What makes a Wiccan a Wiccan

[TeaDidikai]

reagun ban

Yup. And the reported history of Scientology is.... we all know where this is going. What I'm stating is the Correlian Wicca's reported history is lies. I was subjected to their training videos yesterday (as part of a drunken party's festivities).. they were funny until I found out they weren't parodies of Correlian Wicca, rather their "High Reverant" or whatever, giving lectures.
He repeatedly lies on what science has to say about psychics.
He repeatedly lies on what the Gaels believe(d)
He repeatedly lies on what history has to say.
He has no solid understanding of Thamurgy and I honestly think their understanding of magic comes from watching the star wars films.

And since when is a FamTrad not a FamTrad because it doesn't follow the same rules?

If you can prove that the founders were not Scot and First Nation, you have a good argument. Until then, you are saying (phrased as an absolute no less) that one FamTrad cannot exist because it doesn't match the more historical sources. The flaw I see in this is that being a FamTrad, it changes within the Family.

I think you know my opinion of the Corries- but that doesn't mean that as a FamTrad, it wasn't a Scottish FamTrad at one point.  

[CuAnnan]

TeaDidikai

And since when is a FamTrad not a FamTrad because it doesn't follow the same rules?

Well, when you show me where I said it wasn't a Fam Trad, and not Wiccan, I'll deal with this.

TeaDidikai

I think you know my opinion of the Corries- but that doesn't mean that as a FamTrad, it wasn't a Scottish FamTrad at one point.

Ah, But all I said is that it's not Wicca.  

[Aya Azura]

Thanks Nuri. Ayayay! So then how do I find out if what I'm reading is right, or a bunch of babble by ignoramuses? Where did you guys find your information, and where can I get the books. I honestly cannot even begin to have a clue as to what you're talking about. Aya's info = 0. Yikes. Please help. Thank you so much.  

[maenad nuri]

Aya Azura

Thanks Nuri. Ayayay! So then how do I find out if what I'm reading is right, or a bunch of babble by ignoramuses? Where did you guys find your information, and where can I get the books. I honestly cannot even begin to have a clue as to what you're talking about. Aya's info = 0. Yikes. Please help. Thank you so much.

Talk about it with other people (I'd suggest here, but there are other good places too), and more importantly, don't just read books you find in the metaphysical section. History, Psychology, Anthropology....a bazillion others are just as important resources as anything else.

I started with Cunningham when I started--not worse for the wear for it. The trick is keeping a critical mind open as you read. Ask questions of the text itself.

We all started somewhere. Vastly different backgrounds, but all started somewhere.  

[TeaDidikai]

Reagun, I don't have to. All I have to do is show that you said that it isn't entitled to claim it's own history.

reagun ban

Aya Azura

I've been reading Correllian though, which is Cherokee, Scottish folk religion, wicca, and Spiritualism, which is why I have more of a Spiritualistic idea based on the Divine instead of separatee Goddess, which is weird, because I have a matron.

No. It's not.

 

[CuAnnan]

TeaDidikai

Reagun, I don't have to. All I have to do is show that you said that it isn't entitled to claim it's own history.

True. I should have just said "prove it".  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Guess I took the short-circuited logic route on it, then. I figure that ~W, ~X, ~Y, or ~Z is enough to refute a claim of (W^X^Y^Z).  

[CuAnnan]

Henry Dorsett Case

Guess I took the short-circuited logic route on it, then. I figure that ~W, ~X, ~Y, or ~Z is enough to refute a claim of (W^X^Y^Z).

It's been a while since I studied boolean maths outside of CS.
Are you using ~ for ! and ^ for &&?
Such that !(W||X||Y||Z) refutes (W&&X&&Y&&Z)?  

[TheDisreputableDog]

reagun ban

Henry Dorsett Case

Guess I took the short-circuited logic route on it, then. I figure that ~W, ~X, ~Y, or ~Z is enough to refute a claim of (W^X^Y^Z).

It's been a while since I studied boolean maths outside of CS.
Are you using ~ for ! and ^ for &&?.
Such that !(W||X||Y||Z) refutes (W&&X&&Y&&Z)?

Yes, but !(W||X||Y||Z) would equate to (!W&&!X&&!Y&&!Z)--DeMorgan's Law? don't remember--as in blanket denial. If you only meant to say that Corellian wasn't Wicca, (!W||!X||!Y||!Z) refutes (W&&X&&Y&&Z).  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

TheDisreputableDog

reagun ban

Henry Dorsett Case

Guess I took the short-circuited logic route on it, then. I figure that ~W, ~X, ~Y, or ~Z is enough to refute a claim of (W^X^Y^Z).

It's been a while since I studied boolean maths outside of CS.
Are you using ~ for ! and ^ for &&?.
Such that !(W||X||Y||Z) refutes (W&&X&&Y&&Z)?

Yes, but !(W||X||Y||Z) would equate to (!W&&!X&&!Y&&!Z), as in blanket denial. If you only meant to say that Corellian wasn't Wicca, (!W||!X||!Y||!Z) refutes (W&&X&&Y&&Z).

Bingo. Using ~ for "not", ^ for "and", and v for "or", ~(W^X^Y^Z) = ~W v ~X v ~Y v ~Z. All it takes is one negative to refute a combined interdependent positive.