Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

[Aja-Armani]

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.

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:

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:

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?

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.

[thalassa]

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.

[Medusa]

Someone pretend I have adhd and please gimme the lowdown. What in the world are you on about?

[Tylluan Penry]

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

- - - Updated - - -

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.

[Serria]

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)

[anunitu]

Steps into thread and scans the topic and dialog. Blinks and under my breath whispers WHAT?????... slinks back out of thread with a profound look of bewilderment.

[Willow]

Steps into thread and scans the topic and dialog. Blinks and under my breath whispers WHAT?????... slinks back out of thread with a profound look of bewilderment.

Yep, I concur. Because Cthulhu.

[White Feather]

I agree... what Serria said