lpetrich

This reminds me of the incident in the Bible where King Josiah's high priest Hilkiah finds a "book of the Law" in the Temple as it is being renovated -- a book whose teachings closely parallel Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14), especially in centralizing worship in Jerusalem.

(Edited to add)
Wiccans' concoction of pseudohistory has precedent in the Bible.

The earliest parts of the Old Testament / Tanakh are pure mythology, and there is a lot of controversy among Biblical scholars as to where the mythology ends and the real history begins. It's now generally agreed that the Conquest and everything before are mostly mythical; I'm not sure if one should be relieved that all those genocides are made up. And the Dual Monarchy and later are well-supported history -- it generally agrees with outside sources. So the remaining big controversy is over the likes of Kings David and Solomon. Were they rulers of a big united kingdom, or were they only rulers of some much smaller domain?

And the New Testament -- Jesus Christ's biographies are largely mythical, if not entirely mythical, some of Paul's letters were likely written by others (such inverse plagiarism was common before the printing press), and the Book of Revelation makes one wonder what sort of hallucinogenic mushrooms grow on the Greek island of Patmos.

I think that such statuettes would be too fragile to be kids' toys.

However, seeing a Universal Mother Goddess in them would be a bit much -- I'm sure that they had a variety of meanings -- various deities, legendary ancestors, people in ritual garb, magic charms, etc. Which are not mutually exclusive.

lpetrich

But that bit about Xenu and the trapped souls looks like a reinvention of Gnosticism.

Passerby

Era,

I have to say that I share your profound dislike of people that need to distort historical fact to fit their beliefs.
That Wicca was born in the 50s, well that's really not an issue to me. Some older religions don't make more sense, and I'm sure their might be some interesting religions which are not yet born.
However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't contribute to promote totally unsupported ideas (especially on runes and magic in the case of Norse mythology). As if ancient pagan religions, which usually have been trashed by Abrahamic religions for centuries, now needed some new-age weirdos to claim that Zeus, Taranis and Thor are one and the same... (Comparative religious studies have some very interesting point made on such issues, but at least they argument and debate in a scholarly manner.)

brighid

Maybe I walk in vast differnt Wiccan circles and therefore I do not have the experience Era has in some chat room or message board on the Internet. I don't know. I would strongly suggest broadening your horizons on this issue before deciding what the majority of Wiccan's believe or disbelieve.

If you are looking for a scholarly investigation into the history of neo-paganism Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler has already been recommended. I would add my voice to that recommendation.

I think all mythology contains pseudo-history and pseudo-science. Hell, I would even say our own history has a bit of pseudo-history!

Sadly, there are some who will foist this half-history and science as the sail that powers the boat of neo-paganism. That is their choice, and misinformation should be intelligently countered with information. We should not demonize others in the process as this serves to accomplish nothing except perhaps inflate ones sense of self-righteousness and intellectual superiority. If you must kick someone else in the teeth inorder to pat yourself on the back perhaps your modus operandi should be reevaluated.

The beauty of paganism is there is no dogma, no truly right or truly wrong way to follow the path. Let those who think one must prescribe to a certain path (hereditary or Gardenian for example) have their path. Let me have mine. One need not believe in Gods in order to walk the path of the pagan. Anyone can write a book and say this is the way he/she views the path, this is what he/she does in ritual and worship, but no one may dictate the way of paganism. So it is utterly useless to complain about what a majority of Wiccans believe or disbelieve. The simple fact of the matter is that there is such a wide array of beliefs that you will find but a few similiarities, and even then you will be hard pressed to find agreement. Even the Wiccan Rede of "an ye harm none" is not completely universal as some Wiccans and Witches believe that self-defense is an exclusion to this rule.

There is no religion that is more or less accurate than another. They are a compelation of half-truths, legends, pseudo-science, and bits of historical and other truths interspersed throughout to form a unique system of ritual, practice and belief/disbelief.

Live and let live, and perhaps the path to take is the one less traveled, or simply creating a path of one's own making.

Brighid

Era

Read the book, it was interesting.

Certainly.
Although, I do not comprehend what you are implying regarding the topic. Perhaps that pseudo-history is a normal occurrence and therefore, it is not worthy to complain about. Perchance, I would not criticize pseudo-history that occurred in the 17th century, an epoch when many people held ignorance and a disinterest of knowledge in a greater extent. But during the 20th century, individuals had a more advantageous stance that would enable them to differentiate facts from fallacies.

This paragraph perked my interest for the reason that it seemed as if you were categorizing neo-paganism and Wicca as equivalent, and they are not.
Is there Garderian neo-paganism?
If you clearly analyzed the thread, you must have derived that it concerned Wicca (not neo-paganism) and that the main issue was the pseudo-history of the religion disregarding Wiccan dogma. But I must say, in my opinion, any religion deserves study and dedication from those who desire to pursue it. On the other hand, if some individuals believe that Wicca (not neo-paganism) is “whatever you want it to be� as R. Buckland asserted, then that is acceptable for them. Believing in gods or goddesses does not imply that the follower ought to deem that Joan of Arc was a Wiccan.
History does not always make religion.

Regards,

Era

brighid

Ummm ... how is Wicca not under the umbrella of the neo-pagan movement? Perhaps we have different understandings of this particular definition. I see neo-paganism as the umbrella defintion mentioned by Tangiellis. Just as Judeo-Christianity encompasses a large number of religious practices that have their roots in that JC history.

History certainly does not always make religion, nor does religion always make history. I am not sure if I follow your train of thought on this. Perhaps you could expound on this idea.

Is their Gardenian neo-paganism? I am not sure, but I would classify Gardenian witchcraft as a neo-pagan religious movement.

Haven't you been arguing that Wicca does not have an ancient, pagan history and all assertations that it has it's roots in the hay-day of paganism are actually false (or misguided) because we do not know most of the practices that pagans undertook in worship, etc? Therefore, it would seem that by your arguments that Wicca indeed fits within neo-paganism (neo = new).

Wicca is certainly a relatively "new" invention, borrowing from what can be known about historical pagan practices. It certainly creates it's own principles, practices, etc. As I am not sure the Wiccan Rede or the Charge of the God or Goddess have any evidentiary basis in ancient pagan ritual.

I am glad you have read Drawing Down the Moon. It has been about 5 years since I read it so the information is no longer fresh in my mind.

Brighid

Era

Yes, Wicca is a neo-pagan religion.
I just did not comprehend why you alternated neo-paganism and Wicca in your previous post. It left the impression that you were expressing Wicca and neo-paganism as one in the same. When you implied that neo-paganism did not necessarily require theism and mentioned its lack of orthodoxness, it seemed as if the same prerequisites were decreed in Wicca since it is a neo-pagan religion. I recognize that neo-paganism is not a centralized and dogmatic religion/way of life/spiritual, secular or religious stance, etc.

Regards,

Era

Era

True.
It seems to be a norm among new followers. Unfortunately, many of them end up buying the popular New-Agey Wiccan books from authors, who have the sole desire of making money and have no concern of the imprecise information provided in the books. However, there are some who choose to remain ignorant and do not have any desire to learn about Wicca or ancient pagan religions. If ‘magic’ is the sole aspect that magnetizes them, then they can pursue Thelema.

Regards,

Era

Era

* Brighid

Profoundly recommended book: The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton. It is quite brilliant.

Regards,

Era

brighid

In the sense of dogma and the ability to freely create whatever one desires Wicca to be, it is very much like "neo-paganism." This can be confusing, but in my view Wicca and neo-paganism are very similar, or at least they are similar at their roots even if Wicca branches off into many different directions.

Now there are individual sects/groups/covens that demand a strict adherence to specific modalities of Wicca - say Gardenian for example. They require specific rituals, specific readings, etc. and they discourage exploration outside of that tradition, and in some cases the debase the practices of other traditions/movements/ecclectic practices in the same ways Protestants and Catholics attack the other for not being a "true Christian."

Wicca is dynamic, creative, free flowing ... or it should be. Although I would not begrudge a coven that adheres to a specific path exclusively as long as it did not harm it's practitioners and I think they walk a fine line when they demand exclusivity.

Wicca should be about self-exploration, the entire idea of what was does not find within one will never find without, as can be found in the Charge of the Goddess. No one can dictate how an individual should follow the Path, or how they should or should not view the Gods of the Wiccan Pantheon, etc. I think this spirit is what is at the heart of "paganism", but I am quite sure there are other pagans, secular or otherwise, who might disagree.

Thank you for the recommendation of Hutton's book. I have seen it and had planned on getting it, so perhaps I will have to explore that option sooner rather than later.

What are your thoughts and the distinction between neo-paganism and Wicca?

Brighid