Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

    Hello, first post and I don't have a lot of time to write but I'll do as much as I can. A lot of points I use in my arguments could have an entire thread to itself, but for now I want to discuss how 'eclectic' Wicca fits in to the main religion.

    My view in particular is that it doesn't. Besides the few practices that differ between each classification, the main thing with eclectic types is that there is a push to 'find your God/dess'. I'm not BTW thus first considered myself eclectic by default as I equated 'neo' with eclectic. When first finding my way I found Hecate and Pan to be the most logical choices based off of the characteristics of the God and Goddess defined in Wicca, but try as I might never really trusted them in the same way as I did to the 'general' God and Goddess and eventually realized that trying to jam Hellenistic mythology and practices into my own made no sense.

    As one said in another thread, the God/dess are deities in their own right with their own split characteristics and mythology (ala WOTY). Wicca is sometimes described as orthopraxic i.e. related by similar practices, not similar beliefs. But if that were true, why would it bother to have its own mythology at all if it was just a specific way people worship various gods? I do believe that it is indeed orthodox, that the collective religion must believe in some core tenets everyone can agree on, such as who they are worshipping. 'True' Wicca is a duotheistic religion, while adopting particular deities from other pantheons is henotheistic, and switching out deities for whatever specific purpose you are doing the ritual for is a polytheistic view.

    In addition, Wicca is not a reconstructionist religion. It doesn't need roots in a more well established religion to be legitimate, nor does it need to apologize for adopting points or practices of other religions as long as it fits into the ideology of our own religion. I do ascribe that how people of other religions can be viewed as just faces of the same solitary God and Goddess, and a rose is still a rose by any other name, but that is how I justify the belief that other religions aren't wrong. Not that they are able to be substituted into my own religion just because they celebrate what I personally find important. If you want to celebrate Pan and Hecate specifically with rituals from Wicca, be a henotheistic Hellenist, not a Wiccan. Same for any other pairing.

    To be clear I do want this to be a discussion if you disagree. I'm just laying out my views for you to counter on with your own, or agree with. Or agree with on certain parts and counter others, what have you.
    Last edited by Aja-Armani; 20 Apr 2015, 13:41. Reason: additional info

  • #2
    Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

    I think you are trying to make this too black and white. Wicca has never been that straightforward. Wicca *is* henothesitic, AND polytheistic AND duotheistic, AND often pantheistic/panentheistic, AND technically occasionally monotheistic. Additionally, the WoTY mythology is just one set of mythology available--its not literal, its just the mythos that explains the ritual cycle of Wicca.

    It depends on the tradition and the coven. Put it this way, the the idea that 1) all gods are emanations or aspects or whatever of *the* god and all goddesses are the same for *the* goddess, that 2) the god and the goddess are twin aspects of a single divinity, which may or may not be pantheistic/panentheistic in nature, and 3) that one can worship individual deities as the god and goddess is not unusual. Some covens or individuals may choose a particular deity personality to worship *as* the God and Goddess, or may worship the God and Goddess in addition to other deities. Alternatively, covens and individuals may worship the God and Goddess (as whatever oath-bound names and personalities they use) as well as other deities, but the God and Goddess are their primary deities for ritual.

    None of these variations are incorrect.
    “You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom

    “We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
    ~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee

    "We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
    ~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

    "Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett

    Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

      Pretty much like in Satanism:

      Some view Satan as plainly Satan, others as Enki, Lucifer, Set, Baphomet, etc. The list goes on and on. Some Satanists are polytheistic, others are monotheistic. Some even atheistic! But that doesn't mean that some of them are wrong...

      It's not some, it's ALL of them! All of them are wrong! I AM the only true Satanist with the truest beliefs! TRUUUUTH! *laughs evilly*

      *coughs*

      Sorry.

      But as Thal said, Wicca not being a reconstructionist belief system it's kind of why it is accepted for each individual or coven to have their own sets of Gods.

      Check out my blog! The Daily Satanist

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

        You are correct in that I shouldn't have made it so specific on duotheism or my own beliefs and admit to seeing where I worded my thoughts incorrectly. I often overthink mi I should clarify: I do agree with that people can view their divinity in multiple ways, such as general archetypes thus making them technically atheist or agnostic, or as flipped sides of the same coin thus making them monotheistic. Wiccan ideology generally treats the specific qualities of whatever deity they worship as at least quasi-pantheistic and especially in the case of abstract concepts has arguments for panentheism, so that is of no issue. After some deliberation I see how worshipping a main God and Goddess (by any name) within the Wiccan mythology does not necessarily exclude the possibility of other - in my view superfluous - deities with their own mythology to them, in the same way that no one says that another child is superfluous just because their qualities are already filled by other children. Thus henotheism is a possibility. I would still consider the view of polytheism as appealing to different sides of the personality of the same main God/dess as either duo- or monotheistic.

        And again after deliberation I can see how true polytheism can come into play with abstract concepts like writing or love which aren't so easily split into a duality, though if the main focus is on the God and Goddess I could argue that as henotheism as well. To be truly polytheistic however I do feel there needs to be some mythos for the extra being to make sense. For instance, not just 'this is the goddess of writing', but why is she the goddess of writing and how does she demonstrate that title.

        In addition, a couple of points. 1: Yes, calling your deities a different name doesn't necessarily mean they are a different being. 2: I do not think it possible ideologically to disregard the unique mythology of the WOTY and still be Wiccan. I do not think it necessarily literal either, but nor do I think of it as simply a reason to celebrate certain days over others. We could celebrate the seasons and astronomical movements without bringing religion into the matter, and in fact do for things like birthdays and New Years. The WOTY I am comfortable saying is a hallmark of Wicca that is at least acknowledged in meaning even with atheistic views. 3: My feelings are not from a 'right' or 'wrong' pantheon as I find them all equally valid in that regard.

        My issue arises more as a note of proper cultural appropriation than criteria, but criteria must be given to outline proper decorum. While there are a few aspects I'd like to bring up, I'll ask one at a time to keep the conversation focused.

        Let's say one 'finds' the deities of Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli not just in name for the Wiccan archetypes but in character. Firstly, while there are certain changes one could reasonably make when working outside of the original religion's boundaries, there comes to certain immutable facts about the characters that are completely out of left field when inserted into Wicca. Would it make sense to adjust their personalities and qualities to mesh with the ideas in Wicca? or to change Wiccan values to suit the context of the other religion? Secondly, if one is to follow Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli, it would be expected out of respect that one would worship them with the material and mannerisms that they prefer, correct? If one is worshipping said deities from another religion in the way of that other religion, does that not relegate the idea Wicca to a general form of worship and presentation rather than a religion in its own right?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

          Originally posted by Aja-Armani View Post
          Let's say one 'finds' the deities of Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli not just in name for the Wiccan archetypes but in character. Firstly, while there are certain changes one could reasonably make when working outside of the original religion's boundaries, there comes to certain immutable facts about the characters that are completely out of left field when inserted into Wicca. Would it make sense to adjust their personalities and qualities to mesh with the ideas in Wicca? or to change Wiccan values to suit the context of the other religion? Secondly, if one is to follow Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli, it would be expected out of respect that one would worship them with the material and mannerisms that they prefer, correct?
          That would depend on the person, their understanding of the gods, and their relationship with the deities in question.


          If one is worshipping said deities from another religion in the way of that other religion, does that not relegate the idea Wicca to a general form of worship and presentation rather than a religion in its own right?
          IMO, no. "A general form of worship" (and belief) is pretty much what a religion *is*. But Wicca isn't so dogmatic that its can't incorporate other beliefs and practices. Certainly, at some point, one must start to ask "is this still Wicca", but that answer is individual (or coven-based), not institutional...there are dozens of forms of (covened) Wicca, not to mention hundreds of forms of solitary and eclectic Wicca.
          “You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom

          “We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
          ~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee

          "We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
          ~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

          "Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett

          Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

            Originally posted by thalassa View Post
            "A general form of worship" (and belief) is pretty much what a religion *is*.
            I'm not entirely clear on your definition with the extra "(and belief)", but I take the entire quote to mean as long as the manner of worship and belief are generally similar then the practices can be counted under the same religion - with emphasis on the practices - which I find fault with. I find this to to be mixing up religions in their own right and the collective way we tend to interrelate religions based on their similarities. For instance,the Greek and Roman religion are similar in both belief (regardless of the names of the gods) and general practice, but due to what may or may not be considered minor differences are rarely considered one and the same. Others linked in a similar fashion include the Mezo-American religions, the Abrahamic faiths, and various aboriginal religions. This is not a wrong way of thinking, as it is simply a system of organization. But I do not find this to work on an intrareligious level.


            That would depend on the person, their understanding of the gods, and their relationship with the deities in question.
            In the example I made I do understand this dismissal, and it was my mistake to make such an example without discussing even more specifications before I had, though I do not accept the dismissal of the idea in general that it just "depends on the person". A person's own religion and how they define it does indeed depend on the person and has no boundaries. If they feel in their heart that there is a god name Quetzalcoatl with the appearance of Anubis and the mythology of Ganesha with the personality of Hera, who am I to say that is not valid nor the truth? I can not refute such a claim. But whether that deity can be classified under any of those individual religions does not depend on the person, and instead on the independent boundaries of those religions. If they do not find a religion which fits their beliefs, it is perfectly acceptable to be classified under a new religion, and in fact is how new religions start.

            Certainly, at some point, one must start to ask "is this still Wicca", but that answer is individual (or coven-based), not institutional....there are dozens of forms of (covened) Wicca, not to mention hundreds of forms of solitary and eclectic Wicca.
            What this is defining is not a quality of Wicca itself, but the idea of denominations within Wicca, or 'traditions' in terms of this religion, and is precisely why I find the previously explained collective thinking does not work when working within one religion, nor your emphasis on practice to relate them. Two people can worship entirely differently and still be considered a part of the same religion, even the same denomination. Whether one donates food or composes a song, if its done with the same doctrine in mind it matters not how they choose to worship. Religions themselves differ on facts of their doctrine. Denominations however differ in their interpretation of the same facts. Thus, Wicca as a whole does have certain overarching facts within it. I do not find this practice to define all of eclecticism however, which I believe to be defined as non-lineaged Wiccan membership, which is where my initial problem started. Where I find we come at an impasse is on the qualities of duality. It may be possible to insert generally numerous different gods and goddesses into the different roles of the uniquely Wiccan mythology to satisfy all qualities split between the male and female duality, but I find in this view the previous pantheons to include qualities that do not fall in line with their proper side, or non-discriminatory to their side where I feel it should. Thus, if our ideology is different in that regard, the practice of adopting previous gods may count as a further sub-sect within eclecticism itself and needs its own name. Nor would this be new in our religion, like the dispute of whether a wand and athame is a symbol of air or fire, with different names for each tradition that believes differently. To adopt only a few however often falls short of any and all things each side of duality is if not outright opposing it, thus falls short of the definition of Wicca and would be classified as a different religion. And if the qualities of the chosen deity is adapted to fall perfectly in line with the Wiccan duality, how is it any different except in name? This I do not find to be a true representation of that deity. On these grounds do I oppose adopting deities of different religions as Wiccan.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

              Originally posted by Aja-Armani View Post
              And if the qualities of the chosen deity is adapted to fall perfectly in line with the Wiccan duality, how is it any different except in name? This I do not find to be a true representation of that deity. On these grounds do I oppose adopting deities of different religions as Wiccan.
              Then you do so on a matter of semantics and personal opinion. Which is your perogative. But its not based on *what is actually going on* and your opinion is no more correct that the next guy's. Personally, I seldom find it helpful to define people on the basis of what I think they should be doing, versus on the basis of what they are actually doing.
              “You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom

              “We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
              ~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee

              "We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
              ~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

              "Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett

              Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                No, it is precisely semantics that I oppose in that line. What one calls it does not change the action nor the belief. I repeat: a rose is still a rose by any other name. But to believe something different and call it something that already is defined as believing something else is not correct. And I address where my opinions and faults are in my logic. You do not nor do you entertain other viewpoints. Do correct me on what is "actually going on". I've made points from various angles and it is possible I've missed a point of view, and indeed your words have made me think and find some I did not see before. Lastly, I don't appreciate the shade. I made specifically clear that people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and made no mention of what I think they should be doing instead. My argument in "semantics" is that the practice should have a name to distinguish it from other forms of Wicca, and whether it should be classified as Wicca at all, as I find it fundamentally different. It is the fundamental beliefs which I wish to discuss, not the exact word choice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                  Can you tell us a little bit more about where you learnt this interpretation of wicca? You say yourself that you are not BTW, and while the BTWs I have known of course hold the view that deity is dualistic; Goddess and God, they DO see their gods in many different deities, as do the majority of non traditional wiccans I've known. Just dip into anything compiled by the Farrers and you'll see Goddess and God celebrated in many forms. The Alexandrian coven who's HP/HPS used to run a local moot I attended, did a lot of public activities in honour of Brigantia.

                  Of course, you are entitled to your own interpretation of wiccan theology, but you must be prepared for others to disagree with you. What you're describing smacks of fundamentalism. The old 'my interpretation of the scriptures is right and everyone else is going to hell..' I've seen this a lot in wiccan circles sadly (in my case it was 'people outside of the British isles have no business adopting our very British faith' bullcrap, or 'lets all point at the poor solitaries who aren't as powerful and awesome as we are'), which is one of the reasons I turned away from Wicca. Too much 'I am more worthy of the Gods' love then thee' or to put another way, 'mummy loves me more'. It's.. it's just not the behaviour of the spiritually sound. As soon as someone starts trying to justify to me why they are a good wiccan, they lose my respect not only as a wiccan, but as a person too. I see too much of my earlier self in such behaviour.
                  夕方に急なにわか雨は「夕立」と呼ばれるなら、なぜ朝ににわか雨は「朝立ち」と呼ばれないの? ^^If a sudden rain shower in the evening is referred to as an 'evening stand', then why isn't a shower in the morning called 'morning stand'?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                    Originally posted by Aja-Armani View Post
                    No, it is precisely semantics that I oppose in that line. What one calls it does not change the action nor the belief. I repeat: a rose is still a rose by any other name. But to believe something different and call it something that already is defined as believing something else is not correct.
                    Where can I find such a declaration of Wiccan dogma?

                    And I address where my opinions and faults are in my logic. You do not nor do you entertain other viewpoints. Do correct me on what is "actually going on".
                    I'm a pragmatist. I'm not concerned with what your opinion, or any other opinion is on the matter of what Wiccans should or should not do or believe. Wicca isn't an orthodoxy. I'm concerned with what people who self-identify as Wiccan actually do with their religion and why. Period.

                    Sure, some people share your opinion. A few of them are even Wiccan of one tradition or another. Most people don't. Certainly (though I am no longer Wiccan) the (BTW) coven I was initiated into nearly 15 years ago didn't.

                    I've made points from various angles and it is possible I've missed a point of view, and indeed your words have made me think and find some I did not see before. Lastly, I don't appreciate the shade. I made specifically clear that people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and made no mention of what I think they should be doing instead.
                    Well, as you seem to heavily imply that you don't think their actions are "Wiccan" you certainly seem to be making an indirect statement on what you think they shouldn't be doing...


                    My argument in "semantics" is that the practice should have a name to distinguish it from other forms of Wicca, and whether it should be classified as Wicca at all, as I find it fundamentally different. It is the fundamental beliefs which I wish to discuss, not the exact word choice.
                    Are Mormons Christian? Baptists? The United Church of Christ? Catholics? The Westboro Baptist Church? What about Pentecostals? Divine Science? If 38,000 denominatons of persons that can't agree on the nature of God, the significance Jesus, how to interpret the Bible, etc can all be classified as "Christian", then yes, your "fundamentally different" is semantics. Religions (even Christianity) aren't monolithic. Generally speaking, they don't have black and white definitions or hard boundaries. Religions (even religion itself) can only be defined with polythetic classifications.


                    If you want to discuss the beliefs of Wicca, fine. But the details by which the "fundamentals" of Wicca are interpreted and what that means for individual practitioners and covens isn't dependent on what those "fundamentals" supposedly are. And with that being said, IMO, there are only 3 (maybe 4) hallmarks of Wiccan belief:

                    1) Recognition of the Lord and Lady/ God and Goddess as deities of Wicca. Many practitioners take soft-polytheistic but duotheistic view of "all goddesses are facets of the Lady, all gods are facets of the Lord" POV and. Additionally, different traditions and covens have a variety of oath-bound names (and differing personas) for the aspect of the facet or the literal expression of the deity that they recognize.

                    2) Acknowledgement of the Lord and Lady in their specific roles in terms of the Wheel of the Year, which serves as a Wiccan liturgy and mythos. The traditional view of Them in this role is as the Triple Goddess and the Horned God, that can be expressed in conjunction with (or through) the deities of other pantheons, though this varies in some traditions. (a good traditional example of this can be found in The Witches Bible by the Farrars)

                    3) A personal ethics that incorporates the Rede and (possibly) the Threefold Law...neither of which is necessarily meant to be understood literally.

                    maybe 4) A traditional format for worship and ritual

                    (another view of "Wiccan basics, from the same author as the links in 1 & 3)
                    “You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom

                    “We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
                    ~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee

                    "We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
                    ~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

                    "Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett

                    Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                      Where can I find such a declaration of Wiccan dogma?
                      That isn't Wiccan dogma. That is purely the definition of words. I mean incorrect as in the words are not correct of what is being described, not incorrect in belief.


                      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                      I'm a pragmatist. I'm not concerned with what your opinion, or any other opinion is on the matter of what Wiccans should or should not do or believe. Wicca isn't an orthodoxy. I'm concerned with what people who self-identify as Wiccan actually do with their religion and why. Period.

                      Sure, some people share your opinion. A few of them are even Wiccan of one tradition or another. Most people don't. Certainly (though I am no longer Wiccan) the (BTW) coven I was initiated into nearly 15 years ago didn't.
                      While you do seem to care very much what my opinion is, you seem to be missing my point. I do not care what people believe or don't, and support them all the more for it when they have found peace in their choices. You are correct in that Wicca wouldn't be an orthodoxy in regards to the form of the divine. But this later quote:

                      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                      Are Mormons Christian? Baptists? The United Church of Christ? Catholics? The Westboro Baptist Church? What about Pentecostals? Divine Science? If 38,000 denominatons of persons that can't agree on the nature of God, the significance Jesus, how to interpret the Bible, etc can all be classified as "Christian", then yes, your "fundamentally different" is semantics. Religions (even Christianity) aren't monolithic. Generally speaking, they don't have black and white definitions or hard boundaries. Religions (even religion itself) can only be defined with polythetic classifications.
                      I assumed before you were using the term semantics in the common meaning of the word, to mean insisting on the use of a different word to mean the exact same thing. Like insisting someone say yalanji instead of dolmades. Its the same dish with the same ingredients. If we are indeed talking about true meaning of semantic - that is, the choice of word based on its meaning and classifying it as such under logical dichotomy - then yes. This topic was brought up entirely on the basis of semantics. It is this, the above quotes, and other instances throughout this conversation exactly why I place so much importance on semantics and why I use examples to illustrate my meaning: to try and make it as clear as possible of the meaning of words that could have multiple qualities attached to it.

                      That said, your example does not illustrate your point. You said it yourself: most of those are denominations of the same religion. They differ on how they interpret facts laid out under their doctrine. Indeed it would be hard to create a religion that would be monolithic, as people always find different ways to interpret words as mentioned above. But the particular doctrine itself within a religion is immutable. If where the belief differs goes undeniably against doctrine, it is no longer considered a denomination. It instead is a religion in its own right; such is the case with Mormons from Christianity, and Christianity from Judaism. And Wicca does have doctrine. Said by yourself:

                      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                      And with that being said, IMO, there are only 3 (maybe 4) hallmarks of Wiccan belief:

                      1) Recognition of the Lord and Lady/ God and Goddess as deities of Wicca. Many practitioners take soft-polytheistic but duotheistic view of "all goddesses are facets of the Lady, all gods are facets of the Lord" POV and. Additionally, different traditions and covens have a variety of oath-bound names (and differing personas) for the aspect of the facet or the literal expression of the deity that they recognize.

                      2) Acknowledgement of the Lord and Lady in their specific roles in terms of the Wheel of the Year, which serves as a Wiccan liturgy and mythos. The traditional view of Them in this role is as the Triple Goddess and the Horned God, that can be expressed in conjunction with (or through) the deities of other pantheons, though this varies in some traditions. (a good traditional example of this can be found in The Witches Bible by the Farrars)

                      3) A personal ethics that incorporates the Rede and (possibly) the Threefold Law...neither of which is necessarily meant to be understood literally.

                      maybe 4) A traditional format for worship and ritual

                      (another view of "Wiccan basics, from the same author as the links in 1 & 3)
                      so thusly you have outlined limits and dogma. You best points against my proposal in that quote is in Hallmark 1: that different covens have different personas for the facet they recognize, which does not necessarily exclude the other properties that the God/ess may have simply because one side is preferred, and in 2: the idea that the Lord and Lady of Wicca can be added to a larger pantheon and it does not interfere with either religion.

                      My rebuttal for the first is not in the definition of the God/ess itself but in the chosen deities alignment with that definition. If there is a being whom all of their qualities align with the attributes given to their given position I do not question this substitution and to call it Wicca, as the substitution makes sense under the boundaries set.

                      My resistance comes at substituting beings that have defined qualities under their original religion that do not align with the qualities of the position they are granted. While some qualities are considered universal between the two sides, such as the 'light' and 'dark' sides of any given quality, there are certain attributes traditionally assigned to one side of the duality or another. I find to not take the being as they were and instead subtract their attributes to fit to not be a true representation of that being. Perhaps this is where opinion comes in, but I find such a representation would not be worshipping the deity in question but instead an entirely different being that is very similar but not the same, for that was not the definition of the deity set when the name was given. I have no rebuttal for the second, as I can not find fault with it so it shall stand unquestioned. But, is it also not what I am questioning in the first place. The question is not on whether Wicca can be adapted into another religion, but if specific beings of another religion can be adapted into Wicca. The question in that context is not one of adding new gods to a collection, but of substituting them. Much the same argument that people have against adapting Jesus into Wicca. I for one have no problem with such an adaptation as I do not superficially find attributes that are not traditionally set to the God, though my opinion may change on that as I have not pondered that pairing much.

                      Or on the flip side if instead of changing the chosen deity's attributes you change the attributes associated with the God or Goddess, that I find to not interfere with set dogma. That would be validly Wiccan. It would be a separate denomination, based on which side of duality you believe those qualities to be on. In this case, I argue for a new label not to separate it from the religion but for clarification purposes. Its the same as someone saying they're a pagan. We have many different terms for what kind of pagan. It is not incorrect to say they are pagan, but upon inquiry it is helpful to have a term for what kind of pagan they are. It is at that level we are at in the idea of Eclectic Wicca, where there are many different definitions of the term itself. I take the term Eclectic to mean those who find exception to the interpretations of the previously established traditions, thus are crafting their own interpretations. An 'extra' group, if you will. This definition does not necessarily mean that they adopt other gods though. I count myself eclectic because I don't agree with the idea of oathbound secrets of the traditions I've come across, among other things. The purpose of this discussion in this scenario would be to categorize the 'extra' group as a way of referencing what kind of 'extra' you/they are and what one believes in to others. You may say this is an unimportant distinction, but if so, why have we made so many distinctions already if it didn't matter in the first place?

                      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                      Well, as you seem to heavily imply that you don't think their actions are "Wiccan" you certainly seem to be making an indirect statement on what you think they shouldn't be doing...
                      The old 'my interpretation of the scriptures is right and everyone else is going to hell..' I've seen this a lot in wiccan circles sadly (in my case it was 'people outside of the British isles have no business adopting our very British faith' bullcrap, or 'lets all point at the poor solitaries who aren't as powerful and awesome as we are'), which is one of the reasons I turned away from Wicca. Too much 'I am more worthy of the Gods' love then thee' or to put another way, 'mummy loves me more'. It's.. it's just not the behaviour of the spiritually sound. As soon as someone starts trying to justify to me why they are a good wiccan, they lose my respect not only as a wiccan, but as a person too. I see too much of my earlier self in such behaviour.
                      These two quotes go together in my response. There are certain things in this discussion that indeed I think they shouldn't be using, mainly using terms incorrectly. However, I do not mean they are not Wiccan in that they don't follow Wiccan values in the way people say 'I'm a Christian' to say they have good morals. Nor do I say the other beliefs and interpretations aren't as valid, as previously mentioned. I argue that it is simply not a correct label.

                      Where it seems our beliefs there differ is similar to the debate of whether one is Christian because one believes in the doctrine set in the Bible or if one behaves in the manner outlined by Jesus. Thalassa's definition "as a pragmatist" would take the latter opinion, but your words off-and-on accept or reject the former. My thoughts reject that notion of accepting the latter but rejecting the former. An opinion of mine as a reason to not ascribe to that line of thinking is that practicing or representing an idea you think to be false without coercion to doing so is immoral and does not help anyone. If one believes differently, they should represent what they find true. I would take the prior opinion on the grounds that belief, if truly believed in, would preclude action based on those beliefs and attempts to correct personal faults that go against those beliefs would be made.

                      I have digressed, but does that accurately represent your view?


                      To Jembru, I couldn't tell you where I have learned all my views except under my own logic. I am solitary and always have been, so no individual coven has influenced me, and find myself solidly Eclectic. I research all traditions I come across, and I suppose I am influenced by Gardnerian a bit as it is the original, but I find no issue with views outside the original if it makes sense. Granted, I would have to research again the traditions to see from which areas I take each of my beliefs and why I do not count myself among a different tradition, so forgive me for not listing specifics. I do not fault you for calling my argument on this matter fundamental, as it pretty much is, nor do I take it as an insult. And I am okay with disagreement on my views. That is precisely why I put it up for discussion in the first place; if someone proposes another view, a better view, or proves how my thoughts do not make sense I would find it an improvement to myself any which way. Knowledge is power and I like learning new things to see where others come from and if something aligns more with my thoughts than the classifications I currently have myself under I find it a relief to change classification.


                      And I never did get back to SeanRave. My point about Wicca not being reconstructionist was that 'finding your god' of another religion is not a necessary part of Wicca, not to exclude the idea.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                        Originally posted by Aja-Armani View Post
                        That isn't Wiccan dogma. That is purely the definition of words. I mean incorrect as in the words are not correct of what is being described, not incorrect in belief.
                        There isn't a definition of Wicca that proscribes the inclusion of other deities.


                        While you do seem to care very much what my opinion is, you seem to be missing my point.
                        This is the most pagan debate entertainment I've had in a while...and likewise.


                        I assumed before you were using the term semantics in the common meaning of the word, to mean insisting on the use of a different word to mean the exact same thing. Like insisting someone say yalanji instead of dolmades. Its the same dish with the same ingredients. If we are indeed talking about true meaning of semantic - that is, the choice of word based on its meaning and classifying it as such under logical dichotomy - then yes. This topic was brought up entirely on the basis of semantics. It is this, the above quotes, and other instances throughout this conversation exactly why I place so much importance on semantics and why I use examples to illustrate my meaning: to try and make it as clear as possible of the meaning of words that could have multiple qualities attached to it.
                        Semantics, as in the meaning of words, phrases, symbols, etc and the use of language. Clarifying what people mean, how they mean it, etc is a good thing. Splitting hairs on the basis of a very small box in which one person contains an idea vs the very large box in which another person contains an idea, on the other hand, goes beyond simple clarification to something that is dogmatic and rigid. Which is fine, until you try to apply that idea to everyone else, when that isn't how they are operating. Functional definitions are more useful than hypothetical ones.

                        That said, your example does not illustrate your point. You said it yourself: most of those are denominations of the same religion. They differ on how they interpret facts laid out under their doctrine. Indeed it would be hard to create a religion that would be monolithic, as people always find different ways to interpret words as mentioned above.
                        Actually, I consider Christianity to be the classification of Christian religions...an umbrella term in the same way Pagan and Wicca are. For that matter, I don't consider Wicca to be a religion, but the classification of Wiccan religions. If you think about it in an analogy to biological species, saying you are Christian or Pagan is like saying you are a mammal. Saying you are Wiccan or Baptist is like saying you are an Equine. A religion is Garnerian Wicca or United Church of Christ--like actually being a horse or a zebra.

                        But the particular doctrine itself within a religion is immutable. If where the belief differs goes undeniably against doctrine, it is no longer considered a denomination. It instead is a religion in its own right; such is the case with Mormons from Christianity, and Christianity from Judaism. And Wicca does have doctrine. (snip ) so thusly you have outlined limits and dogma.
                        That's not doctrine or dogma or limits. That's a polythetic list of the commonalities between religions and religionists that classify themselves as Wiccan.

                        Furthermore, doctrine is never immutable. It is always changing, if for no other reason that human understanding of it changes and human ideas of what is moral and ethical and just changes. Certainly there are limits to its change (those limits being tied to cultural evolution and societal progression), and certainly there are persons that are resistant to it (and then leave the group to start another) or those that think that it doesn't go far enough (and then leave the group to start another), but there is still change.

                        You best points against my proposal in that quote is in Hallmark 1: that different covens have different personas for the facet they recognize, which does not necessarily exclude the other properties that the God/ess may have simply because one side is preferred, and in 2: the idea that the Lord and Lady of Wicca can be added to a larger pantheon and it does not interfere with either religion.

                        My rebuttal for the first is not in the definition of the God/ess itself but in the chosen deities alignment with that definition. If there is a being whom all of their qualities align with the attributes given to their given position I do not question this substitution and to call it Wicca, as the substitution makes sense under the boundaries set.
                        But these aren't boundaries. They are commonalities and descriptors. For example... I am a wife, a mother, a veteran, a scientist, a student, a female, a historical reenactor, an activist, a feminist, a progressive, a pragmatist, a humanist, a bookworm, a kayaker, a beach addict, a crochet junkie, etc. These are roles, some big, some little...they describe aspects of me, but they don't define who I am as a whole and independent person. The Lord and the Lady (if one takes a big box view of them) are the same--the Goddess is Maiden, Mother, Crone, Warrior, Witch, Priestess, Ocean and Forest, Mountain and Valley, Sky and Earth, Sun and Moon, Rainbow and Rain, Hammer and Nail, etc. Likewise for the God. The paradox is part of the Mystery. The reason that other deities "fit" is that they are aspects of the Goddess and the God--they are as much a part of their whole as being a mom and a feminist is for me, even if that seems contradictory for some people.

                        My resistance comes at substituting beings that have defined qualities under their original religion that do not align with the qualities of the position they are granted. While some qualities are considered universal between the two sides, such as the 'light' and 'dark' sides of any given quality, there are certain attributes traditionally assigned to one side of the duality or another. I find to not take the being as they were and instead subtract their attributes to fit to not be a true representation of that being. Perhaps this is where opinion comes in, but I find such a representation would not be worshipping the deity in question but instead an entirely different being that is very similar but not the same, for that was not the definition of the deity set when the name was given. I have no rebuttal for the second, as I can not find fault with it so it shall stand unquestioned. But, is it also not what I am questioning in the first place. The question is not on whether Wicca can be adapted into another religion, but if specific beings of another religion can be adapted into Wicca. The question in that context is not one of adding new gods to a collection, but of substituting them. Much the same argument that people have against adapting Jesus into Wicca. I for one have no problem with such an adaptation as I do not superficially find attributes that are not traditionally set to the God, though my opinion may change on that as I have not pondered that pairing much.
                        This is exactly where opinion comes in. Personally, I think your view puts eternal and divine beings into a very tiny box. Personally, I think deities are more expansive than one culture's specific experience of them. And, I absolutely think that people change the gods. Looking at the history of worship and the history of religion, we clearly influence their personas to suit our changing times, knowledge, understandings, experiences, and ideas. Just as I am my own independent and operating individual person as I said before, but I carry a number of roles and positions, a mother, a wife, a veteran, a scientist...those roles are shaped by society, and those expectations shape how I think, how I act, what decisions I make when, the authority I carry and how I express it in certain situations, etc. The gods are no different...they are shaped by our expectations, by our behaviors, by our worship (or lack of it). The gods are not static, their roles are not unchanging, they absolutely adapt to new forms of worship, to new worshipers, to new expectations, etc.

                        Or on the flip side if instead of changing the chosen deity's attributes you change the attributes associated with the God or Goddess, that I find to not interfere with set dogma. That would be validly Wiccan. It would be a separate denomination, based on which side of duality you believe those qualities to be on. In this case, I argue for a new label not to separate it from the religion but for clarification purposes. Its the same as someone saying they're a pagan. We have many different terms for what kind of pagan. It is not incorrect to say they are pagan, but upon inquiry it is helpful to have a term for what kind of pagan they are. It is at that level we are at in the idea of Eclectic Wicca, where there are many different definitions of the term itself. I take the term Eclectic to mean those who find exception to the interpretations of the previously established traditions, thus are crafting their own interpretations. An 'extra' group, if you will. This definition does not necessarily mean that they adopt other gods though. I count myself eclectic because I don't agree with the idea of oathbound secrets of the traditions I've come across, among other things. The purpose of this discussion in this scenario would be to categorize the 'extra' group as a way of referencing what kind of 'extra' you/they are and what one believes in to others. You may say this is an unimportant distinction, but if so, why have we made so many distinctions already if it didn't matter in the first place?

                        i have no problem with someone adding descriptors onto the name of their path. I have problems with saying its not Wicca because someone chooses to do something differently.


                        Where it seems our beliefs there differ is similar to the debate of whether one is Christian because one believes in the doctrine set in the Bible or if one behaves in the manner outlined by Jesus. Thalassa's definition "as a pragmatist" would take the latter opinion, but your words off-and-on accept or reject the former. My thoughts reject that notion of accepting the latter but rejecting the former. An opinion of mine as a reason to not ascribe to that line of thinking is that practicing or representing an idea you think to be false without coercion to doing so is immoral and does not help anyone. If one believes differently, they should represent what they find true. I would take the prior opinion on the grounds that belief, if truly believed in, would preclude action based on those beliefs and attempts to correct personal faults that go against those beliefs would be made.

                        I have digressed, but does that accurately represent your view?
                        I define a"Christian" as "does religion with Jesus (in whatever way they understand and interpret him)" by a person that self-identifies as a Christian. And as a title/descriptor of one's beliefs, I find it lacking.


                        I define "Wiccan" as someone that "does religion with the Lord and Lady (in whatever way they understand and interpret them)" by a person that self-identifies as Wiccan. And as a title/descriptor of one's beliefs, I find it lacking as well.
                        “You have never answered but you did not need to. If I stand at the ocean I can hear you with your thousand voices. Sometimes you shout, hilarious laughter that taunts all questions. Other nights you are silent as death, a mirror in which the stars show themselves. Then I think you want to tell me something, but you never do. Of course I know I have written letters to no-one. But what if I find a trident tomorrow?" ~~Letters to Poseidon, Cees Nooteboom

                        “We still carry this primal relationship to the Earth within our consciousness, even if we have long forgotten it. It is a primal recognition of the wonder, beauty, and divine nature of the Earth. It is a felt reverence for all that exists. Once we bring this foundational quality into our consciousness, we will be able to respond to our present man-made crisis from a place of balance, in which our actions will be grounded in an attitude of respect for all of life. This is the nature of real sustainability.”
                        ~~Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee

                        "We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes--one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way."
                        ~~Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History

                        "Humans are not rational creatures. Now, logic and rationality are very helpful tools, but there’s also a place for embracing our subjectivity and thinking symbolically. Sometimes what our so-called higher thinking can’t or won’t see, our older, more primitive intuition will." John Beckett

                        Pagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                          Someone pretend I have adhd and please gimme the lowdown. What in the world are you on about?
                          Satan is my spirit animal

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                            I don't know Medusa... but when I see the word 'thusly' I tend to switch off.

                            - - - Updated - - -

                            Originally posted by Aja-Armani View Post
                            If one is worshipping said deities from another religion in the way of that other religion, does that not relegate the idea Wicca to a general form of worship and presentation rather than a religion in its own right?
                            No. Look at Christianity and Judaism. Both have what is essentially the same God. The God the Father of the NT is the same as the God of Abraham in the OT - nobody has ever said they were different, although changes were made in how he was perceived in the NT. Yet Judaism and Christianity are two distinct religions. Christianity is not just relegated to a general form of worship and presentation. It is - rightly or wrongly - regarded as a religion in its own right. Not my religion, admittedly, but a religion nonetheless.
                            www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                            Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

                              I'm having a hard time distinguishing what you're trying to say here, but it could easily be that my brain isn't working today (happens often).

                              It's understandable that you're confused when it comes to "what makes a Wiccan a Wiccan". Most people are.

                              For us there are general guidelines that classify a Wiccan and it's less about which deities you choose and more about the fact that you have two primary ones (hope I explained that correctly).

                              This list is what I think constitutes a Wiccan and is by no means correct for everyone

                              1. Should have a Patron God and Goddess: Now, this is fuzzy. Some people see the deities as separate and are duotheistic; see it as two parts of a single divinity -- sometimes called Source-- and can be mono or duothesitic; some think there are many gods -- polytheistic -- and pick two that call out to them; and some think that every god and goddess is THE God and Goddess simply with a different face(i.e. Isis and Athena are both the Goddess simply in different forms). I truly hope I explained this well.

                              2. Following the Wiccan Rede: Pretty straightforward, this point includes the Threefold Law.

                              3. Wheel of the Year: Wiccans normally observe the eight Sabbats(holidays) of the year with Esbats(considered optional)

                              4. Identifying as a Wiccan. This is important because there are many other Pagan paths that could practice similar things to a Wiccan without actually being a Wiccan. Wicca is a relatively new form of Paganism and it pulls from other belief systems.

                              Optionals(i.e. not all Wiccans do this nor are they required to; you seem to be speaking a lot about Eclecticism in Wicca so these are more of the "if you want to" guidelines)

                              -In a coven or group
                              -Practice magick (believe it or not, some Wiccans don't want to, which is fine)
                              -Have specific tools for an alter
                              -Practiced a Year and a Day
                              -Handfasting
                              -Being goth
                              -having a black cat (though I highly recommend it)
                              A Happy Little Wiccan

                              Army of Darkness: Guardians of the Chat

                              Because who needs a life when you have a chatroom.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X