Shven

Oh this is ridiculous. Under your definition of Wicca all I would need to be a Wiccan would be to label myself as such so my point of view on the subject is just as valid as yours.

My point is that you cant change a tradition so that you can become a member of it - thats not how it works.

How would it? What can Wiccans do that Non-Wiccans cant? In fact, whats the difference between a Wiccan and a Non-Wiccan besides what they label themself as?


Appealing to authority now?

Why do you have to make it personal? I am merely expressing a differing opinion to yourself on the nature of a religion. I wouldn't 'like' Wicca to be anything.

Heathen Dawn

No, that would not be enough. There are things to be believed and to be done for one to call onself Wiccan. You have to believe in the Goddess and the God and celebrate Their Mystery of Union in ritual. For example.

It worked for the Sufi Muslims well enough.

Non-Wiccan pagans don’t use magical ritual to worship a Goddess and God.

Wow! This from one who says Gardner still defines Wicca is rich!

I’m making it personal because it hurts me personally. You’re saying a certain category of people have no right to call themselves Wiccan, and since it’s clear to us all that I’m in that category, I feel delegitimisation.

Maybe I’m too thin-skinned. *sigh* I ought to learn to hold my opinion regardless. But this really hurts. After almost two decades of searching, of wandering in various paths and braving spiritual deserts, I’ve finally found a path where I feel heart and home, and now someone tells me I don’t even have the right to its name! A name is no trivial matter. Just like my magical name “Heathen Dawn” is a reflection of my very inner being, so too a name for my path means a lot, a lot.

I’m tempted to break off this discussion. I’ll see how it goes on and decide.

Shven

Check and check.

Apples and oranges. Islam isn't initiatory since it holds that all are born muslims.

Yes we bloody well do.


I fail to see the connection.

Why? You're basically practising in a very similar way to me as far as I can tell. The only difference is you label yourself differently. I never said Wicca was the only legitimate way of worshipping the Horned God and Triple Goddess.

It also doesn't change anything. why is calling it Wicca any better than being honest to the origins of wicca and calling it neo-paganism with a Wiccan basis?

you are far too emotional. I personally would say that a very important part of neopaganism is accepting that everybody has their own view of the world - even if it clashes with yours.

(FYI: I accept your point of view - just disagree with it)

Heathen Dawn

Um, if you do then you’re Wiccan!

The principle is of modification … well, you’re right in a very pedantic sense. Maybe in the near future I’ll come up with a better match.

Then they’re Wiccans. Those who do are Wiccans. No other neopagans do that.

“Neopaganism with a Wiccan basis.” That’s five words (or six if you split neo-pagan into two). It’s like Gardner could have called his concoction Crowleyan-Celto-Stregheria-Masonic-Paganism, but you agree it wouldn’t have stuck, right?

I’ll call my path as I please. As long as I don’t call it Traditional Wicca, I’m not misleading anyone.

You know, a lot of Japanese people don’t like computers because they happen to lack the character used for writing their name. I’m beginning to understand their feelings.

Shven

No I'm not.

Thanks - I think

no offence or anything, but I'll take the definition of 'traditional' Wiccans over yours on the subject. Plenty of neopagans do that, and not all consider themselves Wiccan. Just because you have your own weird definition of the word 'Wiccan' doesn't mean you get to take your broad brush and slop it onto everybody else. Were you seriously unaware that there were those who revere the God and Goddess but dont consider themselves Wiccan? If so I hate to think what the neopagan publishers near you are pushing.

fine. How about just neopagan? Or just pagan if thats too long? Sheesh

Beg to differ.

and I'm failing to see your point.

Shven

Heathen Dawn

Ooooh, thou dost protest too much. Perhaps this will be your gateway to understand how I feel when people define me.

You do that … while I continue to grow spiritually, and, Gods willing, in a few years’ time, start my own tradition.

“Broad brush,”OoOoOoOoO :rolling:

Also unaware that there are those who revere the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but don’t consider themselves Christian.

I have very few books on Wicca and paganism. Mine isn’t a book-religion.

WAY too specific! (not)

So I am misleading? So I’m dishonest, you think?

I really shouldn’t be here. I hate every moment of being here, of reading the posts here and of writing my own posts. I’m killing my soul on the Internet! I thought I’d ripped free of those f***ed discussion boards, and here I am once again. I’m only here because I haven’t found enough real life to fill my weekdays with (though, gladly, Friday’s taken care of). But I’ll soon find out what to do instead of this dung-wallowing pastime, and then I’ll be off, off to enjoying life really and truly!

Respond if you will, but just know I’m not here reading and posting willingly! :angry:

newtype_alpha

Apples and Oranges compare fairly well: they're both fruit and they both grow on trees

All religions begin as initiatory religions and Islam is no exception. From its beginnings, the only way to become a Muslim was to be invited to the faith by Muhammed himself or one of his lieutenants. Early Christianity was initiatory as well. Sufism, ironically, IS an initiatory religion for the most part. The point is that Wicca began as an initiatory religion defined by Gardner at a time when Gardner himself was an eclectic with about the same authority as anyone else to define what it was/is. In any case, some Wiccans are innitiated by smaller sub-groups, some form their own sub-group and innitiate other members, some are merely self-innitiates who use the Gods themselves as their teachers.

Saying "Only Gardner defines Wicca" is an appeal to authority, and a very unsubstantiated one since Gardner is dead.

No, you said that only Gardnerian Wicca was the religious path that worshipped the Horned God and Triple Goddess that can also be called Wicca. This is a position you simply cannot support.

Because that which is said to have a "Wiccan basis" is still, for all intents and purposes, Wiccan. Indonesian Sufis are still considered Muslim even though they have addapted alot of seemingly heretical ideas into their practices. Gnostic Christians are still considered Christians even though they are considered almost completely heretical by all of orthodox Christianity. This is also true of Mormons, Jehovas witnesses, even Alawite Muslims.

That has been the point of this discussion all along. You do not accept non-Gardnerian Wiccans as being actually Wiccan (which is ironic since you are neither :huh: ). Your entitled to your opinion, of course, but your critique on this matter isn't really relevant since you do not call yourself Wiccan so clearly your views on the meaning of the religion are very different from ours. But in order to have a working definition of anything, we will have to go by the working definition that is most widely accepted (such is the nature of linguistics).

You could say that Japanese Buddhists are not true Buddhists since they follow such a drastically different style of worship than--say--Indian buddhists or Chinese buddhists. Buddhism itself is a very nuanced faith with many denominations, some of which even follow completely dissimilar notions of Buddha. But it is the adherents, not the founders, who define what a religion is and what its beliefs are, just as in a country it is the people, not the government, who define the culture and traditions of that particular nation. You could call this "theology by popular mandate." In that case, Wiccans DO have the power to re-define Wicca and do so every day the religion continues to grow and develop.

Shven

Heh. Was that a 'witchier than thou' comment I detected? :rolling:


Apples and Oranges. There are those who follow the teachings of the Golden Dawn but aren't members, for example.

Me neither. I generally cant stand books on paganism.


How is Wicca any more specific under your definition? You can be atheist, polytheist, duotheist, pantheist, believe in karma, reincarnation, or not, worship any God or Goddess under the sun (happily splicing opposing deitys from different traditions) or just worship one goddess with a million and one different names and pretty much do what you damn well please.


I wouldn't say dishonest. Stubborn and bloody minded yes - but then so am I.

so you're an internet addict now?

If you dont want to be in this discussion then leave. I'm not stopping you.

Shven

Ok fine - apples and ironing boards :P

Can and have
See above. Mormons may be Christians, but they're not Roman Catholics. Its a case of umbrella and specific terms.

So? I dont have to be a member of a religion to hold a relevant opinion on it. And by Heathen Dawn's standards I am wiccan apparently.

Argument from poularity? Tsk

I'm fully aware that my opinion doesn't change anything, but it is simply the conclusion I have come to on the subject. I just dont accept that you can completely change the nature of a religious path to suit yourself simply because you outnumber its original practitioners.

Heathen Dawn

You say you’d take an official TradWiccan’s opinion over mine, that’s saying my opinion is of little worth, I have no alternative but to counter with a “witchier than thou” comment.

Got a fixation on that phrase, eh?

“Now”? I’ve been so for a long, long time. I’m trying to break it, not quite succeeding at the moment, but heck, my dad stopped smoking after 30 years, so there’s hope for me.

I know, but I’m stopping me.