Heathen Dawn

I can’t argue with your points. All I can do is disagree.

Anyway … Merry Imbolc.

Ojuice5001

There's baptism, of course. Historic Christianity might well have insisted that only baptized individuals be counted as Christians. But the number of unbaptized believers in Christianity is small enough to be ignored; I can't imagine that it takes the figure below 80%, and it's probably much less than that.

And it gets more interesting when you recollect that baptism is one of the indexes used to arrive at figures on membership in Christianity. This is a rather unreliable index, given that quite a few of these people are apostates at present. So that index is used by those who want to claim that there are many Christians. But the rationale is indeed baptism's status as the Christian initiation ceremony.

Karalora

Just out of curiosity: do you accept self-initiated solitaries as "real" Wiccans (provided, of course, they follow the Wiccan ritual forms and evince the proper level of commitment to the path)?

Perhaps such people don't know what else to call themselves, or are afraid their path lacks legitimacy if it doesn't fall under the umbrella of a specific, named religion. You must admit, "Neopagan" is somewhat vague, and the mainstream public still reacts badly to the word "Witch" (especially if used by a male).

newtype_alpha

To be sure in the Early church and even with Catholics it was indeed a REQUIREMENT and you were basically hellbound without it. That and communion, which isn't innitiatory but Catholics consider you to be basically in the doghouse if you don't take it. Baptists believe as an innitiatory rule you have to be "water baptized" of your own free will, some even throw in the tithing ordinance. Pentacostals believe you have to speak in tongues to be innitiated, so everything leading up to that is basically a kind of introduction/training.

The funny thing is, Wicca (seeing that it's still in its infancy at the moment) is going through what nearly all past religions went through in the years after their inception, a period of fragmentation where several smaller denominations break off based on certain principles. (one might say, "memetic mutation.") Christianity experienced this same phenominon, as did Islam, Buddhism, and many other religions we now recognize as more or less coherent. What Shven is describing is a path Wiccans understand as "Gardnerian Wicca." This is the group that claims that all/only Gardnerian Wiccans are actually Wiccan at all, much the way many Sunnis and Shi'ites (now) claim that Sufis are not "true Muslims" or that many protestants claim that Catholics are not "true Christians." It is also worth mentioning that Garder's works and ideas were not exactly original, nor were all of them authentic. As I said earlier, whenever a man with great ideas dies, his idea--while it still belongs to him--is no longer his to control. Sometimes this is unfortunate, other times it is VERY fortunate. But that's life.

Shven

No. I accept them as 'real' witches, but thats not the same thing.

Wicca isn't a specific named religion if all you need to be a Wiccan is to be vaguely neo-pagan.

'Wiccan' at present is somewhat vague because it seems that everywhere except the UK holds it to be synonymous with 'neopagan' - and as a self proclaimed witch, I couldn't care less how people react.

I realise it would make my life alot less hassle free if i did but I just cant. I consider it to be spiritually dishonest to associate yourselves with a group just because it makes you sound better. It is disrespectful to ones own spiritual path if one cannot admit what it is and isn't.

Heathen Dawn

Ladies and gentlemen,

You must keep in mind that the Chief Wiccan Rabbinate is headed by our eminent Chief Rabbi Shven, and he has decreed that only Gardnerian Wicca is deserving of bearing the stamp of the Wiccan Kosher Seal. Other paths claiming to be “Wicca” do not bear this seal of kashrut and therefore are unfit for consumption by Orthodox Wiccans.

:Cheeky:

Heathen Dawn

(to add to previous)

In anticipation of the rejoinder, “so a Christian could come and call himself a Wiccan and that would make him so, right?” I reply: no; but the judgement of who is Wiccan and who isn’t (and that goes for paganism at large) is not rule-based (like science and Christianity) but based on the principle of “you know it when you see it”—intuition (like art).

Shven

Once again I say: address my arguments or dont bother responding. Your commentary is ridiculous.

Edit: and I'd just like to point out that my views are shared by most in the British neopagan scene, where there actually exist Gardnerian wiccans in reasonable numbers and the chances are that you'll run into them on occasion, and people are quite happy to admit the uniqueness of their own traditions without trying to rubberstamp it with an appropriated title.

Heathen Dawn

And once again I say:

Your arguments are inaddressible. You say it is lineaged initiation that makes a Wiccan. How can I argue that? How can I rebut that? I can’t any more than you can address my converse opinion.

Last time I obeyed orders was in my army days, guv.

Maybe, but if so then it’s because your proposition is.

Heathen Dawn

Trying to support your argument with numbers won’t work. I’d hold my opinion even in the face of the whole world to the contrary.

“Appropriated title�?—you’re just like those Native American zealots who think they and only they have a right to their type of spirituality. Intellectual property, copyright, all rights reserved—yes, for all their decrying of Western culture, their attitude would make a CEO of a multi-million-dollar corporation proud. Heaven forfend that people should share their gifts with others!

F*** it all.