Witch. Do YOU find that word offensive?

[Ijivirus]

Dragoness Arleeana

O_o - IXI - o_O

Dragoness Arleeana

Yes, I totally agree with you, on every point, even about Gardner. (sometimes I wonder if he wasn't smoking something on the side)

Really, it's impossible to be Wiccan without practicing witchcraft, as that is what makes up the whole of the religion. Of course initiation is a completely symbolic ritual, but it's still a ritual none-the-less. Most Sabbat rituals are symbolic, but it's still considered witchcraft.

It's kind of a frusterating topic to discuss because most Wiccans do believe that the ritual itself is not what's important, but the intent. But does that mean that we need not perform ritual at all? Some believe that Christian-style praying is enough. Everyone is always going to have a different view on whether or not ritual is actually NEEDED. Thus, we can never REALLY say that all wiccans are witches. (though we can say that all TRUE Wiccans are witches)

On another point. I think the OP's friend may not neccisarily be OFFENDED by being called a witch, but more like she's wary of it. The term witch has always had a bad reputation, but the word Wiccan is fairly new and untarnished. I've come acrossed people who freak when you tell them you're a witch but then later you say that you are a Wiccan, and they seem far more willing to listen. I think being wary of the term is understandabe because of this but actually being offended is just stupid.

According to Aleister Crowley magick is the Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with Will and later goes on to say every intentional (willed) act is a Magical act. So I would have to say that I think the ritual is PURELY symbolic and doesn't matter except to "stick with tradition" so to speak. I do the rituals because it helps me visualize the flow of prana, but I don't think they're necessary.

I don't think you can claim that there is such a thing as a TRUE Wiccan, when according to you they MUST be initiated. For me to find a coven I would have to move a city over to get initiated, and I have neither the time nor the money to do so, so I never bothered. I've been practicing Wicca for almost 2 years now (which I am aware is not nearly as long as most people here) and according to you I am lying to people when I claim to be Wiccan because I was not initiated. I think I am as much Wiccan as anyone else in this guild, and who is Gardener to say that I'm not. His "rules" weren't set in stone by the gods and goddesses themselves and I'm sure there were Wiccans before him that did not adhere to all of his rules. How did the first Wiccans come about if such an initiation is required?

I don't really appreciate something that happened in a different thread (that you were not involved in) being brought up in a different thread to be used against me. I made this post quite a long while ago, long before my little "incident".

Since you brought it up though...why can't i use the term "true wiccan"? If I believe that you can only be Wiccan when initiated I would obviously claim that there is only one way to be wiccan and thus only one way to be a "true wiccan". I can claim whatever I well damned feel like claiming too, like you say, who are YOU to tell me I can't? You might not agree with me but at least I'm not a hypocrite.

What, you mean you might actually have to put some EFFORT into working things out to be able to practice your religion? ONE town over? Sorry, but you can't drive or find someone to drive you? I moved SIX HOURS away (far more than one town) this past summer after I graduated. There arn't even any legit covens around here, but theres pagans to talk and practice with. I almost moved across the country, but I decided against going to school there. Moving a town over is too much work? I don't want to hear it.

You're not lying exactly, since you believe it, but you ARE wrong and mislead and misconcieving it. You are lying to yourself, because if you're not going to follow a religion correctly then why claim you are part of it? If people are to naive to know the truth then it's their own fault, but you're the one who is going to suffer by trying to conform to a title and roll that doesn't suit you.

There were NO Wiccans before Gardner, you might want to do a little bit more history research on the religion you claim to be practicing before you start making such bold statements. Gardner was taught by a Hedge Witch named Dorothy Clutterbucket, who later initiated him into HER tradition. He then formed and created the Wiccan religion. the first witches may ot have required initiations, and thus more could be brought into the spiritual path and its practices, but when Wicca was created Gardner said it was MANDATORY. Religion is a man made thing, the gods don't create it, MAN does. Man has faith, he create religion to conform people to certain rules, regulations and practices. Like you say, the gods have never said you need to follow any of these rules. THUS, religion is man made and THERFOR you follow the rules of the MAN who created it. Who is GARDNER to say you're not part of HIS religion because your not following the rules that HE, the CREATOR OF WICCA, set down!? Well....HE CREATED THE RELIGION! I think his rules mean quite a LOT!

Also, Aleister Crowley was not Wiccan. He was an occult practitioner and studied it deeply. His theories were for general occultism, not for Wiccan in any of its specifics.

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't talk about anything from another thread. I've honestly only posted in the same topic as you maybe 4 or 5 times and none of them were like real debates anyway.

How am I a hypocrite?

I work a full time job and a part time job and go to school full time. Yes, is it so hard to believe that I don't have time. All of my money goes to rent and food, etc... I don't have a car and none of my friends do either. It's too expensive.

Almost everything I've read says Wicca existed before Gardner.

I never claimed that Crowley was a Wiccan.
I only stated what he thought magick/will/intention was.  

[Ijivirus]

Kitanya_Rose

I have to agree with Leeana on Crowley.

First, everything I've found does not suggest Crowley was a Wiccan. It says he was a 33 degree Mason (not wiccan), a member of the Golden Dawn(magical yes, Occultist yes, Wiccan no), an Occultist, and even the 'father of modern Satanism'.. but I've yet to see anything that says he was a wiccan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/Freemasonry/aliester_crowley_33_degree_Mason_knew_about_human_sacrifice.htm
http://www.magickalmind.com/icons.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn
http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/index.shtml


The closest thing I can find is the page that says "He was also a one-time witch, though most of the elders of the craft would discredit him the title. (http://www.controverscial.com/Aleister Crowley.htm)" and that again brings up the whole witch/wiccan/pagan debacle. If you haven't seen it (because Phoenix asked for it to be removed) there was a thread once that talked about how "witch" "wiccan" and "pagan" are not exactly interchangeable terms. There is actually a difference in Witch and Wiccan (Hence the pharse "All wiccans are witches, but not all witches are wiccans".)

The phrase itself shows that by using the terms interchangeably, you are creating a confusion as to what is a "Witch" and what is a "Wiccan".

Personally, I dislike labels, simply because you have no true definition of the terms, even among those who claim to belong to one group or another. If you cannot properly define the terms, then the confusion is allowed to grow and continue, until no one knows for sure where one group ends and another beings.

And before someone says something like "Witch is defined as (insert here) and Wiccan is defined as (insert here), take the time to actually RESEARCH the terms online, and in those expensive books you have. Look at all the different ways people define them. Look at how utterly confusing it is, even though everyone asserts Witch=this, Wiccan=that... the "this" and "that" are rarely the same! (But feel free to post links to your source material, because I can post links that counter your sources, doesn't matter what side of the argument they take.)

Which is where I say, what makes one person's definition correct, and another's incorrect? I can say a Witch is someone with red hair and blue eyes, and a Wiccan is someone with blonde hair and green eyes, and if you don't have either of those, you're neither of those.... Sure, you wouldn't believe me, because I'm a "nobody". But what if Gardner had said "A Wiccan is someone who was born with a mole on their left thigh, and two colored eyes. Even if you follow the faith, without these, you are not a Wiccan." Well, I suppose we'd have a different group of wiccans out there... sporting plastic surgery moles and contacts. razz But the fact is, when people who are supposed to know what Wicca and Witchcraft is all give you different definitions... It gets to be one giant mess.

I can't remember who said it, for it was a while back, but someone said something along the lines of "Oh, if initiation is all that's needed, what's to stop someone from saying something like 'I was initiated by Aspen MoonWind, of the Coven of Two moons, who was initiated by Lady SilverWing, of the Coven of Two moons, who was initiated by Wild Wolf Redbeard, of the Coven of Circling Suns, who was initiated by Holly Cloverfield, of the Coven of Whispering Meadows, who was initiated by Stag Riverbottom, of the Coven of Whispering Meadows, who was initiated by Butterfly Moon, of the Coven of Standing Forests, who was initiated by FierceWindInShiningDark, of the Coven of Maiden Eclipse, who was initiated by Molly Two-Deers-Running, of the Coven of Ancient Ways, who was initiated by RedFeather, who actually studied under Gardner."

Can you prove it to be untrue? And how many people would bother to check, and how many would just go "Oh, with a lineage like that you're really one of us, welcome to the club" ???

I'd love for someone to actually check that lineage and prove to me it's fake. PROVE IT. Can you honestly find a list of EVERYONE who studied under Gardner, and prove there's not one man on it who didn't, as some point in his life, go by the name of RedFeather, and that he didn't at some point in his life, initiate a woman who at some point in her life went by the name Molly Two-Deers-Running, and belonged to a Coven of Ancient Ways? Gardner was HOW LONG AGO? You think there are membership lists, and that everyone remembers every coven that ever existed, even if it was only around for a short time? Do you honestly think that you can find records to prove that the lineage is false?

So, since you can't... I'm obviously a -true wiccan- and I want my membership card to this elitist club. now, please.



But to answer the original question of the thread, is the term-Witch- offensive, I have this to say. Any term can be offensive, if that is the meaning behind the person using it. "Queer" can be used as a cut-down by homophobic people. It's also a term that's been reclaimed by the Gay community. (As in "We're here, we're Queer, get used to it!") There's a certain N-Word, which I will refrain from using. Now, as I understand it, it's offensive for non-black people to use the word, but black people can use it without offense.

So is the term Witch offensive? If you wish it to be, yes. If the person using it wishes it to be, yes. Just because I don't find it offensive, or you don't find it offense, doesn't mean there aren't those out there who will find it offensive.

Perhaps it would be better for you to talk to your friend and find out why the term is offensive to HER, rather than asking others if it is offensive to them, since it is her issue with the term, not ours.

What is wrong with you people?

Where in my post did I claim that he was Wiccan?
I simply stated what he thought (and what I think) magick is.  

[Kitanya_Rose]

O_o - IXI - o_O

What is wrong with you people?

Where in my post did I claim that he was Wiccan?
I simply stated what he thought (and what I think) magick is.

Leeana's reason for saying that is in her last sentence. "His theories were for general occultism, not for Wicca in any of its specifics."

I belive she was trying to point out that quoting his beliefs for the purpose of a discussion on Wicca, is out of place, since the man didn't deal with Wicca.

MY purpose was simply to agree with her, for the purpose of the discussion, and to point people toward websites with information if they had any questions. I didn't quote you, therefore my comments were directed at the general population of readers, for the simple act of clarifying and sharing information, and not meant to be directed directly at you.

It's a little like having two people talking, one of them makes a comment about liking apples better than bananas, and I come along and say "Yeah, I agree, I like apples better than bananas, and here's why...." I'm not coming down on the other person in the conversation, even if they like bananas better than apples. I'm simply saying I like apples better, and here's my reasons. I never implied or inferred that you had said Crowley was Wiccan. I simply agreed with Leeana that he wasn't Wiccan, and provided sources. I then explained, to the general audience of readers, which I should point out, would include the topic started, and others in this guild who have said they didn't know a whole lot about Wicca and things.... That some people might get confused because Crowley -is- sometimes referred to as a Witch... which then required me to explain the difference between the terms... Which I should point out, is no small task.

That attempt at an explanation launched me into one of my rants on why I don't like labels, because of the fact that people can get confused. See, if you use Witch and Wiccan interchangeably, while others make distinctions, people can get confused. If I say blue, Phoenix says azure, Leeana says cyan, and Raven says navy.... Sure, they're all shades of blue, but they aren't exactly the same, therefore we would not be in exact agreement on the color. There would be differences. And if we were each to describe a room using our terms, and then someone walked into the room... which one of us would be correct? All or us? Or which ever one of us the viewer tended to agree with on the color?


Of course, the witch/wiccan/pagan issue also lend me into how some people define what a Witch is and what a Wiccan is, and I tried to touch on the initiation issue that was already in play. I gave my reasons for disliking the whole initiation process. Again, not directed at anyone in particular, just a general, broad statement as to why I personally dislike it.

After which, I felt the need to bring the whole conversation back to the original question.

So, I'm not sure where in there I said you, in particular, were incorrect. I'm unaware of any point in my original statement where I said you had said Crowley was a Wiccan. Generally, when I wish to address someone's statement directly... I quote them.

Which brings me to something else.

O_o - IXI - o_O

Almost everything I've read says Wicca existed before Gardner.

Please supply these sources. Book titles and authors if you can, since some titles have been used by different authors. Websites you can link to.

For my part, I'll provide you with some new material to consider.

Quote:

BIRTH OF WICCA: Numerous people have contributed to the neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement in numerous ways. The most important individual was the founder of Wicca, Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). After retiring from civil service as a British customs officer, Gardner joined a secret society known as the Fellowship of Crotona (he was also a member of several other secret societies, including Crowley's OTO, for which he was granted a charter to open up a new branch). It was while a member of this group that he claimed he first came into contact with a woman called "Old Dorothy." Gardner alleged that in 1939 "Old Dorothy" initiated him into one of the few surviving witches’ covens. He said that the rituals that the coven possessed were not complete, and he had to use his own knowledge and studies, which were extensive, to make them whole again. The already existing pieces, if there were any, were in the care of the coven’s living members who were all elderly women. In order to generate the publicity that he felt the Craft needed to survive, he began publishing books on the subject of witchcraft after the repeal of Britain’s Witchcraft Acts in 1951.

Many Wiccan and non-Wiccan scholars criticize Gardner’s story of initiation. "Old Dorothy" was not believed to be a real person until Doreen Valiente, a student of Gardner’s, produced the birth and death certificates of Dorothy Clutterbuck (Adler, 60-61).

Even though the existence of "Old Dorothy" was eventually proven, many still disbelieve Gardner’s allegations and assert that he created Wicca in its entirety with the help of the popular occultist, Aleister Crowley, in an attempt to create a magickal system that would gain wide popularity. Considering that the number one wish of teenage girls in America is to become a Wiccan or a witch, it seems as though they have succeeded. Still, the true origins of Wicca and its relationship to Witchcraft is one of the most heated debates within the neo-Pagan community.

That above information can be found here: http://www.tylwythteg.com/wicca.html

Quote:

In the past few years two well-respected scholars have independently advanced essentially the same theory about Wicca's founding. In 1998 Philip G. Davis, a professor of religion at the University of Prince Edward Island, published Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, which argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics -- mostly men -- in natural forces, especially those linked with women. ... In 1999 Ronald Hutton, a well-known historian of pagan British religion who teaches at the University of Bristol, published The Triumph of the Moon. ... Hutton, like Davis, could find no conclusive evidence of the coven from which Gardner said he had learned the Craft, and argued that the "ancient" religion Gardner claimed to have discovered was a mélange of material from relatively modern sources.

Hutton effectively demolished the notion, held by Wiccans and others, that fundamentally pagan ancient customs existed beneath medieval Christian practices. His research reveals that outside of a handful of traditions, such as decorating with greenery at Yuletide and celebrating May Day with flowers, no pagan practices -- much less the veneration of pagan gods -- have survived from antiquity. Hutton found that nearly all the rural seasonal pastimes that folklorists once viewed as "timeless" fertility rituals, including the Maypole dance, actually date from the Middle Ages or even the eighteenth century. There is now widespread consensus among historians that Catholicism thoroughly permeated the mental world of medieval Europe, introducing a robust popular culture of saints' shrines, devotions, and even charms and spells. The idea that medieval revels were pagan in origin is a legacy of the Protestant Reformation.

Some Wiccans have proven unable to adapt to the research into the origins of their faith and tenaciously hold to the traditional views that they are following an ancient faith. Others, however, have adapted quite well and even refer to the others as "Wiccan fundamentalists." More difficult to change has been the idea that ancient people's worshipped a single goddess figure which was later overthrown by a male deity. This still continues to pervade popular culture and pagan movements, but it might eventually adapt to the findings of recent scholarship as well.

The above information can be found here: http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/12/the-invention-of-wicca.htm


And perhaps the best way to put it

Quote:

Wicca as an "official" religion did not begin until 1954. This hardly qualifies it as an actual "tradition" in the broadest meaning of the word. It is even historically proven that so-called Wiccan theology did not begin to be compiled before the 1920s.

Read the full WitchVox article here:http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uspa&c=words&id=12144

I'd supply more, but I'm afraid I'm going to run out of space.  

[Dragoness Arleeana]

Well, if you're saying that I claimed all Wiccans MUST be initiated to claim that title, then yes, you are bringing in other threads conversations. I don't remember ever posting anywhere in this topic that a "true wiccan" must be initiated. Thus, you took that from another thread. If you actually read my posts you'd realize that when I wrote this that me saying "true wiccans" meant the followers of the original path, Gardnerian Wicca. I was talking about practicing witchcraft, initiation had nothing to do with my posts, so you brought it in from another topic.

What's wrong with us people? We were talking about different Wiccans. You then decided to quote me and start talking about Crowely, therefor we are going to assume that you are saying he is a Wiccan who is a respecatable authority on the subect. We were discussing if you HAVE to practice magic if you are Wiccan. You then brought up Crowley and his theory on magic, were obviously going to assume that you're applying it to Wiccan theology. Not our fault you decided to quote someone and then go off on a completely different religious view.

You're a hypocrite because you're saying that anyone who wants to should be able to be wiccan, yet you're saying that I can't make my own claims. You say "People should be allowed to claim and practice what they want." Am I not allowed to make well-founded claims and believe what I want though? That's why you're a hypocrite.

Also, I'd LOVE to know what you've been reading. (if you can't give me sources then deal, without sources you have no argument) Wicca didn't exist before Gardner. Period. Do some research on the history of Wicca. Sure, the beliefs incuded in Wicca were around before the religion was founded, but not as one religion. Wicca takes it's beliefs and practices from many different religions, including celtic, christian, norse, hindu as well as a few others. The beliefs were around, but not together as one religion, but Wicca itself was NOT.

Wow, you're just like every other person starting out in the world. I work full time, I'm also saving for college at the moment. My money also goes towards rent and food as well as caring for my pet. Me and my boyfriend also hope to marry within a year or so as well as have a kid in about three or four years. My extra money is going towards that as well as a car. Yeah, we don't have a car either, so I dont want to hear it. We walk everywhere. If you don't have the money or the time or a car (and none of your freinds do) how are you getting to work, getting to school, getting the money and the ride to the bookstore to buy your books as well as the store to buy your supplies? If you're really as dedicated to your religion as you say then you'd find a way to participate in a coven. Before I moved there was a small group of pagans that met in a town an HOUR from where I lived. One of the guys who went to these moots live an HOUR AND A HALF away from me, and he was more than willing to pick me up and give me rides. If you contacted the coven I'm sure you could find someone who would be more than willing to give you a ride. The only thing that's holding you back is yourself, so I don't want to hear about it.  

[Ijivirus]

Dragoness Arleeana

Well, if you're saying that I claimed all Wiccans MUST be initiated to claim that title, then yes, you are bringing in other threads conversations. I don't remember ever posting anywhere in this topic that a "true wiccan" must be initiated. Thus, you took that from another thread. If you actually read my posts you'd realize that when I wrote this that me saying "true wiccans" meant the followers of the original path, Gardnerian Wicca. I was talking about practicing witchcraft, initiation had nothing to do with my posts, so you brought it in from another topic.

It's from this thread and it's on the first page

Dragoness Arleeana

uninsured_speech

Dragoness Arleeana

Nahrzak

It's a death wish... some people have a hyper sensitivity... subliminal or conscious... inate or active... and a witch is a Dark and sinister typography of magic... A wiccan is a Mage... and a Witch is a Novice or Apprentice of a bad sorceress... Witches cannot ever acquire the experience or ability that might include nobility... and Wiccan is a very noble (elfen) post script to Man's work in magic... Mage is a Healer or a Death Dealer... Witch is a lack of experience and or a moral or ethical Caring.

None of that made any sense. Wiccans are not called mages. They are called witches, as that is what Gerald Gardner said they were. A witch is NOT an apprentice of a bad sorcerer or sorceress, it's anyone who practices witchcraft. The rest of your post doesn't make enough sense to even respond to.

Okay, so I am not the only one who thought that made no sense.

Anyway...

I did not answer the poll because Wiccan and Witch are not mutually exclusive. The only author I know who consistantly asserts that all Wiccans are Witches and all Witches are Wiccans is Silver Ravenwolf... and I'm not even going to get started there.

Witchcraft and Wicca are two different things. Many Wiccans do not follow witchcraft. Wicca is a religion, it is a belief system. Witchraft is just that, a craft. Wiccan spell work is closer to prayer based, calling on the Lord & Lady, the deities. Witchcraft works more with herbs, candles, and other objects of energy, more personal will and less call to higher powers.

Many Witches are Wiccans and many Wiccans are Witches... but they are two separate things.

Yeah...I didn't get anything of what he said.

Actually, if you're wiccan you ARE a witch. To actually be TRULEY considered Wiccan, you have to have had an initiation performed by a lineaged witch. If you've not had that done, then you're what is considered a Wiccan dedicant. (I still say you're wiccan, but not technically if we follow the "rules") this is a form of witchcraft, thus making you a witch. There are many people who claim to be wiccan, but do not practice witchcraft (and therefor are not witches) but instead give silent worship to the gods (much like christians do to god). Now, that means that you would be ecclectic, but still wiccan without being a witch. Though if we were to follow the rules set down by Gardner you wouldn't technically even be a Wiccan, you'd just be a pagan.

As a side note, if anyone here tries to tell me that there are no rules to Wicca and that Gardner never set any down, then you SERIOUSLY need to read up on your history. Wicca isn't as willy-nilly do-what-you-want as most people think. Trust me, there are rules to the religion, like every other religion out there.

Dragoness Arleeana

What's wrong with us people? We were talking about different Wiccans. You then decided to quote me and start talking about Crowely, therefor we are going to assume that you are saying he is a Wiccan who is a respecatable authority on the subect. We were discussing if you HAVE to practice magic if you are Wiccan. You then brought up Crowley and his theory on magic, were obviously going to assume that you're applying it to Wiccan theology. Not our fault you decided to quote someone and then go off on a completely different religious view.

Okay, I can totally see where you're coming from there. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Dragoness Arleeana

You're a hypocrite because you're saying that anyone who wants to should be able to be wiccan, yet you're saying that I can't make my own claims. You say "People should be allowed to claim and practice what they want." Am I not allowed to make well-founded claims and believe what I want though? That's why you're a hypocrite.

I still don't get it...

Dragoness Arleeana

Also, I'd LOVE to know what you've been reading. (if you can't give me sources then deal, without sources you have no argument) Wicca didn't exist before Gardner. Period. Do some research on the history of Wicca. Sure, the beliefs incuded in Wicca were around before the religion was founded, but not as one religion. Wicca takes it's beliefs and practices from many different religions, including celtic, christian, norse, hindu as well as a few others. The beliefs were around, but not together as one religion, but Wicca itself was NOT.

I'll provide a list of my sources when I get home. I did do research only one of the books I read said Gardener CREATED Wicca. Every other book says he brought it to the attention of the world.

Dragoness Arleeana

Wow, you're just like every other person starting out in the world. I work full time, I'm also saving for college at the moment. My money also goes towards rent and food as well as caring for my pet. Me and my boyfriend also hope to marry within a year or so as well as have a kid in about three or four years. My extra money is going towards that as well as a car. Yeah, we don't have a car either, so I dont want to hear it. We walk everywhere.

I am not "just starting out" however.
I have been providing for myself since I was 14, "so I don't want to hear it".

Dragoness Arleeana

If you don't have the money or the time or a car (and none of your freinds do) how are you getting to work, getting to school, getting the money and the ride to the bookstore to buy your books as well as the store to buy your supplies?

There's this invention called a bus. Most of my books were given or lent to me. I don't have many supplies. Alter, candles, and an athame. All given to me.

Dragoness Arleeana

If you're really as dedicated to your religion as you say then you'd find a way to participate in a coven. Before I moved there was a small group of pagans that met in a town an HOUR from where I lived. One of the guys who went to these moots live an HOUR AND A HALF away from me, and he was more than willing to pick me up and give me rides. If you contacted the coven I'm sure you could find someone who would be more than willing to give you a ride. The only thing that's holding you back is yourself, so I don't want to hear about it.

I can be dedicated to the religion without joining a coven. You're making it seem like I don't study at all and want to join a coven but am making excuses. I am studying and I don't want to join a coven.

I view it kind of like Christianity and Baptism. Some people say you can't be in their religion unless you get baptized. Well I don't want to be part of your religion. I can be Wiccan without being a gardnerian wiccan.

Nothing is holding me back. I'm happy where I am in my religion and my studies.  

[PhoenixMoonStar]

I'll chime in on the part about covens being too far away. I grew up in a small town, where rush hour was 3 cars on the road at the same time, or a cattle crossing. It wasn't unheard of for me to be late to school because I had to help someone put their cows back in their fence, and it was so common it was acceptable. "Oh, Dr. Hunter's cows were out again were they? Oh well, just head off to class."

Everyone knew everyone, and everyone was Christian. When I decided to start my path, I started with books and some videos from the library. (The library that was about an hour's drive from where I lived, in another town).

Once I was 18, I started looking into study groups, but the only ones I could find were in Colorado Springs... that was about a 2 hour drive from Pueblo, and Pueblo was an hour drive from my house. Now, I had a car, but it didn't always work, so I was sort of in the same boat.

Eventually, when I was 19, I found a group to hang out with. They were a Study group, not a coven, but they wanted to see how well the group worked together before trying to form a coven. They weren't any closer than Springs, but they were a small town group, which interested me more than 'city witches' I suppose. Still, a three hour drive one way was daunting. So I looked into who else wanted to go, and we ended up carpooling. It made the three hours bearable, for starters, plus with all of us chipping in a little for gas, it wasn't nearly as expensive.

Now, I realize I'm an "Old woman",... being 30 and all. I know gas was cheaper then than it is now. But I'm sure if you look into it, you can find a group, someone with a van or multi-seater car, and dividing the drive and gas by a larger group is fun and economical.

I should also mention, we only met once a month, so it's not like we were going every weekend.

I'd suggest checking WitchVox for local groups near you. You'd be surprised at what you can find, usually in your own backyard. And often times, you'll find that there's a real "licensed" Wiccan... someone who's been initiated, who is looking to start their own coven. By design, Covens are meant to grow and divide. Once you hit critical mass, the upper tier is usually encouraged to branch off and form their own Coven, which in turn branches when it hits critical mass... so in theory there's usually someone trying to form a coven at some point. Often times they start with study circles... to see who really wants to learn, and to find a group that works well together.

I'm not going to say it isn't difficult. But there's an old saying. "Where there's a will, there's a way." I hope some of the suggestions help.  

[Ijivirus]

Kitanya_Rose

O_o - IXI - o_O

What is wrong with you people?

Where in my post did I claim that he was Wiccan?
I simply stated what he thought (and what I think) magick is.

Leeana's reason for saying that is in her last sentence. "His theories were for general occultism, not for Wicca in any of its specifics."

I belive she was trying to point out that quoting his beliefs for the purpose of a discussion on Wicca, is out of place, since the man didn't deal with Wicca.

MY purpose was simply to agree with her, for the purpose of the discussion, and to point people toward websites with information if they had any questions. I didn't quote you, therefore my comments were directed at the general population of readers, for the simple act of clarifying and sharing information, and not meant to be directed directly at you.

It's a little like having two people talking, one of them makes a comment about liking apples better than bananas, and I come along and say "Yeah, I agree, I like apples better than bananas, and here's why...." I'm not coming down on the other person in the conversation, even if they like bananas better than apples. I'm simply saying I like apples better, and here's my reasons. I never implied or inferred that you had said Crowley was Wiccan. I simply agreed with Leeana that he wasn't Wiccan, and provided sources. I then explained, to the general audience of readers, which I should point out, would include the topic started, and others in this guild who have said they didn't know a whole lot about Wicca and things.... That some people might get confused because Crowley -is- sometimes referred to as a Witch... which then required me to explain the difference between the terms... Which I should point out, is no small task.

That attempt at an explanation launched me into one of my rants on why I don't like labels, because of the fact that people can get confused. See, if you use Witch and Wiccan interchangeably, while others make distinctions, people can get confused. If I say blue, Phoenix says azure, Leeana says cyan, and Raven says navy.... Sure, they're all shades of blue, but they aren't exactly the same, therefore we would not be in exact agreement on the color. There would be differences. And if we were each to describe a room using our terms, and then someone walked into the room... which one of us would be correct? All or us? Or which ever one of us the viewer tended to agree with on the color?


Of course, the witch/wiccan/pagan issue also lend me into how some people define what a Witch is and what a Wiccan is, and I tried to touch on the initiation issue that was already in play. I gave my reasons for disliking the whole initiation process. Again, not directed at anyone in particular, just a general, broad statement as to why I personally dislike it.

After which, I felt the need to bring the whole conversation back to the original question.

So, I'm not sure where in there I said you, in particular, were incorrect. I'm unaware of any point in my original statement where I said you had said Crowley was a Wiccan. Generally, when I wish to address someone's statement directly... I quote them.

Which brings me to something else.

O_o - IXI - o_O

Almost everything I've read says Wicca existed before Gardner.

Please supply these sources. Book titles and authors if you can, since some titles have been used by different authors. Websites you can link to.

For my part, I'll provide you with some new material to consider.

Quote:

BIRTH OF WICCA: Numerous people have contributed to the neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement in numerous ways. The most important individual was the founder of Wicca, Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). After retiring from civil service as a British customs officer, Gardner joined a secret society known as the Fellowship of Crotona (he was also a member of several other secret societies, including Crowley's OTO, for which he was granted a charter to open up a new branch). It was while a member of this group that he claimed he first came into contact with a woman called "Old Dorothy." Gardner alleged that in 1939 "Old Dorothy" initiated him into one of the few surviving witches’ covens. He said that the rituals that the coven possessed were not complete, and he had to use his own knowledge and studies, which were extensive, to make them whole again. The already existing pieces, if there were any, were in the care of the coven’s living members who were all elderly women. In order to generate the publicity that he felt the Craft needed to survive, he began publishing books on the subject of witchcraft after the repeal of Britain’s Witchcraft Acts in 1951.

Many Wiccan and non-Wiccan scholars criticize Gardner’s story of initiation. "Old Dorothy" was not believed to be a real person until Doreen Valiente, a student of Gardner’s, produced the birth and death certificates of Dorothy Clutterbuck (Adler, 60-61).

Even though the existence of "Old Dorothy" was eventually proven, many still disbelieve Gardner’s allegations and assert that he created Wicca in its entirety with the help of the popular occultist, Aleister Crowley, in an attempt to create a magickal system that would gain wide popularity. Considering that the number one wish of teenage girls in America is to become a Wiccan or a witch, it seems as though they have succeeded. Still, the true origins of Wicca and its relationship to Witchcraft is one of the most heated debates within the neo-Pagan community.

That above information can be found here: http://www.tylwythteg.com/wicca.html

Quote:

In the past few years two well-respected scholars have independently advanced essentially the same theory about Wicca's founding. In 1998 Philip G. Davis, a professor of religion at the University of Prince Edward Island, published Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, which argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics -- mostly men -- in natural forces, especially those linked with women. ... In 1999 Ronald Hutton, a well-known historian of pagan British religion who teaches at the University of Bristol, published The Triumph of the Moon. ... Hutton, like Davis, could find no conclusive evidence of the coven from which Gardner said he had learned the Craft, and argued that the "ancient" religion Gardner claimed to have discovered was a mélange of material from relatively modern sources.

Hutton effectively demolished the notion, held by Wiccans and others, that fundamentally pagan ancient customs existed beneath medieval Christian practices. His research reveals that outside of a handful of traditions, such as decorating with greenery at Yuletide and celebrating May Day with flowers, no pagan practices -- much less the veneration of pagan gods -- have survived from antiquity. Hutton found that nearly all the rural seasonal pastimes that folklorists once viewed as "timeless" fertility rituals, including the Maypole dance, actually date from the Middle Ages or even the eighteenth century. There is now widespread consensus among historians that Catholicism thoroughly permeated the mental world of medieval Europe, introducing a robust popular culture of saints' shrines, devotions, and even charms and spells. The idea that medieval revels were pagan in origin is a legacy of the Protestant Reformation.

Some Wiccans have proven unable to adapt to the research into the origins of their faith and tenaciously hold to the traditional views that they are following an ancient faith. Others, however, have adapted quite well and even refer to the others as "Wiccan fundamentalists." More difficult to change has been the idea that ancient people's worshipped a single goddess figure which was later overthrown by a male deity. This still continues to pervade popular culture and pagan movements, but it might eventually adapt to the findings of recent scholarship as well.

The above information can be found here: http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/03/12/the-invention-of-wicca.htm


And perhaps the best way to put it

Quote:

Wicca as an "official" religion did not begin until 1954. This hardly qualifies it as an actual "tradition" in the broadest meaning of the word. It is even historically proven that so-called Wiccan theology did not begin to be compiled before the 1920s.

Read the full WitchVox article here:http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uspa&c=words&id=12144

I'd supply more, but I'm afraid I'm going to run out of space.

I apologize for venting on you.
Seeing as how many of the books were lent to me I won't be able to list them all, but I still have most of them.
I'll list the one's I still have around later tonight or tomorrow morning.

*thanks for the sources*  

[Dragoness Arleeana]

Well, as you so conveniently bolded the line where I supposedly said you have to be initiated to be Wiccan I have this to say: I didn't say you wern't Wiccan, I said you were what is considered a wiccan dedicant, but that I still think you are a Wiccan. Point and case. I never said in this thread you haa to be initiated to be considered Wiccan by my standards.

Ok, let me put it this way then. You keep telling me that you can believe and practice whatever you want. Yet, you told me that I had no right to claim that there was anything called or considered a"true wiccan" because of what I had "supposedly" said. So, you can practice what you want...but I can't? THAT'S hypocricy.

You're the one who decided to bring up the fact that you couldn't join a group. If you're not interested in it then why did you even bother bringing it up? A bus you say, really? I'm quite sure that costs money and takes up time, both of which you say you have neither of. YOU'RE the one that brought up joining a coven so I assumed you WANTED to. Also, again, we were talking about Gardnerian Wicca. If your practices don't agree with those of the Gardnerian path, then fine, but don't get all pissed at us for discussing thologies and rules that don't agree with your when we're not TALKING ABOUT YOUR PATH.

I can completely understand not being able to join a coven, but don't go telling me that you don't have the money or time when you keep talking about things that take up unnessicary money and time, it makes you look like a liar.  

[WitchyBoy]

wow this kinda went off topic...  

[mechanical kitsy]

WitchyBoy

wow this kinda went off topic...

well not really it went from one thing to another

topic>topic>topic>topic>
so really it's not off topic its part of the original discussion

but i'm still just sitting back, going stressed  

[Ijivirus]

Dragoness Arleeana

Well, as you so conveniently bolded the line where I supposedly said you have to be initiated to be Wiccan I have this to say: I didn't say you wern't Wiccan, I said you were what is considered a wiccan dedicant, but that I still think you are a Wiccan. Point and case. I never said in this thread you haa to be initiated to be considered Wiccan by my standards.

Wiccan dedicant and Wiccan initiate mean 2 different things to me.
A dedicant is a person who is extremely devoted to a religion; a follower.
An initiate is a person who has been initiated by being accepted with formal rites into an organization or group, secret knowledge, adult society, etc.
(random house unabridged dictionary)
Those definitions look different to me. My understanding was when the dedicant becomes initiated, he or she is then part of that Tradition. Meaning they weren't until initiated.

You say you still think I'm Wiccan, but then you go on to say that "technically" I'm not because of the "rules". Make up your mind.

Dragoness Arleeana

Ok, let me put it this way then. You keep telling me that you can believe and practice whatever you want. Yet, you told me that I had no right to claim that there was anything called or considered a"true wiccan" because of what I had "supposedly" said. So, you can practice what you want...but I can't? THAT'S hypocricy.

I never said you couldn't practice what you want. I said, "I don't think you can claim that there is such a thing as a TRUE Wiccan, when according to you they MUST be initiated"

Dragoness Arleeana

You're the one who decided to bring up the fact that you couldn't join a group. If you're not interested in it then why did you even bother bringing it up? A bus you say, really? I'm quite sure that costs money and takes up time, both of which you say you have neither of. YOU'RE the one that brought up joining a coven so I assumed you WANTED to. Also, again, we were talking about Gardnerian Wicca. If your practices don't agree with those of the Gardnerian path, then fine, but don't get all pissed at us for discussing thologies and rules that don't agree with your when we're not TALKING ABOUT YOUR PATH.

The point was that I couldn't join a group if I wanted to.
I was interested in joining a coven at first, but after I couldn't find one close enough I started study as a solitary practitioner and ended up liking it.
The bus is free with my student ID and everywhere I need to go is only like a 10 - 20 bus ride away.
It wasn't made clear to me that we were talking about Gardnerian Wicca. I thought we were talking about Wicca as a whole/ in general.

Also, it seems to me that you're WAY more angry about this than I amand you're just projecting your feelings onto me.

Dragoness Arleeana

I can completely understand not being able to join a coven, but don't go telling me that you don't have the money or time when you keep talking about things that take up unnessicary money and time, it makes you look like a liar.

Nothing I mentioned takes necessary money or time.

If you can't do something as simple as spell how am I supposed to, not only take you seriously but, regard you as a reliable source?

You're spelling is atrocious which tells me you aren't too smart, so I think I'm done talking to you now.  

[dark_angel_32189]

@Dragoness and IXI: I personally don't believe that either of you are wrong. Different people believe different things (even in times where one person's beliefs are based on scientific proof and the other isn't). But that doesn't make it 'wrong'. If it's right in their mind, then that's what is right, even if there is strong evidence against it. You can try to 'correct' them, but if they don't want to change their beliefs, then they simply won't. And there's pretty much nothing that you can do to get them to believe it.

One of you believes one thing and the other one believes something else. So what? Just because someone else doesn't completely agree with you? You're not going to change each others' minds, that seems pretty obvious at this point. So why are you still arguing with each other? (And yes, I believe it's gone past just simply discussing/debating. There are quite a few argumental elements in both of your posts).

Quote:

You're spelling is atrocious which tells me you aren't too smart, so I think I'm done talking to you now.

That was completely unnecessary. Ever heard of typos? It happens to all of us... and I can guarantee you that it's happened to you before too, even if you didn't notice it.

Not only was it unnecessary, but it made you look unintelligent yourself and like a complete a**.  

[PhoenixMoonStar]

dark_angel_32189

Ever heard of typos? It happens to all of us... and I can guarantee you that it's happened to you before too, even if you didn't notice it.

Not only that, but I'd like to mention some of us have dyslexic typing skills. There are days when I cannot for the life of me spell something without inverting two letters constantly. If it wasn't for the fact my browser has a spell check in it, I would never notice. Thank Goddess for those little red lines.

I also know that some people have crappy keyboards, because I had one, and recently replaced it. I had cases where certain letters wouldn't type out, no matter how hard I pushed the keys, because they'd just died. Apparently, I type to much . redface

There's many reasons why people have bad spelling. My sister had horrible spelling in school, because she didn't understand the rules. If 'e' could be there, and just be silent, why couldn't 'x' and 'b' if they felt like it? Why is phone spelled 'phone' and not 'fone'? Given I didn't grow up with her, I couldn't really tell you if she ever grew out of it.

But then there are some people in this guild for whom English is a second, not a first language, and possibly a recently acquired one. I'm sure their spelling and even grammar aren't going to be the best.

And if I don't have my glasses, I'm more likely to make spelling mistakes, simply because I can't see the words I type as well as I can with my glasses.

Then there's the issue of how fast you type. I find it I'm really trying to type as fast as my brain goes, I tend to kit keys in the wrong order, especially the space bar. "Then that is" suddenly becomes "Thent hati s" I try to catch all of them, but sometimes... It's easier to miss if I'm in a different browser, where I don't have spell check.

So, yeah, there's many reasons why someone doesn't have the best spelling in the world. (I just had to spell 'world' three times, because I kept putting an 's' instead of a 'd'... so, yeah...)


Also- FYI, @ Ixi-

Your= belonging to
You're= you are.

Technically, you should have written "Your spelling is atrocious."  

[Demetrius Plateau]

So many posts.....Where to start...Ah yes, let's try the original hand full of questions.

Quote:

How do YOU feel about that word?

Do you think it should'nt be used?

Think it's rude?

Honestly, I embrace the word for all it's good & evil as it is an adjective describing me. I take as much pride in it as I do the word b*****d, & am not above admitting that I have used it as best I can & for the common stereotypes.

No, I believe the word holds as much power in it to us(people who call themselves witches outside the latest trends) as God loving Christians have the right to call themselves that.

Nah, well using it to try to insult a guy who is legally defined by a swear word & embrases it? Nah, I think it's pretty cool.

-holds up hand-

High five.  

[Dragoness Arleeana]

O_o - IXI - o_O

Dragoness Arleeana

Well, as you so conveniently bolded the line where I supposedly said you have to be initiated to be Wiccan I have this to say: I didn't say you wern't Wiccan, I said you were what is considered a wiccan dedicant, but that I still think you are a Wiccan. Point and case. I never said in this thread you haa to be initiated to be considered Wiccan by my standards.

Wiccan dedicant and Wiccan initiate mean 2 different things to me.
A dedicant is a person who is extremely devoted to a religion; a follower.
An initiate is a person who has been initiated by being accepted with formal rites into an organization or group, secret knowledge, adult society, etc.
(random house unabridged dictionary)
Those definitions look different to me. My understanding was when the dedicant becomes initiated, he or she is then part of that Tradition. Meaning they weren't until initiated.

You say you still think I'm Wiccan, but then you go on to say that "technically" I'm not because of the "rules". Make up your mind.

In Wicca a dedicant is someone who has gone through a dedication ceremony and has given themselves spiritually to the Gods. A Seeker is someone who is extremely dedicated to the religion.

There you go again, bringing in other threads. I made the post in this thread LONG before I made any statements about having to be initiated to be wiccan. When I made this post I believed that you could still be Wiccan even if you hadn't been initiated, but that you could not fully comprehend the religion.

Dragoness Arleeana

Ok, let me put it this way then. You keep telling me that you can believe and practice whatever you want. Yet, you told me that I had no right to claim that there was anything called or considered a"true wiccan" because of what I had "supposedly" said. So, you can practice what you want...but I can't? THAT'S hypocricy.

I never said you couldn't practice what you want. I said, "I don't think you can claim that there is such a thing as a TRUE Wiccan, when according to you they MUST be initiated"

Thus, I believe that you cannot be a "true wiccan" without having initiation, because there are some things that you don't know until you have been initiated. How can you follow a religion completely when you don't know everything from every aspect? Unless you have blind faith that is. That is my belief, and you said I had no right to claim that. In its essence you are telling me I cannot believe what I want.

Dragoness Arleeana

You're the one who decided to bring up the fact that you couldn't join a group. If you're not interested in it then why did you even bother bringing it up? A bus you say, really? I'm quite sure that costs money and takes up time, both of which you say you have neither of. YOU'RE the one that brought up joining a coven so I assumed you WANTED to. Also, again, we were talking about Gardnerian Wicca. If your practices don't agree with those of the Gardnerian path, then fine, but don't get all pissed at us for discussing thologies and rules that don't agree with your when we're not TALKING ABOUT YOUR PATH.

The point was that I couldn't join a group if I wanted to.
I was interested in joining a coven at first, but after I couldn't find one close enough I started study as a solitary practitioner and ended up liking it.
The bus is free with my student ID and everywhere I need to go is only like a 10 - 20 bus ride away.
It wasn't made clear to me that we were talking about Gardnerian Wicca. I thought we were talking about Wicca as a whole/ in general.

Also, it seems to me that you're WAY more angry about this than I amand you're just projecting your feelings onto me.

You never said that though, you just started in about not being able to join a coven. I assumed, and I'm sure others did as well, that since you brought it up without any provocation that it meant you wanted to join one. Why talk about not being able to join a coven if no one else is talking about it and it isn't something you wish to do?

Well, no one else in the conversation seemed confused as to which path we were talking about. You should find out what people are talking about before jumping into a middle of a thread. It's not OUR fault you decided to join in randomly and then didn't know what we were talking about. so instead of asking us, "Hey, which path and/or aspects are you guys talking about?" You decided to get all pissed and think that I was attcking your path and practices. Why would I have been attacking your beliefs if you wern't even part of the conversation? I wouldn't have. So next time you jump into a convo how about finding out what it's about before you start accusing people of something they never did?

Dragoness Arleeana

I can completely understand not being able to join a coven, but don't go telling me that you don't have the money or time when you keep talking about things that take up unnessicary money and time, it makes you look like a liar.

Nothing I mentioned takes necessary money or time.

Well, you never stated that. You just started in syaing "Oh, well I can't afford it!" Oookaaay? Then why did you even bother bringing it up then?

If you can't do something as simple as spell how am I supposed to, not only take you seriously but, regard you as a reliable source?

You're spelling is atrocious which tells me you aren't too smart, so I think I'm done talking to you now.

My SPELLING!? EXCUSE ME!? I hate to break it to you, but you had typos and errors in that very statement. My spelling is far better than most people's here, and you're is no better in the least. If you want to stoop so low as to attacking my spelling, then by all means, let me pull out some of my third grade insults! Intelligence now? I completed four college courses before graduating highschool, three of them were english courses, another was a programming class. My keyboard is a little old, the keys stick, I don't always catch things. Also, and Phoenix can attest to this (as she commented on my typing speed while on the phone with me a few nights ago) that my typing speed is extremely fast and sometimes spelling errors happen. I took typing courses, I also trained to be a secretary, thus, I try more on getting things down rather than spelling. Also, it hasn't been that bad, you'rs has been worse by the looks of it. Would you LIKE for me to go through and edit your previous few posts? The fact that you used the number two instead of typing it out doesn't say much for your case.

I never said you had to take me as a valid source, but that maybe you should do a bit of research and read some books that ARE valid. Also, you STILL havn't provided us with any of your "sources" yet. You said you would, but you have yet to do so, which yet again, makes you look like a liar.