OH DAMN IT

[TeaDidikai]

Kuroiban

I'm backtracking a bit in the discussion simply to satisfy my own curiocity. So sue me. sweatdrop

I know why SRW is dumped on so much, but why Cunningham. I DO realize he is quite a bit over-hyped as the begin-all/end-all to Wicca, something he is far far from...but I never could understand why people get in arms about him.

He's over quoted (yeah, and I know I'm quoting him on my sig line but I REALLY liked that quote) and the fluffy clings to him like the crap in a lint trap, but is that any reason to bash him?

Or am I missing something critical?

Questionable lineage, bastardization of the title, historical revisionism, ignorant moral system...

Ummm... do you need me to continue?

Fiddlers Green

Well, what do you really expect from a Crowley stoog. wink

More cream pie fights.

Oooooh... Crowley... not Curly.  

[Kalyani Srijoi]

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

Edit: Oh, and there are other sects of Wicca besides Gardnerian. But Eclectic Wicca and other forms of 'solitary' Wicca aren't really Wiccan at all.

Solitary Wiccans exist.

What I am saying is that the only way one can make sense of what Gardner said is if Witch means only what he says it means.

Well- fine then. What do we do with what the rest of the population calls witches, but aren't what Gardner called Witches?

My suggestion is to turn to the culture the individual hails from and use the term that would translate to witch.

Yes, of course. Forgiveness. I'm kind of used to using specific terms that leave no logical loopholes in these debates, but it's all kind of been shot to hell, so I guess we kind of need to redevelop it. Yes, you're absolutely right. Solitary Wiccans exist as people who are initiated into priesthood who then break off and practice on their own. Even Solitary Wiccans need to have contact with a Wiccan group at some point, though, to get initiated.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ban Triste-chan!

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

Edit: Oh, and there are other sects of Wicca besides Gardnerian. But Eclectic Wicca and other forms of 'solitary' Wicca aren't really Wiccan at all.

Solitary Wiccans exist.

What I am saying is that the only way one can make sense of what Gardner said is if Witch means only what he says it means.

Well- fine then. What do we do with what the rest of the population calls witches, but aren't what Gardner called Witches?

My suggestion is to turn to the culture the individual hails from and use the term that would translate to witch.

Yes, of course. Forgiveness. I'm kind of used to using specific terms that leave no logical loopholes in these debates, but it's all kind of been shot to hell, so I guess we kind of need to redevelop it. Yes, you're absolutely right. Solitary Wiccans exist as people who are initiated into priesthood who then break off and practice on their own. Even Solitary Wiccans need to have contact with a Wiccan group at some point, though, to get initiated.

Unless they initiate themselves into a solitary priesthood, a member of the Fertility Cult alone.

I can think of a number of Priests who have done such.  

[Kalyani Srijoi]

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

Edit: Oh, and there are other sects of Wicca besides Gardnerian. But Eclectic Wicca and other forms of 'solitary' Wicca aren't really Wiccan at all.

Solitary Wiccans exist.

What I am saying is that the only way one can make sense of what Gardner said is if Witch means only what he says it means.

Well- fine then. What do we do with what the rest of the population calls witches, but aren't what Gardner called Witches?

My suggestion is to turn to the culture the individual hails from and use the term that would translate to witch.

Oooh. Okay. Yeah. So are we talking 'Wicca' and 'Wicce' for people who practise Anglo-Saxon folk magic? Yeah, I guess that works.

I mean, why cant we just say, "Okay, Gardner was making generalizations about witches and he was wrong about that," and just mentally substitute his use of 'witch' with 'Wiccan'? I mean, when he used witch, he obviously used it as a synonym for witch. So rather than screw all the other non-Wiccan people who really kind of had dibs on the word 'witch,' we could just accept that Gardner was fallible and go from there.  

[Kalyani Srijoi]

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

Edit: Oh, and there are other sects of Wicca besides Gardnerian. But Eclectic Wicca and other forms of 'solitary' Wicca aren't really Wiccan at all.

Solitary Wiccans exist.

What I am saying is that the only way one can make sense of what Gardner said is if Witch means only what he says it means.

Well- fine then. What do we do with what the rest of the population calls witches, but aren't what Gardner called Witches?

My suggestion is to turn to the culture the individual hails from and use the term that would translate to witch.

Yes, of course. Forgiveness. I'm kind of used to using specific terms that leave no logical loopholes in these debates, but it's all kind of been shot to hell, so I guess we kind of need to redevelop it. Yes, you're absolutely right. Solitary Wiccans exist as people who are initiated into priesthood who then break off and practice on their own. Even Solitary Wiccans need to have contact with a Wiccan group at some point, though, to get initiated.

Unless they initiate themselves into a solitary priesthood, a member of the Fertility Cult alone.

I can think of a number of Priests who have done such.

Sorry, are we talking self-initiation?  

[TeaDidikai]

Ban Triste-chan!

Sorry, are we talking self-initiation?

I am not excluding it as an option.  

[Kalyani Srijoi]

TeaDidikai

Ban Triste-chan!

Sorry, are we talking self-initiation?

I am not excluding it as an option.

Yeah, I guess it could work.

I mean, since the mysteries are unecessary, it could work.

Wow, I didn't even think about that. Huh. But yeah. I mean, as long as you fulfilled the requirements from TeaInfoDump v1.0(TM), I suppose it could work.

DUDE. That's actually completely awesome.  

[TeaDidikai]

Why is that awesome?  

[Kalyani Srijoi]

TeaDidikai

Why is that awesome?

Oh, I don't know. I suppose it kind of eliminates the possibility of "LOL BUT I CAN'T GET TO A COVEN" arguments.

Although it kind of opens up the possibility of bullshitters. Hm. We seem to be in territory that's a lot more fuzzy than 'lineage/coven plzkthx,' yes?  

[TeaDidikai]

Ban Triste-chan!

TeaDidikai

Why is that awesome?

Oh, I don't know. I suppose it kind of eliminates the possibility of "LOL BUT I CAN'T GET TO A COVEN" arguments.

Although it kind of opens up the possibility of bullshitters. Hm. We seem to be in territory that's a lot more fuzzy than 'lineage/coven plzkthx,' yes?

I don't know.
I'm of the opinion that if you are not resourceful enough to find a lineaged coven and get to where they are to interact with them, I'm not sure you're resourceful enough to learn what it takes to be a part of the Clergy.  

[Kuroiban]

TeaDidikai

Kuroiban

I'm backtracking a bit in the discussion simply to satisfy my own curiocity. So sue me. sweatdrop

I know why SRW is dumped on so much, but why Cunningham. I DO realize he is quite a bit over-hyped as the begin-all/end-all to Wicca, something he is far far from...but I never could understand why people get in arms about him.

He's over quoted (yeah, and I know I'm quoting him on my sig line but I REALLY liked that quote) and the fluffy clings to him like the crap in a lint trap, but is that any reason to bash him?

Or am I missing something critical?

Questionable lineage, bastardization of the title, historical revisionism, ignorant moral system...

Ummm... do you need me to continue?

Heh, no that'll do nicely.

I don't know, I always had some respect for Cunningham; I know he conviently dodged the whole duality of morality and that wasn't so kosher.

Still, I liked that he didn't seem to spend a lot of time tooting his own horn, pointing blameful fingers, or wasting time. He may have been wrong, but at least he wasn't a boostful a*****e. That may not make a whole lot of difference to most, but I can at least appriciate it.

THen again, I'm not Wiccan, so Cunningham merely represents a few books I read when I was 16. I haven't really re-read him since I pulled my esoteric head out of my a**.  

[TeaDidikai]

Don't get me wrong. Cunningham is great for Neo-Paganism 101. Just- I wouldn't (even under current frameworks) extend the concept of Wicca to him.  

[Kuroiban]

TeaDidikai

Don't get me wrong. Cunningham is great for Neo-Paganism 101. Just- I wouldn't (even under current frameworks) extend the concept of Wicca to him.

I don't blame you on that one in the slightest.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

I just had the weirdest "realization".

I think part of the talk about the Wiccan Rede, and how it does not directly state that harm is prohibited, has been used as a tool to weed out Fluffbunnies who don't understand the religion they claim to follow. While the Rede may not prohibit against harm, the 161 Laws do. Very clearly, in fact.

Just thought I'd say that.

And this was the closest thread in the Guild to a "proper" one I could think of.  

[TeaDidikai]

Henry Dorsett Case

I just had the weirdest "realization".

I think part of the talk about the Wiccan Rede, and how it does not directly state that harm is prohibited, has been used as a tool to weed out Fluffbunnies who don't understand the religion they claim to follow. While the Rede may not prohibit against harm, the 161 Laws do. Very clearly, in fact.

Just thought I'd say that.

And this was the closest thread in the Guild to a "proper" one I could think of.

Two things to note.
1) One does not need to follow the 161 Laws to be Wiccan.
2) The 161 Laws are only as valid as they are put within a framework of persecution. If Wiccans no longer need to worry about being harmed for their theology, the laws within the context they themselves apply fall to an Appeal to Tradition.