neopagan.

[TeaDidikai]

Illiezeulette

The consensus seemed to be that the Lord and Lady were accessible to all, and I am free to pursue Them and can most certainly develop a relationship with Them that is not weirdly one-sided. Which is cool. But I find some BTWs disagree with that sentiment, so I'll have to think on it some more.

I'll toss this out- take it as you will.

There seems to be a regional attitude amongst the Wica in the PacNW. They maintain their oaths and serve their gods, but aren't as strict when it comes to the general population. Some HP's I know ask their students not to call themselves witches because when working with the coven, it has a very specific connotation which isn't the same as it is out in the general community. It doesn't look like that is the position of your group- which is groovy too.

Quote:

Anyway, my coven is picking up another possible pre-initiate, which is cool. I'm the only one so far, and it may be an interesting experience chatting with another Seeker. What's awesome is that if they decide they want this new person to meet me, I get to wield veto-power of whether she stays or not. This perplexed me, as I'm not initiated and don't think I should have such an impact on that decision, but apparently they think that I am on the right path, they really like me, and they think that I'm super witchy and will stay involved in the Craft for decades to come.

It's weird. I never really considered myself that sort of person. I guess it's because I am crap at practicing the basics still, but know a good bit since I read bunches and bring good questions to the table Maybe that's why they like me. I don't know. I guess I never thought they'd like me well enough to let me make a decision that could impact another person's Seeking. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I think. Who knows?

I'm sure your HP will discuss the concept of Perfect Love and Perfect Trust with you. Once some gnosis about that sinks in, my personal suspicion is that you'll understand why they would prepare you to think about such a situation- especially if they are already building that bond with you.  

[TeaDidikai]

Illiezeulette

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at with the Perfect Love and Perfect Trust issue.

Well, I did say that you'll likely have it explained by someone within the group.

Quote:

Let's say they like her, but I say "no," and the next day I get hit by a car and die. It doesn't seem fair to her that she could have spent a wonderful time with a great coven and meshed really well, but didn't because of some random pointless factor (me).

You're assuming they consider you a random pointless factor.
Looks like a flawed assumption to me.

Quote:

Perfect Love and Perfect Trust seems to be an issue that concerns people within a Circle. I can understand if there is some practice and understanding needed beforehand, but otherwise it doesn't seem right for me, at this time and in this situation, to ******** with other people's lives with something as significant as spiritual fulfillment.

You're there first. You're experiencing what it will eventually become.

Quote:

So, let's say that the Lord and Lady are open to everyone. Cool. However, is the M&R stance on what is Wicca still valid? In other words, can "solitiaries" rightly call themselves Wiccan?

Some solitaries for sure.

Quote:

My personal stance is no, they cannot, and that "Wicca" applies to BTW only. Before Ravenwolf and company, Wicca was orthopraxic, a priesthood, initiatory, experiential, fertility-based...all that jazz. It seems like a defined religion. Ravenwolf-Wicca isn't orthopraxic or orthodoxic, no priesthood, no initiation, not necessarily experiential and not necessarily fertility-based. It lacks so much of what Wicca had. I think it should be called something else because it is so different.

Biased sample. Ravenwolf is not the only from of witchcult that claims the title.

Quote:

Take, for instance, Celtic Reconstructionism. Celtic Recons don't know everything that the Celts of old did, yet they worship the same gods. Their religion is called something different because it is something different.

That depends on the celts, and is a flawed analogy because the religions of the different groups weren't synonymous.

Quote:

While Wiccans and eclectic neopagans may worship the same gods, their practices and beliefs are most likely significantly different. In that way, I don't think that eclectic neopagans have a right to identify as Wiccan. It's ripping a label off of someone else's culture and misusing it, from my standpoint.

What part of that position accounts for either Gardner taking the term from another group and changing it or for Gardner's use of the term as being synonymous with others?

Quote:

My point is that while the Lord and Lady may be available to all, I don't think that the label "Wicca" is.

Why do they (and others, such as some Alexandrians) disagree with you? Why would your position as a seeker be more valid than theirs?  

[Bastemhet]

Hi Illiezeulette, I don't know if this is relevant anymore, but you were looking for examples of henotheistic religions. Egyptian religion is one of them. The object of desire is not necessarily one deity, however. Often you see it as Amun-Re, as his/their cult became the state deity for a while, (I think during the Ramesside period on? I'll have to double check if you want to know) but depending on what nome you come from, the deity of that nome would take precedence.

Edit: henotheism is good for describing the way one would choose one god to worship as their supreme god while not negating the existence of other gods as worthy of worship. But I think whether they were hard or soft polytheists is being debated and I'm looking into that right now. Personally, though, I'm of the opinion they were hard polytheists.  

[TeaDidikai]

Illiezeulette

So.

On the what-is-Wicca-and-what-is-not debate, I've found more golden nuggets of awesome to think over.

A wise not-Wiccan who once identified as Wiccan said that when G. Gardner created Wicca, he and his coven created an egregore to which only initiates had "keys" to access.

This not-Wiccan said that access to this egregore was a fundamental part of Wicca, and like a house, it would be weird to randomly call oneself the owner of a house when one did not possess the keys to unlock it to get in. As such, if one does not possess the keys to the Gardnerian egregore [or any BTW egregore], one cannot be involved in the egregore, and as such cannot call oneself a Wiccan.

I thought this was an interesting take on the label debate, as it addresses a part of Wicca that I hadn't thought of before as a defining characteristic of the religion.

I'd agree with this- if it was applied to Wica, remember constructs can be very specific, and when said constructs are made general (such as Gardner's use of the term to apply to any witch) then breaks within the construct can cause fractures.  

[TeaDidikai]

Someone fashions a Thoughtform.
The thoughtform is shared amongst a group.
The thoughtform reflects different intentions- hopefully intentions that are directed towards a common goal, so there's more mustard to it.

If the Thoughtform is generated in a sloppy, general way, this thoughtform can break apart and form smaller thoughtforms because of the inconsistencies.

When folks talk about things, you'll likely note I differ between Wicca and The Wica.

My personal position on this (having formed it by talking to members of the Wica and reading the usual stuff you see us quoting around here) is that there are two Thoughtforms with a very similar name in play.