interchangeably has not been resolved, and is still done, even by BNP's.

Alexandria

11-19-2011, 09:27 PM

Ah, I see. I was gonna say that if the article, itself, was actually originally titled "Thirteen Principals of Wiccan Belief", then it would've been safe to assume that the Council who wrote it intended for it to apply to all of Wicca. But, since you can't remember if "Wiccan" is a recent addition to the title, then I suppose it's hard to say.

Oh, I think it's meant to apply to Wicca, it just isn't the end all list of what it means to be Wiccan, it's lacking some important concepts for that. Like I said, the list is fine to apply to Wicca, it just can't be left at that. :)

However, one thing about what you said doesn't quite make sense (but this is entirely dependent on whether or not "Wiccan" was originally in the title), and that is about how the Council was made up of people from other pagan faiths. Now, when you say this, do you mean other Wiccan traditions, or other pagan religions all together? Because, if this article was intended to reflect Wiccan principals and beliefs, then why would there be people from entirely different practices helping to write said article?

No, I mean there were non-Wiccan witches and pagans on the council. As to why? Lunacie really hit it - it's a product of the times. Heck, let's be honest here... as someone who identifies as both pagan and witch, but not Wiccan? It's still something I see and have to deal with quite often.

Carl Llewellyn Weschcke was one member of the council, and as was noted, Llewellyn Worldwide has been quite guilty of pushing the word Wicca like that. They're still one of the reasons why people think Wiccan, witch, and sometimes even pagan are totally interchangeable in any context.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-19-2011, 09:34 PM

Oh, I think it's meant to apply to Wicca, it just isn't the end all list of what it means to be Wiccan, it's lacking some important concepts for that. Like I said, the list is fine to apply to Wicca, it just can't be left at that. :)

No, I mean there were non-Wiccan witches and pagans on the council. As to why? Lunacie really hit it - it's a product of the times. Heck, let's be honest here... as someone who identifies as both pagan and witch, but not Wiccan? It's still something I see and have to deal with quite often.

Carl Llewellyn Weschcke was one member of the council, and as was noted, Llewellyn Worldwide has been quite guilty of pushing the word Wicca like that. They're still one of the reasons why people think Wiccan, witch, and sometimes even pagan are totally interchangeable in any context.

Ah, I see said the Blind Man :wink2:

Abracadabra

11-19-2011, 09:54 PM

Lunacie

11-20-2011, 09:20 AM

Generally when I use the term "Wicca" with people it's totally within the scope of the understanding that I'm expressing my own personal views of what I see as being "Wicca".

That's the way I would present it, and I would in no way attempt to proclaim that my views hold any special status of authority whatsoever. I would also be the first to make it perfectly clear that there will indeed be other people who view "Wicca" in an entirely different way from the way I view it.

So I think that's a good enough disclaimer to justify using the term under those considtions.

In any case, I'm glad I found this thread and the post by Silverm00n on these "Wiccan" principles of Belief because I do indeed like the way these beliefs are worded on this list. They obviously kept thing quite abstract on purpose. And so that's cool with me.

One thing I can tell people for sure is that I found these principles of beliefs listed as "Wiccan Beliefs". That would certainly be true. If Silverm00n was in error listing these beliefs as "Wiccan Beliefs" that doesn't change the fact that I found them listed as "Wiccan Beliefs". (ha ha)

They were even posted in the "Wiccan Path" forum of a "Wiccan Wisdom" web site.

That's a whole lot of "Wiccaness" right there. :)

~~~

I'm also glad I found them simply because I would like to add them to my BOS. I really like the way they worded everything. So it was a nice find (Wiccan or not).

The Thirteen Principles were written to apply to all Pagan paths, including Wicca. But as Alexandria writes, there is a lot more to Wicca than you'll find in this list. Those who follow other Pagan paths would also feel it has a lot of what their path is about. I'm saying that it's pretty generic. It's good as far as it goes, but no one should make of it more than it was intended to be.
(Not that I'm saying that's what you are doing, just a general statement.)

It was a public "spin" on Pagan paths at a time when they were just starting to become public. In those days, many people believed that Pagans and Wiccans were Satan worshippers who sacrificed babies or cats and had sexual orgies on a regular basis. This Council and the list they published was an attempt to reassure the public that none of that was true.

Alexandria

11-20-2011, 11:40 AM

Those who follow other Pagan paths would also feel it has a lot of what their path is about.

They might, but they might not as well. Some paths/individuals could reject a fair portion of the list.

Abracadabra

11-20-2011, 11:40 AM

The Thirteen Principles were written to apply to all Pagan paths.

I don't know if I would be prepared to agree with that. You talk about calling everything Wicca as though that is totally incorrect. But I would personally feel that suggesting that all Pagan paths would necessarily hold beliefs on this Witch's list is just as misleading to paganism in general.

For example:

8. Calling oneself a "Witch" does not make a Witch-but neither does heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees, and initiations. Witches seek to control the forces within themselves that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.

Not every pagan considers themselves to be a "Witch".

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

As American Witches we are not threatened by debates on the history of the craft? (i.e. Witchcraft)

Seems to me that if this had been written for pagans in general it would have been stated as, "As American Pagans we are not threatened by debates on the history of our beliefs"

Not all pagans necessarily consider themselves to be "Witches", or to be into "Witchcraft". Merely believing in the healing powers of nature, and a belief that we are part of nature does not automatically imply a belief in "Witchcraft" specifically.

So if these beliefs were intended as the beliefs of pagans in general I would argue that it's quite a bit misleading in that regard.

~~~

Pandora13x

11-20-2011, 03:09 PM

I don't feel any need to know much about the authors. The information was presented here as "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief".

But if you never look deeper into those who are presenting information, how can possibly determine its veracity? It would be one thing, perhaps, if you already had a solid base of information by which to judge what you are reading, but it would be pretty hard to gain that solid base if you never look into the people you're getting your information from. How will you know what's good information and what's not?

You might like this list and feel that you understand it, but by not looking into the background of the people who wrote it, you left yourself unaware that the list was made as a unifying document for paganism (or perhaps just witches) on the whole, and not as a list of the beliefs and practices that define Wicca specifically.

For that I catch HELL?

No one has given you hell. A number of people have provided you with information, or suggested that you might be using certain words inappropriately, but it hasn't been rude (I'm not sure I've ever seen Alexandria, for example, be rude to anyone), and it hasn't been hateful. It's only been an attempt to help spread better knowledge and understanding, and to ease communications.

We never stop learning, no matter how long we've been on our paths. The moment we do, we become stagnant, and that's not good for anyone :]

I feel that I already understand the list and why it consists of the things it does. Knowing the authors is irrelevant for me.

I applaud them. I think they did a wonderful job in the way they stated everything.

But you can't really fully understand something like this without knowing where it came from. You can understand the specific concepts listed, and you can even say that, "Yes, these are exactly what I believe and what I want my life to be about," but without knowing what its purpose was, and who wrote it, you can't really understand what it's about. You can't know if it's really representative of Wicca, or if it's something that is intentionally vague and meant to apply to a lot of different paths, including some that are decidedly not Wiccan.

In any case, I'm glad I found this thread and the post by Silverm00n on these "Wiccan" principles of Belief because I do indeed like the way these beliefs are worded on this list. They obviously kept thing quite abstract on purpose. And so that's cool with me.

One thing I can tell people for sure is that I found these principles of beliefs listed as "Wiccan Beliefs". That would certainly be true. If Silverm00n was in error listing these beliefs as "Wiccan Beliefs" that doesn't change the fact that I found them listed as "Wiccan Beliefs". (ha ha)

They were even posted in the "Wiccan Path" forum of a "Wiccan Wisdom" web site.

That's a whole lot of "Wiccaness" right there. :)

But if you choose to believe everything that fits your preconceived notions of what defines a religion simply because it has "Wiccan" in the title, without doing the background research to confirm that the information is good, and that it is defining what you think it is defining, and then ignore anyone who suggests that "Hey, I see what you're saying here, but this might not be the best way to prove your point because X, Y, Z," then you set yourself up to be in a situation where people are less inclined to trust your interpretation of information.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that that's what it sometimes feels like. I mean, the bottom line is, it's your path, and you can call it whatever you want, and maybe "Wiccan" really is a good title-fit for your path, or maybe it's not, but it's important enough to you to use that title anyway, I don't know. And that's what you have to understand, we can't know, and have to come to our own conclusions based on what you write.

Not a dig, just trying to give my own perspective on the situation :]

I'm also glad I found them simply because I would like to add them to my BOS. I really like the way they worded everything. So it was a nice find (Wiccan or not).

Well that's great. If you found something that will add to your path, then whether or not it's Wiccan, and whether or not your path is Wiccan, that's valuable :]

I don't know if I would be prepared to agree with that. You talk about calling everything Wicca as though that is totally incorrect. But I would personally feel that suggesting that all Pagan paths would necessarily hold beliefs on this Witch's list is just as misleading to paganism in general.

For example:

Not every pagan considers themselves to be a "Witch".

As American Witches we are not threatened by debates on the history of the craft? (i.e. Witchcraft)

Seems to me that if this had been written for pagans in general it would have been stated as, "As American Pagans we are not threatened by debates on the history of our beliefs"

Not all pagans necessarily consider themselves to be "Witches", or to be into "Witchcraft". Merely believing in the healing powers of nature, and a belief that we are part of nature does not automatically imply a belief in "Witchcraft" specifically.

So if these beliefs were intended as the beliefs of pagans in general I would argue that it's quite a bit misleading in that regard.

~~~

So maybe it would make better sense to say "pagan witches" or just "witches," (and the list was put together by the Council of American Witches), but both of those terms are still a great deal more general than "Wiccans," which I think is the main thing to come away with upon discovering that the list was put together by individuals of many faiths, including individuals who were not Wiccan, and that the list was meant to unify and describe several different paths, rather than one path or even one group of paths (Wicca).

Lunacie

11-20-2011, 05:35 PM

>>
So maybe it would make better sense to say "pagan witches" or just "witches," (and the list was put together by the Council of American Witches), but both of those terms are still a great deal more general than "Wiccans," which I think is the main thing to come away with upon discovering that the list was put together by individuals of many faiths, including individuals who were not Wiccan, and that the list was meant to unify and describe several different paths, rather than one path or even one group of paths (Wicca).

Your entire post was insightful and well stated, but this ^ paragraph was especially quote-worthy. I was trying to explain what was going on in Pagan/Witchcraft/Wiccan circles nearly 40 years ago. We've come a long way in terms of recognizing a myriad of Pagan traditions.

Abracadabra

11-20-2011, 06:23 PM

We never stop learning, no matter how long we've been on our paths. The moment we do, we become stagnant, and that's not good for anyone :]

I never suggested that anyone should stop learning about anything.

~~~~

Perhaps my position is simply not being understood.

I feel that I already have more than enough information about Wicca to understand that it not only does not have a crystal clear background and definition, but that it would be completely naive to even believe that it ever could have such a thing.

So there really isn't anything to "study" in terms of that goal. That is simply an unrealistic goal, IMHO.

In fact, I can actually say that I have indeed set about studying Wicca with that goal in mind, and from my studies, I have already concluded that all that exists today are totally unsubstantiated opinions, views, and rumors of many different people.

That doesn't invalid the spirituality of the craft, but it does pretty much put a damper on trying to define it precisely.

I am totally on-board with the counsel of witches on that topic:

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

~~~

Sure, keep studying folklore, rumors, and historical anecdotes. But if you think you are actually making progress to discovering 'truth' concerning very specific traditions that you believe hold more validity than others, then I would suggest that you are only kidding yourself.

Sure, take what calls to you and reject what doesn't call to you. I highly support that.

But start arguing with people that what you've studied or accepted as 'truth' holds more value than what someone else believes to be 'truth', then IMHO, you're lost.

~~~

I certainly have no need whatsoever to go down that path. From my perspective that path can only lead to one place:

:duel1:

My knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

~~~~

Why do religions always disintegrate into that?

The thing that attracted me to Wicca in the first place was it's abstract nature, promising not to become dogmatic. Yet there still exists people who try desperately to make it very specific.

I'm cool with an abstract view of Wicca. I have no need to make it into a very specific dogmatic religion where I'm proclaiming that my version is correct whilst all others are wrong.

I have no need to accuse other people of "Having stopped learning" simply because they see Wicca as being abstract.

~~~~

As far as I'm concerned, in terms of trying to make Wicca into a highly well-defined dogmatic religion, there simply is nothing to learn. Except perhaps that such a goal would be futile.

~~~~

From my perspective the greatest thing to be learned from Wicca is indeed the power and freedom of its abstract nature.

~~~~

Just like the Counsel of Witches have proclaimed:

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

I'm concerned with the present and the future of my practice of Wicca. I'm not interested in debates about the history or origins of the craft, even with other Wiccans.

I have my views, they have theirs. So mote it be.

No need to make that a point of disagreement and debate.

Where can it lead?

:duel1:

My knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

No, my knowledge is true!

~~~~

Alexandria

11-20-2011, 06:39 PM

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Wicca must be highly specific and dogmatic. There's a middle ground between that, and the vague 13 principles listed. The 13 things listed can certainly apply to, and be a part of Wicca, but they're only that - a part. There is more that makes Wicca what it is beyond this list. Not necessarily highly specific things, as that would be getting more into aspects of individual traditions imo, but still some general things that were left off the list.

Abracadabra

11-20-2011, 09:10 PM

dagillus_ap_owen

11-21-2011, 05:32 AM

So, I'm not defending/supporting or denying anyone's claims or arguments on here, but I feel like this next statement needs to be said.

This is supposed to be a forum for all of us of any and all pagan faiths to talk and discuss pagan topics of discussion in a civilized, and respectful manner, and I hate to say it, but from my POV, this conversation has strayed away from that. I'm not saying that any one person has attacked any other person on here, but I think this has gone beyond the civil and friendly. Now, I see what all parties are saying, and I see both sides of the discussion/debate. However, I think that Abra has made her point sufficiently clear that what she has perceived this article to mean is exactly that, her own, personal perception of it, of which she is more than entitled to make. When you break things down, the only real freedom that we have is to make our own decisions on things, and she has done that. Now, that being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting information to someone of whom you think doesn't quite have all the information on something, but there is a point when trying to present said information becomes a bit unfriendly and can be percieved as being a personal attack of one's beliefs on something. I'm neither validating, or denying Abra's interpretation of this article and what it has to say, I'm simply saying that repeatedly telling her that she's wrong in what she thinks is like trying to deny her her right to her interpretation of things, which no one has the right to do, no matter how informed they are on a subject. There's a difference between informing and attacking, and I don't want to see that line get crossed, by anyone on here. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all the people on here. Everyone has knowledge to share, and I find that extremely valuable about this site, but calling someone wrong for their viewpoint because it doesn't match yours (whether is descreetly or indescreetly) is not what this site is about.

Now, don't anyone take what I've just said as a personal attack or slander on anyone else, because it most certainly wasn't. I just was trying to intervene in what I was thinking was becoming a problem. Now, I'm kind of expecting people to get really defensive about what I just said, and I'm cool with that. Just know that it's not my intention to make anyone mad. I just don't like it when we fight amongst ourselves like this.

Alexandria

11-21-2011, 07:45 AM

While I suppose it, once again, comes down to a matter of perspective... having just read the thread again, I don't see any personal attacks. In fact, for the most part, this thread has been civil and respectful. No personal attacks, no flaming, nothing like that.

I do, however, see some breaks in communication which might make for some misunderstanding, which is potentially on my part, as my reading of something may not be the same as that of another.

So I have to ask...

That may be true, but is there any point in beating other people over the head with accusations that their understanding of Wicca may be lacking?

Where did this happen in this thread? Honestly, I'm trying to figure out if I have missed or misunderstood something (which has been known to happen), or if you might be misunderstanding something someone said, or what... You made a similar accusation earlier in the thread when I was the only one to reply to you, which you said wasn't actually directed to me, so I'd like to know if it's actually coming from this thread (and it may be) - or if it's a hold over from the previous thread at this point.

Let's take a moment to clear the air here, so we can either continue with the discussion, or move on from the thread.

Lunacie

11-21-2011, 08:20 AM

That may be true, but is there any point in beating other people over the head with accusations that their understanding of Wicca may be lacking?

:whack:

And far more to the point, is there any sense in continuing to pursue that line of attack when the other person suggests that the first person may simply be jumping to incorrect conclusions without a sufficient knowledge of the second person's understanding of Wicca?

If you'll excuse the punny: It just seems like a witch hunt to me. :pigsfly:

Pandora made a general "we" comment. There was no accusation or beating over the head in what she wrote. There has been no witch hunt here.

If you think you've learned as much as necessary about Wicca for your own spiritual path, that's fine. But when you make comments about how Wicca is a very abstract religion with no dogma at all, people are going to disagree.

You seem to have a "hang up" about that particular word, dogma. One definition of dogma is an official set of tenets or principals, but the definition also includes un-official but traditional and agreed upon tenets or principals.

Wicca doesn't have to be followed exactly as set out by Gerald Gardner, but if what a person is doing doesn't bear much resemblance to Gardner's group did, how would it be accurate to call it Wicca?

Please note the word I used was "accurate", not the "one true way." The definition of "accurate" that I'm using is "consistent with a standard or model."

This really isn't on topic for this thread though. Maybe I need to start a thread discussing Wiccan ritual structure - why certain things are done in Wiccan rituals, and why they are done in a particular order. There are no hard and fast "rules" about Wiccan structure, but when we understand why these things are part of the rituals it can deepen our spiritual connection when we do rituals.

Pandora13x

11-21-2011, 12:41 PM

Yeah, I have to agree. I mean, I'm probably a bit biased as one of the people disagreeing with Abracadabra, but I really don't think there's been any attacking.

I think part of the problem is that there might be some confusion between disagreeing with a definition of a particular term (in this case Wicca, which I understand to be the name of a specific religion), which is what I - and I believe Alexandria and Lunacie as well, though I obviously can't speak for them - am doing, and disagreeing with someone's personal path or personal interpretation of of a concept or text or system for the purpose of incorporating it into a personal path (as opposed to the purpose of arguing the definition of a term, which I believe requires a different kind of analysis than simply determining what the concepts being described are and whether or not they are something you agree with), which I would never do (particularly as someone who does not follow an established path, and so must do precisely this).

It's the difference between arguing about what the definition of the word "dog" is and arguing whether or not dogs are a worthwhile thing to incorporate into one's life. The first has a standard generally agreed upon definition (in the case of a religious path there may be less agreement on all of the details, but there must still be some general definition for it to be useful as a term). The second will vary from person to person, and is a completely personal decision.

Of course, if there's something specific I've said that anyone feels came off as an attack, please point it out, and I will definitely take some time to consider whether I may have come off differently than I intended, and change my posting style if need be. It's certainly not my intent to attack or offend anyone, and I'm quite willing to admit when I'm wrong, it happens all the time :]

Maybe I need to start a thread discussing Wiccan ritual structure - why certain things are done in Wiccan rituals, and why they are done in a particular order. There are no hard and fast "rules" about Wiccan structure, but when we understand why these things are part of the rituals it can deepen our spiritual connection when we do rituals.

I don't know if you were serious about this, but I would actually love to see this. Wicca is not my path, so my understanding of Wiccan ritual structure is limited, though I have recently been reading some more traditional (I believe) material to strengthen my knowledge base. I would love to hear some of the hows and whys from an actual person though, assuming you wouldn't have to break any oaths to do so. It would probably be a pretty valuable thread :]

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 01:38 PM

Let's take a moment to clear the air here, so we can either continue with the discussion, or move on from the thread.

Ok, I'll try to explain in a way that hopefully everyone will understand.

I started a welcome thread that described my history in a very brief way. In that post I stated that I was introduced to Wicca and attracted to Wicca because of its abstract non-dogmatic approach to spirituality. I also tried to convey that I find the traditions and views of Wicca to be highly compatible with my own views on spirituality which are quite pantheistic and mystical in nature.

One particular member replied to my post suggesting that my views appear to her to not be in harmony with her views of Wicca. I asked for specific objections that she might have, and this started a chain of events that ultimately ended up continuing in this thread.

The chain of events grew as follows.

1. Other members started joining in the discussion.
2. A web site was given to me that supposedly has a list describing what constitutes being a Wiccan.
3. I showed where I'm highly compatible with the things required by that web site.
4. I also dug out an old book by Scott Cunningham and showed where I'm compatible with his views on Wicca.
5. Non-specific accusation and insinuations concerning my knowledge of Wicca continued.

Then I found this thread just from browsing around the forums. It's entitled "The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief".

I read the 13 principles and once again saw perfect harmony between my views of Wicca and the things being listed on this list. So I replied to this thread by simply stating that if anyone questions my "Wiccaness" I'll just point them to these 13 principles and tell them to argue with the authors of these principles, rather than with me.

It appears that people would still rather argue with me.

I'm now being told that this list is not even specific to Wiccans, even though it was entitled as such.

My response to that is simply that if there is misinformation going around concerning what constitutes "Wiccan Beliefs", it's certainly not my fault.

It also brings in to question where a person might go to get the "correct" description.

And now I would like to respond to something Luancie said:

This really isn't on topic for this thread though. Maybe I need to start a thread discussing Wiccan ritual structure - why certain things are done in Wiccan rituals, and why they are done in a particular order. There are no hard and fast "rules" about Wiccan structure, but when we understand why these things are part of the rituals it can deepen our spiritual connection when we do rituals.

I think that's a great idea. In fact I had suggested this very thing from the very beginning.

Otherwise it just appears as though everyone is arguing with me personally.

Start a thread on the topic and see what other people think of what you have to say.

I may or may not be in agreement with your views on precisely how you think things need to be structured. But at least in a thread like that I could give my views without feeling like I'm being personally attacked.

Note to dagillus_ap_owen,

I'm actually a male. Still, I thank you very much for posting your thoughts.

I'm in total agreement with you that the current way that this issue is being discussed is not good. It places me in a personally defensive position and appears to be the entire forum against one person without any concrete specific charges even being made.

So it's not productive for anyone.

So yes, I hope that Luancie will start her thread based on her concerns of what constitutes properly structured Wiccan rituals.

Such a thread could be interesting for everyone. And like I say, I may even be in total agreement with her. Who knows? I can't know until I see what she has to say.

:circle:

Alexandria

11-21-2011, 02:10 PM

if anyone questions my "Wiccaness" I'll just point them to these 13 principles and tell them to argue with the authors of these principles, rather than with me.

Honestly, if at this point you don't see why what I've quoted above is a flawed argument, there's nothing more I can say. It's not about attacking your beliefs, or attacking you for not being Wiccan enough. No one said it was your fault. No one said you were spreading misinformation.

The main point being made is that this list is not the be all end all of what it means to be a Wiccan. Yes, most Wiccans can agree with these principles, but there is a lot missing from the list as well - the rede and ritual structure, to name just two. Giving the history of the document helps to illustrate why this is the case.

Again. It is not an attack on you, it is not saying you are not Wiccan enough - it is saying that this list of 13 things is not complete. It is not everything that makes a Wiccan. Not that you are not Wiccan enough, the list is not. This is why I suggest combining it with the list from the other thread, the list you already agreed with. That doing that would be a more accurate picture of why you consider yourself a Wiccan. That's all.

I want to say this again...
My response to that is simply that if there is misinformation going around concerning what constitutes "Wiccan Beliefs", it's certainly not my fault.
No one said it was your fault, and no one is trying to blame you. There is a lot of bad information on Wicca out there - it's only your fault if you knowingly spread it around. (Knowingly being the key word there.) Correcting bad information, or giving addition information that is necessary to consider is not an attack on you.

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 02:28 PM

No one said it was your fault, and no one is trying to blame you. There is a lot of bad information on Wicca out there - it's only your fault if you knowingly spread it around. (Knowingly being the key word there.) Correcting bad information, or giving addition information that is necessary to consider is not an attack on you.

I personally don't accept that it is bad information.

I accept the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" to be correct and totally applicable to Wicca.

Does it state that this is all that is required to be a Wiccan?

No it does not.

Did I ever state that this is all that is required to be a Wiccan?

No I did not.

So where is there any bad information?

As far as I can see people are just jumping to gross conclusions in attempt to make out like as if I'm mistaken or wrong about something, when in fact, I had never even supported the conclusions they are jumping to.

And suggesting that I am spreading bad information is indeed an attack on me personally. At least I certainly see it that way. It implies that I have no clue what I'm talking about. And that's certainly insulting.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't like it if people started accusing you of not knowing what you are talking about.

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 02:32 PM

Yeah, I have to agree. I mean, I'm probably a bit biased as one of the people disagreeing with Abracadabra, but I really don't think there's been any attacking.

Disagreeing with me about what precisely?

This is the problem I'm having here.

I'm not taking a concrete stance on anything.

I was originally accused of not being in harmony with the beliefs and practices of Wicca.

So I've asked for specifics. Where am I in violation of what is considered to be "Wicca".

So far I haven't seen anyone offer anything concrete.

Luancie says that she'll start a thread describing was constitutes proper Wicca rituals.

I'm looking forward to that.

If I disagree with an particular point she makes, then I can at least understand why she thinks I'm not compatible with Wicca.

As it is now, I have no clue.

Alexandria

11-21-2011, 02:56 PM

I accept the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" to be correct and totally applicable to Wicca.

As I said, I also find them to apply well to Wicca. This is not my issue with the statements.

Did I ever state that this is all that is required to be a Wiccan?
No I did not.

It's implied when you say that if someone were to question why you were Wiccan again, you'd simply point them to this document, nothing more, end of discussion take it up with the authors. If you felt it was lacking important aspects on what makes Wicca what it is, I do not see why you'd do that.

If that's not what you meant to imply, I don't understand why you wouldn't have just said this pages ago when I first brought up the issue with using this as your only explanation as to why you felt you are Wiccan.

And suggesting that I am spreading bad information is indeed an attack on me personally. At least I certainly see it that way. It implies that I have no clue what I'm talking about. And that's certainly insulting.

In no way did I say you were knowingly spreading bad information, that again would be the opposite of what I said.

Likewise, even experts on subjects make mistakes or need more information on occasion. It doesn't have to imply you don't know what you're talking about, people make mistakes sometimes, people don't always have all the information on any given topic. It happens, it's okay.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't like it if people started accusing you of not knowing what you are talking about.

If I said something inaccurate and someone provided me with the reason why it is incorrect, or if someone felt I was missing an important bit of information and shared it with me, I absolutely would not take it as a personal attack. Trust me, I've done it before - I'm sure I'll do it again, it does not have to be a big deal.

Lunacie

11-21-2011, 04:30 PM

I used to be uber-sensitive and take everything in a negative way. That seems to be what's happening here. I haven't "blamed" anyone for having different views or opinions or attacked the person. I have said that I disagree with some views or opinions, and I've further tried to explain why I disagree.

Of course we can find people (and authors) who think Wicca is abstract and non-dogmatic. We can also find people who are practically fundamentalist about Wiccan dogma. The majority of people I talk with both online and off are somewhere in the middle, and they're often frustrated with both extremes ... rigid and unyielding or fluffy and uninterested in anything that doesn't mesh with their shallow viewpoint. But the only thing we can do is point out the middle ground and hope that those people can look at it from another perspective.

I've been as specific as I can about Wicca not being either rigid and overly dogmatic and yet not being entirely abstract and free-form either. That seems to be pretty specific to me. It's really the only thing I've continued to point out in response to posts talking about how Wicca is attractive because it's abstract and free-form. I'm not attacking the poster, I'm debating the idea of what Wicca is actually all about.

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 04:54 PM

If I said something inaccurate and someone provided me with the reason why it is incorrect, or if someone felt I was missing an important bit of information and shared it with me, I absolutely would not take it as a personal attack. Trust me, I've done it before - I'm sure I'll do it again, it does not have to be a big deal.

I can certainly understand that.

However, if someone misunderstood your position on something and jumped to conclusions that even you do not support, yet they kept acting like their conclusions are your position, then I imagine you would be a least a bit annoyed by that if nothing else.

That's what I feel has happened here.

I'm not claiming half the things that are being jumped to here.

All I suggested from the very beginning is that my own spiritual views and beliefs appear to me to be compatible with the views and beliefs of Wicca.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out precisely what it is that they feel is specifically incompatible.

I'm willing to bet that it's nothing more than an incorrect perception of my beliefs on their part. Rather than some gross misunderstanding of Wicca on my behalf.

That's all I'm saying.

:b1:

Pandora13x

11-21-2011, 04:55 PM

I'm now being told that this list is not even specific to Wiccans, even though it was entitled as such.

My response to that is simply that if there is misinformation going around concerning what constitutes "Wiccan Beliefs", it's certainly not my fault.

I tend to be of the opinion that it is up to the individual to determine the veracity of a source (as well as the applicability of that source to the topic at hand), meaning that although the person who posted it might have posted it as "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief," it's up to those who read this to determine if that is accurate, and certainly if other people post things suggesting that it might not be referring specifically to what was suggested by the thread title, then it seems reasonable to expect that someone wishing to use that source in an argument or debate to then do their own research and find out the truth.

I do not mean that a person simply wishing to incorporate something into their path needs to go out and do a ton of background research first (although it is my preference when incorporating aspects of other paths into my own path to first research the how and the why of things, and then change based on my own views and needs, I understand that not everyone feels the same way, and I would not presume to tell someone else that they are creating their path the wrong way), I simply mean that before using something to argue, in this case, that your own definition of Wicca is accurate, it's probably wise to do your own research first, rather than just accepting a post at face value, even when other people have suggested that it might not make sense to look at it that way.

It also brings in to question where a person might go to get the "correct" description.

Some lists that I like, that I think can be combined with the other resources given (assuming one has a solid enough background in Wicca to know what these things really mean, why they are how they are, and how exactly they fit into the Wiccan paradigm) to give a better if still not complete idea of where the "Wiccan" versus "non Wiccan" (and please note that it is not a "valid" versus "not valid" line, it is simply a matter of vocabulary) line can be fairly drawn:

This (http://www.wiccanwisdom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1123&highlight=boundaries&page=3) list with the addition of Wiccan ritual structure
This (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=412931&messages_per_page=12) list expands a bit on the things brought up in the first list. It's not perfect, but I think it might still be informative. There's quite a bit of discussion there that might be useful

None of these lists is complete, nor are they intended to replace actual study into all of the topics and more. I think that in order to really truly understand what makes up the core of Wicca (and thus decide how far one can deviate from that core while still reasonably calling it Wicca) one must read traditional materials. This doesn't mean all of these things need to be incorporated into your own personal practice, just that you (and that's a general "you," meaning anyone following a Wiccan path) should understand what they are, where they come from, why they are what they are, and why they are choosing to do things differently if they are.

If I have time, I will try to find the other lists that I know I've seen out there that fill this out a bit more. I think the important thing that tends to be left off of these lists though is Wiccan ritual structure. Wicca is orthopraxic, thus the practice matters. For this reason I think it's important to include ritual structure (specifically Wiccan ritual structure) in lists of what defines Wicca.

Personally, I tend to be more traditionally minded, and I would probably not be comfortable calling myself Wiccan unless I was trained in a fairly traditional coven. This is my personal feeling on the subject, and I don't necessarily feel a need to impose it on others, but I still think there's a point where something stops being Wicca and really needs to be called something else in order to communicate effectively.

I personally don't accept that it is bad information.

I accept the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" to be correct and totally applicable to Wicca.

Does it state that this is all that is required to be a Wiccan?

No it does not.

Did I ever state that this is all that is required to be a Wiccan?

No I did not.

So where is there any bad information?

Well when you say things like that you're going to direct anyone who says that you are not Wiccan to this thread, that sort of implies that you view that list as evidence of your "Wiccanness," which kind of implies that you consider it to be a list of defining characteristics of what makes one Wiccan.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't like it if people started accusing you of not knowing what you are talking about.

Personal growth and learning are important to me, more so than protecting my feelings. I would hope that if it seemed like I might be confused or misinformed on a topic, that someone who knew better would step in and say something.

I hail from a much harsher forum than this one, and I have been slapped down (as opposed to having potential issues gently pointed out to me, as has been done here) plenty of times. I would take that any day over being allowed to continue in my misunderstanding. Even if it turned out that I simply hadn't communicated clearly, and I was in fact quite correct in what I had said, I would still be glad someone had pointed out what it appears I am saying.

This is, of course, my personal feeling on the matter.

Disagreeing with me about what precisely?

This is the problem I'm having here.

I'm not taking a concrete stance on anything.

Here are some of the things that you've said most recently in the other thread that I disagree with (I haven't responded to them there in an attempt to respect your request - which I find to be reasonable - that your welcome thread be left alone from here on out. The things I am responding to now are not a part of your introduction, so I feel comfortable responding to them here, away from your intro thread. I hope that that is alright). Again, I am not trying to attack, or be inflammatory, or otherwise offend, I am just trying to respond to your specific request that I tell you precisely what it is with which I disagree:

I already satisfied the requirements set out on the web site I was pointed to that listed what constitutes being "Wiccan", and I backed that up also with Scott Cunningham's book. If neither of those things are satisfactory then I don't know what else to say.

I believe it was mentioned that those two sources aren't really enough of a base upon which to determine whether or not your practices could really be considered Wiccan, so perhaps a next step would have been to seek out some other sources or evidence. This is, of course, just one possibility.

I don't read a whole lot of books that claim to be specific to "Wicca" because it's not my goal to try to become a "Wiccan" by any particular author's criteria.

As far as I'm concerned, I've read enough about Wicca already to accept that it's not supposed to be a highly dogmatic religion with extreme constraints.

The fact that you say you have not read a whole lot of books that claim to be specific to Wicca makes me wonder how you could possibly have developed a strong enough base to know what Wicca actually is. I guess I just don't understand how a person can study a religion without any actual sources of information on that religion.

It's fine if you don't want to follow a religion and so you don't study it, and it's fine if after you've done the studying you decide that there are things you want to tweak (though at a point it stops being Wicca. There is nothing wrong with this. I'm not Wiccan. But it does suggest that another label might be more appropriate), but it just doesn't make sense to me to claim the title of a religion without having studied it (and I do feel that studying a religion requires looking at sources on that actual specific religion. So while a lot of other materials might be very useful foundational material, they are still not enough to say that you've studied Wicca).

If that information is incorrect then so be. Clearly I will have been misinformed. If that's the case, then I was mistaken and I no longer have an interest in "Wicca". I have no interest in highly specialized or dogmatic religions. Especially if they are going to be pointing fingers at people like the Christians do.

Except that when people try to point out where things you say might seem misinformed, you call it an "accusation." And when people try to point out that there's a difference between being "highly specialized or dogmatic" and simply having some central organizing principles, beliefs and practices, you don't seem to hear it. After a while it begins to feel that for all you say that you understand that you may have been misinformed about something, you are not willing to really consider that as a possibility.

The bit about Christianity also seems, to be honest, a touch prejudicial, and not necessarily fair to the many wonderful human beings out there who are Christians, though I understand that you seem to have had some negative experiences with Christianity, and so I understand that these statements probably come from a place of pain rather than of hatred.

I've already left that kind of religious bigotry behind me, I certainly have no desire to become involved in that sort of thing again.

It isn't religious bigotry to say that "Wicca" might not be the most appropriate term for a particular path. Religious bigotry would be saying that your path is wrong or not a valid religious path simply because it is different from my own. Saying that it might not be "Wiccan" is simply asking for clarity in the use of words. Words have power, after all, and so it makes sense to try to use them correctly so that that power does not become diluted or corrupted.

Do I really need to search around for authors who disagree with that?

I don't think so. I'm comfortable that Scott Cunningham feels the same way I do. Why would I be interested in seeking out the views and opinions of other people that don't match up with my own innate views on the matter?

Because that is how we learn and grow. The eleventh item on the list on the second link is "constant improvement," which applies to a lot of things, including learning and the study of your faith. If you only consider things that agree with what you already think and believe, without ever considering conflicting or contrasting views, how is that learning? Particularly if we're talking about, as you say, innate views.

It's one thing read things from many perspectives and to decide that after looking at all sides of the situation and weighing all the facts, your original view on the subject was in fact correct, and it's another to ignore all other sides of a situation and simply hold on to your own preconceived notions no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

We aren't talking about personal spiritual paths here, we're talking about language, words that already have definitions and meanings. Words that become useless when continue to water down those definitions and meanings.

Your path is your own thing, language is cultural, societal, and it doesn't make sense to ignore the meanings attached to words. This is especially true when we're talking about a religion. It simply doesn't make sense to re-purpose a word like "Wicca" to remove all the central concepts that make it the religion that it is.

If I wanted someone else to do my thinking for me I would become a Catholic and follow the Pope.

Statements like this are frankly offensive. I really don't understand why you would accuse others of religious bigotry in one breath, simply because they think that words like "Wicca" don't necessarily apply to every path, and then to say something like this.

Evidently, if anything, all you are basically doing is questioning the sources of my understanding of Wicca.

Which is reasonable, I think, if a person is basing their definitions of a religion on sources that are unreliable, or not about that religion, or very few.

But I'm certainly not going to just accept their practices as being the determining factor of whether I should consider myself to be Wiccan or not.

But how else would you determine whether your path is compatible with an orthopraxic religion if not by basing it on that religion's practices?

So anyway, it's nice to meet another self-initiated solitary witch.

By my understanding of the definition of the word "initiation," I'm not sure it makes sense to say that someone is "self-initiated." I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that initiation requires the involvement of others. Perhaps someone with more experience in initiations will step in to correct me if I am wrong? "Self-dedicated," on the other hand, is a term I see no problem with.

So I've asked for specifics. Where am I in violation of what is considered to be "Wicca".

So far I haven't seen anyone offer anything concrete.

But we can't offer anything concrete in terms of practices, as we don't know what your practices are. For me though, I would consider it impossible to follow a religion such as Wicca without first studying it, and you have stated that you have not read many books about Wicca.

So there it is, a good number of the things that I disagree with. I hope that you do not interpret it as an attack or an accusation, as that was not my intent. I just thought that as you had asked for what it was, specifically, that I disagree with, it would make sense for me to give a run-down of exactly which things I took issue with. There are a couple of other things, including many that I've addressed or that others have addressed in previous posts, but this is a pretty good sampling.

If anything I have said in this post or any other has offended you, I apologize, that was not my purpose in writing them. If nothing in these posts applies to you, and I'm simply completely misunderstanding everything you've written, I hope that what I have written will at least be hopeful to some of the lurkers who may be reading this and having questions on these particular topics.

Pandora13x

11-21-2011, 05:07 PM

Well that was just obscenely long now wasn't it... :/ sorry guys, lol

dagillus_ap_owen

11-21-2011, 05:45 PM

I'm actually a male. Still, I thank you very much for posting your thoughts.

Whoopsy, sorry about that brother :lol: "insert foot in mouth here" :wink2:

dagillus_ap_owen

11-21-2011, 05:48 PM

Well that was just obscenely long now wasn't it... :/ sorry guys, lol

It was :lol: but you made your points very clear :cheers:

I just felt the need to say something about how I was perceiving this thread to be going, because to me, it was looking like it was getting into a bad state. But then again, I suppose I could just be acting like a hippie on things :lol: :hippy:

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 06:06 PM

Well that was just obscenely long now wasn't it... :/ sorry guys, lol

Yes, it was indeed obscenely long Pandora. I think it was also obscenely misguided.

I didn't bother to read the entire post in detail because this whole thing is getting totally out of hand.

I would like to address one thing you did post in that mess:

Well when you say things like that you're going to direct anyone who says that you are not Wiccan to this thread, that sort of implies that you view that list as evidence of your "Wiccanness," which kind of implies that you consider it to be a list of defining characteristics of what makes one Wiccan.

Again you're jumping to huge conclusions just to be argumentative.

I was speaking within the context of what was actually happening to me, and simply meant that if someone else points me to a similar list, like what happened to me, then I would point to them this list.

To imply that merely pointing at this list would be what I would do in response to just any situation where someone asks me if I'm Wicca is a gross misrepresentation.

I can't help but think that you've just gone off the deep end here trying to "win" an argument that doesn't even exist.

~~~~

Let Luancie post her thread on what she believes constitutes accepted Wicca rituals.

And just let this thread go.

I didn't come to this web site to be crucified. :hippy:

gabrielle004

11-21-2011, 08:50 PM

I know I'm late to the party, but I just have to respond to this:

Yes, it was indeed obscenely long Pandora. I think it was also obscenely misguided.

I didn't bother to read the entire post in detail because this whole thing is getting totally out of hand.

I would like to address one thing you did post in that mess:

Again you're jumping to huge conclusions just to be argumentative.

I was speaking within the context of what was actually happening to me, and simply meant that if someone else points me to a similar list, like what happened to me, then I would point to them this list.

To imply that merely pointing at this list would be what I would do in response to just any situation where someone asks me if I'm Wicca is a gross misrepresentation.

I can't help but think that you've just gone off the deep end here trying to "win" an argument that doesn't even exist.

~~~~

Let Luancie post her thread on what she believes constitutes accepted Wicca rituals.

And just let this thread go.

I didn't come to this web site to be crucified. :hippy:

WOW!!!!

Firstly, I do not feel that Pandora was misguided at all. She gave her opinions on direct quotes from which you have written. Secondly, maybe if you would have taken the time to read her post you would have understood where she and others are coming from.

Thirdly, what's the point with Lunacie creating a thread about Wiccan structure, because I'm sure you'll be waiting to put out how it's her opinion and not necessarily what you/everyone else practices. Basically, her creating the thread solves absolutely nothing besides making you feel like you have the upper hand when you state the obvious, which is that you do not feel that it's the definitive guide for Wiccans.

Lunacie wrote:
Wicca doesn't have to be followed exactly as set out by Gerald Gardner, but if what a person is doing doesn't bear much resemblance to Gardner's group did, how would it be accurate to call it Wicca?

Please note the word I used was "accurate", not the "one true way." The definition of "accurate" that I'm using is "consistent with a standard or model."

This really isn't on topic for this thread though. Maybe I need to start a thread discussing Wiccan ritual structure - why certain things are done in Wiccan rituals, and why they are done in a particular order. There are no hard and fast "rules" about Wiccan structure, but when we understand why these things are part of the rituals it can deepen our spiritual connection when we do rituals.

To which you wrote:
I think that's a great idea. In fact I had suggested this very thing from the very beginning.

Otherwise it just appears as though everyone is arguing with me personally.

Start a thread on the topic and see what other people think of what you have to say.

I may or may not be in agreement with your views on precisely how you think things need to be structured. But at least in a thread like that I could give my views without feeling like I'm being personally attacked.

I feel like the bolded section is missing the point. Lunacie did not say that she was going to create a thread telling everyone about the right way of Wiccan ritual structure, but that if your practice doesn't resemble Gardner's what's the sense in calling in Wicca? And since Wicca is focused on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, than it makes sense that your ritual structure should be similar to Gardner's.

Abracadabra

11-21-2011, 09:44 PM

Thirdly, what's the point with Lunacie creating a thread about Wiccan structure, because I'm sure you'll be waiting to put out how it's her opinion and not necessarily what you/everyone else practices. Basically, her creating the thread solves absolutely nothing besides making you feel like you have the upper hand when you state the obvious, which is that you do not feel that it's the definitive guide for Wiccans.

It was never my intent or goal to tell anyone how they should follow Wicca.

I have not attacked Lunacie in any way shape or form.

She's the one who suggested in my "Welcome Thread" that my views of Wicca don't appear to be in line with what Wicca is supposed to be about.

I suggested then, and I continue to suggest, that she simply doesn't know enough about my views to even make such a statement.

Rather than accepting this, she persisted to argue that she feels that something is lacking in my understanding of Wicca.

I said, "Fine. Could you be more specific?"

That led to people pointing to lists the describe what is basically involved in Wicca. I looked over those lists and stated again, "I don't see where my views of Wicca are in conflict with anything on these lists"

I'm still waiting for some specific charge to be made.

If Lunacie does start a thread describing what she feels is required for Wicca. I'll be glad to take a look at it and offer my views concerning what I personally agree with, and what I might object to.

My only purpose in the whole matter would be to simply communicate my own personal views.

I'm in no way attempting to define what Wicca should be.

I have never taken that stance, nor would I care to.

I'm not attacking anyone.

It's truly a shame that this whole mirage had ever gotten started in the first place. All I intended to do was say "Hi" to everyone and move forward.

It was never my intent to have to defend my views of Wicca or challenge anyone else's views.

I'm in complete agreement with the Council of Witches.

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

I have no need to argue debates about the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions, neither with other Wiccans, nor anyone else.

~~~~

I am not accusing anyone of practicing Wicca incorrectly.

Can we all recognize this please?

I am not the villain here.

Perhaps there are no villains here. I'm more than willing to chalk the whole thing up to a gross misunderstanding which is precisely what I suggested from the get go.

Why is it so hard for people to accept this?

I thought witches believed in Merry Meet and Merry Part.

Where is all this animosity coming from?

All I did was try to say, "Hi".

Sheesh!

Vigdisdotter

11-21-2011, 10:29 PM

She's the one who suggested in my "Welcome Thread" that my views of Wicca don't appear to be in line with what Wicca is supposed to be about.

I suggested then, and I continue to suggest, that she simply doesn't know enough about my views to even make such a statement.

This is a message board. The only means of communication we have here is the word posted. So people WILL form their ideas and understandings based on what you post. For that reason it's YOUR responsibility to post the appropriate information to give your preferred impression. No one can do that for you and we aren't mind readers.

Rather than accepting this, she persisted to argue that she feels that something is lacking in my understanding of Wicca.

Why are you surprised? You posted on public discussion board. Anyone who wants to can comment on your statements. Nor are opinions sacred cows; they can and should be questioned. Especially when it involve claims that seem to contradict the evidence in the thread.

I looked over those lists and stated again, "I don't see where my views of Wicca are in conflict with anything on these lists"

Again, we aren't mind readers. It's up to you to point out what you do and don't believe/practice.

I'm still waiting for some specific charge to be made.

I've seen more then a few in this thread alone. I haven't even looked at your introduction thread.

My only purpose in the whole matter would be to simply communicate my own personal views.

Nothing wrong with that. But nothing says others have to agree with you.

I'm in no way attempting to define what Wicca should be.

Actually you are. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim to be Wiccan at all.

I'm not attacking anyone.

That's debatable given your wording choices such as "obscenely misguided."

I'm in complete agreement with the Council of Witches.

I'm not. In fact the first time I read that years ago, I rolled my eyes.

Why is it so hard for people to accept this?

It's not. And people have been showing you what they've been reading and how they've been reading it. Its' up to you to explain and correct if their impressions are in error.

I thought witches believed in Merry Meet and Merry Part.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Where is all this animosity coming from?

What animosity? I just see people wanting to engage you in a discussion of your assorted statements. You on the other hand are becoming rather defensive and seem quite determined to avoid any such thing.

Pandora13x

11-21-2011, 10:59 PM

Yes, it was indeed obscenely long Pandora. I think it was also obscenely misguided.

I didn't bother to read the entire post in detail because this whole thing is getting totally out of hand.

But... how could you know that if you didn't read the post? I mean, I'm not saying it wasn't misguided. Obviously I don't think it was, or I wouldn't have posted it, but I can admit that I have a bit of a bias, as it's my own post we're talking about here.

I mean it's fine that you didn't read it, as it was quite long, but if you didn't read it, doesn't it seem a bit silly to make statements about it?

I would like to address one thing you did post in that mess:

Well that seems a bit rude. My post was very very long, yes (it had to be for me to go point by point to answer your question as to what specifically I disagreed with, and I didn't want to skip the quotes and risk misrepresenting what you've said), but I thought it was pretty well organized all the same :]

Anyway, on to your actual point:

Again you're jumping to huge conclusions just to be argumentative.

I explained where I thought the implication came from, and I said it was an implication, not something you had explicitly said. That suggests that you might not have meant it that way, and that that was simply how it came across.

And aren't you jumping to a bit of a conclusion when you say that I wrote that to be argumentative?

I put quite a bit of time and thought into figuring out exactly what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. If you look at the bottom of the obscenely long post, you might notice that I said that if none of what I wrote applied to you and I was just completely misunderstanding you, that I apologize, and that I hope that my posts will at least be helpful to any lurkers who may be reading this who may be confused about these topics.

I was speaking within the context of what was actually happening to me, and simply meant that if someone else points me to a similar list, like what happened to me, then I would point to them this list.

To imply that merely pointing at this list would be what I would do in response to just any situation where someone asks me if I'm Wicca is a gross misrepresentation.

Your exact words were:

So now I have a basis to work from. If anyone questions my "Wiccan Beliefs" again, I'll just offer them these thirteen principles, and say that this pretty much sums it up. If they care to argue at that point they can argue with the authors of these thirteen princples.

It is this post to which I was responding, and based upon this post I made my comment. I honestly don't know how else I could interpret this other than how I did. Perhaps you would be willing to explain what you actually meant by this, if you feel that my interpretation was inadequate?

Look, no one here is trying to attack you. This is a discussion forum, and part of discussion is talking about the kinds of things we've been talking about in these threads. It's not an attack, it's a conversation. It's not bigotry, it's simply a request for the reasonable usage of terms. People here tend to be pretty flexible when it comes to Wicca, but that doesn't mean there aren't boundaries, and that at some point it becomes nonsensical to call a path "Wicca." It's just a matter of keeping words useful.

Pandora13x

11-21-2011, 11:03 PM

I'm still waiting for some specific charge to be made.

I wouldn't call them "charges," but the entire point of my obscenely long post was giving a play-by-play of what you said (the quoted parts) and why I disagreed with it (the me parts).

If you want to see the specific issues I take with what you've posted, feel free to go back to that post, look at a chunk in the middle-ish to end portion, pick something of yours that I've quoted and read the following response. You don't even have to read the whole post :]

Alexandria

11-21-2011, 11:16 PM

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 12:14 AM

What animosity? I just see people wanting to engage you in a discussion of your assorted statements. You on the other hand are becoming rather defensive and seem quite determined to avoid any such thing.

I have no problem engaging anyone in discussion on anything.

But it becomes quite difficult to handle the volume of discussions when everyone is jumping on every little thing I say (even when it was said to other people)

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Mab said hello to me in my Welcome thread.

So I responded to her self-introduction in a polite and friendly way.

Now Pandora is using that as ammunition to toss in my face:

So anyway, it's nice to meet another self-initiated solitary witch.

Merry Meet. :cheers:

By my understanding of the definition of the word "initiation," I'm not sure it makes sense to say that someone is "self-initiated." I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that initiation requires the involvement of others. Perhaps someone with more experience in initiations will step in to correct me if I am wrong? "Self-dedicated," on the other hand, is a term I see no problem with.

Hey, I have no problem at all addressing people's concerns about misunderstandings, or things that they are unclear about. But this isn't happening in a nice friendly way. On the contrary just look at the posts in this thread. People's posts are starting to contain countless quotes from me, voicing all sort of objections to every little thing I say.

Is that the NORM for this forum Vigdisdotter?

I seriously doubt it.

Seems like animosity to me.

So anyway, I would like to address this one issue that Pandora brought up.

I agree that the term "self-initiation" sounds a bit strange as a term. But it does make sense as used by Scott Cunningham. He rejects the idea that a human is required for initiation into Wicca. It's his view that only the God and Goddess can initiate someone into Wicca.

Is that "self-initiation", well, in a sense it is. A person took it upon themselves to go to the God and Goddess in a ritual of initiation and accepted that the God and Goddess has the power to initiation them into Wicca.

And that is precisely what is meant by self-initiation. It's a perfectly legitimate concept and Scott Cunningham explains his views on this in his book on Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner.

I have no problem explaining my views on any issue.

But being utterly bombarded by endless accusations is ridiculous and certainly not the norm on any forum I've ever been on before.

I have no desire to sit here an explain away everyone's misguided notions concerning every little thing I say, even to other people.

I mean, sure, if someone has a question please feel free to ask.

But if it's going to turn into a frenzy to try to just twist every little thing I say in an attempt to try to trip me up on something, then yes, I would say that equates to animosity.

Absolutely.

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 12:27 AM

I wouldn't call them "charges," but the entire point of my obscenely long post was giving a play-by-play of what you said (the quoted parts) and why I disagreed with it (the me parts).

If you want to see the specific issues I take with what you've posted, feel free to go back to that post, look at a chunk in the middle-ish to end portion, pick something of yours that I've quoted and read the following response. You don't even have to read the whole post :]

Well, I just did that in my previous post to at least one of the concepts that you have "disagreed" with.

It's perfectly fine with me that you hold a different view on the term "Self-initiation". Just the same, I feel quite justified in my use of the term and see no reason why I should stop using it as I have. It's a meaningful term for me.

I could take the time to try to explain why I feel all of your concerns amount to nothing more than misunderstandings (or merely a sensible difference of views) if you feel that's really necessary.

I typically don't require this of other people. I might inquire what they mean by something on occasion, but I don't typically root though a whole lot of their posts challenging their views. Especially not without politely asking them first if they could explain something to me that I don't understand.

That would be the way I would handle that.

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 12:38 AM

It seems several of us have taken the same meaning from that particular passage, about how you would use these if anyone questioned you on being Wiccan again. This isn't the first time that's happened, there are a few examples from the other thread as well.

This is why clear communication is important on forums, what you write is really all we have to go by. If the words you post don't clearly match what you really mean, it's not surprising that it would be a problem.

Well, it's always easy to be misunderstood in print.

I try my best to communicate as best I can. But trying to cover every possible misunderstanding could truly become cumbersome. Words mean different things to different people. Especially in matters of deep philosophy and spirituality.

I would hope that people would ask for clarification about things before jumping to conclusions. And even if they do jump to conclusions, I would hope that they would accept the other person's word on it that they had misunderstood what they meant.

IMHO, it's quite hostile to jump to a conclusion over something someone said, and then refuse to accept their offer that perhaps they were misunderstood.

Gee whiz. Why be so hostile toward someone?

I would grant them the misunderstanding and try to pay closer attention to their explanation. My desire is to communicate with people, not to jump to conclusions about what I thought they might have meant.

Vigdisdotter

11-22-2011, 12:56 AM

I have no problem engaging anyone in discussion on anything.

As the saying goes the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

But it becomes quite difficult to handle the volume of discussions when everyone is jumping on every little thing I say

That's the nice thin about forums, they are still here in a day or two or however long it takes for you to have time to deal with the posts made to you.

Now Pandora is using that as ammunition to toss in my face

Again you make with the pejorative language. This is entirely unnecessary.

Nor is there any reason to think taking things from other threads is something unusual. As I pointed out to you before, this is a text based medium and all we have is words. Drawing from multiple posts/threads is pretty normal as someone tries to build their understanding of you.

Is that the NORM for this forum Vigdisdotter?

Yes. In fact it's been pretty mild compared to some discussions I've seen in here. And honestly, your complaint about it not being nice enough had me rolling my eyes. People who focus on "nice" often use that accusation as a smoke screen as they avoid the points made to them.

I seriously doubt it.

Then I suggest that you read more threads.

Seems like animosity to me.

You can keep saying that til you're blue in the face, but you still don't get to dictate to others what their intent is.

But it does make sense as used by Scott Cunningham.

No it doesn't, since Llewellyn changed "Witchcraft" to "Wicca" because they decided that it would make the book more marketable.

He rejects the idea that a human is required for initiation into Wicca. It's his view that only the God and Goddess can initiate someone into Wicca.

Why would a god or goddess care about a man made religion?

A person took it upon themselves to go to the God and Goddess in a ritual of initiation and accepted that the God and Goddess has the power to initiation them into Wicca.

That logic is both ridiculously twisted and self-serving.

But being utterly bombarded by endless accusations is ridiculous and certainly not the norm on any forum I've ever been on before.

And you're back to playing victim rather then dealing with the points made. Take a look at your post and compare how much time you spent do that to the amount of time given to discussing the topic of the thread.

I have no desire to sit here an explain away everyone's misguided notions concerning every little thing I say, even to other people.

You should have thought of that before deciding to post on a public discussion board.

dagillus_ap_owen

11-22-2011, 01:23 AM

Abra: I understand what everyone else is saying on this thread, and I think I'll give it a shot at presenting said information to you in a very non-threatening manner (at least, that's the idea here :lol:). So, the points that people are making are these:

1. The list that was orignally presented on the first page of this list, titled "Thirteen Principals of Wiccan Belief", was orignally created by the American Coucil of Witches, a group that was actually made up of members of other various pagan paths other than Wicca. This article was written in the 70's, so therefore, given the way things were at that point in time, the article was titled with Wiccan in the title due to the fact that the public was only mainly aware of Wicca as a pagan religion. So, in essence, the article was supposed to explain the most basic tenets of multiple pagan traditions, without going into all the specifics of the different traditions that were represented in the Coucil itself. So, simply put, this was a PR move in order to dispell any misconceptions and fears about paganism that existed at that time.

2. When you stated that if people had questions or misunderstandings about the beliefs of your practice, that you would point them to this list as an explanation of said beliefs. Alexandria then suggest to you that this is a good place to start, but the list in itself does not perfectly describe all that it is to be Wiccan, and that you might want to include some other information to go ALONG with this list in a supplementary form to help further explain what it means to be Wiccan. Now, if you feel that this list explains your particle path well enough, then that is absolutely fine :wink2:. The point that Alexandria was making is that this list doesn't cover Wiccan ritual style, so therefore, it doesn't 100% explain what Wiccans do. So, my suggestion is to provide information that also explains Wiccan ritual.

3. Another point that was made, was that the rituals you perform must bear some semblence to the commonly accepted ritual format in Wicca in order to actually call your path a Wiccan one. Now, when it comes to this point, I'm afraid that I must agree. I am in no way attacking your personal path/tradition in any way, I'm just saying that in order for your path to be a Wiccan one, the rituals that you perform must bear some semblence to those of what Gardner orignally designed and implemented within the Wiccan tradition. So, if you lack knowledge of Wiccan ritual structure and how it works, I would be more than happy to provide you with the names of some books that could give you this information in a very clear, and understandable way :thumbsup2:

4. This is purely coming from myself here, but I would just like you to know that this thread is not the norm for this forum. Things have just gotten a bit overly heated and many, many misunderstandings have been made by all. So, really, no one's to blame, and so there's no harm no foul :cheers:.

So, Abra, I hope I have presented all of this in a more pleasing manner than what it may have been before. I'm just trying to help you understand what others have been saying, and to hopefully quell any further misunderstandings and grievances by anyone else on this particular thread. From one pagan man to another, may you Blessed Be :b1:, and please continue to :rockon: :wink2:

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 01:53 AM

So, Abra, I hope I have presented all of this in a more pleasing manner than what it may have been before. I'm just trying to help you understand what others have been saying, and to hopefully quell any further misunderstandings and grievances by anyone else on this particular thread. From one pagan man to another, may you Blessed Be :b1:, and please continue to :rockon: :wink2:

I thank you very much dagillus for your warm and loving post. :cheers:

For whatever it's worth, there are no harsh feelings at my end, nor have there ever been. Frustration perhaps, but certainly no harsh feelings.

Yes, I'm well aware that the Witches council's list doesn't include detailed descriptions of specific rituals and practices. I was thinking more in terms of core beliefs. I guess a large part of the misunderstandings are indeed due to my own perspective on things, and stem from places I've been in my journey prior to coming here (i.e. courses on world religions and spiritual philosophies)

I guess I can't expect other people to be on that same page.

My apologies to everyone, especially innocent by-readers who may have suffered emotional collateral damage from having read this thread.

Thank you again for your very pleasant and thoughtful post.

Alexandria

11-22-2011, 01:54 AM

I would hope that people would ask for clarification about things before jumping to conclusions.

The problem is, when you say something that's pretty straight forward, no one is going to think they need to ask for clarification. Could you imagine how slow and repetitive conversation would be if we had to stop and double check everything someone says?

Here's an example of something that appeared quite straight forward to a few of us -
So now I have a basis to work from. If anyone questions my "Wiccan Beliefs" again, I'll just offer them these thirteen principles, and say that this pretty much sums it up. If they care to argue at that point they can argue with the authors of these thirteen princples.
Do you understand why people would think you mean you'd only be pointing to this single list to show why you're Wiccan? It is exactly what you are saying.

The second problem is, you didn't actually bother to correct this misunderstanding until post #46, despite the matter being brought up several times. Instead of immediately correcting me, and clarifying what you meant, you went off on an unrelated rant about me giving you hell - without ever actually addressing the points I was trying to make.

It's not up to us to stop and seek clarification over every last thing, because that's just not how conversations work. Yes, if something is unclear that's the best course of action, but the problem is the things you say do not seem unclear. It is up to you to clarify when someone misunderstands you. I've seen you do this with a few things (although a bit vaguely at times), but then other issues like the one above are left sitting far too long.

Pandora13x

11-22-2011, 02:07 AM

Yes, I'm well aware that the Witches council's list doesn't include detailed descriptions of specific rituals and practices. I was thinking more in terms of core beliefs. I guess a large part of the misunderstandings are indeed due to my own perspective on things, and stem from places I've been in my journey prior to coming here (i.e. courses on world religions and spiritual philosophies)

Aah, see therein lies the problem.

Wicca is an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy like a lot of other religions, including Christianity.

In an orthopraxic religion, it is not so much the beliefs that make up the core of the religion (though I believe Wicca does have some core beliefs), but rather the specific practices.

So the specific ritual structure and practices are as important to Wicca as the specific beliefs are to Christianity, as I understand it. So while there might still be some flexibility, ultimately the practices need to bear a certain level of resemblance to the original core practices in order for it to still be Wicca

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 02:25 AM

Here's an example of something that appeared quite straight forward to a few of us -
So now I have a basis to work from. If anyone questions my "Wiccan Beliefs" again, I'll just offer them these thirteen principles, and say that this pretty much sums it up. If they care to argue at that point they can argue with the authors of these thirteen princples.

Do you understand why people would think you mean you'd only be pointing to this single list to show why you're Wiccan? It is exactly what you are saying.

Well, I would say that what you have just stated here is just continued misunderstanding.

You have told me that I need to say precisely what I mean if I expect people to understand me. Well, I'll try really hard in this post to achieve that goal. But it may take quite a bit of explanation to do this. I hope I can do this in a way that will finally make things clear.

To begin, I was referring to "Wiccan Beliefs",... and not to specific Wiccan practices, and rituals.

From my perspective these Thirteen Principles, do pretty much sum up the core Wiccan beliefs sufficiently enough to convey to someone a really good idea of what I mean by Wiccan beliefs.

The fact that these core beliefs don't get into every single last detail of what constitutes Wicca practice, is irrelevant, IMHO.

It was never my intent to point to these 13 Principles and say, "There, that sums up Wicca in it's totality".

I mean, gee whiz, I would need to be truly ignorant of Wicca to believe that.

Surely people aren't assuming that I'm that clueless about Wicca?

So, no, it's not realistic for me to assume that this is what people would think I meant.

That's precisely the kind of incorrect conclusion I'm talking about that is so far removed from my intent that I can't even identified with it, much less take responsibility for it.

I'm thinking in terms of core beliefs.

Not in terms of the infinite details.

~~~~~

I mean let's compare this with Christianity just because that's another quite popular religion that most people have some knowledge of.

If I pointed to an article the described the following I personally think this would be sufficient to convey the core beliefs of Christianity.

1. A God created planet Earth and mankind
2. Mankind fell from grace from this God via his disobedience
3. All men are in need of salvation and need to seek repentance
4. God sent his only begotten son to offer mankind a way to salvation
5. Jesus is the only begotten son of God and offers salvation through grace
6. Jesus offers the gift of eternal life if his grace is accepted
7. Failure to accept the grace offered by Jesus will result in spiritual death
8. There is no other way to receive God's grace

I mean, that's a crude short list, not nearly as well thought-out as witches council's list. But it conveys the basic general idea.

So I would be happy pointing someone to this list as the basic core beliefs of Christianity.

What's going on here would be the like Christians saying, "Oh no! There's a whole lot more to it than that. There are tons of details missing from this list! You're leaving out Satan, and angels, and you haven't mentioned the resurrection, or the crucifixion, blah, blah, blah,... "

Well, sure there are a lot of details missing. But that was never my point. My point was that it's sufficient to convey the core idea of the belief.

And that's basically the same thing I'm talking about here.

It was never my intent that pointing to this list would be sufficient to explain to someone precisely what Wicca is all about in precise detail.

I never even remotely meant that.

So if that's what people were assuming then, yes, there were gross misunderstandings in what I meant.

And if they're still thinking that way, then they are still misunderstanding.

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 02:38 AM

Aah, see therein lies the problem.

Wicca is an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy like a lot of other religions, including Christianity.

In an orthopraxic religion, it is not so much the beliefs that make up the core of the religion (though I believe Wicca does have some core beliefs), but rather the specific practices.

So the specific ritual structure and practices are as important to Wicca as the specific beliefs are to Christianity, as I understand it. So while there might still be some flexibility, ultimately the practices need to bear a certain level of resemblance to the original core practices in order for it to still be Wicca

Ok, you make a very good point Pandora.

And I do agree with your point on this completely.

This is the same way as in Buddhism. It's not so much about the beliefs, but rather it's about the actual practice of the rituals.

~~~~~

But before we go down that road allow me to point out that what caused us to come in here in the first place was because it had been suggested that my beliefs may not be compatible with Wicca.

After all, who could possibly question my actual rituals or practice without knowing anything about me?

~~~~~

But yes I'm totally in agreement with your views on this. Absolutely. :cheers:

~~~~

Wicca has a lot of commonality with various Eastern Mystical practices in this regard. It's not so much about 'belief'. It's far more about a way of life.

I absolutely agree with that for sure! :cheers:

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 02:56 AM

While we're speaking to the issue of Wicca being a religoin that is more about practice than it is about beliefs, I'd like to point out that this is actually covered in the 13 principles.

1. We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the Phases of the Moon and Seasonal Quarters and Cross-Quarters.

"We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces"

It's stated right there.

2. We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and conciousness within an evolutionary concept.

"We seek to live in harmony with Nature".

They didn't overlook these things in these basic principles. This concepts are clearly included this document.

8. Calling oneself a "Witch" does not make a Witch-but neither does heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees, and initiations. Witches seek to control the forces within themselves that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.

"Witches seek to control the forces within themselves"

This requires dedication, meditation, etc. It's a practice. This is covered in these basic principles.

9. We acknowledge that it is the affirmation and fulfillment of life, in a continuation of evolution and development of conciousness, that gives meaning to the Universe we know, and to our personal role within it.

Again, there wouldn't be much sense in believing this if a person didn't intend on also acting upon it. (i.e. constantly strive to evolve and develope their own consciousness)

So I would hold that these general characteristic of Wicca are in these 13 principles.

13. We acknowledge that we seek within Nature for that which is contributory to our health and well-being.

Even this last one implies an active seeking for that which contribues to health and well-being.

So these 13 principles of "belief" actually express the importance of active participation in practices and rituals toward these goals.

Is it really necessary to describe what practices are specifically required in order to understand the core idea?

I personally think these 13 principles have things pretty well covered.

These important aspects of Wicca haven't gone unrecognized in this document.

Pandora13x

11-22-2011, 03:20 AM

But before we go down that road allow me to point out that what caused us to come in here in the first place was because it had been suggested that my beliefs may not be compatible with Wicca.

After all, who could possibly question my actual rituals or practice without knowing anything about me?

Well I could be wrong, but I think the suggestion being made was that your path might not be compatible with Wicca. Not that your path wasn't compatible, just that it might not be.

And I know that my personal concern was with statements you made, not about beliefs or practices, but about Wicca and your study habits (particularly a later post where you said that you haven't read many books on Wicca, and where you said that you saw no reason to look at sources that didn't support your innate beliefs - probably fine if you're talking about your personal path, but to me it doesn't really make sense when we're talking about established definitions and religions).

Based on what you said, it seemed unlikely to me that you could have a solid enough base in Wicca to determine whether your path fit in with it.

Now, it's entirely possible that I was mistaken in that, but unfortunately all I have to go by is what you say here, and as you mention, you haven't said anything about your particular practices (which obviously you are not required to do), and so all I can go by is what you say on other topics. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from, and that none of posts have been intended as attacks. I simply wanted to address the things that I took issue with, particularly after you asked what specifically I disagreed with.

So these 13 principles of "belief" actually express the importance of active participation in practices and rituals toward these goals.

Is it really necessary to describe what practices are specifically required in order to understand the core idea?

Well, yeah. I mean, at least in my opinion, it isn't really enough just to say that there are practices. A lot of non-Wiccan witches "practice rites to attune themselves with the natural rhythm life forces" and "seek to live in harmony with nature" and "seek to control the forces within themselves" and all the rest.

So, yes these may be practices in a general sense, but it is not just the incorporation of practices, or even the fact that practices make up the core, but rather it's the specific practices, and the specific ways these more general practices are gone about. Wicca is an orthopraxy, but not the orthopraxy, if that makes any sense.

Again, not an attack, just trying to clarify my position on this particular topic.

Alexandria

11-22-2011, 11:13 AM

I mean, gee whiz, I would need to be truly ignorant of Wicca to believe that.

Surely people aren't assuming that I'm that clueless about Wicca?

Well now, that's the problem isn't it? See we don't know how much or little you actually know about Wicca - once again, we can only go by what you post.

So what have we seen you posting? You've given poor definitions such as Wicca being "anyone who uses witchcraft in a positive spiritual way." (Following it up with saying you only wish to be associated with the term through such an abstract meaning). When I asked you about books and sources you've used to study Wicca, you said you didn't feel you needed to look to Wiccan sources to learn about Wicca (and only after I asked you multiple times)... then ignored my follow up comment on why that didn't make sense.

I mean, I could go on pretty easily, but my post would be very similar to Pandora's earlier list (post #42). You know, the post that you literally asked for, but only ignored and insulted? Perhaps instead of that, you could have read it, and understood why people are getting the picture that they are.

That's precisely the kind of incorrect conclusion I'm talking about that is so far removed from my intent that I can't even identified with it, much less take responsibility for it.

Multiple people have "jumped to the same conclusion" about several of your posts, posts you wrote, but of course you're not responsible at all. That makes sense.

Look, I get that you feel we're misunderstanding what you write, to the extent it seems truly foreign to you. However, again it is your responsibility to make clear posts that accurately reflect your intent. It is your responsibility to clear up misunderstandings when they do happen, rather than ignoring it and just calling everyone misguided.

I'm thinking in terms of core beliefs.
Not in terms of the infinite details.

Basic ritual structure isn't really an 'infinite detail,' it's a core issue. I see the beliefs vs. practice issue you raised, I can even see where you're coming from and how it could lead to misunderstanding -- but since Wicca is orthopraxic I really think such things are quite necessary to mention in a list of "beliefs."

"We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces"

It's stated right there.

Well, again, the issue is it's just too vague. I do all three of those things, but I am not a Wiccan. For the most part they could have been written to be more specific to Wicca, without going into a huge amount of detail... but they weren't.
Although, the first is clearly speaking of the holidays Wiccans celebrate, not how they structure their rituals - no mention of circle casting, for example, so it's not really a support of showing ritual structure.

Is it really necessary to describe what practices are specifically required in order to understand the core idea?

In an orthopraxic religion where those practices are the core? Yes.

Lunacie

11-22-2011, 01:52 PM

Ok, you make a very good point Pandora.

And I do agree with your point on this completely.

This is the same way as in Buddhism. It's not so much about the beliefs, but rather it's about the actual practice of the rituals.

~~~~~

But before we go down that road allow me to point out that what caused us to come in here in the first place was because it had been suggested that my beliefs may not be compatible with Wicca.

After all, who could possibly question my actual rituals or practice without knowing anything about me?

~~~~~

But yes I'm totally in agreement with your views on this. Absolutely. :cheers:

~~~~

Wicca has a lot of commonality with various Eastern Mystical practices in this regard. It's not so much about 'belief'. It's far more about a way of life.

I absolutely agree with that for sure! :cheers:

Let me remind you of what caused me to question whether your beliefs were similar to Wiccan beliefs ... you rejected the idea of dogma completely and said what attracted you to Wicca was the lack of dogma.

Dogma is a set of beliefs held in common by those who follow a religion. Wicca has a dogma - dogma doesn't have to mean "rigid and unyielding."

Do you see why I'm confuzzled - first you say that you reject a common set of beliefs in Wicca, and reject that it can even be called a "religion", then you say this set of beliefs is nearly identical to your own. :confused:

PS I'm working on a thread on ritual structure but spent the morning at a surgery care center (my granddaughter had surgery) and I need to go grocery shopping. I haven't forgotten.

Nevah

11-22-2011, 02:49 PM

Thank you for the information, Silvermoon. That list was helpful, complete or not.

Just an observation: No list will ever be complete concerning Wicca. There is just too much openness in the religion (and Wiccans keep learning throughout their lives) for everything to ever be included in even an exhaustive list, let alone an introductory one.

I could be wrong, since I'm not Wiccan.

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 02:49 PM

In an orthopraxic religion where those practices are the core? Yes.

I see the problem entirely now. And yes it is indeed a gross misunderstanding to be sure.

If I were to list three possible religions as follows, would you say that the words on this list are fair in their usage?

Buddhism
Wicca
Christianity
Islam
Judaism

Would you feel that the term "Wicca" is not out of place on that list?

Is so, then we're almost there:

~~~~

To say that you are a Buddhist, is pretty meaningless in terms of specifics. The Buddhisms too are deeply orthopraxic and there are many different types of Buddhism. In fact, I'm hoping to make a post on that in the Buddhism forum some time.

So to say that I'm a Buddhist doesn't convey anything too specific. However anyone who's into Buddhism knows what I mean, they also realize that I could practice any number of specific Buddhism rituals and/or practices.

None the less, they understand the core philosophy and therefore they recognize that whatever practices and rituals I participate in, those rituals and practices will obviously be designed to strive toward achieving the goals of the core philosophy.

And trust me, Buddhism is as diverse as Christian Protestantism. All Christians are trying to please the God of Abraham and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, but they all have different ideas of precisely what that entails.

In fact, at one time Buddhism became quite diverse (like Christian Protestantism), and this became troublesome in a social way because people were indeed starting to argue over what Buddhism even means.

Thus Mahayana Buddhism was born. The term Mahayana meaning "The Great Vehicle". The goal of Mahayana Buddhism was to exam the core philosophy of all of the diverse factions of Buddhism and reduce them to a single form of Buddhism that recognizes all of the different rituals and practices as striving for the same goal. In other words, the Mahayana Buddhists said, "Yes, Buddhism is highly orthopraxic but let's not get side-tracked by the practices, it's the core philosophy that's truly important. The practices are simply a means of trying to live the core philosophy.

Mistaking the practices for the core philosophy is the wrong approach, so proclaimed the Mahayana Buddhists. Mahayana Buddhism achieved it's goal and did manage to convince many Buddhists to stop quibbling about the rituals and practices and start recognizing the core philosophy.

~~~~

I could make similar parallels with Christianity and it's multitude of various denominations, all striving to satisfy a core philosophy or core belief, but approaching it in different ways. Unfortunately there was a successful movement like Mahayana Buddhism to unite all these different protesting protestants. Catholicism was the attempt to unify Christianity at the very beginning and the Protestants protested against that approach, so the whole religion has been going downhill with no salvation in sight.

(just a personal view there, by the way)

~~~~

So now let's get back to Wicca.

I view Wicca as a major world religion in the same way I view Christianity or Buddhism. It has a core philosophy.

Sure, just like Buddhism that core philosophy requires that rituals are practiced to achieve that goals of the core philosophy. However, to focus solely on the rituals is to lose sight of the core philosophy.

Especially when it starts to deteriorate into specific denominations that proclaim that only their way of doing rituals is correct.

~~~~~

So that's where I'm coming from.

I'm coming from the Big Picture of Core Philosophy.

I feel that the 13 principles given by the witches council actually covers the core philosophy of Wicca.

Is it necessary to go into the precise detail of exactly how all these rituals are performed in order to convey to someone that you are a "Wiccan"?

I personally don't think so.

That would be more akin to trying describe why you are a Southern Baptist, or an Amish, or maybe a Zen Buddhist as opposed to a Tantra Buddhist.

~~~~

Are you people viewing Wicca as merely a single denomination of Witches? That has specific practices which must be adhered to in order to satisfy the Wiccan denomination of Witches?

It certainly does appear that this is where things are headed.

~~~~

I guess that I not only don't view Wicca in that way, but I wouldn't even care to support that view at all.

You say:

When I asked you about books and sources you've used to study Wicca, you said you didn't feel you needed to look to Wiccan sources to learn about Wicca (and only after I asked you multiple times)... then ignored my follow up comment on why that didn't make sense.

Well, I do apologize for not responding to every issues you raise in the depth that you would like. You need to understand that from my perspective I was being "bombarded" by quite a few other posts that were also asking me to address multiple issues simultaneously.

I have limitations here. Talking on this forum isn't my greatest priority in life either. I never expected to become engaged in such a lively debate right off the bat here. So you'll have to excuse me if I wasn't exactly prepared for this kind of thing. When I first sign on I was thinking that I'd just stroll through the forums meeting people on a fairly one-on-one basis exchanging specific thoughts on specific ideas.

I had no idea I was going to become involved in a major debate concerning the very meaning of Wicca itself.

In response to your concerns about reading books specifically on "Wicca", I apologize if my responses were less then well-thought out.

My point on that issues is YES I do indeed selectively chose what I find interesting to read concerning views on Wicca.

This is why I chose to read books by people like Scott Cunningham and Christopher Penczak, rather than books where the authors proclaim to have the "True Wiccan Way".

I don't buy into that kind of thinking from the get go.

Sure, you can read those kinds of books and accept the things those authors have to say. But in the end, all you are doing is choosing to read books that support a vision of Wicca that you would like it to become.

This would be like a Protestant choosing to ignore Catholicism because the Protestant doesn't view Catholicism to be "True Christianity". They are choosing to define what "Christianity" means to them by choosing what sources they will read and align themselves with.

~~~~

After having studying the history of Buddhism, I come into Wicca with a different mindset. I'm far more interested in the Core Philosophy, than I am in proclamations that Wicca must be this or that in terms of specific details.

~~~~

So perhaps that's how I should begin to state it.

I should state to people, "I'm a Wiccan in terms of core philosophy and beliefs, but I may not be in harmony with how particular other Wiccans practice those core principles".

I should copy and paste that sentence into my BOS and use it as my standard reply to questions concerning whether or not I'm a "Wiccan".

Then, after having made that statement it would indeed make sense for me to point to the 13 principles of Wiccan Belief, and say, here's a basic outline of the core principles of Wicca.

~~~~

Then if they want to ask, "Well, how to achieve all these goals? What rituals to you practice to become in harmony with nature, and to improve your health and well-being, and evolve your consciousness? And how do you define, and perform magick?"

Then I can explain how I personally go about these objectives.

It makes sense to me to communicate things in this way.

Then people will have a basic idea of the Core Philosophy, and will be better prepared to understand why I perform the practices, rituals, and magick that I do.

They might also better understand why it's totally unimportant to me whether other 'Wiccans' are performing the precise same rituals that I perform.

In short, I take a Mahayana Buddhist's view of Wicca, in a sense.

I have no need to try to convince anyone else to take this view. If someone else has very specific practices and rituals that they associate with being Wiccan, more power to them. :cheers:

Please note that I have never, at any time, suggested how anyone else should practice or view Wicca. All I've done is try to convey how I view it.

:circle:

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 03:04 PM

PS I'm working on a thread on ritual structure but spent the morning at a surgery care center (my granddaughter had surgery) and I need to go grocery shopping. I haven't forgotten.

I certainly hope everything is ok with your granddaughter.

Please do not feel obligated to respond to my thoughts and views on Wicca.

I certainly hope that you aren't starting that thread specifically on my account. You had previously suggested that you felt this was a topic that needed attention in general, so the work you will be doing will be for Wicca as a whole, and certainly have nothing to do with me specifically, I hope.

Also, you might want to read my previous very lengthy reply to Alexandria. I apologize for the length of that post, but I felt it was necessary to convey my views. I also didn't have time to edit it and whittle it down. :)

Lunacie

11-22-2011, 03:52 PM

I certainly hope everything is ok with your granddaughter.

Please do not feel obligated to respond to my thoughts and views on Wicca.

I certainly hope that you aren't starting that thread specifically on my account. You had previously suggested that you felt this was a topic that needed attention in general, so the work you will be doing will be for Wicca as a whole, and certainly have nothing to do with me specifically, I hope.

Also, you might want to read my previous very lengthy reply to Alexandria. I apologize for the length of that post, but I felt it was necessary to convey my views. I also didn't have time to edit it and whittle it down. :)

My granddaughter had her tonsils and adenoids removed this morning - but since she is hypo-sensitive (Autistic) she doesn't seem to be feeling any pain.

re: ritual structure discussion
I thought it would be interesting to have a thread discussing the variations that can occur even when following a very similar outline or structure during rituals, and perhaps share the ritual our group does for Esbats - ask how others have done those things, and discuss the reasons for doing them - as well as for doing them in a particular order.

[purifying your space, casting a circle, calling the Elemental Quarters, calling the Gods, celebrating a holiday or moon phase, raising energy for spell work, doing meditation to commune with the Gods, doing the Great Rite, sharing Cakes and Ale, thanking the Gods, releasing the powers called, and dismantling your circle]

For instance, some call on the Archangels when calling the quarters, some call on the elements themselves, and some call on creatures that are representative of those elements (eagle, salamander, sylph, mole).

I agree that focusing solely on the rituals (orthopraxy) is not a balanced way of practicing Wicca. It certainly should include the beliefs (orthodoxy).

To answer the question you asked in your response to Alexandria, I think that Wicca certainly belongs on that list. But I'm still confused about your opinion - do you think Wicca is out of place on that list? If so, why?

If you don't think it's out of place, why did you post earlier that you don't consider Wicca to be a religion?

Alexandria

11-22-2011, 04:05 PM

Mistaking the practices for the core philosophy is the wrong approach, so proclaimed the Mahayana Buddhists. Mahayana Buddhism achieved it's goal and did manage to convince many Buddhists to stop quibbling about the rituals and practices and start recognizing the core philosophy.

I view Wicca as a major world religion in the same way I view Christianity or Buddhism. It has a core philosophy.
--
Are you people viewing Wicca as merely a single denomination of Witches? That has specific practices which must be adhered to in order to satisfy the Wiccan denomination of Witches?

I view Wicca as one pagan religion among many. I further accept that there are many different traditions of Wicca (such as Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Dianic, Seax and others), and yes I am even accepting of eclectic and solitary Wiccans. As far as witchcraft goes, yes, many Wiccans also identify as witches -- but Wiccan witchcraft is far from the only form of witchcraft that is practiced. So in that sense, Wiccan witches are but one group of witches.

Now, there are obviously going to be some differences between the various traditions of Wicca - otherwise, they would not be a need for different traditions, yes?

The thing is, there are certain things which bind all these Wiccans together. Things that make them Wiccan, even if they are of different traditions. One of those things is a shared ritual structure. Yes, sometimes the little details of the ritual structure may differ from group to group, individual to individual, but the core of the ritual structure is always still there. Without it, one is not following a Wiccan practice. It may be similar to Wicca, or Wiccan influenced, but that does not make it Wiccan.

To try to reduce Wicca down to a few philosophies and beliefs and not include the shared ritual structure would be leaving out a very important part of what makes Wicca - all Wicca - what it is. This is why Wicca is an orthopraxy and not an orthodoxy. Removing the shared core practices removes part of the core of Wicca. The core is what makes Wicca what it is. The core is not only belief, but practice as well.

In this your comparison to Buddhism falls flat. Wicca can not be reduced down to a core philosophy that includes nothing of practice, because the shared practice is at the very heart of Wicca. To remove it is to no longer have Wicca.

It is not a matter of having one true Wiccan way - again, there are many variants to be found in belief and practice among the different traditions of Wicca. There is still the shared foundation, the core, that is worked from.

To look at these 13 things and ignore the shared ritual structure, and other core practices/beliefs that are not included in the 13, does not make one a Wiccan. The 13 principles are too vague for that, as they could easily apply to any number of pagans or witches. There must be more, both in practice and philosophy for it to be Wicca.

Edit to add: Ah, now this is a good example of what I'm trying to say in regard to ritual.
For instance, some call on the Archangels when calling the quarters, some call on the elements themselves, and some call on creatures that are representative of those elements (eagle, salamander, sylph, mole).

Different ways to call the quarters - but the ritual will still involve calling them. It's not about filling in the little details, it's about adhering to the core structure.

Not just in ritual, but in other areas of Wicca as well. Much room for individual little details, but still adhering to the core. Sometimes a bit of the core gets cut away, but to remove too much of the core and you no longer have Wicca.

Abracadabra

11-22-2011, 05:39 PM

To try to reduce Wicca down to a few philosophies and beliefs and not include the shared ritual structure would be leaving out a very important part of what makes Wicca - all Wicca - what it is.

It was never my intent to reduce anything.

On the contrary my intent was to convey a more embracing abstract view and merely share similarities that I have found between Wicca and other spiritual philosophies.

The core idea that I was attempting to convey in my opening welcome post was simply this:

As far as I'm concerned, Wicca isn't all that different from some forms of Buddhism in the underlying philosophy. The only real difference is in the means by which they address and view these concepts.

Moreover, the point I was trying to make is that I find the Wicca traditions to be a quite romantic and psychologically useful way to address these concepts.

This is why I don't view it as a 'different spiritual philosophy', but simply as a different means of viewing the same basic spiritual philosophy.

That's how I view it and will continue to view it forever, because that's precisely how I see it.

To get lost in the rituals is to fail to see the forest for the trees, IMHO.

Yes, the trees of Wicca may be unique, but as far as I'm concerning it's the same forest that was recognized by many Eastern mystical traditions.

That's the thought that I've been trying to express. I also didn't expect to be able to express that in my welcome OP. I figure that it would take some time and conversations to express this view.

I hope that after this lengthy thread I've made at least some progress in that goal.

Alexandria

11-23-2011, 12:29 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Wicca isn't all that different from some forms of Buddhism in the underlying philosophy. The only real difference is in the means by which they address and view these concepts.

This is why I don't view it as a 'different spiritual philosophy', but simply as a different means of viewing the same basic spiritual philosophy.

It's for these reasons you should be able to understand why practice plays a role in making Wicca what it is. Not just practice, but a number of beliefs as well.

A Buddhist and a Wiccan may have similar underlying philosophy, but it is the means that make them different from each other. Thus, removing the means (and I don't just mean ritual) from Wicca removes what makes it unique - what makes it Wicca.

That is the core issue with the 13 principles. They're vague enough that a number of pagans (and even some non-pagans) could claim to be in line with them... but if they were missing too much of the core practices and beliefs of Wicca, which are hardly addressed in the 13 principles, they still would not be Wiccan.

Lunacie

11-23-2011, 01:04 PM

Yep, the 13 Principles were meant to be somewhat vague so that they didn't reveal any of the secrets or mysteries (Wicca and some other religions are Mystery Religions) and so that they weren't about any one religion or path in particular.

Anyway, I've started the thread on Wiccan Ritual Structure and would love to see some discussion about what Wiccans do the same and what they do differently.

Here's the link: Wiccan Ritual Structure Thread (http://www.wiccanwisdom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2384)

Pandora13x

11-28-2011, 03:49 PM

I realize that this thread has pretty much wrapped up since I last had time to post, but there were a couple of things that I wanted to say before I release on this particular topic. I hope that's alright.

I see the problem entirely now. And yes it is indeed a gross misunderstanding to be sure.

Having read this post, I'm still not entirely clear what misunderstanding and on whose part you're talking about. This is probably because I've been busy and I'm running on relatively few hours of sleep. Would you mind clarifying?

To say that you are a Buddhist, is pretty meaningless in terms of specifics. The Buddhisms too are deeply orthopraxic and there are many different types of Buddhism. In fact, I'm hoping to make a post on that in the Buddhism forum some time.

So to say that I'm a Buddhist doesn't convey anything too specific. However anyone who's into Buddhism knows what I mean, they also realize that I could practice any number of specific Buddhism rituals and/or practices.

None the less, they understand the core philosophy and therefore they recognize that whatever practices and rituals I participate in, those rituals and practices will obviously be designed to strive toward achieving the goals of the core philosophy.

[SNIP]

Thus Mahayana Buddhism was born. The term Mahayana meaning "The Great Vehicle". The goal of Mahayana Buddhism was to exam the core philosophy of all of the diverse factions of Buddhism and reduce them to a single form of Buddhism that recognizes all of the different rituals and practices as striving for the same goal. In other words, the Mahayana Buddhists said, "Yes, Buddhism is highly orthopraxic but let's not get side-tracked by the practices, it's the core philosophy that's truly important. The practices are simply a means of trying to live the core philosophy.

I think the key difference here (and I know very little about Buddhism, and so this is based purely on what you've said, on which I base the following statement)) is that the core philosophy of Buddhism would remain intact even if you were to strip away or seriously alter those practices. I'm not convinced this is true of Wicca (again, I'm not Wiccan, and I don't pretend to be an expert, this is just my understanding of the situation).

Yes, there are beliefs that are important parts of the Wiccan core, but they are not the entirety of that vital core. The practices are a part of that, and if you strip them away or change them too drastically, you move away from that vital core, and at some point I would argue that it is no longer Wicca.

Which isn't to say that it stops being a valid path. My own path diverges widely from Wicca (and indeed from any organized religion, as organized religion has never sat well with me as something I want to be a major part of my life), but obviously I think it is a valid and fulfilling path or I would not be on it :]

[/QUOTE]I view Wicca as a major world religion in the same way I view Christianity or Buddhism. It has a core philosophy.

Sure, just like Buddhism that core philosophy requires that rituals are practiced to achieve that goals of the core philosophy. However, to focus solely on the rituals is to lose sight of the core philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I would argue that the core practices are an important part of the core philosophy, and to do away with or to drastically change those core practices without at the very least having a solid understanding of why those practices are what they are, and having a solid reasoning for why you are changing or doing away with them, is to alter that core, perhaps too much to still reasonably call it Wicca.

That would be more akin to trying describe why you are a Southern Baptist, or an Amish, or maybe a Zen Buddhist as opposed to a Tantra Buddhist.

I guess what I really want to know here is what exactly the unifying thread is between your practice and philosophy and that of Wicca that makes you think that Wicca is an appropriate label for your path. And that is a sincerely asked question. It isn't an attack or a sarcastic remark, I genuinely just want to know what it is about your path that you feel puts it under the heading of Wicca.

I know what it is that the Lutherans and the Catholics and Baptists have in common that makes them all Christian, and I have a good idea of what connects the various traditions of Wicca (and most eclectics/solitaries that I've discussed this with), but I don't know what the connection is between your path and Wicca, and maybe that's why I'm having such difficulty seeing your point of view. I'd love to hear what it is. Again, I mean that with 100% sincerity, I'm just interested.

Are you people viewing Wicca as merely a single denomination of Witches? That has specific practices which must be adhered to in order to satisfy the Wiccan denomination of Witches?

It certainly does appear that this is where things are headed.

I'm not certain what you mean, would you mind clarifying?

I view Wicca as a specific religion that incorporates a particular system of witchcraft, and I view Wicca as having different denominations or traditions within, but I don't view witchcraft as being a religion at all. Rather it is a skill set that can be incorporated into many religious and spiritual paths.

I do believe that the religion Wicca has specific practices which must be adhered to some extent for the label to be appropriate. Yes, there are people who will change or drop aspects without necessarily turning it into something other than Wicca, but it is done mindfully. Those people understand the reasoning for the practice and have decided to make the changes after thinking things through. But I don't think this can be done without first doing some study on the religion (which to me requires the utilization of books and sources that are about the actual religion itself).

My point on that issues is YES I do indeed selectively chose what I find interesting to read concerning views on Wicca.

This is why I chose to read books by people like Scott Cunningham and Christopher Penczak, rather than books where the authors proclaim to have the "True Wiccan Way".

I don't buy into that kind of thinking from the get go.

Sure, you can read those kinds of books and accept the things those authors have to say. But in the end, all you are doing is choosing to read books that support a vision of Wicca that you would like it to become.

I guess I just don't see how a person can claim to know a religion, to belong to a religion, without ever having done research on what that religion is about. There's a difference between reading up on the religion and then based on that foundation deciding that aspects of the religion as presented don't work for you (after understanding what they are and why they are what they are) and so changing them within your personal path, and not studying up on the religion at all because you're... concerned that your own perspective will be tainted by the established beliefs and practices of that religion?

To me, it is akin to a person claiming to be a Christian because they have a poster with the Lord's Prayer on it and occasionally make use of a rosary, but they've never picked up the bible or any other book on Christianity other than that one book by that one author who's path is already vastly different from the rest of Christianity (though someone who has studied Christianity carefully would probably be able to see the connecting threads), never attended church, or a bible study group, or otherwise had access to solid, reliable information on the religion.

Maybe I've completely misunderstood what you were trying to say there, in which case by all means correct me, but please say what it is that you really meant rather than just saying that I've misinterpreted, because I genuinely want to understand.

I should state to people, "I'm a Wiccan in terms of core philosophy and beliefs, but I may not be in harmony with how particular other Wiccans practice those core principles".

But what core philosophy and beliefs are you referring to? Because based upon what you've written (and admittedly, you haven't written a ton on your path, but you have started posting some things about your beliefs in relation to deity), I'm having a hard time seeing where those beliefs fit in with Wicca. And I'm still having a hard time seeing how you could know what those core beliefs are if, as you've said, you don't really read books that are specifically about Wicca as opposed to witchcraft.

Again (and I feel a need to say this a lot, because I feel that my posts have been misinterpreted on more than one occasion to be an attack), I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to understand, and asking you as politely as I'm able to clarify what you mean.

Then, after having made that statement it would indeed make sense for me to point to the 13 principles of Wiccan Belief, and say, here's a basic outline of the core principles of Wicca.

Except, as people have pointed out, those 13 listed principles are not specific to Wicca, and so can't really be called the core principles and beliefs of Wicca (especially as I don't believe they really get into beliefs much).

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Mab said hello to me in my Welcome thread.

So I responded to her self-introduction in a polite and friendly way.

Now Pandora is using that as ammunition to toss in my face:

By my understanding of the definition of the word "initiation," I'm not sure it makes sense to say that someone is "self-initiated." I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that initiation requires the involvement of others. Perhaps someone with more experience in initiations will step in to correct me if I am wrong? "Self-dedicated," on the other hand, is a term I see no problem with.

I guess I missed this bit when I was responding before, so I'll respond now.

I realize that intended tone doesn't always come through on a text based medium, and so something said sarcastically or ironically may come through as being meant literally, but I really feel as though you would have to read what I said expecting a sarcastic and snotty tone in order to take it as an attack.

I assure you that I did not type it with a sarcastic (or indeed any) tone. I meant it as a simple statement. You had asked for the specific things I disagreed with. I responded with the specific things I disagreed with, along with an explanation as to why precisely I disagreed. I'm really not sure clear on what it is that you think I've done wrong.

I'm actually kind of hoping that (now that you've written some lengthy posts of your own, and so hopefully are less inclined to take offense at the length of mine) you'll go back and read what I said and respond with what it is you really meant to say, so that I can understand, as you seem to be saying that your words have been grossly misinterpreted. That could well be, and I would really like to know what it is that you were actually saying.

I agree that the term "self-initiation" sounds a bit strange as a term. But it does make sense as used by Scott Cunningham. He rejects the idea that a human is required for initiation into Wicca. It's his view that only the God and Goddess can initiate someone into Wicca.

Leaving aside the issue raised by another poster as to why a god would feel the need to initiate someone into a human religion (as opposed to simply initiating them into the service or care or whatever of that god) and the problems brought up by the idea that "only the God and Goddess can initiate someone" into said human religion, I have to ask: If the gods are initiating you, how is it self-initiation? Doesn't the self in self-initiation suggest that the initiator and the initiated are one and the same?

Is that "self-initiation", well, in a sense it is. A person took it upon themselves to go to the God and Goddess in a ritual of initiation and accepted that the God and Goddess has the power to initiation them into Wicca.

But it isn't. If you performed a ritual asking the gods to initiate you, and the gods then initiated you, you may have been the one performing the ritual, but the initiators were the gods, and so it wasn't self-initiation. If you performed an initiation ritual asking the gods to initiate you but then didn't allow for the possibility that the gods would refuse, and just did the initiation yourself, then I would argue that you haven't really been initiated into anything.

This is not an attack. This is simply me responding to what you've said with the reasons why I don't necessarily agree. I do not mean to offend or accuse, I just wanted to state my perspective.

But being utterly bombarded by endless accusations is ridiculous and certainly not the norm on any forum I've ever been on before.

I don't believe I've accused you of anything. I'm fairly sure I've always acknowledged that everything I've said is my understanding/interpretation/impression/etc., and that I could be wrong, asking to be corrected if I am. That being said, I feel as though you have leveled some accusations at me, including accusing me of attacking you whenever I express disagreement.

But if it's going to turn into a frenzy to try to just twist every little thing I say in an attempt to try to trip me up on something, then yes, I would say that equates to animosity.

I used a lot of direct quotes from you specifically to avoid twisting things. This is the main reason my post was so long. I can do brief posts or I can be precise and carefully point to what I'm responding to, and why it is I feel a need to respond to it. I can't do both. I usually choose the latter.

Abracadabra

11-28-2011, 05:09 PM

I think the key difference here (and I know very little about Buddhism, and so this is based purely on what you've said, on which I base the following statement)) is that the core philosophy of Buddhism would remain intact even if you were to strip away or seriously alter those practices. I'm not convinced this is true of Wicca (again, I'm not Wiccan, and I don't pretend to be an expert, this is just my understanding of the situation).

I feel that this has already been addressed:

There are many different forms of Buddhism. If you strip away their individual specific rituals and practices you end up with a core philosophy that is "Buddhism" in general. Although even that is an over-simplification, because there are actually some major differences in the core philosophies between various forms of Buddhism.

In fact, if you want to get truly abstract about it, I would argue that in the most generic sense the core philosophies of Buddhism aren't all that much different from the core philosophies of Wicca, and vice versa.

When it comes to specific practices, yes, there clearly are distinctions.

I guess what I really want to know here is what exactly the unifying thread is between your practice and philosophy and that of Wicca that makes you think that Wicca is an appropriate label for your path. And that is a sincerely asked question. It isn't an attack or a sarcastic remark, I genuinely just want to know what it is about your path that you feel puts it under the heading of Wicca.

Because over the past several years I have been embracing practices and rituals that are indeed used in Wicca. The casting of a circle, the calling of the quarters, the elemental spirits, acknowleding the God and Goddess aspects. Associaing the God with the Sun, and the Goddess with the Moon, etc.

In other words, I have embraced the fundamental Wicca paradigm and incorporated it into my belief system and rituals.

Moreover, (and more to my point) is that whilst doing this I am able to make very meaningful parallels between this Wiccan paradigm and the paradigm of various forms of Buddhism. There is no conflict at all, as far as I'm concerned.

I view Wicca as a specific religion that incorporates a particular system of witchcraft, and I view Wicca as having different denominations or traditions within, but I don't view witchcraft as being a religion at all. Rather it is a skill set that can be incorporated into many religious and spiritual paths.

I agree. That's how I view it too.

All I'm saying is that my particular 'denomination' of Wicca is as valid as any other 'denomination' of Wicca, as far as I'm concerned. Even if I'm creating it from scratch myself. I still feel that it's close enough to the basic Wicca paradigm that it can indeed qualify as a valid 'demonination' of Wicca. (Using the term 'demonination' for lack of a better word)

All I'm saying is that my Wicca BOS is as valid as any other Wiccan BOS.

As far as I'm concerned it's in-line with the fundamental Wicca paradigm to quality as a valid form of "Wicca".

I guess I just don't see how a person can claim to know a religion, to belong to a religion, without ever having done research on what that religion is about. There's a difference between reading up on the religion and then based on that foundation deciding that aspects of the religion as presented don't work for you (after understanding what they are and why they are what they are) and so changing them within your personal path, and not studying up on the religion at all because you're... concerned that your own perspective will be tainted by the established beliefs and practices of that religion?

As far as I'm conerned I have studied Wicca in enough depth to understand what it's all about. The only way that I could continue to study "Wicca" in more detail is to go around studying the specfic BOS of various covens and other individuals who claim to be Wiccan, to see how they have done things in their specific ways.

But that wouldn't provide me with any better understanding of Wicca in general. All that would do is show me how various groups and individuals have carved out their own specific practices and rituals.

Like I say, what would make their BOS anymore correct than mine? If Wiccan start getting into those kinds of arguments they'll end up like the Chrisitans arguing over interpretations of the Bible. Only for Wiccan's those kinds of arguments would be extremely difficult because there is no single accepted BOS in Wicca. Obviously some might argue for Gerald Gardner's BOS, but we already accept that there are non-Gardnerian "Wiccans". So even that standard wouldn't hold much water.

Maybe I've completely misunderstood what you were trying to say there, in which case by all means correct me, but please say what it is that you really meant rather than just saying that I've misinterpreted, because I genuinely want to understand.

I confess that this whole thread got off on the wrong foot. And I also confess that I probably was taking a far more "defensive" position than I should have been taking.

I do apologize for that.

Leaving aside the issue raised by another poster as to why a god would feel the need to initiate someone into a human religion (as opposed to simply initiating them into the service or care or whatever of that god) and the problems brought up by the idea that "only the God and Goddess can initiate someone" into said human religion, I have to ask: If the gods are initiating you, how is it self-initiation? Doesn't the self in self-initiation suggest that the initiator and the initiated are one and the same?

Well that's a very good question. My answer is the following: Is Wicca just a man-made religion? Or is it a means of having a relationship with the divine source of life?

I tend to think of it as the latter.

Therefore are we really talking about being initiated into a religion? Or are we talking about inititating a relationship with the divine source of life?

The whole idea of a need for 'initiation' in Wicca can be argued in terms of interpretations. What exactly does it mean to you, and why is it important?

Is it a man-made initiation to filter member into a cult?

Or is it the concept of initiating a relationship with the gods?

If it's the former then I have no interest in Wicca at all.

If it's the latter, then who else could be involved in initiating a relationship with the god and goddess but the person who wants to have a relationship with them?

In that sense, "self-initiation" makes perfect sense, I would think. A person is taking the initative to start a relationship with the gods, and the only other entities required for that initiation are indeed the gods themselves.

That's my view on that.

Except, as people have pointed out, those 13 listed principles are not specific to Wicca, and so can't really be called the core principles and beliefs of Wicca (especially as I don't believe they really get into beliefs much).

Well, not meant as an argument, but I see things quite differently.

As far as I can see, there is nothing on that list that wouldn't be compatible with Wicca, and there is also nothing in Wicca that I'm aware of that I could not make a case for from this list.

In fact, going over that in detail could prove to be quite interesting, because if there are thing on the list that are not compatible with Wicca, it might be interesting to focus on precisley what they are. Similarily if there is anything in Wicca that is not covered by the list that too would be interesting.

I mean, clearly the list doesn't go into extreme specifics, but I think it covers the core essentials. I think someone would be hard-pressed to point out something in Wicca that isn't basically on this list.

I mean, they might point out a very specific ceremony or ritual that the list hasn't described in detail, but from my point of view, if asked WHY is that ritual being peformed, then I think the response will be on this list.

Like, to honor the god and goddess. Or to attune with nature. Etc.

Does this list really need to get into all the details of precise rituals?

I think not.

That's just my view on that.

I don't believe I've accused you of anything

I don't believe that I had ever said that you did. :cheers:

Lunacie

11-28-2011, 06:03 PM

<snip>

As far as I'm conerned I have studied Wicca in enough depth to understand what it's all about. The only way that I could continue to study "Wicca" in more detail is to go around studying the specfic BOS of various covens and other individuals who claim to be Wiccan, to see how they have done things in their specific ways.

But that wouldn't provide me with any better understanding of Wicca in general. All that would do is show me how various groups and individuals have carved out their own specific practices and rituals.

That is hardly the only way to study Wicca in more depth. There are books like Ronald Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon: A history of modern pagan witchcraft." Or Frederic Lamond's "Fifty Years of Wicca." Frederic was part of Gardner's coven. Or Kaatryn MacMorgan's "Wicca 333." No doubt others can recommend more books. Or you could Google for interviews by Doreen Valiente, also a member of Gardner's coven. Mike Nichols has posted some very good articles about Wicca online.

Well that's a very good question. My answer is the following: Is Wicca just a man-made religion? Or is it a means of having a relationship with the divine source of life?

I tend to think of it as the latter.

Therefore are we really talking about being initiated into a religion? Or are we talking about inititating a relationship with the divine source of life?

The whole idea of a need for 'initiation' in Wicca can be argued in terms of interpretations. What exactly does it mean to you, and why is it important?

Is it a man-made initiation to filter member into a cult?

Or is it the concept of initiating a relationship with the gods?

If it's the former then I have no interest in Wicca at all.

If it's the latter, then who else could be involved in initiating a relationship with the god and goddess but the person who wants to have a relationship with them?

In that sense, "self-initiation" makes perfect sense, I would think. A person is taking the initative to start a relationship with the gods, and the only other entities required for that initiation are indeed the gods themselves.

That's my view on that.

Maybe I'm being too literal, but in reading the dictionary definition of initiation, it's not something that one can do to oneself. One can certainly self-dedicate oneself to starting a relationship with the Gods, but one cannot self-initiate oneself into the religion of Wicca.

A Wiccan initiation ritual is about both of those things, being initiated into a religion and being initiatied into a relationship with the God and Goddess. One can go further and self-dedicate to other Gods or Goddesses besides the ones that are the basis of Wicca as well.

That said, I don't think an initiation into Wicca is necessary to be a practicing Wiccan, but there are certainly those who think that it is. But I do think an initiation is an awesome ritual, and Wicca is very much about rituals, so it seems silly to deny the possibility of ever having an initiation.

initiation (ɪˌnɪʃɪˈeɪʃən)
— n
1. the act of initiating or the condition of being initiated
2. the often secret ceremony initiating new members into an organization

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 02:00 AM

One can certainly self-dedicate oneself to starting a relationship with the Gods, but one cannot self-initiate oneself into the religion of Wicca.

Evidently this is where we part ways in our understanding of religion.

You can only be initiated into a religion if you are viewing religion as some sort of organized institution.

I totally reject the very concept of organized religion.

For me, the very term religion has a different meaning. All it means to me is any practiced philosophy that acknowledges a spiritual essence of reality.

Therefore I do not see any need to be initiated into a religious organization in order to practice a religion.

Moreover, there is no mention of any need of any initiation in the Thirteen Principles.

I'm personally not prepared to accept that initiation, in general, is even a necessarily component of Wicca. Where does that idea come from specifically other than from private covens who are indeed attempting to create an very exclusive organized religion?

Such covens would then become the mortal judges who decide who qualifies as a "Wiccan".

I would not only distance myself from "Wicca" if I felt that was the only valid definition for Wicca. But I would also renounce it as being clearly a non-spiritual organization whose purpose it would be to decide who is in line with the "gods" and who is not.

That very approach to Wicca, would rapidly become as exclusive as Christianity, proclaiming that if you haven't been properly initiated and recognized by the proper Wicca Authorities, then cannot have yet given your life over to the God and Goddess.

Just like the Christians claim to hold the patent rights on Jesus, Wicca would become nothing more than a religious institution that claims to hold the patent rights on a God and Goddess.

~~~~

In short, I will give my support to a truly spiritual view of Wicca where anyone can access the divine through these spiritual practices without the permission or approval of anyone else.

However, if there exist Wiccans who want to make it into a religious institution that requires initiations that are recognized by other mortal humans, then I'm gone. I'll totally renounce it as being nothing more than a huge waste of time.

That's just the way I feel about.

It's a personal view, this I confess.

But it is the view I take.

Lunacie

11-29-2011, 09:04 AM

Abra, whether or not you totally reject the idea of an organized religion isn't going to change the fact that most religions are indeed organized.

But I don't think Wicca is organized in the way you're objecting to. It's more about common understanding and shared beliefs and practices.

You keep bringing the 13 Principles of Wicca into things like it proves something. It has been pointed out several times that it's a general overview, so just because something isn't included in that list doesn't mean it isn't part of the shared beliefs and practices.

Covens can be the "mortal judges" of whether someone is qualified to belong to that particular coven, but not to belong to Wicca as a broader religion. And most covens do understand that distinction. Each coven practices in a particular way, and that is what they judge on, not on what kind of a spiritual connection the person has with the Gods. That's why some people will tell you that Wicca is basically an orthopraxic religion, but there are also many people who feel that just as Wicca is about balance, there is also a balance between orthopraxy and orthodoxy (practices and beliefs).

You seem to have a very strong objection towards the idea that Wicca is organized or started out with groups that actually had a heirarchy. Covens involve starting out as a newbie and gaining "degrees" as you become more learned. Clearly someone who has been practicing the religion and studying and learning for longer than a newbie deserves some amount of respect, eh?

You also seem to have a very strong objection towards the idea of an institution, but again going to the dictionary that can include this definition:

6. (informal) a constant feature or practice: Jones' drink at the bar was an institution

In that Wicca does have a constant set of practices, it could be considered an institution.

I think perhaps you're looking at this through an all-or-nothing lens, but Wicca just doesn't fit into that mold. Some Wiccans do insist that Wicca is an "institution that requires initiation", but not all do. You seem to want to put me into that group of people, but I've never said that "permission and approval" are necessary, I believe those only apply to joining a particular coven, not to Wicca as a religious practice.

Even Christianity doesn't fit that kind of thinking as some denomination belive dunking is the only valid form of baptism (initiation) while others accept sprinkling as perfectly valid. That doesn't seem much different than the idea that Wicca can be accessed either through group-initiation or self-dedication.

In my own case, I self-dedicated before accepting a group-initiation. An example of this would be either enlisting in the army and becoming a private who may rise to the level of a sergeant, or going to officer school and being a corporal when you graduate with the ability to become a major or colonel.

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 12:50 PM

Abra, whether or not you totally reject the idea of an organized religion isn't going to change the fact that most religions are indeed organized.

I'm not trying to change anything. I'm just trying to express my views.

Nothing more.

But I don't think Wicca is organized in the way you're objecting to. It's more about common understanding and shared beliefs and practices.

I personally think that in some cases it is, and in some cases it isn't. That all depends on the practitioners. There clearly do exist very secretive covens that have very exclusive membership initiations and rules. At the other end of the rainbow, there are totally solitary practitioners who may view things totally differently.

All I'm really saying is that I give my support to some views of Wicca, whilst I do not support other views. But there's nothing unique about that. I'm quite sure that there are many people who feel this way. Both Scott Cunningham and Christopher Penczak certainly support this view as well. So I am nowhere near unique in my views.

You keep bringing the 13 Principles of Wicca into things like it proves something. It has been pointed out several times that it's a general overview, so just because something isn't included in that list doesn't mean it isn't part of the shared beliefs and practices.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. I have nothing to 'prove' to anyone.

All I'm attempting to do is communicate how I personally view things.

Nothing more.

Covens can be the "mortal judges" of whether someone is qualified to belong to that particular coven, but not to belong to Wicca as a broader religion. And most covens do understand that distinction. Each coven practices in a particular way, and that is what they judge on, not on what kind of a spiritual connection the person has with the Gods. That's why some people will tell you that Wicca is basically an orthopraxic religion, but there are also many people who feel that just as Wicca is about balance, there is also a balance between orthopraxy and orthodoxy (practices and beliefs).

Well, what you just said here is totally in line with my views and supports what I'm saying. All I've been saying all along is that it's wrong to suggest that a solitary practitioner isn't a Wiccan just because they might not fit someone else's definition of what they think Wicca should be.

You seem to have a very strong objection towards the idea that Wicca is organized or started out with groups that actually had a heirarchy. Covens involve starting out as a newbie and gaining "degrees" as you become more learned. Clearly someone who has been practicing the religion and studying and learning for longer than a newbie deserves some amount of respect, eh?

I personally don't believe that "Wicca" started out as such. Perhaps this is also a huge difference in the way that you and I personally view Wicca.

You also seem to have a very strong objection towards the idea of an institution, but again going to the dictionary that can include this definition:

I do have a very strong objection to institutionalized religion.

Yes that's correct.

In that Wicca does have a constant set of practices, it could be considered an institution.

Well, that's arguable there as well. Is it truly the set of practices that defines Wicca? Or is it the core philosophy behind them?

Clearly we have different views on this as well.

I think perhaps you're looking at this through an all-or-nothing lens, but Wicca just doesn't fit into that mold. Some Wiccans do insist that Wicca is an "institution that requires initiation", but not all do. You seem to want to put me into that group of people, but I've never said that "permission and approval" are necessary, I believe those only apply to joining a particular coven, not to Wicca as a religious practice.

Whoa!

This whole discussion sprung from the fact that you suggested that you felt that I don't qualify as a Wiccan.

Not the other way around!

The only reason that I suggested that you may be a person who decides who qualifies as a Wiccan is for the very reason that you had suggested to me that you felt that I don't qualify.

So I was just responding to your accusation in this very matter.

Even Christianity doesn't fit that kind of thinking as some denomination belive dunking is the only valid form of baptism (initiation) while others accept sprinkling as perfectly valid. That doesn't seem much different than the idea that Wicca can be accessed either through group-initiation or self-dedication.

I acknowledge that there do exist covens of Wicca that are no doubt as exclusive as various cults of Christianity.

I have no interest in such exclusive forms of religion. And yes, I question their spiritual validity. Whether they be Christian or Wiccan.

In my own case, I self-dedicated before accepting a group-initiation. An example of this would be either enlisting in the army and becoming a private who may rise to the level of a sergeant, or going to officer school and being a corporal when you graduate with the ability to become a major or colonel.

Well, when described this way, I would take the view that self-dedication is all that's required spiritually.

Any group-initiations are then social structures that have very little, if anything, to do with spirituality.

If I were going to write a book on Wicca (which I actually may do), I would not even acknowledge the concept of "initiation". I might mention that some covens require it, but I would voice my objections on that just as I have here.

Instead I would indeed focus more on the concept of dedication.

Initiation was never a word of my choosing.

In fact, when I was pointed to the first list on the other web site, I stated my objections to the concept of initiation and freely confessed that if this is considered to be a mandatory part of Wicca then I would wish to have no parts of it.

Then I researched the concept in Cunningham's book to see what he had to say about it. His explanation was indeed that he viewed this initiation to ultimately mean self-dedication, that was his personal interpretation. And I agree. That would be my personal interpretation as well.

So again, I'm just attempting to share my own personal views of how I view Wicca. I'm not attempting to define how other people must view it.

I'm not saying that strict covens that have strict requirements for membership aren't "Wiccan". All I'm saying is they aren't a form of Wicca that I would be interested in participating in.

By the way, if I do write a book on Wicca, I will make it crystal clear in the preface and introduction that the book represents my personal views on Wicca and is in no way intended to be authoritative.

For me, this is a large part of what Wicca should be about. A sharing of views of how different people view it and practice it. It would be from the perspective of supporting this very view that I would write my book.

Alexandria

11-29-2011, 02:27 PM

I personally don't believe that "Wicca" started out as such. Perhaps this is also a huge difference in the way that you and I personally view Wicca.

How exactly do you think Wicca started out?

Lunacie

11-29-2011, 02:39 PM

I'm not trying to change anything. I'm just trying to express my views.

Nothing more.

I didn't say that you were trying to change anything. It might have been clearer if I'd said that you're entitled to your opinion, even when it's based on inaccurate or incomplete information. I'm also entitled to share what I believe to be more accurate and complete information. You may not be interested in expanding your knowledge, but others who are reading these threads might be.

I personally think that in some cases it is, and in some cases it isn't. That all depends on the practitioners. There clearly do exist very secretive covens that have very exclusive membership initiations and rules. At the other end of the rainbow, there are totally solitary practitioners who may view things totally differently.

All I'm really saying is that I give my support to some views of Wicca, whilst I do not support other views. But there's nothing unique about that. I'm quite sure that there are many people who feel this way. Both Scott Cunningham and Christopher Penczak certainly support this view as well. So I am nowhere near unique in my views.

Those who practice Wicca in other ways, more traditional ways, don't care whether you give your support or not. Those traditional, initiation-only, were the norm when Gardner first introduced his version of religious witchcraft. Although some people choose to be more open these days and chose to self-dedicate and worship as solitaries doesn't mean the original form of worship has gone away.

I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. I have nothing to 'prove' to anyone.

All I'm attempting to do is communicate how I personally view things.

Nothing more.

Well, what you just said here is totally in line with my views and supports what I'm saying. All I've been saying all along is that it's wrong to suggest that a solitary practitioner isn't a Wiccan just because they might not fit someone else's definition of what they think Wicca should be.

No. It's not wrong to suggest such a thing. It's just a different opinion. Your opinion is that they're wrong, and their opinion is that your opinion on self-dedication is wrong.

My opinion is somewhere in between the two, and is based on learning the history of Wicca and it's beginnings back in the l940's and 50's. I chose not to be part of those groups who insist on rules and initiation, but I also chose not to work with people who think there isn't any value to that history.

I personally don't believe that "Wicca" started out as such. Perhaps this is also a huge difference in the way that you and I personally view Wicca.

If you can find some information to back up that belief (that Wicca didn't begin with group heirarchy), I'd be interested in seeing it. History suggests that Gardner was the only High Priest in his group and he trained a few High Priestesses to work alongside him. When members were ready to go out on their own and start their own groups, they became the High Priest or High Priestess of those groups.

That has nothing to do with the way either you or I view Wicca, that is history.

I do have a very strong objection to institutionalized religion.

Yes that's correct.

Well, that's arguable there as well. Is it truly the set of practices that defines Wicca? Or is it the core philosophy behind them?

Clearly we have different views on this as well.

What are you saying those differences are?

I believe that the practices define Wicca but there is definately a core philosophy behind those practices. I think Wicca is about finding a natural balance, even between practices and philosophy. Both are important, but many religions have a belief in the Gods, Wicca is uinque among them because of the common practices. Others may cast a circle, but not call on the Guardians or celebrate the Great Rite. The ritual package is what makes Wicca different than those other religions, not the fact that they honor both a God and Goddess.

Whoa!

This whole discussion sprung from the fact that you suggested that you felt that I don't qualify as a Wiccan.

Not the other way around!

The only reason that I suggested that you may be a person who decides who qualifies as a Wiccan is for the very reason that you had suggested to me that you felt that I don't qualify.

So I was just responding to your accusation in this very matter.

What I actually said was "It sounds like there's actually very little in Wicca that matches your own beliefs, so yeah, it might be rather misleading to call your path Wicca." I was saying that what you had shared with us didn't seem to mesh with traditional Wicca. I didn't say that you don't "qualify" or set myself up to judge your qualifications.

Notice the use of the phrases "sounds like" and "might be." Those are not accusatory phrases, those were my way of wondering if you really knew anything about Wicca.

I acknowledge that there do exist covens of Wicca that are no doubt as exclusive as various cults of Christianity.

I have no interest in such exclusive forms of religion. And yes, I question their spiritual validity. Whether they be Christian or Wiccan.

What do you feel gives you the right to question the spiritual validity of other religions?

Well, when described this way, I would take the view that self-dedication is all that's required spiritually.

Any group-initiations are then social structures that have very little, if anything, to do with spirituality.

If I were going to write a book on Wicca (which I actually may do), I would not even acknowledge the concept of "initiation". I might mention that some covens require it, but I would voice my objections on that just as I have here.

Instead I would indeed focus more on the concept of dedication.

I would agree that the self-dedication is all that's required for spirituality. But when we bring the question of Wicca into the discussion, there is more that's required. If you're a solitary practicioner you can do whatever you want in whatever order you want and call yourself a Wiccan. But if you work with a group or coven (in a social structure) it really does help for everyone to have an understanding of what will be done and why.

If you've never worked with such a group, or undergone such an initiation, your opinion of these things is pretty well irrelevant.

Initiation was never a word of my choosing.

In fact, when I was pointed to the first list on the other web site, I stated my objections to the concept of initiation and freely confessed that if this is considered to be a mandatory part of Wicca then I would wish to have no parts of it.

What other web site? Do you mean the other thread?

Iniation is a mandatory part of some Wiccan covens or groups. You are not required to take part in those groups. There is no problem there. But when you question the very roots of Wicca and dismiss the importance of them, there are some Wiccans who will certainly have a problem with your "opinion."

Then I researched the concept in Cunningham's book to see what he had to say about it. His explanation was indeed that he viewed this initiation to ultimately mean self-dedication, that was his personal interpretation. And I agree. That would be my personal interpretation as well.

Scott Cunningham wasn't saying that there's anything wrong with traditional Wiccan practices such as initiation and group membership. He simply said that he believes one can be a Wiccan without those things. Unfortunately we can't ask him for clarification on whether he was actually talking about Wicca in particular or any form of Witchcraft. There are some reports that he was actually writing about Witchcraft and not Wicca, but his publisher edited his book to say "Wicca."

So again, I'm just attempting to share my own personal views of how I view Wicca. I'm not attempting to define how other people must view it.

I'm not saying that strict covens that have strict requirements for membership aren't "Wiccan". All I'm saying is they aren't a form of Wicca that I would be interested in participating in.

Okay, so we basically agree then. I wouldn't be interested in joining a BTW group myself, but I do enjoy working with a group who knows what they're doing, and why it's done the way it is.

By the way, if I do write a book on Wicca, I will make it crystal clear in the preface and introduction that the book represents my personal views on Wicca and is in no way intended to be authoritative.

For me, this is a large part of what Wicca should be about. A sharing of views of how different people view it and practice it. It would be from the perspective of supporting this very view that I would write my book.

There are already hundreds of those books, and I can't count how many times I've seen newbies to a discussion forum complain about how confused they are because none of those books agrees on what makes Wicca "Wicca." The best place to start is with the history and the traditions, and then decide which way you want to go with your personal practices.

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 03:13 PM

How exactly do you think Wicca started out?

Well, it's actually quite complex, but in a nutshell my view is that the origins of Wicca actually began in ancient China as a form of Taoism. These ancient orients migrated into Northern Europe to eventually become the cultures that we refer to as the "Celts". In reality the "Celts" were actually various pockets of cultures that all had similar, but certainly not identical beliefs.

As time progressed Christianity began to influence these practices. Many of the modern day concepts associated with Wicca are actually forms of these ancient spiritual traditions that became melded together in Europe.

I personally feel that the idea of "protection" from evil spirits was an influence that came from exposure to Christianity. I don't believe that the original Taoists were so concerned about negative energies and/or evil spirits.

So my personal view is that many of the protection rituals of Wicca are actually a Christian influence.

~~~~~

Again, the very question, "How did Wicca start out?" is dependent upon your own views of precisely what Wicca means to you.

If you view Wicca as a specific set of traditions that are believed to have very specific origins from a very well-defined group of people, then of course your answer to the question, "How did Wicca start out?" is going to be vastly different from someone who takes a broader historical perspective as I do.

Both views have their place within the context of their chosen perspectives.

I choose the larger bird's-eye view of how humanity evolved in general.

I also take into consideration the migration of humans through history according to the Human Genome Project. The Human Genome Project shows this migration of orientals from China into northern Europe giving rise to the northern European cultures such as the Celts.

So my views come partially from a scientific perspective as well.

Precisely how "Wicca" came to be is truly vague, IMHO. Thus leaving one's perception of precisely what defines "Wicca" open to personal interpretations.

Obviously it has become a popular "term" today as well as being recognized as having religious and/or spiritual merit by many people. I have no desire to "own" the term, or define it in any precise way. However, I do feel that I have a right to voice my own views and perceptions of what it means to me.

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 03:41 PM

I didn't say that you were trying to change anything. It might have been clearer if I'd said that you're entitled to your opinion, even when it's based on inaccurate or incomplete information. I'm also entitled to share what I believe to be more accurate and complete information. You may not be interested in expanding your knowledge, but others who are reading these threads might be.

Lunacie,

I truly did not feel inspired to read your post beyond this opening paragraph.

The things you have stated in this paragraph come across as being quite derogatory.

You state: "you're entitled to your opinion, even when it's based on inaccurate or incomplete information."

That already sounds to me like an insinuation that my views are based on inaccurate or incomplete information. Something I totally do not agree with.

You also state, "You may not be interested in expanding your knowledge, but others who are reading these threads might be."

Again, I find this to be quite insulting and presumptuous on your behalf. You are not only insinuating that I have inaccurate and incomplete information, but you are also insinuating that I have no interest in expanding my knowledge.

Both of these insinuations are as false as can be.

Those who practice Wicca in other ways, more traditional ways, don't care whether you give your support or not.

Well, touche then. I don't care whether they give me their support either.

So we're even on that count. :cheers:

If you can find some information to back up that belief (that Wicca didn't begin with group heirarchy), I'd be interested in seeing it. History suggests that Gardner was the only High Priest in his group and he trained a few High Priestesses to work alongside him. When members were ready to go out on their own and start their own groups, they became the High Priest or High Priestess of those groups.

That has nothing to do with the way either you or I view Wicca, that is history.

That is indeed the history of Gerald Gardner's idea of "Wicca".

I do not deny that in the least. What I have come to realize is that there are many people who have since climbed on-board giving their support to "Wicca" in a far more abstract form.

I do believe that I have already stated that if the term "Wicca" is being held out to be solely "Gardnerian Wicca" then, yes, I wish to have nothing to do with Wicca as per that rigid definition.

I thought I had already made that clear?

What are you saying those differences are?

That should be my question to you should it not?

After all, you were the one who suggested that you felt that my spiritual beliefs and practices aren't in line with Wicca.

So you should be pointing out to me precisely where you believe I fall short of your definition of Wicca.

It shouldn't be up to me to explain anything to you.

What I actually said was "It sounds like there's actually very little in Wicca that matches your own beliefs, so yeah, it might be rather misleading to call your path Wicca."

I'm still waiting for you to be more specific in that charge.

I hold that you don't even know what my beliefs even are.

Moreover, you had made that accusation way back in the early going of my "Welcome Thread". Long before these discussions even evolved to become what they are today.

~~~~

My original suggestion to you was that maybe instead of jumping to the conclusion that I don't understand Wicca. You might want to instead consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is my beliefs that you don't fully understand.

:cheers:

Alexandria

11-29-2011, 06:44 PM

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 09:54 PM

I'm a bit confused by your history... Yes, Wicca has ancient roots, but that doesn't make Wicca an ancient religion. Wicca is not reconstructionist. Wicca did not exist before Gerald Gardner. That is a historical fact. Individual aspects of Wicca are certainly much older, I will not argue that, but Gardner is the man who pulled it all together into one tradition. (He also pulled from many non-Celtic sources, which include Eastern traditions and ceremonial magic).

Now he did claim that this was a continuation of an ancient European witchcraft cult, but frankly there is just no evidence to support this - in fact, there is ample evidence that shows where Gardner got a lot of Wicca from. If he was initiated into an old witch cult, as he claimed, he truly added enough new material into the tradition (which he admitted to doing) to create Wicca. Wicca did not exist before that.

Don't mistake what I'm saying here. I do not believe that Gardner's Wicca is the only form of Wicca, but it was pretty clearly the first. Other Wiccan traditions came from that, including those practicing as solitaries, but the origins of Wicca are quite clear.

I know you keep claiming to take a broader view of Wicca, but this honestly does not make sense to me. Wicca IS a specific set of traditions, with common beliefs and practices that make them Wicca. If you put it into any broader a context, the term really loses any meaning. You could no longer answer the question of what makes one a Wiccan, so why bother using that term? It just does not make sense.
[quote]

I'm fully aware that there exists people who hold views similar to yours

However, I am also fully aware that there exist people who share mine.

So in the end, it ultimately comes down to individual views and opinions.

I'm not here to argue with anyone. And I would like to point out again, that I am not the one who questioned anyone's view of Wicca. I you prefer to hold the view you've described above, more power to you.

If you're going to try to push that view onto me, I simply don't accept it.

[quote]
Beyond that major issue...

That may have been a major issue for you. But for me it was trivial.

Can you site a (solid) source for this? This goes against what I have been learning, both through language and genetic history... Genetically speaking, it is my understanding that while the Celts and Chinese may share a common ancestor group (though we're talking a good bit back in time, here), I have seen nothing to support the Chinese migrating to Europe to become the Celts... So, if that's true, I'd really love to see some evidence for it.

I can't cite a specific source for my conclusions about the Celts specifically. Although I have watched documentaries and educational programs that have suggested as much. Unfortunately I don't keep track of precisely where I had learned these things. I often kick myself for not keeping better track to I can go back and re-visit some of these things myself.

However I can cite the Human Genome Project for the migration of homosapiens from China into Northern Europe in general. Whether that was the source of the Celts or not is arguable. But it certainly makes sense to me. After all, the Celts were nothing like the Mediterraneans so it's highly unlikely they came up from the Mediterranean region. Thus since the Human Genome Project confirms the migration of homosapians out of Africa, through Chine and into the Europe from that path, it makes sense to me to conclude that this was the origin of the Celts.

Where else could they have come from? There aren't any other options left. They either came straight up from the Mediterranean region, or they migrated in from China. That's really the only two paths recognized by the Human Genome Project.

Here's a course that has some lectures that shows this migration patterns of homosapiens. They don't mention "Celts" or anything like that. All they do is show how humans came out of Africa and inhabited the world.

The Science of Self (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1592)

I think lecture 17 is the lecture that covers this in quite graphic detail.

Just as a note this course could potentially be borrowed from a library, or through inter-library loan. It's not a documentary. It's like a college lecture with a professor giving the lecture from behind a podium. There are graphics used though.

I'm not offering this as 'proof' of anything. I'm just sharing at least on source that has caused me to arrive at my conclusions.

Again, I'm not out to prove anything to anyone. Nor am I the one who is proclaiming that anyone else's views of Wicca are wrong.

I accept that many people have different views.

I just stand behind the conviction that my views are as valid as anyone else's.

Unless of course they do insist on nailing the term "Wicca" to Gerald Gardner.

From what I can tell, there are enough authors of books on Wicca who do not support that kind of restricted view of what Wicca means, that I see no reason for me to be burdened by that restriction either.

In fact, if I end up writing my own book I will entitle it "Animystic Wicca", Or something along those lines. In other words, I'll be giving it a whole new title anyway, and therefore I'll be open to creating my own version of it that is completely independent of Gardnerian Wicca.

So those kinds of considerations won't even be important to me at all.

Alexandria

11-29-2011, 10:21 PM

Well, first, thanks for the source - I'll see what I can look into for that. My understanding from the information the Human Genome Project has come up with, is that the common ancestor was a group living in western Asia, this group then split off, some spreading to the East (including China), others more to the west and Europe. This also makes sense from a language standpoint as well, when tracing both sets of languages back through their roots.

I don't know if that's getting too off topic or what, so, anyway...

That may have been a major issue for you. But for me it was trivial.

I say major issue, because I have been trying to understand where you're coming from for... well, not only all through this thread, but through the others as well, and it still isn't making sense to me.

Let me see if I can put this another way... Say I was someone who didn't know a thing at all about Wicca. If all I had to go on were your posts, I still wouldn't really know at all what Wicca is. I might know some vague beliefs, I don't think I'd know much at all about practice or how those beliefs are explored, and I'd have a vague history (at best) to go by.

There's a point that's been brought up now a few times - both by yourself, and by others. We don't know what you practice/believe. We only have what you post to go by. That's really the thing, you know? I've read all your posts, some more than once to make sure I wasn't missing something and really... at this point, I honestly have no idea what you think Wicca is. This makes it hard to have a conversation on Wicca.

In fact, if I end up writing my own book I will entitle it "Animystic Wicca", Or something along those lines. In other words, I'll be giving it a whole new title anyway, and therefore I'll be open to creating my own version of it that is completely independent of Gardnerian Wicca.

Then why call it Wicca? Honest question. If you intent to separate it totally from the first Wiccan tradition, and in doing so from all traditions of Wicca which split from it... What would be left that actually makes it Wicca?

Abracadabra

11-29-2011, 11:49 PM

Let me see if I can put this another way... Say I was someone who didn't know a thing at all about Wicca. If all I had to go on were your posts, I still wouldn't really know at all what Wicca is. I might know some vague beliefs, I don't think I'd know much at all about practice or how those beliefs are explored, and I'd have a vague history (at best) to go by.

I don't recall ever stating anywhere that it was my intent to teach Wicca via my posts.

That most certainly isn't the purpose of my posts, and so if anyone is reading my posts with the hope of learning about Wicca they have made totally incorrect and ungrounded assumption about the purpose of my posts.

I have beliefs that go far beyond Wicca and I won' t hesitate to share those.

Does Wicca require a restriction of beliefs?

That would be news to me if it does. I thought Wiccans were into learning new things and expanding their consciousness?

Then why call it Wicca? Honest question. If you intent to separate it totally from the first Wiccan tradition, and in doing so from all traditions of Wicca which split from it... What would be left that actually makes it Wicca?

I personally don't feel that that my beliefs are as grossly different from Wicca as you seem to be assuming.

What did I say in my Welcome thread? I said that I'm drawn to Wicca because it is so highly compatible with many of my own spiritual views and beliefs.

Well duh?

If I feel that way, then clearly I don't feel that my beliefs are all that different from fundamental core essence of Wicca.

So that's my honest answer to your honest question. :)

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 12:18 AM

I feel that this has already been addressed:

There are many different forms of Buddhism. If you strip away their individual specific rituals and practices you end up with a core philosophy that is "Buddhism" in general. Although even that is an over-simplification, because there are actually some major differences in the core philosophies between various forms of Buddhism.

Yes, I saw where you said all of that in the post I was responding to, but my point is that while that may all be good and well for Buddhism (and I haven't made a study of Buddhism, so I'm just taking your word on it), that doesn't mean that it makes sense to do the same with Wicca, a religion in which the core beliefs and the core practices are entwined in such a way that if you strip away or significantly alter those practices, then you are altering the core philosophy, and it might not make sense to keep calling it Wicca.

In fact, if you want to get truly abstract about it, I would argue that in the most generic sense the core philosophies of Buddhism aren't all that much different from the core philosophies of Wicca, and vice versa.

When it comes to specific practices, yes, there clearly are distinctions.

I don't want to get truly abstract about it though. If you're going to generalize things to that extent then what is the point of the labels at all? If you discard all of the things that distinguish Wicca from other religions and spiritual paths, what's the point in calling it Wicca at all?

As far as I'm conerned I have studied Wicca in enough depth to understand what it's all about.

How? I still don't understand how you can have studied Wicca in any depth, let alone enough to "understand what it's all about" without having looked at a wide variety of sources specifically about Wicca (including, in my opinion, some traditional material and also some historical material, so as to understand what it is that makes up the core of Wicca, why those things are core, why they are done, how they are done, and how far you can alter them while still keeping that core).

I'm not trying to attack or accuse you of anything, I'm just hoping you'll explain what it is you've studied that makes you think you have a solid base in Wicca, and why you think that's enough. I just want to understand, and simply saying that you think you've studied Wicca in great enough depth isn't really enough information for me to do that.

I confess that this whole thread got off on the wrong foot. And I also confess that I probably was taking a far more "defensive" position than I should have been taking.

I do apologize for that.

Thank you, I really appreciate that :]

Well that's a very good question. My answer is the following: Is Wicca just a man-made religion? Or is it a means of having a relationship with the divine source of life?

Both. Wicca is a man-made religion (as are most if not all organized religions, I would argue) that acts as one possible path to a relationship with divinity (I'm a hard polytheist when I'm any kind of theist at all, so I don't necessarily believe that the deities of one path are the same as those of another). It is a specific path, but it is not the only path. I would assume that it isn't even the only path to the Wiccan deities, but I don't know them, and so I can't say for sure. It certainly isn't the only path to any deities at all though.

Therefore are we really talking about being initiated into a religion? Or are we talking about inititating a relationship with the divine source of life?

I'm talking about being initiated into a religion when I talk about being initiated into Wicca (whether or not being initiated is one of the requirements for being Wiccan is a debate I won't get into. I'm not Wiccan, and so I don't have much of an opinion on that one, and I'm quite willing to go with the common opinion of the forum for the sake of this discussion), but I don't think "self-initiation" is really possible in either case, just based on the definition of the word "initiation." Like I said, I have no problem with self-dedication though, which is what it sounds like you're talking about.

I do think it's quite possible to have a relationship with deities without being Wiccan or belonging to any other organized religion (such is the path that I've chosen for myself), but having a relationship with a deity is not necessarily the same as belonging to a/the religion that honors that deity. I would never argue that someone's spiritual path isn't valid, but I see nothing wrong with questioning whether a particular label is appropriate.

I think it's important, too, to note the difference between questioning the appropriateness of a label and saying that the label is absolutely inappropriate (not that that is always wrong or an accusation either. It would be quite reasonable, for example, for someone to tell me that I am not a Christian if I were to explain my (actual, as in the ones that I actually hold, not hypothetical ones that might actually be in line with that religion) beliefs and practices and then claim the label "Christian." As you say though, you haven't given enough information on your path, and I don't have a firm enough basis in Wicca for me to make a definitive call on that). I have done the former, certainly, but not the latter.

There's nothing wrong or negative or accusatory with questioning, and in fact "question everything" is an important aspect of my path.

The whole idea of a need for 'initiation' in Wicca can be argued in terms of interpretations. What exactly does it mean to you, and why is it important?

Is it a man-made initiation to filter member into a cult?

Or is it the concept of initiating a relationship with the gods?

If we are talking about initiation into a religion, then it is a sort of rite of passage saying that you are an official part of that group, with all the assorted privileges and responsibilities that go with it. There might be some energy exchange or transfer, and there are almost certainly ties made to the other people in the group. It isn't something that one can do to oneself though, regardless of whether or not it is a requirement.

Why is it important? Different reasons for different groups I would guess. It's not an part of my own path, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of perfectly valid reasons for it being incorporated into other paths.

As for a relationship with the gods, I don't know that there's a need for initiation for that (initiating a relationship is not the same as being initiated into a relationship, I don't think. When you initiate a relationship, you are simply starting a relationship, and the object of that initiation is the relationship. If you are initiated into a relationship, some other being is initiating you into the relationship, and the object of that initiation is you), but then my relationship with my deities is more akin to my relationship with my family members than a relationship of worship, as such, so it could well differ for other people on other paths. In any case though, the initiator and the initiated would not be the same being.

If it's the latter, then who else could be involved in initiating a relationship with the god and goddess but the person who wants to have a relationship with them?

Initiation into a particular group is not the same as initiating a relationship with a deity or anyone else (and I think my perspective on this is pretty well covered in that last section I wrote, so I won't bore you by saying it all again here :] )

Well, not meant as an argument, but I see things quite differently.

As far as I can see, there is nothing on that list that wouldn't be compatible with Wicca, and there is also nothing in Wicca that I'm aware of that I could not make a case for from this list.

I don't mind arguments anyway, so long as we're talking the civil, debate-type argument :]

In any case, the 13 items given in that list are not specific enough that I would read it (without seeing it titled as "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" in any case) and know that it was referring to Wicca as opposed to some other path of religious witchcraft. This alone suggests to me that while probably perfectly compatible with Wicca, there are things that are a part of Wicca that are not touched upon by that list. Otherwise we wouldn't use the word "Wicca" at all, we would just say "witchcraft."

I mean, clearly the list doesn't go into extreme specifics, but I think it covers the core essentials. I think someone would be hard-pressed to point out something in Wicca that isn't basically on this list.

I think it's already been pointed out that there's nothing on that list about Wiccan ritual structure or any of the other core practices, nor of any of the specific beliefs of Wicca (that is, the ones that distinguish it from every other spiritual path). Everything in that list is generic enough to apply to a wide spectrum of spiritual paths, many of them decidedly non-Wiccan.

I mean, they might point out a very specific ceremony or ritual that the list hasn't described in detail, but from my point of view, if asked WHY is that ritual being peformed, then I think the response will be on this list.

Like, to honor the god and goddess. Or to attune with nature. Etc.

Does this list really need to get into all the details of precise rituals?

It isn't just that the list doesn't get into very specific and detailed ritual descriptions, it's that there's absolutely no mention of the core practices or basic ritual structure at all, nor is there any mention of the beliefs that are specific to Wicca (as I mentioned, the list is pretty general, and so while it could certainly apply to Wicca, it could just as easily apply to a number of non-Wiccan paths as well).

I don't believe that I had ever said that you did. :cheers:

You've made a few comments about accusations being made towards you in these threads, and I can't imagine I'm not one of the people you're referring to, as we've all been saying a lot of the same things

But being utterly bombarded by endless accusations is ridiculous and certainly not the norm on any forum I've ever been on before.

That may be true, but is there any point in beating other people over the head with accusations that their understanding of Wicca may be lacking?

Non-specific accusation and insinuations concerning my knowledge of Wicca continued.

And this one was in a response to me, apparently in response to the quote of mine that you included in the post (though the quote said nothing to suggest I was accusing you of having stopped learning):

I have no need to accuse other people of "Having stopped learning" simply because they see Wicca as being abstract.

So if I've misinterpreted these things, I apologize, but I hope you can see why I made the interpretation that I did.

You've also said a few things to me that felt accusatory:

Now Pandora is using that as ammunition to toss in my face

Yes, it was indeed obscenely long Pandora. I think it was also obscenely misguided.

I didn't bother to read the entire post in detail because this whole thing is getting totally out of hand.

[SNIP]

Again you're jumping to huge conclusions just to be argumentative.

[SNIP]

I can't help but think that you've just gone off the deep end here trying to "win" an argument that doesn't even exist.

And if I misinterpreted those too, then again I apologize, but if you didn't mean those things as attacks or accusations, hopefully you see how easy these misinterpretations are to make, and how easy it is to come off differently than intended in a text based medium :]

Anyway, this post is becoming quite lengthy, so I'm going to break this up and continue the rest in a new post.

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 12:36 AM

I don't recall ever stating anywhere that it was my intent to teach Wicca via my posts.

That most certainly isn't the purpose of my posts, and so if anyone is reading my posts with the hope of learning about Wicca they have made totally incorrect and ungrounded assumption about the purpose of my posts.

You're missing my point, so I'll put it as simply as possible.

After reading all your posts and trying to have a discussion with you for this long -- I have no idea what you think Wicca is. I have no idea what your beliefs and practices consist of. This makes having any sort of discussion incredibly difficult.

I personally don't feel that that my beliefs are as grossly different from Wicca as you seem to be assuming.

See above.

What did I say in my Welcome thread? I said that I'm drawn to Wicca because it is so highly compatible with many of my own spiritual views and beliefs.

Well duh?

If I feel that way, then clearly I don't feel that my beliefs are all that different from fundamental core essence of Wicca.

This honestly doesn't mean much. You may feel your beliefs are compatible with Wicca, and they may be, but if I do not know what your beliefs are, if I do not know what you think the core of Wicca is, because you have yet to be clear on either of these matters... Well, it could mean anything. Again, totally vague and doesn't really tell me anything.

So that's my honest answer to your honest question. :)

Except you didn't actually answer my question. Why call it Wicca? What would make it Wicca?

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 01:25 AM

I totally reject the very concept of organized religion.

You can reject it all you want, but that won't make it go away. I assume you mean that you don't think organized religion is a good fit for you (correct me if I'm wrong though). It's the same for me. If it works for other people, great for them, but it really isn't for me.

But if organized religion isn't for you, why do want so badly to be able to claim the label "Wiccan," when Wicca is afterall an organized religion?

Moreover, there is no mention of any need of any initiation in the Thirteen Principles.

Well, as has been said, the Thirteen Principles is a pretty general document that applies to a great many paths and in no way represents the whole of Wicca, or indeed any religion, so I'm not sure this makes sense as an argument.

Which isn't to say that that means that the initiation is required (like I said before, that's a debate I won't comment on, and I'm more than willing to go with the common opinion of the forum for the sake of this conversation).

In any case, I don't think anyone who has said anything in this thread about Wicca or about initiation has said you can't be Wiccan unless you are initiated. There have simply been statements made about whether or not "self-initiation" makes sense as a term.

I would not only distance myself from "Wicca" if I felt that was the only valid definition for Wicca. But I would also renounce it as being clearly a non-spiritual organization whose purpose it would be to decide who is in line with the "gods" and who is not.

First of all, suggesting that the label "Wicca" may not be appropriate in no way suggests that anyone is saying anyone else isn't "in line" with the gods. It is simply saying whether or not a particular set of beliefs and practices is "in line" with the specific religion of Wicca.

Second of all, why would you renounce a group as being "non-spiritual" because they are initiation based? There are a myriad of reasons why a particular group might want to incorporate initiation and a level of exclusivity when it comes to bringing people into the group, not the least of which being that (at least it is my understanding) covens tend to be very intimate, with trust being vital, not to mention the importance of all the personalities being able to work together without major clashing.

As I said, initiation is not a part of my path (and my path tends to be largely solitary), but it seems silly to automatically say that a group which does require initiation is "non-spiritual."

That very approach to Wicca, would rapidly become as exclusive as Christianity, proclaiming that if you haven't been properly initiated and recognized by the proper Wicca Authorities, then cannot have yet given your life over to the God and Goddess.

It makes me very uncomfortable every time you use "Christianity" like it's a curse word, or say things that suggest that having something in common with Christianity is something other religions should be striving to avoid.

I understand that Christianity isn't your path, but please try to understand that for many other people it is the right path.

I brought this up in an earlier post to you (though I believe you said you decided against reading that one), but it comes off as frankly offensive, at least to my view, and I'm sure that's not something you want.

And yes, I question their spiritual validity. Whether they be Christian or Wiccan.

Whoa, hold on there, who are you to question someone's "spiritual validity"? I don't understand how you can take offense at people who suggest that a particular label might not be entirely appropriate (while repeatedly saying that that in no way means your path isn't valid, no less), but then say that you are questioning the spiritual validity of someone else's path.

I seriously hope that was just a poor choice of words on your part, and that you are not actually suggesting that you feel that you have the right to judge the spiritual validity of someone else's path.

Lunacie,

I truly did not feel inspired to read your post beyond this opening paragraph.

The things you have stated in this paragraph come across as being quite derogatory.

You state: "you're entitled to your opinion, even when it's based on inaccurate or incomplete information."

That already sounds to me like an insinuation that my views are based on inaccurate or incomplete information.

It isn't insulting or derogatory to suggest that someone might be misinformed. To be honest, I'd be way more insulted if someone didn't point out where I might be misinformed in an effort to spare my feelings or some such, because to me that would suggest that the other person suspected me incapable of handling the possibility that I might not know everything. I appreciate it when people respect me enough to point out my mistakes. But maybe that's just me.

You also state, "You may not be interested in expanding your knowledge, but others who are reading these threads might be."

Again, I find this to be quite insulting and presumptuous on your behalf. You are not only insinuating that I have inaccurate and incomplete information, but you are also insinuating that I have no interest in expanding my knowledge.

Both of these insinuations are as false as can be.

As I mentioned before, it is not an insult to say someone might be misinformed. As to the other bit, to be fair, you have said in the past:

Do I really need to search around for authors who disagree with that?

I don't think so. I'm comfortable that Scott Cunningham feels the same way I do. Why would I be interested in seeking out the views and opinions of other people that don't match up with my own innate views on the matter?

Which would seem to suggest that you are not interested in expanding your knowledge if it means gaining knowledge that might contradict the views you already hold, be they right or wrong.

After all, you were the one who suggested that you felt that my spiritual beliefs and practices aren't in line with Wicca.

So you should be pointing out to me precisely where you believe I fall short of your definition of Wicca.

It shouldn't be up to me to explain anything to you.

Except you haven't shared much of your path, so instead we have only what you have shared to go by. And of course you are in no way obligated to share more if you don't want, but nor is anyone else obligated to take you at your word when you claim that if people knew more about your path, they would agree that it's clearly Wiccan.

This is in no way meant as an attack, I'm just pointing out where I'm (and I would guess others as well) coming from. By all means, feel free to correct me wherever I've misinterpreted. I'm happy to accept that I may be incorrect, but what I really want is to understand, an in order to do that you have to explain what you actually meant.

I'm still waiting for you to be more specific in that charge.

When I responded to your request that I say what specifically it was with which I disagreed, your response was less than encouraging, and in fact you stated that you didn't even bother to read it. Perhaps others are reluctant to put in the time to state their own specific areas of disagreement when it seems as though such posts are likely to result only in anger and accusations.

It's difficult to want to put in the time required to put together a solid response that says what it's meant to say, when such posts are met with venom. And this is from someone who really likes to see her words on the screen, so... :]

Lunacie

11-30-2011, 08:30 AM

Abra, you're right, I don't know what your beliefs are. You insist you're Wiccan because your beliefs are similar to those of Wicca, but you've never actually said what those beliefs are. You just point to things other people have written and say "Yeah, that's what I believe."

However the comments you have made on these threads don't seem to mesh with Wiccan beliefs. You've said you have "a more abstract view of Wicca," to which the responses have been that Wicca is not abstract. There are definite practices and beliefs associated with Wicca.

You then say, "Well if those are requirements to be Wiccan, I don't want to be Wiccan."

Wicca was put together from many sources, but that doesn't mean Wicca is the same as the mystery religions of Greece or the practices of ancient China or the witchcraft rituals of old England.

I don't judge your spirituality in any way, whatever works for you and brings you closer to the Divine Spirit is up to you. But if you reject Wicca's history and requirement and claim that Wicca is something that it clearly isn't and never has been, then as a Wiccan myself I do have the right to judge that.

Not judging YOU - judging what you call Wicca.

You wrote:
In fact, if I end up writing my own book I will entitle it "Animystic Wicca", Or something along those lines. In other words, I'll be giving it a whole new title anyway, and therefore I'll be open to creating my own version of it that is completely independent of Gardnerian Wicca.

You'll be creating your own spiritual pathway that is completely independent of the roots of Wicca ... so really, why call it Wicca? Sounds like a fine spiritual pathway, but it won't be Wicca, so why use that name?

Really ... why?

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 09:55 AM

You insist you're Wiccan because your beliefs are similar to those of Wicca, but you've never actually said what those beliefs are.

This thread has gotten totally out of hand.

I have never insisted that I am "Wiccan".

In fact, I don't even necessarily consider myself to be a "Wiccan". I am many things.

All I said is that I was "drawn" to Wicca because as far as I can see the traditions, practices and core philosophies associated with Wicca appear to me to be in Harmony with my views and beliefs.

You'll be creating your own spiritual pathway that is completely independent of the roots of Wicca ... so really, why call it Wicca? Sounds like a fine spiritual pathway, but it won't be Wicca, so why use that name?

Really ... why?

I simply don't agree with your conclusion that I would be creating my own spiritual pathway that is completely independent from the roots of Wicca.

Besides, I'm not viewing Wicca like you do. You have a very narrow view of Wicca as being a collection of specific traditions. I'm looking at it from a far deeper spiritual and philosophical perspective. So what you deem to be the core of Wicca, and what I deem to be the core of Wicca, are no doubt world's apart.

More importantly, why are you so defensive about the term Wicca?

Do you fear that someone might change what Wicca means?

I think such fears are totally ungrounded.

If I write a book on "Animystic Wicca" it will clearly be a book that melds together ideas of both Animism and Wicca. There will be no claim anywhere in the book that either of these two fundamental spiritual ideas will be preserved in historical details. That's not the point to it.

It will also be quite easy for "traditional Wiccans" to say that they have nothing to do with "Animysitc Wicca" if they so choose to take that stance.

So it's not like it would be a threat to "traditional Wicca" in any way. In fact, some Wiccans may actually find it to be quite interesting and useful. Who knows?

:circle:

Lunacie

11-30-2011, 10:15 AM

This thread has gotten totally out of hand.

I have never insisted that I am "Wiccan".

In fact, I don't even necessarily consider myself to be a "Wiccan". I am many things.

All I said is that I was "drawn" to Wicca because as far as I can see the traditions, practices and core philosophies associated with Wicca appear to me to be in Harmony with my views and beliefs.

I simply don't agree with your conclusion that I would be creating my own spiritual pathway that is completely independent from the roots of Wicca.

Besides, I'm not viewing Wicca like you do. You have a very narrow view of Wicca as being a collection of specific traditions. I'm looking at it from a far deeper spiritual and philosophical perspective. So what you deem to be the core of Wicca, and what I deem to be the core of Wicca, are no doubt world's apart.

More importantly, why are you so defensive about the term Wicca?

Do you fear that someone might change what Wicca means?

I think such fears are totally ungrounded.

If I write a book on "Animystic Wicca" it will clearly be a book that melds together ideas of both Animism and Wicca. There will be no claim anywhere in the book that either of these two fundamental spiritual ideas will be preserved in historical details. That's not the point to it.

It will also be quite easy for "traditional Wiccans" to say that they have nothing to do with "Animysitc Wicca" if they so choose to take that stance.

So it's not like it would be a threat to "traditional Wicca" in any way. In fact, some Wiccans may actually find it to be quite interesting and useful. Who knows?

:circle:

I agree this is all out of hand. I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty tired of quoting you and still having you deny that you ever said specific things.

For instance: I quoted you as saying that you might write a book creating your own version of Wicca "completely independent" of Gardnerian Wicca but now you write that you don't agree with me that your version would be completely independent of Wicca's roots. Either you aren't expressing your thoughts very well, or you just need to pick one opinion and stick to it.

Why am I defensive? Because I'm correcting the notion that Wicca is "abstract." Repeatedly.

And because you suggest that my practice of Wicca isn't as deep or spiritual or philosophical as yours is. Apparently you think this because I say Wicca is a balance between spirituality and a set of specific practices. You don't seem to understand that those specific practices are designed to lead to a deeper spiritual experience.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 10:18 AM

But if organized religion isn't for you, why do want so badly to be able to claim the label "Wiccan," when Wicca is afterall an organized religion?

I have no desire to claim the label "Wiccan". That's a mistaken folly right there.

Just the same, from what I've read about Wicca, I "could" claim that label if I wanted to. Moreover in doing so that wouldn't restrict me to only being "Wiccan" and nothing else.

What I don't understand is why people are becoming so defensive about the term "Wiccan".

If I add additional things into my rituals that do not "belong" to Wicca, that does not mean that I am not practicing "Wicca". All it means is that I have added additional things on top of it.

These kinds of arguments of what constitutes "Wicca" are truly futile and senseless IMHO.

Unless, of course, a person feels a very strong need to defend and preserve a very specific form of Wicca and even disallows any additional knowledge or ideas to be brought in on top of that in fear of contamination.

I have no doubt that such people do exist. But I can assure you that they are not going to run my life based on their limited views.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 10:31 AM

I agree this is all out of hand. I don't know about the others, but I'm pretty tired of quoting you and still having you deny that you ever said specific things.

Good, I'm tired of being crucified for no good reason. :cheers:

Why am I defensive? Because I'm correcting the notion that Wicca is "abstract." Repeatedly.

In other words, you're voicing your view that you feel that Wicca should not be viewed from an abstract perspective.

I view everything in the universe and life itself from an abstract point of view, so I see no reason to give Wicca any special exception. :)

And because you suggest that my practice of Wicca isn't as deep or spiritual or philosophical as yours is.

I can only go by what you say. :cheers:

Apparently you think this because I say Wicca is a balance between spirituality and a set of specific practices. You don't seem to understand that those specific practices are designed to lead to a deeper spiritual experience.

I am totally aware that the practices are designed to lead to a deeper spiritual experience, and that's been my whole point all along.

That is the core philosophy that I've been talking about all along.

All I'm saying is that once you understand this (and you claim that you do) then you should also be able to see that you can indeed change those rituals and practices up quite a bit and still preserve the spiritual essence and experience they will lead to.

That's my whole point.

It's not about the specific rituals, it's about what they lead to.

It is this core philosophy that I'm concerned with.

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 10:48 AM

What I don't understand is why people are becoming so defensive about the term "Wiccan".

I find it interesting you accuse others of this, when you are just as guilty. For quite a few posts you were awfully defensive of your use of the word Wicca to describe yourself. Of course now you've gone back to the whole 'oh, well I don't really want to claim to be a Wiccan' bit - which only makes me wonder, even more, what the point has been.

It's not about the specific rituals, it's about what they lead to.
It is this core philosophy that I'm concerned with.

The core philosophy that, as you've said before, is quite similar to Buddhism and many other paths. So, when stripped down to this "core philosophy" that could easily apply to any number of other paths out there... what's left that makes it uniquely Wicca?

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 10:55 AM

Whoa, hold on there, who are you to question someone's "spiritual validity"? I don't understand how you can take offense at people who suggest that a particular label might not be entirely appropriate (while repeatedly saying that that in no way means your path isn't valid, no less), but then say that you are questioning the spiritual validity of someone else's path.

I seriously hope that was just a poor choice of words on your part, and that you are not actually suggesting that you feel that you have the right to judge the spiritual validity of someone else's path.

I do feel a need to address this because it was indeed grossly misunderstood.

I don't feel that this was a poor choice of words on my part. It was just a misunderstanding on your part of precisely what I was referring to.

I was referring to religions and traditions. NOT to the spiritual sincerity of individuals.

Let's face it, all religions cannot be simultaneously true. Especially one's that claim their God is the the ultimate "True and Only God".

For example, the Greeks Zeus and the Hebrew Yahweh could not be simultaneously true.

Does this mean that all Greeks were insincere in their spiritual path? Or that all Hebrews were insincere in their spiritual path?

No, not at all. It says nothing at all about the sincerity of the individual followers of the religion.

If Christianity is wrong and Jesus is not the son of God who was sent to be the sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of men. Then all Christians are performing rituals and prayers to honor a 'false God'. Does that make their spiritual path insincere? Does that make the spirituality of the followers of this religion invalid?

No it doesn't.

So when speaking of religions you really need to keep track of what is being said about the religion and what is being implied about its followers.

Those are two entirely different things.

I question the "spiritual validity" of a lot of religions (as does everyone else). The Christians question the "spiritual validity" of Islam, and the Muslims question the "spiritual validity" of Christianity.

But does that mean that all Christians question the spiritual sincerity of all Muslims, and vice versa?

I think not.

Just because they question the spiritual validity of the religions, doesn't mean that they question the spiritual validity of the paths chosen by the individual followers.

So please don't confuse comments about religions, with comments about the followers of religions and pin that on me.

I keep that distinction very clear in my own mind. I don't question any individual's spiritual path or sincerity even thought I do question the spiritual validity of various religions themselves.

It just seems to me that you guys are really bending over backwards to try to pin something horrible on me. And you really don't much care what it is.

As I've said. This whole things has gotten way out of hand.

Lunacie

11-30-2011, 11:04 AM

Good, I'm tired of being crucified for no good reason. :cheers:

Aww, such a martyr.

In other words, you're voicing your view that you feel that Wicca should not be viewed from an abstract perspective.

I view everything in the universe and life itself from an abstract point of view, so I see no reason to give Wicca any special exception. :)

It's not my view alone, it's based on the views of Gerald Gardner who actually put the bits and pieces together and created this thing we call Wicca. It's also the view of a whole bunch of people who actually know what the religion is all about.

Sounds like your view is that all religions are abstract - there isn't anything to distinguish them from each other. They why did you come to this forum? Why do you say you want to know more about Wicca? When we tell you anything about Wicca, you get huffy and say that's not what you want Wicca to be.

I am totally aware that the practices are designed to lead to a deeper spiritual experience, and that's been my whole point all along.

That is the core philosophy that I've been talking about all along.

All I'm saying is that once you understand this (and you claim that you do) then you should also be able to see that you can indeed change those rituals and practices up quite a bit and still preserve the spiritual essence and experience they will lead to.

That's my whole point.

It's not about the specific rituals, it's about what they lead to.

It is this core philosophy that I'm concerned with.

That's why I started the discussion about Wiccan rituals and invited people to discuss why we do certain things in our rituals, and how we can vary the ways we do those things. Other religions have their own rituals that lead to a different philosophical viewpoint.

I'm not sure you understand the definition of "philosophy." It doesn't lump everything in together in some abstract whole. It looks at the different doctrines and principles that distinguish things from each other.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 11:15 AM

I find it interesting you accuse others of this, when you are just as guilty. For quite a few posts you were awfully defensive of your use of the word Wicca to describe yourself. Of course now you've gone back to the whole 'oh, well I don't really want to claim to be a Wiccan' bit - which only makes me wonder, even more, what the point has been.[quote]

You're not being consistent here.

I was defending my right to suggest that my beliefs and views are harmonious with Wicca. I was not defending the label itself.

It appears to me that other people are just defending the term "Wicca" when there is no personal accusation being made toward them at all.

In fact, there isn't even any threat being made toward Wicca. So why even become defensive about it at all?

It's pointless.

[quote]The core philosophy that, as you've said before, is quite similar to Buddhism and many other paths. So, when stripped down to this "core philosophy" that could easily apply to any number of other paths out there... what's left that makes it uniquely Wicca?

Whoever said that it had to be "uniquely Wicca"?

I think this is where there is a lot of confusion as well.

I do not claim to be "uniquely Wiccan". And I never have.

I originally stated that my spiritual beliefs and views are in harmony with Wicca. I never said that I am restricted solely by Wicca.

I never implied that, nor intended to imply it.

So I don't see where there is any problem to be perfectly honest about.

People seem to be trying to make a mountain out of mole hill here.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 11:30 AM

Sounds like your view is that all religions are abstract - there isn't anything to distinguish them from each other.

Perhaps we view the very concept of "abstraction" in quite different ways.

Mathematics is abstract too. Yet it is filled with extremely rigorous fields of geometry, algebra, number theory, calculus etc.

Abstract does not mean: ill-defined, fuzzy, unclear, or anything remotely like that. If it did, then mathematicians would be saying that mathematics is ill-defined, unclear and fuzzy when they say that it is abstract.

I'm using the concept of "abstract" in the same sense that they use it. Yes there is a core structure to Wicca. I agree. But just like in calculus where there are core structures to mathematical relationship, the actual numbers that can be plugged in are infinite.

In much the same way the rituals of Wicca can be changed around too quite a bit without loss of core structure.

Besides where do you draw the line?

You mention Gerald Gardner. Well according him a circle should be cast 9 feet in diameter. So if a person casts a circle that's say 100 feet in diameter does this mean that they aren't a "Wiccan"?

I'm serious.

How flexible are these rituals? And if they are flexible, then where is the line drawn?

Do you have to call the Goddess by a certain name? Or can you give her any name that calls to you?

Just how strict is it?

If there are variables that you can change, then like mathematics, it's abstract. How far can you change them before you break the underlying mathematical structure?

Well, in something like Wicca, that's probably open to quite a large array of individual views and opinions.

I take that abstraction seriously, and I will stretch it to the point where some people might actually think it's potentially going to break.

Like I say, precisely where it breaks is ultimately going to be a matter of personal opinion.

I may feel that I haven't broken it, you may feel I have.

And there we are with a difference of opinion.

Nothing new there. Humans have held different opinions for all of history. Should we truly expect that to change in our lifetime?

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 11:37 AM

You're not being consistent here.

Oh no? I feel that I've been pretty darn consistent all through these threads, which is more than I can say for you. Your points and claims have shifted throughout. Perhaps you haven't meant them to, but that is how it appears. It makes it quite hard to follow you.

It appears to me that other people are just defending the term "Wicca" when there is no personal accusation being made toward them at all.

Is this a problem for you? No one has attacked your personal beliefs and practices. I would dare say no one here has any clear idea of what those even consist of, due to your consistently vague replies here. So, we discuss the topic at hand, what it is that makes Wicca a path among many. Wicca is but one set of pagan traditions, if there is not something that sets Wicca apart from other pagan paths (and other religions in general), then what is the point of using the term Wicca?

In fact, there isn't even any threat being made toward Wicca. So why even become defensive about it at all?

I can't speak for the others, but for me it's not specifically about defending Wicca. (Not being a Wiccan, I'm not sure why I'd want to do that in this content.) It is, however, about exploring the meaning of words, and why we use them. Wicca is a set of traditions with core practices, values, and beliefs. You want to take a very vague and abstract view of Wicca, so I wish to know, what is it that makes it Wicca in your mind? Why do you choose use this term?

Whoever said that it had to be "uniquely Wicca"?
I think this is where there is a lot of confusion as well.
I do not claim to be "uniquely Wiccan". And I never have.

And again I must ask you, why choose the word Wiccan all this time, then? You say you'd like to write a book using the word Wicca in the title - what about it would be Wiccan?

So if I am understanding you here, you do not claim to be a Wiccan. You may have something in common with Wicca - but we can't be sure what exactly that is from your 'abstract' posts. So, we wonder why the term Wicca is being used... You seem to identify with it enough to get defensive when people question you on the matter, you identify with it enough to want to write a book which - by the title - would include Wicca... although you would also wish to separate it from what ties other Wiccan traditions together.

So, again, it's a matter of wondering why?

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 12:11 PM

I have no desire to claim the label "Wiccan". That's a mistaken folly right there.

My mistake. I thought you had referred to yourself and your path as Wiccan (if not exclusively Wiccan) at least a few times, particularly in your welcome thread. I must simply be misremembering :]

I suppose I just find it difficult to understand why you would get so upset and feel so defensive when someone says that your path and Wicca might not really mesh if you have no desire to claim the title Wicca.

What I don't understand is why people are becoming so defensive about the term "Wiccan".

It's not about that one term. I feel that language as a whole deserves defending. Words have power. Even people who don't believe in magic of the sort we usually talk about on a forum like this will generally acknowledge that.

Language is beautiful and powerful. Words can rip you to shreds or heal your deepest wounds. Words allow us to take our innermost thoughts, ideas from the deepest recesses of our minds and share them with complete strangers, if we so desire, or to deceive and mislead.

Some words allow us to communicate deep and complex ideas in just a few syllables, and others allow us to communicate even those ideas for which we have no specific words in just a few sentences.

But all of that power depends upon those words being used correctly. No one is perfect, and with very few exceptions we all occasionally use one word when we mean another, or hold incorrect definitions for words, or forget a comma or a letter or a concept. People either understand what the intended meaning was, or they ask for clarification, or they correct the mistake and then communicative power is restored and we can all move on.

The problem occurs when people insist on using words inappropriately, or water them so far that they lose what meaning they once had, and are used to describe less specific concepts for which we already had perfectly serviceable words, taking away from their value to effectively describe the more specific concept they once represented.

This is why when you use the word "Wicca" to mean "Any spiritual path in which witchcraft is used positively" or any of the myriad other vague or inaccurate definitions you've used, and when you invent meanings for other words that also already had established meanings, I feel the need to speak up. Words have power, and can be an incredible tool, but for some reason you seem determined to take that power away.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 12:13 PM

And again I must ask you, why choose the word Wiccan all this time, then? You say you'd like to write a book using the word Wicca in the title - what about it would be Wiccan?

Quite a bit. This is why I would use this term.

Plus, you need to understand that I'm not in agreement with you about the 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief. As far as I'm concerned they do apply directly to Wicca despite your personal objections in the matter. So we're simply not on the same page at all.

Apparently you have some very specific criteria for what you consider to be Wicca.

I don't.

Seems pretty simple to me.

We just have different views is all.

Period, amen.

In fact, for whatever it's worth, in my book I would begin by explaining my abstract view of "Wicca", and therefore the give the readers a heads-up on precisely what to expect, and how it relates to "Wicca" in this abstract way.

You keep asking why use the term?

Where there are two very good reasons.

1. I sincerely believe that it correctly communicates the core ideas that I will be addressing in the book.

2. It's a term that people are familiar with and will therefore have a basic understanding of what the book will be about.

~~~~

In fact, a good analogy, or comparison, might be to compare my book with Deepak Chopra's Book entitled "The Third Jesus". Is Deepak's book about Christianity? No, not at all. On the contrary, it a view of Jesus as a Buddha.

So in much the same way, a book entitled "Animystic Wicca" doesn't need to be about Wicca specifically. It's actually about an animistic view of Wicca as the title suggests.

It's an abstraction of the basic form of Wicca explored from an Animistic perspective.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 12:26 PM

I suppose I just find it difficult to understand why you would get so upset and feel so defensive when someone says that your path and Wicca might not really mesh if you have no desire to claim the title Wicca.

Initially I didn't. On the contrary, I simply suggested that this person is jumping to conclusions without truly knowing much about me and my beliefs at all. She continued to press the argument. And it hasn't made any sense since.

It's really not a matter of being upset, or feeling a need to defend my right to the title of "Wiccan". Now it's become a general discussion about how different people think of Wicca.

Yet for some reason it still seems to be about ME personally.

That's the frustrating part.

It's not about ME.

It's about how different people view Wicca.

So let's all quit making it about ME.

Ok?

:b1:

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 12:39 PM

Quite a bit. This is why I would use this term.

Again, this doesn't actually tell me anything. I don't really know how I can make myself clearer here...

Apparently you have some very specific criteria for what you consider to be Wicca.

You know, it's interesting... This is the first time I have ever had someone tell me my criteria for what makes one a Wiccan is too specific, and I'm not exactly new to the pagan community and these types of discussions. The only exception would of course be the "Wicca is whatever you want" crowd - which you also claim to disagree with. I'm not exactly a hardcore Gardnerian or bust kind of person, far from it. My criteria aren't all that strict - which is why I am having trouble understanding your view. I do not see how it can get any less specific, and yet still be Wicca. That is what I keep hoping you will explain.

1. I sincerely believe that it correctly communicates the core ideas that I will be addressing in the book.
2. It's a term that people are familiar with and will therefore have a basic understanding of what the book will be about.

Yet I can't get you to elaborate on what you believe the core of Wicca is, aside from vague philosophies which you have said are very similar to other views. So what makes these core philosophies Wicca, and not something else? What is the "basic form of Wicca?"

I feel I have a basic understanding of Wicca, an understanding that is not exactly rigid despite what you may think. Yet I do not know what this actually means to you.

Lunacie

11-30-2011, 12:42 PM

Quite a bit. This is why I would use this term.

Plus, you need to understand that I'm not in agreement with you about the 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief. As far as I'm concerned they do apply directly to Wicca despite your personal objections in the matter. So we're simply not on the same page at all.

Apparently you have some very specific criteria for what you consider to be Wicca.

I don't.

Seems pretty simple to me.

We just have different views is all.

Period, amen.

In fact, for whatever it's worth, in my book I would begin by explaining my abstract view of "Wicca", and therefore the give the readers a heads-up on precisely what to expect, and how it relates to "Wicca" in this abstract way.

You keep asking why use the term?

Where there are two very good reasons.

1. I sincerely believe that it correctly communicates the core ideas that I will be addressing in the book.

2. It's a term that people are familiar with and will therefore have a basic understanding of what the book will be about.

~~~~

In fact, a good analogy, or comparison, might be to compare my book with Deepak Chopra's Book entitled "The Third Jesus". Is Deepak's book about Christianity? No, not at all. On the contrary, it a view of Jesus as a Buddha.

So in much the same way, a book entitled "Animystic Wicca" doesn't need to be about Wicca specifically. It's actually about an animistic view of Wicca as the title suggests.

It's an abstraction of the basic form of Wicca explored from an Animistic perspective.

You need to understand that what we've told you about the 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief is backed up by facts and information. Your opinion of the text is just an opinion with nothing but your feelings to back it up.

That doesn't mean that your feelings aren't important, but it would be foolish to expect they'd be as important to anyone else, especially those who have more knowledge of Wicca than you seem to.

No one said the Principles don't apply to Wicca, what was said is that they apply very loosely to Wicca. They don't begin to go into the depths needed to really understand Wicca.

Wicca does have specific criteria. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Wicca.

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 02:08 PM

I do feel a need to address this because it was indeed grossly misunderstood.

I don't feel that this was a poor choice of words on my part. It was just a misunderstanding on your part of precisely what I was referring to.

I was referring to religions and traditions. NOT to the spiritual sincerity of individuals.

I don't think you understood my response to you. I didn't say you were suggesting that the followers of other paths were insincere in their paths. I said that you do not have the authority to determine whether someone else's path is spiritually valid. To do so is so far beyond arrogance that I just don't know what to call it.

You have stated in other posts in other threads that you view it as religious bigotry when others suggest that your use of the word "Wicca" might be incorrect. You act as though people who say that your path is not Wicca are saying that your path is not true or valid, and the implication is that they are awful and bigoted for doing so. And yet the only one on this thread who has stated that anyone's path is not true or valid is you.

I really hoped when I saw that you had responded to my comment on that remark that you would say that you misspoke and that you hadn't meant to imply that you felt you were in a position to judge the truth or validity of someone else's path. Obviously I was overly optimistic in that hope.

I hope you can understand why I find your views and statements on this matter to be an issue.

Let's face it, all religions cannot be simultaneously true. Especially one's that claim their God is the the ultimate "True and Only God".

For example, the Greeks Zeus and the Hebrew Yahweh could not be simultaneously true.

First of all, there is a difference between a religion being absolutely correct and accurate and it being "true" in the sense of spiritual validity. It might seem a contradiction for both a belief that one god is the "True and Only God" (though I believe I've seen things in Christianity that suggest that, at least at one point the Hebrew god was not actually supposed to be the only god, but rather the only one those who were a part of the covenant with that god were supposed to be worshiping. Of course I could be completely off base on that one. It's not an area I've made a particular study of) and a belief that there is also another god, but that doesn't mean that both of those gods could not simultaneously be true or real, it just means that they can't both be simultaneously if one of them is also the only god.

Second of all, even if there is only One True Path (TM) or a handful of True Paths (TM), what makes you think yours is one of them? Sure, you may have your personal experiences, but everyone else has theirs as well.

I know my path is the right one for me. I don't know that it is right for anyone else, and I don't know that any other path is not right for anyone else. I'm aware enough of my own lack of proof for my own path to realize that I could easily be wrong. I just don't know, and neither do you.

Does this mean that all Greeks were insincere in their spiritual path? Or that all Hebrews were insincere in their spiritual path?

No, not at all. It says nothing at all about the sincerity of the individual followers of the religion.

As I said, I did not interpret your questioning of the spiritual validity of another path to be questioning their spiritual sincerity of that paths followers (you'll note that at no point did I say anything about spiritual sincerity, but I said a lot about spiritual validity), I took it as you questioning the truth and validity of their path. It seems that was exactly what you meant.

If Christianity is wrong and Jesus is not the son of God who was sent to be the sacrificial lamb to pay for the sins of men. Then all Christians are performing rituals and prayers to honor a 'false God'.

The Hebrew god's existence/truthfulness/status as a god is not dependent upon every other aspect of the mythology being true. Nothing in your first sentence suggests to me that their god would be false even if your first sentence were factually true (which of course you can't actually know, though you can certainly believe it to be the case).

So when speaking of religions you really need to keep track of what is being said about the religion and what is being implied about its followers.

Those are two entirely different things.

You are the one who assumed I thought you were saying that you thought the followers were insincere. I didn't. I have a problem with you suggesting that someone else's religion is false. You may truly believe that. You don't have to believe in every religion, but that doesn't mean that you can go around saying that they are wrong and that their religion is false. That's no different from someone else saying that your path is false and not valid.

I question the "spiritual validity" of a lot of religions (as does everyone else). The Christians question the "spiritual validity" of Islam, and the Muslims question the "spiritual validity" of Christianity.

I don't. I may not believe in their religion, and I certainly do not follow anyone else's path, but I'm not about to question the "spiritual validity" of their path simply because I don't believe in it, or because I don't think it's a good fit for me. I am not a god, and I have no way of knowing what the truth is. It is just as possible that my aunt is right, or that there's nothing, as it is that my own path is correct.

I would hope that no one would tell me that my spiritual path is false or untrue or not valid, and so why would I say the same about someone else's path?

But does that mean that all Christians question the spiritual sincerity of all Muslims, and vice versa?

Could you please explain what it was in my post that made you think I thought you were talking about spiritual sincerity as opposed to spiritual validity? I'm certain that I specifically said "spiritual validity" and that I did not once say "spiritual sincerity."

Just because they question the spiritual validity of the religions, doesn't mean that they question the spiritual validity of the paths chosen by the individual followers.

[SNIP]

I keep that distinction very clear in my own mind. I don't question any individual's spiritual path or sincerity even thought I do question the spiritual validity of various religions themselves.

For most followers of religion, the religion is the path, the path is the religion. How can you say that you don't question the validity of anyone's spiritual path (which generally speaking would be their religion, though I do not use the word religion myself when referring to my spiritual path), but that you do question the spiritual validity of various religions?

It just seems to me that you guys are really bending over backwards to try to pin something horrible on me. And you really don't much care what it is.

As I've said. This whole things has gotten way out of hand.

I've put a great deal of effort into presenting my thoughts on your posts in as friendly and respectful a manner as possible, even after you've responded to me with what can only be described as venom. I didn't worry about it as much in this particular post for two reasons:

I feel that what you've said is offensive, and it needed to be responded to in a manner that made it clear that what you said was okay
It is pretty clear based on your responses to me going all the way back to your welcome forum that no matter what I say or how I say it, anything that I say that disagrees with you in any way is going to be interpreted as an attack

There are exactly two things that you have said that I have responded to by saying that they were offensive: this, and your disparaging comments about Christianity. In both cases I gave you the benefit of the doubt saying that I was hoping you hadn't meant it the way it came off, but that it was offensive as stated.

You might want to take a look back at what has actually been said to you, what it was in response to, and how you responded to it in turn. I think you'll find that the only one attacking anyone here has been you.

Lunacie

11-30-2011, 02:37 PM

Pandora, the answer Abra gave to your question may have been confusing, but at least you got an answer. I asked the same question - what gives Abra or anyone the right to determine whether another's spiritual path is valid - and I got no answer at all.

I think it's time to put this poster on ignore, eh?

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 02:51 PM

Quite a bit. This is why I would use this term.

Could you elaborate? You keep saying things like this as though it explains everything, but it doesn't. Saying your practices or beliefs or those you will be presenting in the book are Wiccan in nature, or share enough similarities with Wicca to make it an appropriate label, but then when asked what it is that makes you feel this way, you just restate the same thing again.

So far what I've got from all of that is that your practices and beliefs are similar to Wicca because they are similar to Wicca. You can see, I hope, why that doesn't really answer anything.

Plus, you need to understand that I'm not in agreement with you about the 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief. As far as I'm concerned they do apply directly to Wicca despite your personal objections in the matter. So we're simply not on the same page at all.

But you are incorrect in saying so.

Opinions are all good and well, and there are some cases where they're all we have. Examples of this would include things like spirituality, where I might firmly believe that all the gods are distinct beings, and might even have come to feel this way because my own direct experiences with these gods, and you might believe that the "gods" are merely archetypes that humanity needs in order to interact with the Great Spirit which is simply beyond our human understanding, and you may even have come to feel this way because of your own experiences with these archetypes, and in these cases our opinions are all we have because there can be no factual proof one way or the other.

Personal opinion just doesn't cut it when it stands in contradiction to fact, though. I may not be in agreement with someone that my Biological Psychology textbook was written by Dr. James Kalat as an introductory textbook intended to give a general overview of several different areas of biological bases of behavior, and not meant to be an inclusive text that will apply directly to one specific aspect of biological psychology, but that doesn't make me any less wrong.

Apparently you have some very specific criteria for what you consider to be Wicca.

No one has given "very specific criteria," nor has anyone suggested that such "very specific" criteria are necessary. All anyone has said is that there are some basic general guidelines that form the framework of the specific religion "Wicca" and that if you throw out these guidelines or significantly alter them without at the very least first knowing why they are what they are and why you think they should be different, the end result might be something that, while it might be a perfectly valid and fulfilling spiritual path, isn't Wicca.

If there are no guidelines forming the framework of Wicca, then what makes "Wicca" anything other than a synonym for "religious witchcraft"?

In fact, a good analogy, or comparison, might be to compare my book with Deepak Chopra's Book entitled "The Third Jesus". Is Deepak's book about Christianity? No, not at all. On the contrary, it a view of Jesus as a Buddha.

So in much the same way, a book entitled "Animystic Wicca" doesn't need to be about Wicca specifically. It's actually about an animistic view of Wicca as the title suggests.

Except I can't help but notice that the Deepak Chopra book is called "The Third Jesus" and not "The Third Christianity" nor indeed is the word "Christianity" in the title at all. So if you wanted to write a book called "Animystic Perspectives on the Horned God" (and why "Animystic" and not "Animistic"? That one is just a curiosity thing though), then Deepak Chopra's book might have made a good analogy, but you don't. Your book title uses the name of a specific religion, not the name of a deity or higher spiritual power.

Initially I didn't. On the contrary, I simply suggested that this person is jumping to conclusions without truly knowing much about me and my beliefs at all. She continued to press the argument. And it hasn't made any sense since.

You first seemed to feel a need to defend your usage of the term "Wicca" in this post here (http://www.wiccanwisdom.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18535&postcount=11), and started getting what I would call "defensive" here (http://www.wiccanwisdom.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18541&postcount=13) saying:

I would hope that "Wiccans" would embrace someone who has spiritual ideas very close to theirs. Otherwise they would become like the Christians and start renouncing everyone who doesn't fit their belief system to a "T".

Even the Christians argue among themselves pointing fingers at each other proclaiming that only certain beliefs represent "True Christianity" whilst others are lost souls who have "False Interpretations".

Does anyone really want to see Wicca ending up in that same boat?

And it intensifies from there.

All anyone had said at that point was that Wicca and witchcraft are not the same thing, and that it didn't seem like there was much in the beliefs mentioned in your initial posts (and though there weren't many specifics, you did mention several things, none of which really seemed to fit with at least my understanding of Wicca, though as someone who is not Wiccan, and who has not done a lot of heavily in-depth study of the whats and whys beyond those that helped shape my own path, I do not claim to know how far someone can stretch the beliefs and practices of Wicca before it becomes really silly to continue calling it "Wicca") that was at all similar to Wicca.

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 02:53 PM

You know Lunacie, I think you're probably right :]

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 06:28 PM

I think it's time to put this poster on ignore, eh?

If you guys are going to dwell on negativity I wish you would. :cheers:

Vigdisdotter

11-30-2011, 09:42 PM

Could you elaborate?

Honestly, Pandora, I don't think he can. I've been following this thread and I get the feeling that what we're seeing is someone with too much pride to admit that they don't understand something or that they've used the wrong term or whatever is going on with him.

I think you're wasting your breath with him, sorry to say.

Pandora13x

11-30-2011, 09:59 PM

Honestly, Pandora, I don't think he can. I've been following this thread and I get the feeling that what we're seeing is someone with too much pride to admit that they don't understand something or that they've used the wrong term or whatever is going on with him.

I think you're wasting your breath with him, sorry to say.

Yeah, I think you're right. It was fun when it made me think, but it's time to release on it.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 10:10 PM

Oh pooh.

And here I thought the negativity was going to stop.

I guess that's an unrealistic expectation on my behalf.

People aren't happy until they bury someone.

:bricks:

Are we happy now? :ylflower:

Vigdisdotter

11-30-2011, 10:14 PM

Oh pooh.

And here I thought the negativity was going to stop.

It'll stop whenever you choose to stop, since you're the only one here being negative. All anyone else has been is honest, and if that hurts your feelings, you should ask yourself why, since it would imply that you realize we have a point.

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 10:54 PM

It'll stop whenever you choose to stop, since you're the only one here being negative. All anyone else has been is honest, and if that hurts your feelings, you should ask yourself why, since it would imply that you realize we have a point.

I've acknowledged your points. :cheers:

I've given everyone credit for their personal views. :hippy:

I'm not the one who is attempting to put Wicca into an extremely limited and exclusive box. I even acknowledge that Wiccans who do this exist.

All I've done is express a far more open-minded abstract view of Wicca that I even confess is my own personal view. (although I hold that there are many other authors who share this view)

For that I am condemned? :bricks:

And by the way, no feelings have been 'hurt'. That is just yet another totally unwarranted conclusion. Just because I sense animosity does not mean that it has affected me emotionally.

With no disrespect intended toward anyone, I truly couldn't care less what you people think. As far as I can see none of you know me well enough to even affect my feelings. You are all just guessing and stabbing in the dark, jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions about things that have absolutely nothing at all to do with me as a person.

Why should I be 'hurt' by such anonymous confusion?

By the way, I do indeed see your previous post to be obviously intended as a negative attack toward me.

Not that I care. But it seems a bit hypocritical to me to suggest that I'm the one being negative when you've just accused me of having too much pride to admit that I'm wrong about something.

Just what is it that you think I was wrong about?

Having an open-minded abstract view of Wicca?

I would say that this is nothing more than your opinion. Why should I admit that my view is wrong, and that your view is right?

I don't believe that.

I believe that both opinions are valid.

You keep yours, and I'll keep mine.

How's that? :hippy:

No need for negativity in either direction. We just have different views.

What's wrong with that?

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 11:09 PM

Put yourself in the other position here. You ask someone for the same information over and over, and all you get in return are vague replies that don't really answer anything - or silence. You tell the other person, repeatedly, that they are being too vague, but they continue to avoid giving any solid answers to your one question. This goes on for the entire conversation.

Would you not also feel that person is avoiding answering for some reason? What other conclusions should we come to after pages of the same old behavior?

You keep saying that some of us are being too "limited" and "exclusive" but I really don't see anyone doing this. You say you are more "open-minded" and "abstract" - yet you seem totally unable to answer the most basic questions regarding your views. Questions that have been asked for pages now. What else can we think at this point?

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 11:31 PM

yet you seem totally unable to answer the most basic questions regarding your views. Questions that have been asked for pages now. What else can we think at this point?

Which questions are you referring to?

It's not my job to respond to every single thought that every person posts. I don't have the time to do that, nor am I getting paid to do that. Nor do other people do that for me.

I'm not "avoiding" anything. Moreover, I'm not on 'trial' here. This is not an "inquisition". It's a forum.

I do my best to try to address people's questions, but I don't feel obligated to answer everything like as if I'm sitting in a witness box being interrogated by a lawyer.

Like I say, I'm not on 'trial' here.

Or am I?

If I am, maybe I should hire a lawyer to write my posts for me. http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

Vigdisdotter

11-30-2011, 11:37 PM

For that I am condemned?

No, since no one has condemned you (melodramatic much?) But people have grown tired of your evasiveness games and told you as much. That you keep ignoring this won't win you any friends.

And by the way, no feelings have been 'hurt'.

Then there is no need to for you accuse anyone of being "negative." Actually, there is another option: poisoning the well fallacy, which would also make sense since it's often used a means avoidance.

With no disrespect intended toward anyone, I truly couldn't care less what you people think.

Your posts show otherwise. Or is this just so much game playing to you?

By the way, I do indeed see your previous post to be obviously intended as a negative attack toward me.

Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose. But it's still not negative and the points made are still relevant.

But it seems a bit hypocritical to me to suggest that I'm the one being negative when you've just accused me of having too much pride to admit that I'm wrong about something.[/quote]

I suggest you look up the word hypocritical, you clearly don't understand it.

I pointed out that you're the one being negative because you are the one posting about such, not anyone else.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except that you STILL haven't explained the many things you've been asked about, falling back on vague and essentially meaningless descriptions of your "view."

Abracadabra

11-30-2011, 11:46 PM

Nothing, except that you STILL haven't explained the many things you've been asked about, falling back on vague and essentially meaningless descriptions of your "view."

And I still have no clue what vague questions people are referring to they feel haven't been answered.

Alexandria

11-30-2011, 11:47 PM

Which questions are you referring to?

Post 106 is about as clear as I can get.

It's not my job to respond to every single thought that every person posts. I don't have the time to do that, nor am I getting paid to do that. Nor do other people do that for me.

Every single thought? No, and no one is asking you to do that. A single theme of question that has been repeatedly asked of you for pages now? Do you have to answer? No. However, in a conversation of this nature, if you don't answer the thread can't exactly move on. We're stuck. Had you chosen to just leave the thread, that would have been your decision to make - and the thread would have died long ago.

However, you keep replying without answering, and so the same question must keep being asked. This is a conversation about what makes Wicca, Wicca. You keep avoiding giving your views. Again, if we're jumping to strange conclusions, it is because of your actions (or lack of) here.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by yourself, myself, and others... all we have to go on is what is written. If you don't actually share your views, we have to go on what you have already written. It doesn't give us much. You are "open-minded" and "abstract" without ever actually saying what that means to you in relation to Wicca.

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 01:18 AM

Alexandria wrote:

However, you keep replying without answering, and so the same question must keep being asked. This is a conversation about what makes Wicca, Wicca. You keep avoiding giving your views. Again, if we're jumping to strange conclusions, it is because of your actions (or lack of) here.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by yourself, myself, and others... all we have to go on is what is written. If you don't actually share your views, we have to go on what you have already written. It doesn't give us much. You are "open-minded" and "abstract" without ever actually saying what that means to you in relation to Wicca.

I thought I had already responded to this question pages and pages ago. Perhaps it wasn't fully understood because of the way I presented the answer.

I'll try to answer it in-depth here:

I will use the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief" posted in the OP of this thread as a template for my answer, because as I had pointed out in my very first post of this thread, I am very much in agreement with these principles, and I feel that the American Council of Witches did an absolute awesome job of creating this list. I doubt that I could do any better, so I may as well use this as the template for my personal answer to the question of how I view Wicca.

From the Council of American Witches:

1. We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the Phases of the Moon and Seasonal Quarters and Cross-Quarters.

In terms of the main rites and rituals my beliefs and practices are in agreement with the above. Moreover, I can even make that more concretely
"Wiccan" by describing my own personal practices as being centered on the casting of a circle (or sphere of energy) thrice around, both in on of, and attuned to the spiritual energies of a Great Spirit, a God (or Yang force), and a Goddess (or Yin force). I cast the circle thrice in a complex ceremony the details of which are not important to defining "Wicca", IMHO.

During the casting of this sphere of energy (or circle) I also acknowledge the the Moon and it's phase, the Seasonal Quarters, and the Cross Quarters, as well as the elemental spiritual essence of Earth, Air, Fire and Water associated with the Earthly compass directions of North, East, South, and West respectively. I acknowledge far more than this, although I'm not sure whether everything I acknowledge is require or even part of "Wicca". However, I hold that adding to these rituals does not take away from them.

And of course, as suggested above these natural rhythms of nature are also a part of my everyday lifestyle. So they aren't just recognized within these specific rituals.

While I agree with others that the description given by the council of Witches could be practices in ways that many may not think of as being 'Wiccan'. I feel that my specific practices and rituals are indeed taken directly from Wicca. At least in terms of the casting of circles, and quarter calls, etc., and their fundamental underlying meanings.

From the Council of American Witches:

2. We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and conciousness within an evolutionary concept.

I don't know whether Wiccans subscribe to this or not. I certainly do. I would imagine that Wiccans do too. After all, what would be the point in aligning ones self to the natural rhythms of life forces if there is no intent to respect life?

So I don't see how Wiccans could not be interested in subscribing to #2.

From the Council of American Witches:

3. We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than is apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it is sometimes called "supernatural," but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.

Again, it is my understanding that Wiccans do accept this basic premise. And so once again, I point to this as a description of my beliefs as well.

From the Council of American Witches:

4. We conceive of the Creative Power in the Universe as manifesting through polarity-as masculine and feminine-and that this Creative Power lives in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magical practices and religious worship.

Again it is my understanding that Wiccans believe in this as well. It is also my understanding that they view this primarily though a "God" and "Goddess".

Clearly, #4 could be viewed and practiced in ways which do not acknowledge a "God" and "Goddess". However, since I do use this psychic vision of a God and Goddess for this purpose, once again, I see my specific views being in harmony with the Wiccan traditions.

From the Council of American Witches:

5. We recognize both outer worlds and inner, psychological worlds-sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconscious, the Inner Planes, and so on-and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.

I too recognize these three worlds, dimensions, or planes of existence. I believe that Wiccans also recognize these worlds. As it happens the Faery Teachings also recognize this kind of triplet world. As do many of the Eastern Mystical traditions. I don't see where Wicca has any particular copyright on these ideas. So once again, ideas that I had already possessed prior to learning about Wicca fit into this picture without a hitch.

From the Council of American Witches:

6. We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership.

Well, I'm not sure exactly how "Wiccan" this one is. I do believe that some Wiccan Covens do have very strict hierarchies. However, it's my understanding that this is not an absolute requirement for Wicca and that Wicca can indeed be practiced as a solitary religion.

If I'm wrong about that, then so are several other authors who have written books on Wicca.

Once again, I'm sure that Covens can be found that will indeed proclaim that only initiation into a Coven qualifies as a person as "Officially Wiccan".

I confess that is is my own personal choice to not allow those people to define to me what "Wicca" must be.

So, if you like, you can consider such Wiccan Covens to be the equivalent of Catholicism with their own local "Popes" in the form of a Priest and Priestess, or whatever.

In that case, I would be the equivalent of a "Wiccan Protestant" who protests against that kind of authoritative totalitarianism.

That's my position on that. :)

From the Council of American Witches:

7. We see religion, magic, and wisdom-in-living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it-a worldview and philosophy-of-life that we identify as Witchcraft, the Wiccan Way.

Well, here the Council of American Witches have even used the term "Wiccan" themselves to describe the path that they are defining in these principles.

So, as I have stated before, if someone has a bone to pick with people using the term Wiccan this vaguely then they clearly have a bone to pick with the Council of American Witches in addition to picking on me.

http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

From the Council of American Witches:

8. Calling oneself a "Witch" does not make a Witch-but neither does heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees, and initiations. Witches seek to control the forces within themselves that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.

Well, they had just described their path as being "The Wiccan Way" in the previous paragraph, and here they are proclaiming that initiations do not make a "Witch".

It certainly appears to me that they are using the term "Witch" and "Wiccan" interchangeably in this paper. If I am being mislead by this paper, then can anyone blame me for 'misleading' others via this information that has been presented to me as the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief"?

From the Council of American Witches:

9. We acknowledge that it is the affirmation and fulfillment of life, in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness, that gives meaning to the Universe we know, and to our personal role within it.

Again, I'm not sure how "Wiccan" this would be. But also again, I can't see how anyone would care to attune themselves with the natural forces of life, honor and respect those forces, and not recognize this ultimate goal.

Especially if they are doing this via the recognition of a "God" and "Goddess".

From the Council of American Witches:

10. Our only animosity toward Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy-of-life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be "the only way" and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.

Well as far as #10 goes, all I can say is that this should stand on its own without saying it.

From the Council of American Witches:

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present, and our future.

Well, clearly these Witches aren't threatened by such things.

Are Wiccans?

From the Council of American Witches:

12. We do not accept the concept of "absolute evil," nor do we worship any entity known as "Satan" or "the devil," as defined by the Christian Tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor do we accept the concept that personal benefit can be only derived by denial to another.

Well, this isn't exactly the Wiccan Rede. But if it helps to clarify my own personal views, I agree with the above plus I also agree with the basic Wiccan philosophy, "An ye harm none, do as ye wilt".

From the Council of American Witches:

13. We acknowledge that we seek within Nature for that which is contributory to our health and well-being.

Well this certainly covers all the Wiccan practices associated with healing spells and rituals. Does it really need to spell them out in detail? They already mentioned magick and Witchcraft in #7.

~~~~~

Anymore questions?

Alexandria

12-01-2011, 02:06 AM

See, now that is the type of reply I'd been trying to get from you. Without these types of details, there were far too many missing gaps. That helps to fill in some of them, and gives a better view (at least for me, can't speak for the others there) of where you're coming from.

While I agree with others that the description given by the council of Witches could be practices in ways that many may not think of as being 'Wiccan'. I feel that my specific practices and rituals are indeed taken directly from Wicca.

As has been said, the 13 principles could certainly apply to Wicca, but there needs to be more detail. The quote above is an example of one of those gaps that needs to be filled in. Without this sort of detail, there's a real incomplete picture, which is an issue with the 13 principles alone.

That said, I do see a few things to address...

Well, here the Council of American Witches have even used the term "Wiccan" themselves to describe the path that they are defining in these principles.

So, as I have stated before, if someone has a bone to pick with people using the term Wiccan this vaguely then they clearly have a bone to pick with the Council of American Witches in addition to picking on me.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I've already stated the issue with the Council.

The wider issue is blindly accepting sources. Anyone can write up a list or book, slap on a title that may not belong, and call it a day... but it doesn't make it right. Again, in this case the members and history of the council must be considered, as well as the time and audience it was written for. Is it a horrible document? No, it's an okay starting point, but there are some issues with it such as...

It certainly appears to me that they are using the term "Witch" and "Wiccan" interchangeably in this paper. If I am being mislead by this paper, then can anyone blame me for 'misleading' others via this information that has been presented to me as the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief"?

This was addressed much earlier in the thread, but perhaps it's worth going over again, since it shows one of the problems with the list. Witch and Wiccan are not interchangeable terms, there are many non-Wiccan witches out there (by choice, not by force). Again, this goes back to who wrote the list, and the time it was written in. Prime example of why these things should be taken into consideration.

As for blaming you, well... There's a lot of incorrect information out there, and we all make mistakes with it sometimes. Again, this is why checking sources is quite important. While I could say that you are to blame if you just accept information without checking it out, eh, IMO it's only a real issue if you choose to ignore the correct information when it is given (I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this, for the record).

I'm a witch, but I am not a Wiccan. If I remember right, both Pandora and Vig also practice witchcraft, but are not Wiccan. So you can see the problem with that particular statement they make... again, a product of the times, and something that now we have to clean up.

Well, clearly these Witches aren't threatened by such things.
Are Wiccans?

Well again, not a Wiccan, but... If any of us were threatened by a discussion of history and terms, would we be here trying to have such a discussion so openly - a discussion all about terms, where history is called upon multiple times for deeper understanding? I doubt it.

Lunacie

12-01-2011, 09:02 AM

<snip>
Well, here the Council of American Witches have even used the term "Wiccan" themselves to describe the path that they are defining in these principles.

So, as I have stated before, if someone has a bone to pick with people using the term Wiccan this vaguely then they clearly have a bone to pick with the Council of American Witches in addition to picking on me.

I don't have "a bone to pick" with the group who put together that list, but I've explained something about the history of Witchcraft and Wicca at the time they were doing it. And how they were swayed or overruled by the publisher of Llewellyn Magizine to use the terms interchangable, leading to even more confusion.

I also explained earlier that the things on that list are deliberately vague and general and can apply to many Pagan religions and Witchcraft philosophies. For instance, #4 could be a very vague reference to The Great Rite, but isn't specific enough to say for sure.

So by saying that you feel your beliefs are in agreement with that list of 13 beliefs, are you also saying that your beliefs are vague and general? If so, that's fine until you claim that makes you Wiccan. Because Wicca is not vague and general, nor is it restrictive. Those are black-and-white ways of looking at the subject. There is a whole world of colors between them and the way that Wicca makes a pattern of those colors is unique to Wicca.

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 11:58 AM

As has been said, the 13 principles could certainly apply to Wicca, but there needs to be more detail. The quote above is an example of one of those gaps that needs to be filled in. Without this sort of detail, there's a real incomplete picture, which is an issue with the 13 principles alone.

And that is totally irrelevant because I had never made the claim that they do describe Wicca precisely. Nowhere did I ever make that claim.

So that's a totally irrelevant issue.

All I ever said is that they describe the core philosophy well enough to convey the general idea should someone ask me.

If they want the details of precisely how I do things they'll have to ask me.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but I've already stated the issue with the Council.

Well, if you have issues with the council. Fine. Take it up with them. They are the one's who used "The Wiccan Way" in their document to describe their path.

The document was also presented in this thread as "The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief".

So again, you are clearly having issues with far more people than me. I'm just going with the flow of others, and I personally have no problem with that.

:cheers:

The wider issue is blindly accepting sources. Anyone can write up a list or book, slap on a title that may not belong, and call it a day... but it doesn't make it right. Again, in this case the members and history of the council must be considered, as well as the time and audience it was written for. Is it a horrible document? No, it's an okay starting point, but there are some issues with it such as...

Well, from my perspective I'm not "blindly" accepting this. On the contrary this list fits in with just about everything I've already learned about Wicca, so I have no problem with this list at all.

Could this list be applied to non-Wiccan practices? Yes, I do believe that it's abstract enough that it could. Just the same, if asked "Can it also apply to Wicca". My answer would be yes.

This is nothing on this list that blatantly conflicts with Wicca that I can see. It doesn't claim to "define Wicca precisely" so I see no reason to nit-pick about that.

This was addressed much earlier in the thread, but perhaps it's worth going over again, since it shows one of the problems with the list. Witch and Wiccan are not interchangeable terms, there are many non-Wiccan witches out there (by choice, not by force). Again, this goes back to who wrote the list, and the time it was written in. Prime example of why these things should be taken into consideration.

Yes, that's true, but still irrelevant from my perspective.

They aren't claiming that all Witches are Wiccans. They are simply acknowledging that Wiccans are Witches and they were using the term interchangeably within that context.

That's how I view. In other words, I grant them their abstract approach without trying to force them to be extremely concrete. After all, a list of 13 principles has no prayer of being a complete description of anything in detail.

So it was never intended to be that.

I'm not saying that "all witches" are Wiccans. I'm simply pointing out that the people who wrote this paper up appear to be using the term freely to apply to Wiccans since the BULK of what they covered is extremely close to Wicca.

In fact, I would argue that there are a LOT of "witches" who would laugh at this list and proclaim that is has absolutely nothing to do with them at all.

So to even proclaim that this is a list intended to describe "Witches in general" makes no sense to me.

As for blaming you, well... There's a lot of incorrect information out there, and we all make mistakes with it sometimes. Again, this is why checking sources is quite important. While I could say that you are to blame if you just accept information without checking it out, eh, IMO it's only a real issue if you choose to ignore the correct information when it is given (I'm not necessarily saying you're doing this, for the record).

Again, we're simply in disagreement again. That's all.

You're speaking as though you are right and I am wrong.

No, I don't accept that.

This list is beautiful IMHO. It covers the core principles of Wicca quite well as far as I'm concerned. It was never meant to be an exhaustive detailed description of Wicca.

And it clearly does not apply to just everyone who considers themselves to be a "Witch". There exist "Witches" who would laugh at this list and reject a lot of things on this list. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone actually did that in this thread. Although I'm not sure if they consider themselves to be a "Witch".

I'm a witch, but I am not a Wiccan. If I remember right, both Pandora and Vig also practice witchcraft, but are not Wiccan. So you can see the problem with that particular statement they make... again, a product of the times, and something that now we have to clean up.

No I don't see a problem.

Again my explanation of how they were using the term "Witch" and "Wicca" interchangeably was within the context of their paper.

Clearly the could not have been using the term "Witch" to apply to just anyone who lays claim to that label, because as I have just pointed out there are a lot of "Witches" who would deny a lot of things on that list.

So from my perspective they were using the term interchangeably only within the context of these 13 principles. And again, I hold that there are no principles on this list that do not apply to Wicca.

And so that's where I'm coming from.

So I'm still in total disagreement with you that this is "bad information" or that this list in anyway "misrepresents" Wicca.

Incomplete information? Sure, it was never intended to be otherwise.

Misleading or false information? No. Where do you think it misleads or contains information that doesn't apply to Wicca.

Could you please be specific in pointing that out?

Well again, not a Wiccan, but... If any of us were threatened by a discussion of history and terms, would we be here trying to have such a discussion so openly - a discussion all about terms, where history is called upon multiple times for deeper understanding? I doubt it.

Well, then I don't understand why you are so concerned about some supposedly misunderstanding or misrepresenting Wicca.

I personally don't feel that I'm doing either of these things, in any case.

All I had originally claimed is that I feel that my core beliefs and spiritual practices appear to me to be in harmony with those of Wicca, and that this is what drew me to Wicca.

Then, out of the blue, it was suggested to me that my beliefs don't sound like they line up with Wicca.

I asked for specifics. And I haven't gotten any yet. Other than perhaps the objections concerning initiations, but I've already explained my position on that.

~~~~

So yes, if you have a problem with the Council of Witches using "The Wiccan Way" to describe their path, and if you have a problem with their paper being presented to people as "The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief", then by all means voice those concerns.

However, if you are attempting to convince me that this information is "bad" or "misleading" information, I do not accept your assessment. It works for me, and it's in harmony with everything I've learned about Wicca previously up to this point.

I have no issues with this document at all. On the contrary I applaud the Witches/Wiccans who wrote it up. I think they did a beautiful job. They kept it abstract enough to apply to all Wiccans, whilst addressing the core philosophy of the beliefs of Wicca.

And remember that's the title of this paper:

"The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief"

It is not entitled:

"The Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Rituals"[/b]

It's addressing "Beliefs", not specific practices and rituals, yet they very wisely covered those abstractly enough to allow room for the different ways that various Wiccans practice their beliefs through various rituals.

This is why I applaud their efforts. They preserved enough abstraction to encompass the core philosophy without demanding precisely how these beliefs must be put into practice.

I applaud them, support them, and admire their ability to word these things so well and preserve the very abstraction that I personally support.

So I give them two thumbs-up. :thumbsup2:

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 12:37 PM

I don't have "a bone to pick" with the group who put together that list, but I've explained something about the history of Witchcraft and Wicca at the time they were doing it. And how they were swayed or overruled by the publisher of Llewellyn Magizine to use the terms interchangable, leading to even more confusion.

Personally I don't buy into people's paranoia concerning the Llewellyn publishing company. I think they are a highly respectable and professional company. If what you claim here is true, they probably would have been after Christopher Penczak to use the term "Wiccan" in the title of his Witchcraft Series.

But they didn't. So I don't buy into people's paranoia concerning the Llewellyn publishing company and Wicca. If anything the Llewellyn publishing company actually appears to be in harmony with my basic view of Wicca. They are simply open the views of different authors who consider themselves to be Wiccans. They aren't prepared to dance to the tune of an elite group or coven that would use published books to try to corner the market on one specific view of Wicca.

I don't blame them. I wouldn't dance to that tune either.

I also explained earlier that the things on that list are deliberately vague and general and can apply to many Pagan religions and Witchcraft philosophies. For instance, #4 could be a very vague reference to The Great Rite, but isn't specific enough to say for sure.

Yes, I agree that this list is deliberately abstract to embrace as many Wiccans as possible. And it can indeed coincidentally apply to other practices as well. However, those other practices are going to need to be extremely similar to Wicca. The differences between them are going to be very small technicality, because clearly the overall core philosophies are going to need to be in harmony.

So by saying that you feel your beliefs are in agreement with that list of 13 beliefs, are you also saying that your beliefs are vague and general?

No, not at all. That's extremely poor logic, and if that's the kind of logic use you to draw conclusions then it's no wonder you jump to incorrect conclusions with so little information.

If so, that's fine until you claim that makes you Wiccan. Because Wicca is not vague and general, nor is it restrictive. Those are black-and-white ways of looking at the subject. There is a whole world of colors between them and the way that Wicca makes a pattern of those colors is unique to Wicca.

I don't claim that this list makes me "Wiccan". But as far as I'm concerned it coveys the core philosophy well enough to communicate the basic ideas to anyone who is interested.

If you had specific concerns, such as "Do I acknowledge and understand the meaning and significance of the "Great Rite", all you had to do was ask.

Alexandria

12-01-2011, 01:26 PM

If they want the details of precisely how I do things they'll have to ask me.

Well I wish them good luck with that...

But I think you're reading a bit much into what I said. You agree that the list is vague and missing details, that is all I am saying about it. It is an incomplete view of Wicca. This does not mean I am expecting to see a huge list with every single detail. There's a middle ground to be had.

Could this list be applied to non-Wiccan practices? Yes, I do believe that it's abstract enough that it could. Just the same, if asked "Can it also apply to Wicca". My answer would be yes.

Did I ever say otherwise? No, I did not.

Yes, that's true, but still irrelevant from my perspective.

They aren't claiming that all Witches are Wiccans. They are simply acknowledging that Wiccans are Witches and they were using the term interchangeably within that context.

You... you do realize that I was only addressing the issue exactly as you brought it up in your last post to me? Right?

So it was never intended to be that.

Yes. That would be the point... That's why details are necessary when discussing why one is a Wiccan. Again, these are not the details of one specific "true way" tradition of Wicca, just the general core which all Wiccans share.

I'm not saying that "all witches" are Wiccans. I'm simply pointing out that the people who wrote this paper up appear to be using the term freely to apply to Wiccans since the BULK of what they covered is extremely close to Wicca.

Did I say you said all witches are Wiccans? No. I am only addressing the issue as you brought it up.

In fact, I would argue that there are a LOT of "witches" who would laugh at this list and proclaim that is has absolutely nothing to do with them at all.

Uh, yep, I covered that earlier in the thread. The list does not apply to ALL witches or pagans, but it's broad enough to cover many more than just Wiccans. Again, this is why details become necessary. Not highly specific ones, but enough to fill in some of the missing gaps.

So to even proclaim that this is a list intended to describe "Witches in general" makes no sense to me.

Did I ever say this? No.

And it clearly does not apply to just everyone who considers themselves to be a "Witch". There exist "Witches" who would laugh at this list and reject a lot of things on this list. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone actually did that in this thread. Although I'm not sure if they consider themselves to be a "Witch".

Once again, did I ever say such a thing? No, I did not. You are bringing up issues where they don't exist.

Clearly the could not have been using the term "Witch" to apply to just anyone who lays claim to that label, because as I have just pointed out there are a lot of "Witches" who would deny a lot of things on that list.

Yes, good for you for pointing out things that have already been said to you multiple times. I think you are missing the problem with their use of the word witch. you say it's okay because they're using the term witch in the context of Wicca, but there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that the two are not totally interchangeable. (I'm not sure if you understood this yourself when you first came here.) The idea that all witches are Wiccan, that they all have similar belief and practice, it's a big issue for many.

Vague statements like these are a big part of the reason why. The issue goes beyond that, in a related way... Vague lists like these might mislead people into thinking that this is all that makes one a Wiccan. That is why it could be considered misleading to some.

So from my perspective they were using the term interchangeably only within the context of these 13 principles.

Again, I am only addressing this exactly as you brought it up. If you did not think it was relevant, you probably should not have mentioned it - or made these points you are making now.

And again, I hold that there are no principles on this list that do not apply to Wicca.

Again, where did I disagree?

Well, then I don't understand why you are so concerned about some supposedly misunderstanding or misrepresenting Wicca.

Already answered several posts back.

I personally don't feel that I'm doing either of these things, in any case.

Which up until recently there was no evidence to back this up. Hence the problem with the list... Perhaps you should go back and read my original objection once again. I did not say this list was bad, I said it was incomplete. I suggested knowing the history of a document you yourself claimed that you would show if anyone ever questioned your "Wiccan beliefs" again. I only suggested adding in the slightly more detailed list from the last post in such an effort, to give a clearer picture to people.

Why in the world would I suggest giving a clearer picture? Gosh, I wonder, maybe to avoid exactly this type of mess?

Of course, later in the thread you did say you didn't mean to imply that you would solely give this list. So you know what? Instead of having an unrelated meltdown in your very first reply to me, that would have been an awesome time to actually clear up that little misunderstanding.

Again, this is why clear communication is important. Not just in discussion like this, but in creation of lists and so on. Clear communication does not mean giving infinite details, only that being too vague is an issue.

Then, out of the blue, it was suggested to me that my beliefs don't sound like they line up with Wicca.
I asked for specifics. And I haven't gotten any yet.

That's what happens when you're too vague. We asked for details for a good while, we kept getting vague replies in response...

On the other hand, you did get the specifics you asked for. You flat out ignored them - we know this, because you said it. Rather than ignoring, you should have addressed them.

They preserved enough abstraction to encompass the core philosophy without demanding precisely how these beliefs must be put into practice.

But how the beliefs are put into practice is a huge part of Wicca. Again, this does not mean you must follow one specific detailed tradition - it means there is something that binds all traditions together in practice. Even in belief alone this list is too vague in some areas for that.

They aren't prepared to dance to the tune of an elite group or coven that would use published books to try to corner the market on one specific view of Wicca.

Has anyone here said there is only one specific view of Wicca? Saying something is too vague is NOT the same as calling for one specific view to be the only correct view.

However, those other practices are going to need to be extremely similar to Wicca. The differences between them are going to be very small technicality, because clearly the overall core philosophies are going to need to be in harmony.

The differences may not need to be very small at all, and that is the issue. You mentioned before that the core philosophy of Buddhism and some other paths were close to this list, and I do not think many would see the differences between those as "very small." Otherwise, we are again left with the question, why use different terms at all?

If you had specific concerns, such as "Do I acknowledge and understand the meaning and significance of the "Great Rite", all you had to do was ask.

Asking for details got us nowhere for a very long time...

Lunacie

12-01-2011, 01:55 PM

Personally I don't buy into people's paranoia concerning the Llewellyn publishing company. I think they are a highly respectable and professional company. If what you claim here is true, they probably would have been after Christopher Penczak to use the term "Wiccan" in the title of his Witchcraft Series.

But they didn't. So I don't buy into people's paranoia concerning the Llewellyn publishing company and Wicca. If anything the Llewellyn publishing company actually appears to be in harmony with my basic view of Wicca. They are simply open the views of different authors who consider themselves to be Wiccans. They aren't prepared to dance to the tune of an elite group or coven that would use published books to try to corner the market on one specific view of Wicca.

I don't blame them. I wouldn't dance to that tune either.

"... paranoia ... "? There has been no paranoia here. What you're doing is using inflamatory words and phrases, like a troll would.

I explained very clearly that I was talking about what was happening in the world back in 1974. Chris Penzack began writing books about 30 years later. Is the same man even in charge of Llwellyn publishing these days? I don't know, I don't look to buy their books. A lot of them were trash the last time I looked, which was about 12 years ago.

No, not at all. That's extremely poor logic, and if that's the kind of logic use you to draw conclusions then it's no wonder you jump to incorrect conclusions with so little information.

You complain about myself and others making personal attacks on you - but then you post something like this?

I don't claim that this list makes me "Wiccan". But as far as I'm concerned it coveys the core philosophy well enough to communicate the basic ideas to anyone who is interested.

If you had specific concerns, such as "Do I acknowledge and understand the meaning and significance of the "Great Rite", all you had to do was ask.

Did I ask? Strawman argument, if I wanted to know this, I'm quite able to ask you. I didn't ask, so what does that tell you?

Strawman arguments are often used by internet trolls.

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 02:14 PM

Did I say you said all witches are Wiccans? No. I am only addressing the issue as you brought it up.

The issue that I am addressing is that the fact that things on this list of Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Beliefs are indeed tailored to Wicca far more than they are to Witchcraft in general. In fact, many of the things they address on their list wouldn't even be applicable at all to witchcraft in general.

So the very idea that this is supposed to be a list for "witches" in general makes no sense at all.

Could it be intended for "Wiccans" in general?

Yes.

And that's all I'm saying.

Asking for details got us nowhere for a very long time...

I don't recall anyone asking me any specific details. Luancie mentioned the "Great Rite", but I don't recall her ever asking me specifically if I acknowledge it or practice it myself.

I actually do if anyone cares to know.

My practices and rituals include more than just Wicca, which I have mentioned before.

Moreover, this whole conversation started because of Luancie suggesting that my beliefs are not in harmony with those of Wicca.

So what do you intended to do now? Nit-pick at all my personal practices to see if they pass your criteria for what you think constitutes Wicca?

Isn't that a bit belated.

If the charge had already been made that my beliefs and views aren't in harmony with Wiccan I would certainly hope that whoever is making that charge already has sufficient reasons for making in and isn't just on a witch hunt to try to discover something from an more intense inquisition.

Like I say these conversations got entirely out of hand.

What started out as an empty ungrounded accusation has turned into a witch hunt inquisition.

It's ridiculous.

Shark invested forums. A speck of blood appears to have possibly been drawn and everyone comes running to feast on the frenzy.

Let's hang this guy for suggesting that his beliefs and practices might be in line with Wicca!

http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

I mean, seriously. It's ridiculous.

Alexandria

12-01-2011, 02:42 PM

So the very idea that this is supposed to be a list for "witches" in general makes no sense at all.
Could it be intended for "Wiccans" in general?
Yes.
And that's all I'm saying.

I'm not so sure what's so hard about this. There are people out there who are under the mistaken idea that all witchcraft is only limited to Wicca. That I, as a witch, follow Wiccan belief and practice. Lists like these are part of the reason why, because they appear to use the terms interchangeably and in a vague fashion. This list is not the only reason why, but it does not help. This is why clarity in wording is important.

I am not saying this list applies to all witches. I am not saying this list could not apply to Wiccans. I have not once said either, and in fact have said the opposite repeatedly. Please stop implying that I am saying otherwise. If you are unable to address what I actually say to you, there is no need to reply to me.

I don't recall anyone asking me any specific details.

I did. Many, many times. I'm fairly sure Pandora did as well. I did not ask for every last detail of your belief and practice, but enough to see where there was a line up with Wicca, since you kept using that word to describe your path - or at least a part of it, depending on where I'm quoting here. Why would I want to do that? Well...

So what do you intended to do now? Nit-pick at all my personal practices to see if they pass your criteria for what you think constitutes Wicca?

If you're going to use a word to describe yourself, you should be able to explain why. Doing so vaguely will lead to more questions. All I have asked for is an explanation, so I can understand you're particular view. That's all. You've only given one recently, a lot of this could have been avoided from the start by stopping to address what I actually said to you from the beginning, rather than bringing up totally unrelated accusations.

Isn't that a bit belated.

That's why it's important to address things before several pages pass, isn't it...

What started out as an empty ungrounded accusation has turned into a witch hunt inquisition.

It's ridiculous.

Shark invested forums. A speck of blood appears to have possibly been drawn and everyone comes running to feast on the frenzy.

Let's hang this guy for suggesting that his beliefs and practices might be in line with Wicca!

Of course. That's exactly what's happening here. Have fun with that.

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 04:13 PM

If you're going to use a word to describe yourself, you should be able to explain why.

I don't use the term "Wiccan" to describe myself. On the contrary all I have ever suggested is that I feel that my beliefs and practices are in harmony with Wicca. If I wanted to refer to myself as being "Wiccan" I should be able to use that term without implying that I am restricted by it.

Doing so vaguely will lead to more questions. All I have asked for is an explanation, so I can understand you're particular view.

Well, it was never my intent, to even go down this path in the first place. I didn't start a thread specifically for a discussion about my views.

How many times do I need to repeat this: This whole line of conversation began in my "Welcome Thread" when someone suggested that my beliefs do no appear to be in harmony with Wicca. I asked then for something specific that I could actually address. I also suggested at that time that perhaps the person who suggested this was simply misunderstanding my views.

Nothing specific was ever actually brought up for me to address. Instead it became a fishing expedition to try to find something that might not line up.

An entire web page was presented to me with a list of things that are associated with most Wiccans. I looked over the that list, and replied, "Yep, as far as I can see I'm in harmony with all those things except maybe the very first thing on the list".

The first thing on that list had to do with "initiation" which I personally question as being an important part of being Wiccan.

~~~~~

From there I started to search these forums for a list of criteria or principles of Wicca and I found this thread. So I posted in this thread a "THANK YOU" to the Silverm00n for having posted it, and I voiced my agreement with the list and suggested that if anyone points me to a list of Wiccan criteria again, I'll just point them to THIS list.

~~~~~

Everything should have ENDED right there as far as I'm concerned.

But no, people started complaining that they didn't like that list.

http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

~~~~~

Well, that's fine with me. I should have just dropped the whole thing right there then.

Because as far as I can see this hasn't been a conversation concerning Wicca in general, but instead it's basically been a thread where everyone appears to be arguing with me personally.

Just look at this thread. It's full of my posts and other people quoting me almost exclusively, and addressing my personal beliefs almost exclusively, etc.

It's not a thread where everyone is sharing with each other various views on Wicca. It's a thread that has become focused on arguing with me and my views specifically.

http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

I truly don't care what other people think of me personally. As far as I can see the information I have about Wicca is sound enough for me to acknowledge that I find the beliefs and rituals of Wicca to harmonious with my own beliefs and practices.

I take the basic Wiccan structure and apply it to my own spirituality.

It works for me.

If other people have a problem with that, does it even truly matter?

Not really. It doesn't matter at all to me. I was just trying to explain away a misunderstanding. But boy did that blow up in my face!

:violin:

At this point I'm quite happy to just allow people to misunderstand me all they want. :cheers:

Trying to explain away misunderstandings simply isn't worth the effort.

All that seems to be happening is that all my explanations get twisted and tossed right back in my face demanding that I explain away THOSE NEW misunderstanding, and it has just cascaded totally out of control.

I'm not here to PROVE anything to anyone.

I'm not here to tell anyone else what they must believe or how they must view Wicca or anything else.

I'm not here to justify my beliefs and views to anyone.

I will share my views with friendly people who are interested. :cheers:

That was my original purpose for coming here in the first place. :hippy:

Not to argue over what constitutes being a "Wiccan".

Lunacie

12-01-2011, 05:24 PM

Abracadabra

12-01-2011, 07:33 PM

I agree I should not have said there seems to be little in your paradigm that fits with Wicca.

I should have said that it seems like you're being a Jack of All Trades and I don't think one can do justice to Wicca by mixing it up with a whole bunch of other religions and paths.

Yes, you should have stated it that way. That, I would have accepted. At least I would have accepted it as YOUR VIEW.

I do indeed have a very diverse background in religion and philosophy and I have absolutely no problem at all combining various spiritual beliefs from various human cultures. In fact, I purposefully look for commonalities and similarities that can indeed be merged together harmoniously.

I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum from your way of thinking. I'm not concerned with "religion" at all, or doing justice to any particular "religion". I'm more interested in exploring spirituality without bounds or restrictions that "religions" often create.

So if your purpose is to "do justice" to specific religions, then I can understand your vantage point.

My purpose is to explore spirituality and make the best use of various traditions and paradigms that have already been created by humanity.

Wicca would be utterly useless to me if I had to accept it as a strict dogmatic religion. I'm pretty sure that I had tried to make that point clear on several occasions.

I was introduced to Wicca by authors who presented it as a very flexible spirituality. It was that flexibility that I found to be so attractive. Take away that flexibility and I no longer have any interest in it.

Yes, it does have a basic structure. But even that isn't carved in stone exactly. Precisely how far you can deviate from that basic structure and still call it 'Wicca' is indeed open to controversy.

However, from what I've read, I'm not even close to stretching it that far.

I accept the God and Goddess (in my own way)
I accept the casting of circles.
I accept the calling of the quarters.
I accept the recognition of the spiritual elements of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.
I accept the Great Right, and the and the Rebirth of the God at Yule.
I accept the Wheel of the year.
I accept the significance of the phases (or cycle) of the Moon
I accept the significance of the solar cycle and the seasons.

I have even accepted at least two popular Moon Goddesses, Hecate and Cerridwen. I actually think of Artemis as a Moon Goddess too, but I realize that comes from Greek Mythology. But from my point of view that's totally irrelevant. She can be a Moon Goddess in my paradigm without loss of spiritual meaning.

Yes, it's true that I have also incorporated spiritual ideas from a modified form of the Qabalah, and from that I have given the God and Goddess consciousnesses named "Chokmah" and "Binah" respectively. Is that "Wicca"?

It is now! http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/rofl.gif

At least it has become part of my Wicca in the way I view the God and Goddess.

I don't see these things as being disruptive to Wicca. They are simply my way of viewing the God and Goddess. It's just a loftier way of thinking about it. It comes from a perspective of High Magick. It's just a more detailed way of viewing it.

It's true that, in the end, if I wanted to preserve my personal form of "Wicca" precisely as I have created my pantheon and paradigm, I would need to name my specific version something like; "Abracadabra's Wicca". As opposed to just Wicca in general.

That much I do agree with. :cheers:

But I imagine that's probably true for just about every solitary Wiccan that exists. Especially if people are writing their own Book of Shadows. Every solitary practitioner of Wicca has a unique BOS.

And that's all I'm doing. Creating my own unique BOS.

That flexibility is a large part of what drew me to Wicca.

If I have to follow someone else's BOS as dogma, then no, I have no interest in Wicca at all.

:hippy:

agill8

03-14-2012, 04:37 AM

:catfight: Easy, abracadabra ! ! ! dont blow up over a few coments. Lifes too short,just like u stated . We r all here to express ourselves

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 09:47 AM

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 10:16 AM

Well, there are a few issues here. These 13 principles are not the be all end all of Wicca. It's a fair introduction, but it doesn't touch on practices or any details. It's very vague... and that's for good reason.

You suggest taking it up with the authors, but what do you know of them yourself? What do you know the creation of this document?

The interesting thing is, the Council of American Witches were not all Wiccan, but from a variety of neo-pagan backgrounds. The document was meant to be a list of things all the traditions present had in common, things they could agree with. That is why it is vague. It was also meant to clear up some common misconceptions about what they did not do - some of which pagans still deal with today. It was not necessarily meant to be the definitive list of Wiccan beliefs. Of course, this counsel also disbanded around a year after it was formed, because they could not reconcile their different practices to fit one group.

Don't get me wrong, as I said it's a fair introduction, but it is not complete. If you combined this list with a list that detailed a bit more specific beliefs and practices it would serve better as a "this is what makes me Wiccan" list.

This comment was not needed and it was rude. It's easy to tell or at least I can tell that he was being somewhat sarcastic but captain correct all had to throw in their two cents where it is not needed. Did they EVER say they thought this list was complete? There is a level of condescendingness that you people fail to see in the way you address others.

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 10:57 AM

tl;dr coming at you :violin:

Alexandria

03-14-2012, 11:00 AM

This comment was not needed and it was rude. It's easy to tell or at least I can tell that he was being somewhat sarcastic but captain correct all had to throw in their two cents where it is not needed. Did they EVER say they thought this list was complete? There is a level of condescendingness that you people fail to see in the way you address others.

At the time this thread was going, Abra, I, and a few others were also having conversations in a few other threads. There was a lot of bleed over, so looking at this one thread is missing some context and reason for reply. (If you actually read through this thread, you'd see a few of us calling in statements from the other threads, and why some of the things he was saying were problematic.) His original post in this thread was not in any way sarcastic, and when Abra arrived to these forums his idea of a Wiccan was "anyone who uses witchcraft in a positive way." That is why I felt it important to address how incomplete this list was, why it is still too vague.

You yourself have already stated that eclectics are "jokes" and mocked people who do exactly what Abra was doing through much of this thread, so I'm a bit confused as to why you think you're justified in defending him now. Especially since this thread is a few months old, and we've all long sense settled up, more or less...

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 11:03 AM

At the time this thread was going, Abra, I, and a few others were also having conversations in a few other threads. There was a lot of bleed over, so looking at this one thread is missing some context and reason for reply. (If you actually read through this thread, you'd see a few of us calling in statements from the other threads, and why some of the things he was saying were problematic.) His original post in this thread was not in any way sarcastic, and when Abra arrived to these forums his idea of a Wiccan was "anyone who uses witchcraft in a positive way." That is why I felt it important to address how incomplete this list was, why it is still too vague.

You yourself have already stated that eclectics are "jokes" and mocked people who do exactly what Abra was doing through much of this thread, so I'm a bit confused as to why you think you're justified in defending him now. Especially since this thread is a few months old, and we've all long sense settled up, more or less...

It seems like a patten with you people. Constantly telling others what wicca is or isn't.

Alexandria

03-14-2012, 11:08 AM

It seems like a patten with you people. Constantly telling others what wicca is or isn't.

Well, again, just the other day you were saying that Gardenrian Wicca (and later accepting only other oath-bound initiatory traditions) was the only real Wicca, which is pretty clear in definition. Interestingly, you take a stricter view of what Wicca is than I actually do.

Abra's view of Wicca wouldn't have made your cut, and again, you've already insulted the people who believe as he does. You're not really in a much better position to take some sort of moral high ground here...

Lunacie

03-14-2012, 11:08 AM

It seems like a patten with you people. Constantly telling others what wicca is or isn't.

Yep, we do share that information. There are a lot of people who have only gotten mis-information about Wicca, which is a religion with fairly standard practices based on a few particular beliefs. We try to correct the mis-information and provide factual information about Wicca.

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 11:10 AM

I find this guy hilarious personally. I also see 3 bully's who are besties. :violin:

Lunacie

03-14-2012, 11:13 AM

I find this guy hilarious personally. I also see 3 bully's who are besties. :violin:

I see something very different. Funny how perspectives can vary so much, eh?

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 11:14 AM

Alexandria

03-14-2012, 11:19 AM

I find this guy hilarious personally.

So you don't think he's a "joke" for being an eclectic, and "making it up as he goes along?" No, there's no backpedaling here at all...

Yeah, I'm done here. Have fun with that.

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 11:21 AM

So you don't think he's a "joke" for being an eclectic, and "making it up as he goes along?" No, there's no backpedaling here at all...

Yeah, I'm done here. Have fun with that.

You are really THAT unaware of what is going on

Lunacie

03-14-2012, 12:12 PM

Why am I defensive? Because I'm correcting the notion that Wicca is "abstract." Repeatedly.

There is the problem. YOU THINK YOU actually think you have the "right" to constantly correct others? Who says you yourself even know what you are talking about :catfight: This is condescending

I don't think have the right to correct other people.

I DO think I have the responsibility to correct mis-information, wrong information, false information by sharing the correct information, the right information, the true information.

I base that on my 20+ years of learning about and practicing Wicca, and taking part in discussions with many different people in online forums such as this one.

I can't make anyone believe that what I'm sharing is the truth, I'm just pointing out why the false information is wrong.

People often don't like to hear that they've been fooled, that they weren't smart enough to figure out on their own that others are making stuff up and calling it Wicca. But I was new to the path myself at one time, and I wasn't sure what to believe. The more I've read and the more I've talked to other Wiccans, the more sure I've gotten as to what is true and what is false.

I'm not going to stop doing that just because a few people are angry that they've been fooled and lash out at me - and Alexandria, and Gabrielle, and PinkFluff and White Fox and the other regular posters here.

lostkeyintro

03-14-2012, 12:27 PM

I don't think have the right to correct other people.

I DO think I have the responsibility to correct mis-information, wrong information, false information by sharing the correct information, the right information, the true information.

I base that on my 20+ years of learning about and practicing Wicca, and taking part in discussions with many different people in online forums such as this one.

I can't make anyone believe that what I'm sharing is the truth, I'm just pointing out why the false information is wrong.

People often don't like to hear that they've been fooled, that they weren't smart enough to figure out on their own that others are making stuff up and calling it Wicca. But I was new to the path myself at one time, and I wasn't sure what to believe. The more I've read and the more I've talked to other Wiccans, the more sure I've gotten as to what is true and what is false.

I'm not going to stop doing that just because a few people are angry that they've been fooled and lash out at me - and Alexandria, and Gabrielle, and PinkFluff and White Fox and the other regular posters here.

How do you know YOU have not been fooled? Obviously you guys are biased towards each other. What makes you think your "corrections" are actually accurate?

Lunacie

03-14-2012, 12:29 PM

How do you know YOU have not been fooled? Obviously you guys are biased towards each other. What makes you think your "corrections" are actually accurate?

I gave the answer to that in my post.

agill8

03-15-2012, 01:52 AM

R u talking 2 agill8@mymetromail.com? If u r u can txt me 8315853225. What do u have 2 say?

lostkeyintro

03-15-2012, 10:54 AM

R u talking 2 agill8@mymetromail.com? If u r u can txt me 8315853225. What do u have 2 say?

Um no one was talking to you. Never even seen you before

Linara

03-15-2012, 05:06 PM

Oh I thought it was just me. But it seems you need to constantly disagree with people. :violin: From what I see here obviously you people are kinda just jerks.

It is obvious that a group of you have known each other for years and are somewhat BIAS in defending what the other ones say. It is very easy for you to "Implicate" things and then when these implications are repeated people get a whole lot of "that's not what I said I said x y z". But you constantly implicate these things. It seems like in this "Open minded" religion there is a whole lot of people willing to correct other peoples "beliefs" on what wicca is. Constantly arguing about what others should think wicca is or is not is a little bit ridiculous. When you constatly correct someone that is being rude. You are not 100% right (i never said I was 100% right) yes but it is implied by the constant correcting. If someone wants to live by those 13 principles don't try to tell them otherwise. it seems you people would cut off your own noses to spite your faces.

Okay...(probably going to get a bloody nose for jumping in here, but here goes)

Being a fairly new person to the path, I'm well aware I don't know everything there is to know about Wicca. It's one of the reasons I joined this forum.

One of the other reasons I joined this forum is that the posts I've read ARE informative and definitive. The 'wiccan' forums full of happy-bunny *giggle* posts are pretty much a waste of time from what I can tell. But they will agree with whatever you post, this is true. Short of sharing a ritual where you slaughter kitties for Halloween, they'll applaud any belief system you profess to have. It teaches you nothing.

I want to know about WICCA. If I'm doing something questionable, or I don't quite understand what is meant, or I'd like to hear something from someone who has experienced it, this has been a good place to go.

When you first turned up, Lostkey, I assumed you were a seeker. You posted questions (lord love a duck, did you post!) and seemed to be avidly reading the forums. Unfortunately, when people started answering---you didn't seem particularly interested in the answers they gave. You started arguing and disagreeing with just about everyone I saw.

What I don't understand is what you want to hear. Why ask questions, if you won't accept the answers? Obviously you already have a very clear picture in your mind of what Wicca is, to you. And therefore you won't accept any other ideas. So...why?

Bullies? I don't think so. I've seen friendly, then firm, and at this point, annoyed. That's really not rude...rude would be calling you an idiot, or something. But honestly, anyone would get annoyed when you ask them a question and then tell them they don't know what they're talking about.

If what they tell you doesn't 'feel right' to you, then accept it, decide you can't use this forum as a knowledge source and move on. All this anger can't be good for you.:banghead: