What do all Wiccan's believe? (Earth, beliefs, experience, atheist)

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Victor

As I understand it, the boundaries of Wicca are not really set in stone. Actually I'm not even sure if there are boundaries. The boundaries of Wicca are essentially large enough for a person to rome free. As soon as you get too dogmatic, you miss the point of Wicca.

Somebody correct me if I got it wrong...

ok, my brief history of Wicca... lol

well, Wicca started out with Gardner, he was a living teacher and High Priest of a Coven. in his lifetime, he produced literature on mythology, laws, morality, and he instructed his Coven verbally and by example. he wrote the Book of Shadows, which contained all of the Wiccan rituals, cosmology etc. when people came into a Coven, they were initiated, and given a Book of Shadows, and each new initiate copied the book. as people left Gardner's coven to start their own, they changed bits of their Book of Shadows, so the initial works got changed and edited to suit the people using them... and Gardner himself made a lot of changes to his rituals and stuff throughout his lifetime.

that was all fine, because the laws Gardner produced meant that Covens only initiated people of trustworthy status, and although the Covens had little contact with one another, theoretically you could compare Books of Shadows to see what is original and what is edited.

however after Gardner died(i think, might have been before...), someone (i can't remember who) published their Book of Shadows so it was open to the public. this seriously broke the old laws, and an edited edition of Wicca reached the public eye. this edition ended up in America, people like Starhawk picked it up, incorporated it into the feminist and social movements, and made it a lot more liberal, popularised and personalised.

so within 100 years of Gardner starting Wicca, you have the American version, the conservative Gardnerian version, and other versions organised by people who left Gardner's coven during his lifetime to start their own with their own editions.

over more time, the American liberal and personal version of Wicca came back over the sees and got mixed in with the traditional branches as the religion became more public again.

so basically, there is one original Wiccan religion, but that itself got edited by the original author, which got passed on to many different people who put their own stance and interpretation on it, which got distorted through the liberalisation and popularisation of the religion, and a combination of all of these is what we can see as Wicca today.

some Wiccans try to discern and follow the original, some freely accept the changes that it has gone through, some take a point somewhere in the middle of the two. you can't say that any of these takes are not Wiccan, but there can be a lot of differences between two Wiccans

the biggest example i can think of off hand of Gardner's Wicca being changed is Doreen Valiente. Valiente hated and despised Alister Crowley with a passion, her moderated opinion of his was that he was a pervy, sexist, drugged up sex craving loony... and like i said, that's the moderated version. Gardner included a lot of Crowley's ideas and principles, and Valiente hated that possibly even more than she hated Crowley. when she left Gardner's coven, she re-wrote all the Crowley based stuff. she stamped him out of her tradition good and proper, and thus the first major change from Gardnerian Wicca.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Mike182

ok, my brief history of Wicca... lol

well, Wicca started out with Gardner, he was a living teacher and High Priest of a Coven. in his lifetime, he produced literature on mythology, laws, morality, and he instructed his Coven verbally and by example. he wrote the Book of Shadows, which contained all of the Wiccan rituals, cosmology etc. when people came into a Coven, they were initiated, and given a Book of Shadows, and each new initiate copied the book. as people left Gardner's coven to start their own, they changed bits of their Book of Shadows, so the initial works got changed and edited to suit the people using them... and Gardner himself made a lot of changes to his rituals and stuff throughout his lifetime.

that was all fine, because the laws Gardner produced meant that Covens only initiated people of trustworthy status, and although the Covens had little contact with one another, theoretically you could compare Books of Shadows to see what is original and what is edited.

however after Gardner died(i think, might have been before...), someone (i can't remember who) published their Book of Shadows so it was open to the public. this seriously broke the old laws, and an edited edition of Wicca reached the public eye. this edition ended up in America, people like Starhawk picked it up, incorporated it into the feminist and social movements, and made it a lot more liberal, popularised and personalised.

so within 100 years of Gardner starting Wicca, you have the American version, the conservative Gardnerian version, and other versions organised by people who left Gardner's coven during his lifetime to start their own with their own editions.

over more time, the American liberal and personal version of Wicca came back over the sees and got mixed in with the traditional branches as the religion became more public again.

so basically, there is one original Wiccan religion, but that itself got edited by the original author, which got passed on to many different people who put their own stance and interpretation on it, which got distorted through the liberalisation and popularisation of the religion, and a combination of all of these is what we can see as Wicca today.

some Wiccans try to discern and follow the original, some freely accept the changes that it has gone through, some take a point somewhere in the middle of the two. you can't say that any of these takes are not Wiccan, but there can be a lot of differences between two Wiccans

the biggest example i can think of off hand of Gardner's Wicca being changed is Doreen Valiente. Valiente hated and despised Alister Crowley with a passion, her moderated opinion of his was that he was a pervy, sexist, drugged up sex craving loony... and like i said, that's the moderated version. Gardner included a lot of Crowley's ideas and principles, and Valiente hated that possibly even more than she hated Crowley. when she left Gardner's coven, she re-wrote all the Crowley based stuff. she stamped him out of her tradition good and proper, and thus the first major change from Gardnerian Wicca.

That was frubal worthy information! Thanks a bundle Mike.

So Wicca used to be much more dogmatic eh....interesting.

[bflydad]

Originally Posted by Victor

As I understand it, the boundaries of Wicca are not really set in stone. Actually I'm not even sure if there are boundaries. The boundaries of Wicca are essentially large enough for a person to rome free. As soon as you get too dogmatic, you miss the point of Wicca.

Somebody correct me if I got it wrong...

That is where I am confused. In my other discussion, it kept going around and around without any resolution on ANY core beliefs. In fact on that discussion, I couldn't even get consensus on theism never mind anything else.

But that says to me if some guy wants to say he is Wiccan and believes in some force (not divine) and will teach how to control it to other men but not women because they are inferior and that anyone who disagrees with him is going to hell, that Wiccans should acknowledge him as a Wiccan. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

I just finished reading The American Religion by Harold Bloom where he argues that this is exactly what happened to Southern Baptists. That because they are a creedless religion (his words) that greatly feared schism (since that is what caused their creation as a religion), that they were helpless when the Fundamentalists took over.

Maybe some exclusivity is a good thing. I'm not suggesting the level of dogma that is present in some other religions. But to say you can believe whatever you want and still call yourself Wiccan bothers me too. If someone were to espouse the beliefs I said above and got on the television saying he was Wiccan and no Wiccan elder was able to say he was full of XXXX, how much damage would that do to our goal of being accepted in the community?

[bflydad]

My personal opinion on core Wiccan beliefs:

Beliefs:
1. immanence - the divine is present in all things - basis for magick and divination
2. duo/polytheism - basis for polarity
3. kharma/reincarnation - basis for Rule of 3 and "right living" (soteriology) and "why bad things happen" (theodism)
4. purpose of life - experience life (possibly to learn lessons) or to help the universe become more aware - basis for Wiccan Rede

[Victor]

Originally Posted by bflydad

That is where I am confused. In my other discussion, it kept going around and around without any resolution on ANY core beliefs. In fact on that discussion, I couldn't even get consensus on theism never mind anything else.

But that says to me if some guy wants to say he is Wiccan and believes in some force (not divine) and will teach how to control it to other men but not women because they are inferior and that anyone who disagrees with him is going to hell, that Wiccans should acknowledge him as a Wiccan. Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

Yes... I know I've brought this up before and talking to different Wiccans only confused me. Some tend to be more dogmatic then others.

Originally Posted by bflydad

I just finished reading The American Religion by Harold Bloom where he argues that this is exactly what happened to Southern Baptists. That because they are a creedless religion (his words) that greatly feared schism (since that is what caused their creation as a religion), that they were helpless when the Fundamentalists took over.

I can see why. More dogmatic religions tend to be more united in purpose.

Originally Posted by bflydad

Maybe some exclusivity is a good thing. I'm not suggesting the level of dogma that is present in some other religions. But to say you can believe whatever you want and still call yourself Wiccan bothers me too. If someone were to espouse the beliefs I said above and got on the television saying he was Wiccan and no Wiccan elder was able to say he was full of XXXX, how much damage would that do to our goal of being accepted in the community?

Yeah, I see what you mean. But for any concensus to be reached, some dogmatisim has to be pushed from within. Otherwise, how do you even begin to identify Wicca?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Victor

Yes... I know I've brought this up before and talking to different Wiccans only confused me. Some tend to be more dogmatic then others.

I guess that's because Wicca can differ between traditions, sometimes drastically.

Otherwise, how do you even begin to identify Wicca?

It can be hard, even from within I guess it's just a matter of knowing what to look for, and unfortunately, a lot of it is unspoken, and hard isolate.

[MaddLlama]

I think the confusion of defining what exactly Wicca is comes from the misconception that Wicca is the only Pagan religion out there.

I also think that Wicca itself is in a transitional stage, and going through some growing pains. After moving away from the strict traditions of Gardener, Wicca seems to still be trying to find its balance between that and the opposite side of extreme eclectisism. I think the happy medium is a small set of core beliefs and a flexible system around it.

[bflydad]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I think the confusion of defining what exactly Wicca is comes from the misconception that Wicca is the only Pagan religion out there.

hunh? What about Asatru, Heathenry, Druidism, and Santeria just to name a few?

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I also think that Wicca itself is in a transitional stage, and going through some growing pains. After moving away from the strict traditions of Gardener, Wicca seems to still be trying to find its balance between that and the opposite side of extreme eclectisism. I think the happy medium is a small set of core beliefs and a flexible system around it.

I completely agree