newtype_alpha

The word "Pagan" in general usage basically describes any non-Christian/Jewish/Muslim religion, nothing more. Technically, Buddhists are also pagan. The same thing that distinguishes "Wiccan" from "Pagan" also distinguishes, "theist" from "monotheist."

That's because Muslims are monotheists. Wiccans, generally, are not, nor for that matter are we dogmatic as to just what manifestation of deity is permissable to worship. You seem unaware that in polytheistic religions such as Hinduism or Hellenism or even Shintoism, the faith is divided up into sects which are themselves identified by which gods or goddesses they worship. In Shintoism, for instance, there is said to be over eight million Kami, and each shrine, in additional to ancestral spirits, has its own unique combination of deities. Hinduism, likewise, is said by some to have more gods than people.

Do we consider worshippers of Aphrodite to be a different religion than worshippers of Apollo? I don't think so, and I wouldn't expect a non-Abrahamic to think so either.

Again, Christians are (so they say) monotheists. But not all Christians honor Mary as the "mother of God" do they? Not all of them take communion, not all of them practice confession, and relatively few of them believe speaking in tongues is neccesary for salvation. These are the only differences in Christianity because they are the only differences that are allowed. Wicca allows a great deal more variation, because some of the details which other religions define in rigid, dogmatic terms don't really matter to Wiccans.

Here's an example that perhaps you can relate to: Muslims believe that you MUST pray five times a day, at the appointed times, and in very specific ways. You have to make all of the movements exactly so, recite a verse from the Quran, and there are other ritual requirements. Christians do not have any particular ordinance or rules as to how and when they are supposed to/not supposed to pray, because that sort of thing is not important in Christianity. In the same way, the "flavor of theism" (mono/poly/panthe/malthe) is not really important in Wicca.

Same as I jsut said above. The blanket term for Christians and Muslims and Jews is "Abrahamic," and the thing they all have in common is "worship of the God of Abraham." THat is what defines their religion. Wicca, however, is NOT defined by the exact deity worshipped, and perhaps if you could wrap your brain about that it would clear up some of your confusion. The most specific you could get is that Wicca is an "Earth Centered religion."

As I said above, this is incorrect. "Pagan" is a latin word that describes "non-Christians." Vikings were also pagans, so were the huns.
Wicca is a "neopagan religion" but is not synonymous with "neopagan." Most neopagan religions around the world are pretty much just local revivals of pre-Christian faiths that were stamped out by forced conversion... an attempt to re-establish old cultural roots and traditions. Most of these have little to no resemblance to Wicca at all.

I believe I've already explained the difference between Wicca and Paganism. Specifically, the difference is rather difficult to describe without a common frame of reference I could use to explain to you, which unfortunately you seem to be totally lacking. The best way I could describe it is this: Wicca is the practice of metaphysical study of nature, through which a Wiccan learns about his or her world, about the divine world, and about the forces governing his life and future. Of course, I understand that you're looking for some kind of superficial definition like, "Wiccans are people who worship the Horned God Tammuz" or something to that effect; I'm sorry to say, a list of recognized deities is not the core of the Wiccan religion, so defining it by its deities is not going to do you much good.

brighid

I know it isn't "easy" to understand and although this is frustrating (even to the practitioner at times) it is also part of the beauty of neo-paganism. Just as Christianity, Judaism and Islam have different branches (under which all branches fall under the same umbrella) so does Wicca. Christianity has literally tens of thousands of different sects and about the only thing they truly have in common is a belief in Christ. Correct?

In Wicca (which can fall under the even larger umbrella of neo-paganism) one believes in at the very least the Goddess (in her myriad forms) and God, her consort (or the Lord and the Lady.) The Gods or Goddesses an individual Wiccan, coven or Triad (tradition) can choose to focus on any subset of any particular pantheon or none in particular. The individual is not constricted by dogma or rules that say a member of a Celtic Coven cannot also find meaning from the Egyptian, Roman or Norse pantheon.

My group is Celtic centered, mostly because of our individual cultural backgrounds. However, we have individuals within the group whose solitary practice centers around different pantheons - Italian, gypsy, Roman and all of these traditions are incorporated into our group practice depending on who may be leading a particular ritual, event, etc.

A christian, if they so wish, could also call herself a Christian Witch/Wiccan (even if there is some controversy regarding this.) Christ may be his/her God of choice so to speak. It seems counterintuitive, but there is nothing in Wicca that says Christ cannot be the God. CHristianity may have something to say about it, but Wicca does not, nor should it.

It can be difficult to understand when the Abrahamic religions have rather strict rules as to who can belong to what tradition, etc.

Gardner may define Wicca for himself, or for anyone who wishes to follow his belief system but he has no ability to define Wicca as a whole and it is one thing that the lose body of authority that has been established has fought against.

We don't want fundamentalists (although allowed) to say Dianic traditions are the only way or Gardenian traditions are heretics, or that only natural or hereditary witches can practice the Craft. The lose definition is necessary to allow the creativity of the practice to continue to ebb and flow and I wouldn't want it any other way, despite the confusion it may cause.

Brighid

nermal

Brighid and Newtype Alpha;

You both make a lot of sense, and I suppose I have been nitpicking. I still don't know quite what Wicca is, but not being one, I suppose that isn't terribly important. Enjoy your religion as you see fit, and I'll resist the temptation to put you, or it, in a box I can delineate.

Cheers.

Ed

brighid

Thank you for being so gracious and I am glad I was able to come across in a way that you can understand. I am never sure how much sense I make to others.

B

Shven

Obviously my opinion is highly offensive to some people on this board to the point where they have to lash out at me. By the way it would help if you lashed out against what i actually said rather than misrepresented it. Since nobody has addressed anything I have said other than to dismiss it without actually responding to my primary argument I will discard my asbestos underwear and abandon this thread to the winds.

But one or two clarifications

I do not want to be a wiccan fundamentalist. I have no interest in joining a wiccan coven.

I dont think wicca is the only true path (or that any other path is for that matter) - in fact i dont think much of wicca at all. I just respect Gardner's wish to form his own weird little religion with its own rules and requirements.

I merely stated my opinion on a theological subject - what with this being a religious discussion board it would be nice if people could deal with that without flying off the handle.

Eireann

Same here (though 25 years for me, before I became an agnostic). I have never heard of a Wiccan even believing it possible, let alone attempting to do it.

I agree, although I take any element that derives from the "teachings" of Gerald Brusseau Gardner with a truckload of salt (the man was certifiable!). But, getting back to the point to which you were responding, what does it matter how old a ritual is (heck, in some traditions of Wicca, a ritual written by the actual practitioner is thought to have more potency than one they took out of a book, no matter how old the book)? Does it have to be thousands of years old to get a serious nod? The oldest rituals known to man were made up on the spot at some point or other. Did the Catholic Church of the 6th century discount the rituals of the 5th century church because they weren't "old enough?"

Eireann

I think your error lies in what you assume the identifying characteristics of Wicca to be, especially with regard to its being a "religion." Remember, though, that a great many Wiccans do not consider Wicca to be a religion, so to speak, but rather a path of right living. Your conundrum with Wiccans believing in different gods can be easily solved by remembering that the focus and method of "worship" is not a particularly defining characteristic of Wicca. During my quarter century as a practicing Wiccan, I met just about every variety of Wiccan you can imagine, and among all those myriad types of belief I encountered, I can narrow down only ONE thing that universally identified them as Wiccans -- adherence to, or at least deferential recognition of the Wiccan Rede, which states in pertinent part: "An it harm none, do as ye will." It says nothing at all about gods, goddesses, or forms of worship. There are even atheistic Wiccans out there, as well as Jewitches, Christo-pagans, Christo-Wiccans, and even Islamo-pagans.

Now, giving the Rede an in-depth analysis, we will see that it is very difficult to believe in the Rede and not believe in god or a god, but not impossible. It only requires a belief in a higher power, even if you simply call that higher power "Natural Law." First and foremost, note that it says, "Do as ye will." Although you will see that often mistranslated into "do as you will," that is inaccurate. The word "ye" is always and only plural, it has no singular. Simply put, the Rede means that you should live your life in such a way that strives to bring no harm to anyone or anything (an impossible task, but it doesn't hurt to try to come as near as practicable). The second half of the saying, "do as ye will," recognizes that we fallible humans do not have the foresight to know whether our actions might bring unforeseen harm, so we are urged to place our will in accordance with a higher power (God, destiny, Natural Law, whatever), in order that we are not left the sole arbiters of our own destiny.

Of course, one of the reasons I left Wicca and became an Agnostic is because I realized that this is largely a futile (albeit noble) endeavor to embrace. If there is a God, and s/he has a plan, then our actions will fit into that plan whether we ask or not. If there is a God, and s/he leaves us entirely to our own wiles, then there is no point in asking for higher guidance. And if there is no God, then there is certainly no point in it. So I choose to simply strive to do as little harm as is practicable, but express no unquestioning faith in the responsibility of any power other than myself for my own actions.

As such, I can't say that Wicca is silly (at least no moreso than any other religion, philosophy, or worldview, including atheism), but it does seem rather futile to me.

4th Generation Atheist

Any Zoro-Pagans?

Sorry, but the question seemed natural at this point, considering some odd elements these two threads have in common. [/anthropologist hat off]

Eireann

I'm sure there are some out there. A lot of Wiccans are what I call polytheistic monotheists, meaning they worship one god, but use the numerous manmade mythological archetypes of gods and goddesses passed down through the ages to represent the multifaceted dimensions of that one creator. As such, I doubt there are many, if any, gods out there that have remained untouched by the Wiccan use of archetypes, including Ahura Mazda.

Uncle Ants

Exactly so ... they are both dead and can't do anything.