|
|
| Author |
Message |
dang
|
|
Beginners question and Answer Item
| 
Jul 1 17:19 UTC 1994 |
well, i've used up others items for long enough. here is an item
for all those of us in this cf who arn't pagans, or don't know a lot about
it, and want to know. this item is only for those who are seriously
curious, and not for those who only want to put down others religions. i
origionally wanted this item to be for entry level discussions, so that
advanced ones can be taken to their respective items. this item is for
beginners, mainly, to get answers. have fun!
|
| 333 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 1 of 333:
|
Jul 1 17:21 UTC 1994 |
kami, could you do me a favor, and post your book list with a short
explaination? thanx.
|
kami
|
|
response 2 of 333:
|
Jul 4 20:30 UTC 1994 |
OK, favorite pagan texts, short version:
_Drawing Down the Moon_, by Margot Adler: basic overview of different options
or traditions and what they do. She's one of my folk heros- an NPR reporter.
_Spiral Dance_, by Starhawk: everyone has read it. Excellent exercizes. A
bit heavy on the feminist bias. Lots of folks around here working in a
tradition drawn from her material.
_Complete Book of Witchcraft_, by Raymond Buckland: the ONLY thing of his which
I think has any redeming features. Workbook style, fairly complete, some good
thoughtful questions. Don't let him convince you everyone does things his way.
_What Witches Do_ and _Eight Sabbats for Witches_ (or _The Witches Bible
Compleat_), by Janet and Stuart Farrar: why do such good books have to have
such horribly lurid covers?! He's a journalist and the writing's not bad. I
tend to disagree with almost everything about the tradition in which he was
trained, but I still like everything they write. That's life.
_Witchcraft (Wicca?) for the Solitary Practitioner_, by Scott Cunningham: most
of what comes out of Llewellyn press is very general, light weight and sticky
sweet, but some of it can be useful. This book provides some nice suggestions.
From there, I might look at
_Magical Rites from the Crystal Well_ by Ed Fitch and _A Book of Pagan Ritual_
(I forget the author): very nice outlines for rituals. A good starting place
for writing your own.
Now, to go off in some other directions, a bit less basic, my favorite books
on
Tarot: _Butler's Dictionary of the Tarot_: I like it because it compares
different decks. It's a bit dates. Sure beats Eden Gray as a place to start.
It it's too advanced, the booklet that came with your deck will do.
Herbs: John Lusts _Herbs_, Dian Dincin Buchman's _Herbal Medicine_ (good luck
finding it). Both very practical- I'm not much into magical herbalism.
Cabala: _The Wiches' Qabala_, by Ellen Cannon Reed: very accessible intro to
the Cabbalistic Tree of Life. Good exercises.
Western Mysteries: _The Western Way_, by John and Caitlin Matthews: very loose
historical basis, but good meditations and exercizes. I'd watch out for most
of John Matthews' stuff- he does his research in his head. Caitlin is a bit
more reliable. But if you don't care about authenticity, enjoy.
Celtic Studies: this is my particular "specialty", so I will leave a
comprehensive list for another time. I tend to rant. But one favorite is
_Celtic Heritage_ by Alwyn and Brinley Reese.
For more Classical myth, etc. check out _The Masks of God_ by Joseph Campbell
and _The Golden Bough_ by Frasier. This stuff is pretty hard going, and a
touch dated and suspect, but fun.
Magical Fiction: just authors-
Dion Fortune, Catherine Kurtz, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Diana Paxton, Mercedes
Lackey, Tamora Pierce, Charles de Lint, Susan Cooper(the Dark is Rising series)
Diane Duane, and others. Have fun.
|
dang
|
|
response 3 of 333:
|
Jul 5 04:09 UTC 1994 |
thanx. that's a big help.
okay, first question. could someone try to define wicca vs. witchcraft?
many i know (who don't know what they're talking about) confuse these,
and i want to get them straight.
|
kami
|
|
response 4 of 333:
|
Jul 5 06:34 UTC 1994 |
Not all witches are wiccans. All wiccans are witches. Wicca is a tradition
of witchcraft within the neopagan set of religious traditions. I'm not going
to try to define either comprehensively right now, as I am bound to offend
someone or say something inaccurate, and I won't be here to correct myself
for the next week. If you haven't gotten a good answer by the 13th, ask
again.
See ya!
|
brighn
|
|
response 5 of 333:
|
Jul 6 23:22 UTC 1994 |
(Hi Kami! This must be the place.) I'm a newbie by about an hour, but I'll
have a go at this one. The difference between Wicca and witch depends on
who you ask. There are some Wiccans who insist on using "witch" to describe
themselves and get irate at the general populace for using "witch" otherwise;
there are others who prefer to use Wiccan for themselves and leave "witch"
out of the picture; there are others who use "Wiccan" for a specific religious
group and "witch" in a broader sense; there are others who use "witch" for
themselves and don't worry too much about how others use it (in ignorance of
the religion, not in deliberate bad-mouthing: that's another issue). I'm
usually in the last group, unless I'm feeling snitty. Obviously, then, no
matter how you use it, you run the risk of offending _someone_. There is
no universally-accepted PC way of handling it except the old-fashioned way:
when talking to someone specific, _ask_. I do agree that, at the very least,
all Wiccans are witches: whether this is a subset relation or an identity one
is the problem.
(My first Grex message -- how'd I do?)
Peace, Love, and Joy
Brighn
|
dang
|
|
response 6 of 333:
|
Jul 7 04:17 UTC 1994 |
you did great. didn't answer the question too well, but maybe i didn't
ask it too well. i try to rephrase it. what is a good defination of
Wicca? what is a good defination of Witch(in the non-Wicca sense)?
how do these relate(if at all)? i know that this is not an easy
queation. give me some broad answers.
|
phaedrus
|
|
response 7 of 333:
|
Jul 7 13:07 UTC 1994 |
Wicca is a religion. WitchCraft is a practice. Wicca has a specific world
view... for the most part... A Witch may be religious and may not be. Witches
can be from many cultures and religions. So...it is possible to be a Witch and
be Wiccan. But being a Witch doesn't mean that you are Wiccan. I'm a Witch but
I'm not Wiccan. Yes, we could sit and and debate this, but it's pretty
accurate.
|
brighn
|
|
response 8 of 333:
|
Jul 7 15:20 UTC 1994 |
Question rephrased and understood. I was tainted by Kami's answer.
Etymologically, "witch" means "bend" (not "wise", according to some sources,
which are usually mistaken, sometimes witching the truth :-) ). The reference
is to bending reality in some way -- not violating the rules of the Universe,
just manipulating them. Hence, theoretically, a witch would be anyone who
strives to do so (in a
paranormal/metaphysical/extrasensory/choose-your-new-age-pop- term sort of
way). A Wiccan is a neoPagan religious practitioner who (in most cases)
practices witchcraft. Because Wicca is ostensibly grounded in the witchcraft
traiditions of Europe (and this is mighty controversial), there are Wiccans who
would limit "witch" to "practitioners of the Old Ways of Europe" and, since
they are the only remnants of this path, to themselves. (Witch has two further
definitions -- the Halloween green-faced hag, and " a mortal being which has
compacted with evil or antisocial forces in order to create havoc", which is
roughly the one used by anthropologists to differentiate these from demons and
magicians in primarily non-complex societies.)
|
phaedrus
|
|
response 9 of 333:
|
Jul 7 17:31 UTC 1994 |
Though the word may mean to bend, (what language is that from?), I have allways
thought that the idea of "supernatural" seened pretty out of place. As does
the idea of "bending". The Craft I practice seems to flow well within the paths
of reality, and nature. So, I don't feel as a Witch that I bend anything, but
mayb maybe use what's allready there. Not trying to be nit picky, just an
observation.
|
dang
|
|
response 10 of 333:
|
Jul 7 21:18 UTC 1994 |
interesting. next question. could someone describe (breifly, please. we are
just beginners) the basic beliefs of the Wiccans? and, Phaedrus, could you
describe yours?
|
robh
|
|
response 11 of 333:
|
Jul 7 21:58 UTC 1994 |
"Could someone describe briefly the basic beliefs of the Wiccans?"
No.
That's like asking for the basic beliefs of the Christians, there
are many diverse variations of Wicca, and at least one "denomination"
of Wicca will disagree with any particular idea you come up with.
Anyone wanna take a shot anyway?
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 333:
|
Jul 7 22:32 UTC 1994 |
It's typically said that all Wiccans accept the Rede: An It Harm None, Do What
Thou Will. Translation: You are free to behave in any way that does not harm
yourself or others. Sounds simple, but it's not, when you really think about
it. Beyond that, there is little consensus. Apparent *majority* views (from
my perspective -- I'm likely to get disagreement on these): balance between
complementary forces, a lack of concrete evil, polytheism as a manifestation of
duotheism, which *may* be a manifestation of monotheism (lots of differing
opines there), Goddess-focal (the God is defined in terms of His relation with
Her), no place of eternal damnation, ... that's enough to get me in lots of
trouble. :-) For personal beliefs, mail me. Brighn
|
robh
|
|
response 13 of 333:
|
Jul 8 01:17 UTC 1994 |
Sorry, Paul, but I've talked to one alleged Wiccan on the Net who
rejects the Rede as "only something that stupid newbies would need
to use." His logic makes some sense, he feels that if you're
really in tune with the universe, you wouldn't want to hurt anybody,
so the "An it harm none" part is unnecessary.
|
dang
|
|
response 14 of 333:
|
Jul 8 03:57 UTC 1994 |
it's still there, tho. robh, i can give a concic summery of christian beliefs.
still, i was looking for aproximately what i got. thanx.
phaedrus?
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 333:
|
Jul 8 05:12 UTC 1994 |
Calling someone a "stupid newbie" creates harm, and so someone who would
say that has violated the Rede. That aside, dropping the first phrase
is a logical step *only* if you're acknowledging that you're de facto
following the first phrase. Crowley just used "Do what thou will", primarily
on that principle. My understanding of Crowley is that if you really do
what you will, and you really are on the right path for yourself, then
non-harm comes naturally; otherwise, if you're on the wrong path, you're
going to get zoomed anyhow. (Errata: non-harm won't necessarily come
naturally, but the only people you'll hurt are people who are on the
wrong paths for themselves, else they wouldn't be getting in your way.)
It sounds like your acquaintance accepts the Rede in his rejection of it.
But this goes beyond intro stuff.
|
arwen
|
|
response 16 of 333:
|
Jul 9 17:20 UTC 1994 |
eek...can someone help me...I think I am stuck...I just read all 354 or
whatever number messages...I am a newbie BBS...this is my first experience...I
just saw something that said "you have mail"...how do I get
there....(whimper,whine) p
|
robh
|
|
response 17 of 333:
|
Jul 9 17:32 UTC 1994 |
Don't worry, folks, I'm sending her mail. Of course, if she can't
read her mail, that won't help much...
Try typing "!mail".
|
arwen
|
|
response 18 of 333:
|
Jul 9 17:45 UTC 1994 |
ok I think I am back...I can figure out how to read my mail...it is sending it
that is confusing me...sorry to interrupt, ya'll...I am only familiar with
e-mail. Brighn, Robh...I am much calmer now.
|
arwen
|
|
response 19 of 333:
|
Jul 9 18:51 UTC 1994 |
Is anyone still out there?.
|
fuz
|
|
response 20 of 333:
|
Jul 9 20:32 UTC 1994 |
im out here.... but confs dont go quite that fast... new responses every hour
re not guaranteed.
|
robh
|
|
response 21 of 333:
|
Jul 9 20:40 UTC 1994 |
Yes, people respond to conferences whenever they're on-line, it may
take a while. If you want to talk to people in real time, you
should try "!party" from the Ok: prompt.
|
fuz
|
|
response 22 of 333:
|
Jul 10 16:24 UTC 1994 |
or "party" or "cafe"
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 333:
|
Jul 10 16:31 UTC 1994 |
Not anymore. you left, so I followed you.
|
jwp
|
|
response 24 of 333:
|
Jul 10 16:38 UTC 1994 |
Goodie...We may have created another Party Junkie.,..:)
|