IMO, I honestly don't care what someone calls themselves when they're standing in front of their home altar in the presence of the gods. That's between them and their deities. On the other hand, when someone goes out in the public world and says that I *have* to call them by a label that I don't agree with, I'm troubled by that. Why should I have to subjugate my beliefs for someone else's comfort?
More importantly, why does it matter to someone else how *I* see them? Why is my opinion so important that they are not able to live a fulfilled life if I don't agree with them? And, if they *are* able to live a fulfilled life, why are they determined to force their beliefs on me because I disagree?
Am I a Fluffy Bunny Because I'm Not in a Coven?
Re: Fluffy Bunny?
Not being in a coven doesnt make you a fluffy bunny...any more than being in a coven exempts one from being FB. A fluffy bunny...we, it's easier to give some examples of FB behavior than to lay a specific definition. like reading a single book and believing you know everyhting, not being willing to learn, being convinced that all is goodness and ight in wicca/witchcraft/various pagan religions. it's a state of (often willful) ignorance.SanityIsLost wrote:I was in another chat about Wicca and these people who have i guess been in a coven for a while, have been saying that you have to be in a coven in order to be Wiccan. They said that anybody not in a coven was just a "fluffy bunny" pretending to be Wiccan. I don't believe this, I feel that you can choose not to join a coven and still be Wiccan but I am kind of confused now. Any thoughts?
I'm pretty much of the mind that if a tradition is established, you shouldn't call yoursef that unless you've actually done your learning within the tradition. im aso one of those people who considers there to be a difference between Wicca and Neo-Wicca, "Wicca" being where you've actualy learned the tradition as it's established and been handed down, "Neo-Wicca" where you can learn on your own, from books etc because it doesn't take special training to learn the basic beliefs and publicly-known practices.
It doesn't make one better or more valid than the other, they're just not quite the same thing. You just can't lay claim to a specific tradition that you haven't studied to its required lengths
-
Moon_Stone
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:51 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Where the Wild Things are
- Contact:
First, I have to ask this because it's driving me nuts, I've seen it all over the board and I have no clue what it means... what is "IMO" and "IMHO" ?? -I assume this is some internet shorthand, but it's not one I recognize. Thanks. 
Okay, back to the post- Juliaki, I'm definitely not saying that everyone needs to be concerned with your opinion of them and have it reflect negatively on their life if you don't agree with them-- in fact that'd be sort of ridiculous. I do mean though, that the way you explained your beliefs and stated in response to Draconis that he simply isn't dedicated or true enough to his beliefs or religion because he has said that a physical interaction with a local coven isn't feasible, really does make it sound as though you are saying your way is the right way, and anyone who isn't agreeing with you is just simply a fraudulent Wiccan. I don't know if he found this offensive, but I know that I did-- even if that was not how you had intended to be. If nothing else, the phrasing used is really enough to make a young Wiccan or exploring, learning or even curious person run from this religion for fear that it is just too demanding and they don't "qualify".
We should never spend our time making comments that may make others feel badly about themselves, no matter what the intended purpose.
~BB~
Okay, back to the post- Juliaki, I'm definitely not saying that everyone needs to be concerned with your opinion of them and have it reflect negatively on their life if you don't agree with them-- in fact that'd be sort of ridiculous. I do mean though, that the way you explained your beliefs and stated in response to Draconis that he simply isn't dedicated or true enough to his beliefs or religion because he has said that a physical interaction with a local coven isn't feasible, really does make it sound as though you are saying your way is the right way, and anyone who isn't agreeing with you is just simply a fraudulent Wiccan. I don't know if he found this offensive, but I know that I did-- even if that was not how you had intended to be. If nothing else, the phrasing used is really enough to make a young Wiccan or exploring, learning or even curious person run from this religion for fear that it is just too demanding and they don't "qualify".
We should never spend our time making comments that may make others feel badly about themselves, no matter what the intended purpose.
~BB~
IMO = in my opinion
IMHO = in my honest opinion
Keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, I have a lot of respect for the people who have gone through the required steps and adhere to the core beliefs who are Wiccan. It isn't easy. It takes a lot of time and training. It tempers people into something entirely different from where they start. I personally don't have the desire to follow that path.
That being said, I think there's nothing wrong with being Neo-Wiccan, and have a lot of respect for people who go through what they feel they need to do to adhere to beliefs that fit under that category. I don't see the two as the same, but both as very valid paths that should be honored for what they are.
It's like someone claiming to be a Cherokee shaman when they are neither Cherokee nor a shaman, but just like going to pow-wows and reading books about totem animals. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but it can create harm to the larger tribe if misconceptions are allowed to continue.
And there's also nothing wrong with being new. Being new does not automatically equate to being a fluffy. In fact, in my latest article, I argue that it is highly unlikely that a brand-new person can actually be fluffy. The article can be read here:
http://juliaki.livejournal.com/56073.html
IMHO = in my honest opinion
Keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, I have a lot of respect for the people who have gone through the required steps and adhere to the core beliefs who are Wiccan. It isn't easy. It takes a lot of time and training. It tempers people into something entirely different from where they start. I personally don't have the desire to follow that path.
That being said, I think there's nothing wrong with being Neo-Wiccan, and have a lot of respect for people who go through what they feel they need to do to adhere to beliefs that fit under that category. I don't see the two as the same, but both as very valid paths that should be honored for what they are.
It's like someone claiming to be a Cherokee shaman when they are neither Cherokee nor a shaman, but just like going to pow-wows and reading books about totem animals. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but it can create harm to the larger tribe if misconceptions are allowed to continue.
And there's also nothing wrong with being new. Being new does not automatically equate to being a fluffy. In fact, in my latest article, I argue that it is highly unlikely that a brand-new person can actually be fluffy. The article can be read here:
http://juliaki.livejournal.com/56073.html
-
Moon_Stone
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:51 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Where the Wild Things are
- Contact:
Re: Fluffy Bunny?
... Sure you can- and many do this every day. First, who decides what the “required lengths†are? As an example, who has a complete (or even sufficient) knowledge of the more main stream religions? Are only the priests or monks or what have you those who would be able to use the title of their chosen path? What defines the adequate amount of research?? This goes further-LaFiamma wrote:You just can't lay claim to a specific tradition that you haven't studied to its required lengths
Take a Catholic for example- (okay, or a Christian- in all honesty I'm not sure which one believes what)-- one of (or both of) these religions believe in the "confessional"-- which will provide the drug-selling, murdering gang member a clean slate each week if he "comes clean" in a wooden box and hails Mary. Does simply studying it qualify? Wouldn't you also have to live and breathe what you believe for you to call yourself true to your religion?
Better question- why is this necessary? Why is this amount of time being spent on definitions?
Weren't we just saying that the ones who will not except or consider any more information or suggestion; who feels that all they know is right, the "fluffy bunny" this post is discussing?
~Please just consider what I'm saying before screaming at me in a reply- I know this has completely pissed some of you off, and that is not my intention at all. I am simply just trying to clarify and make my opinion heard as well, for those who may not feel they have any right to.
-
Ravenari
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Walking the Otherworlds
- Contact:
First, who decides what the “required lengths†are? As an example, who has a complete (or even sufficient) knowledge of the more main stream religions? Are only the priests or monks or what have you those who would be able to use the title of their chosen path? What defines the adequate amount of research??
Depends on the religion, but usually I would say the elders. Not ALL elders are trustworthy, but that doesn't mean we should ignore all custodians of lore, wisdom and ritual just because of a few bad examples.
The elders, due to their knowledge, have acquired the right to determing the adequate amount of research, effectively use their titles, and determine what the required lengths were.
Of course, you don't need to respect this, but in the process you devalue the need for elders, wisdom, and guidance in any religion, which essentially invalidates the religion in the first place as nothing more than a personalised egoistic 'path' to 'feeling better about oneself.' This is fine, but it's no longer the religion that it is claiming to masquerade as.
And there's also nothing wrong with being new. Being new does not automatically equate to being a fluffy.
I second this.
Not everyone who is new, naive, learning or making mistakes is a 'fluffy.' Not everyone who says that Ravenwolf is the best author ever, that 9 million died during the burning times, and that its' possible to be a Charmed One like Piper and Prue is a fluffy.
The difference is that fluffies won't grow, because they're happy feeding their ego with lies, misinformation, or what stops them from growing. In other words, they're happy being the antithesis of what it is to actually be a spiritual person.
A newbie will take on board that Wicca isn't like Charmed, they will revise their beliefs about the Burning Times, and they might even come to recognise that Ravenwolf is not the best pagan author out there considering the wealth of information that doesn't need to spread lies in the process... but that Ravenwolf helped them in the beginning and that's the main thing.
As for definitions, they are important. Without recognising the need to have similar beliefs on what certain words mean, we lead into harmful argument simply because no one clarified their understandings / misunderstandings in the first place.
To deny the value and loaded meanings of words, is to not embrace communication in the english language, where every word pretty much can have multiple meanings, and not all of them see eye to eye.
Depends on the religion, but usually I would say the elders. Not ALL elders are trustworthy, but that doesn't mean we should ignore all custodians of lore, wisdom and ritual just because of a few bad examples.
The elders, due to their knowledge, have acquired the right to determing the adequate amount of research, effectively use their titles, and determine what the required lengths were.
Of course, you don't need to respect this, but in the process you devalue the need for elders, wisdom, and guidance in any religion, which essentially invalidates the religion in the first place as nothing more than a personalised egoistic 'path' to 'feeling better about oneself.' This is fine, but it's no longer the religion that it is claiming to masquerade as.
And there's also nothing wrong with being new. Being new does not automatically equate to being a fluffy.
I second this.
Not everyone who is new, naive, learning or making mistakes is a 'fluffy.' Not everyone who says that Ravenwolf is the best author ever, that 9 million died during the burning times, and that its' possible to be a Charmed One like Piper and Prue is a fluffy.
The difference is that fluffies won't grow, because they're happy feeding their ego with lies, misinformation, or what stops them from growing. In other words, they're happy being the antithesis of what it is to actually be a spiritual person.
A newbie will take on board that Wicca isn't like Charmed, they will revise their beliefs about the Burning Times, and they might even come to recognise that Ravenwolf is not the best pagan author out there considering the wealth of information that doesn't need to spread lies in the process... but that Ravenwolf helped them in the beginning and that's the main thing.
As for definitions, they are important. Without recognising the need to have similar beliefs on what certain words mean, we lead into harmful argument simply because no one clarified their understandings / misunderstandings in the first place.
To deny the value and loaded meanings of words, is to not embrace communication in the english language, where every word pretty much can have multiple meanings, and not all of them see eye to eye.
-
Wolf Heart
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:11 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
There are quite a few witches out there who think you must be in a coven to call the Wiccan ways your own, I don't agree with this.
My best friends Aunt is Wiccan, has been almost all her life. Her and her friend had a coven when they lived in Colorado, and now she's a solitary witch.
It does not matter whether you practice together or alone, you are still a witch. I prefer practicing alone because then the work I do feels more connected to my spiritual being. I have done magical workings with my best friend, but I still prefer by myself.
Those are just my thoughts.
~Wolf Heart~
My best friends Aunt is Wiccan, has been almost all her life. Her and her friend had a coven when they lived in Colorado, and now she's a solitary witch.
It does not matter whether you practice together or alone, you are still a witch. I prefer practicing alone because then the work I do feels more connected to my spiritual being. I have done magical workings with my best friend, but I still prefer by myself.
Those are just my thoughts.
~Wolf Heart~
~*People fear the beast within the wolf because they do not understand the beast within themselves.*~
-
Ravenari
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Walking the Otherworlds
- Contact:
It does not matter whether you practice together or alone, you are still a witch.
I don't think this is the issue though. I think the issue is whether you are still a Wiccan of that specific tradition. Wiccans and Witches are not - and never will be - the same thing. And cannot be easily interchanged. You can be a Witch and never believe anything of Wicca, and you can be a Wiccan and never really practice witchcraft. So they don't always go hand in hand.
I don't think this is the issue though. I think the issue is whether you are still a Wiccan of that specific tradition. Wiccans and Witches are not - and never will be - the same thing. And cannot be easily interchanged. You can be a Witch and never believe anything of Wicca, and you can be a Wiccan and never really practice witchcraft. So they don't always go hand in hand.
-
Wolf Heart
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:11 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
True, you do have a point there. I practice some witchcraft (spells and the such) but I follow many of the Wiccan ways. So I suppose I just used myself as the example.Ravenari wrote:It does not matter whether you practice together or alone, you are still a witch.
I don't think this is the issue though. I think the issue is whether you are still a Wiccan of that specific tradition. Wiccans and Witches are not - and never will be - the same thing. And cannot be easily interchanged. You can be a Witch and never believe anything of Wicca, and you can be a Wiccan and never really practice witchcraft. So they don't always go hand in hand.
~*People fear the beast within the wolf because they do not understand the beast within themselves.*~
-
Ravenari
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:32 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Walking the Otherworlds
- Contact:
I do that myself (use myself as an example). 
I think if a particular coven has a set way of doing things, and you don't fit that 'set way', then it's fair for them to say that you are not part of their religion. If that happens to be BTW (a form of Wicca), or Gardnerian Wicca, then so be it.
It doesn't stop you from being able to practice more eclectic forms of Wicca, or Witchcraft that has very Wiccan 'flavours' to it.
I think if a particular coven has a set way of doing things, and you don't fit that 'set way', then it's fair for them to say that you are not part of their religion. If that happens to be BTW (a form of Wicca), or Gardnerian Wicca, then so be it.
It doesn't stop you from being able to practice more eclectic forms of Wicca, or Witchcraft that has very Wiccan 'flavours' to it.
-
HPCrowley
Not being initiated into a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven simply means that you aren't a Gardnerian or Alexandrian. Now, some of the more, um, "uptight" members of these trads equate this to mean that you aren't Wiccan. Some refer to these people as Fluff Bunnies ot IRABs (I Read A Book). Their are elitists in every clic; well educated, dedicated folks who sneer at those who are self-taught as being "armchair " witches. Personally, i love nothing more than to prove these assclowns wrong.