daily wiccan book of shadows excerpts

[falcon9]

I missed your latest installment...

Today's tidbit was posted after midnight and posits; "not all wiccans are witches and not all witches are wiccan".  Duroz hasn't been on yet, as far as I can tell.

...are you going to put the entry under a new post or under this one? 

I'll just keep posting nightly topical stuff under this thread, until significant subject-drift occurs, (which may engender a new thread topic).
 

There are like ten christian posts since you put this up so I am surprised that they haven't commented on this blog yet? 

Yes, they seem to enjoy flooding various forums, (not just the off topic and d+d forums), with xtian proselytizations.  This thread was started by a non-wiccan and therefore, isn't proselytizing the wiccan religion(s).

Duroz seemed to have a good source to go to but I don't have time to go to sites that don't pay me!  LOL!  One of my point-to-click sites pays me to google things but not to actually enjoy what it is that I pull up.  Another pays me to make inquiries through their search engine...yet another that doesn't pay me to learn!

Sometimes learning pays off in non-monetary ways.

[falcon9]

"There are various denominations within Wicca, which are referred to as traditions. Some, such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca, follow in the initiatory lineage of Gardner. Others, such as Cochrane's Craft, Feri and the Dianic tradition, take primary influence from other figures and may not insist on any initiatory lineage.
 
The application of the word Wicca has given rise to "a great deal of disagreement and infighting". Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca are often collectively termed British Traditional Wicca, and many of their practitioners consider the term Wicca to apply only to these lineaged traditions. Others do not use the word "Wicca" at all, instead preferring to be referred to only as "Witchcraft," while others believe that all modern witchcraft traditions can be considered "Wiccan."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

[Cuppycake]

"There are various denominations within Wicca, which are referred to as traditions. Some, such as Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca, follow in the initiatory lineage of Gardner. Others, such as Cochrane's Craft, Feri and the Dianic tradition, take primary influence from other figures and may not insist on any initiatory lineage.
 
The application of the word Wicca has given rise to "a great deal of disagreement and infighting". Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca are often collectively termed British Traditional Wicca, and many of their practitioners consider the term Wicca to apply only to these lineaged traditions. Others do not use the word "Wicca" at all, instead preferring to be referred to only as "Witchcraft," while others believe that all modern witchcraft traditions can be considered "Wiccan."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

I guess I am a "natural witch" then. I don't follow any traditions or practice any wiccan rituals. It just makes a whole lot more sense to give thanks to nature then an imaginary friend.

[falcon9]

I guess I am a "natural witch" then. I don't follow any traditions or practice any wiccan rituals. It just makes a whole lot more sense to give thanks to nature then an imaginary friend.

As is said, "not all wiccans are witches and not all witches are wiccan".  Some would be 'untrained'/'uninitiated'/'self-trained', ("initiated"), if non-traditional.  Surprisingly, (or, maybe not); most wiccans don't follow lineaged traditions and are content to 'wing it'.

[falcon9]

"One can be a Witch, without being a Wiccan, just as a person can be a xtian, without being a Baptist.  Wicca is a recognized religion, while
'witchcraft' itself is not considered a religion.  Thus, Wicca might best be described as a modern religion, based on ancient Witchcraft traditions."

[mstevenson2]

i had never heard of this book interesting

[JediJohnnie]

So does this mean Falcon can finally leave Bible threads alone?Or are we supposed to harass people in this thread by repeatedly posting a picture of Charles Laughton getting smacked in the face with "the book of shadows"?

[gamerpeeps]

So nice to see a "different" thread! Tired of "coffee or tea", "favorite dog/cat", etc. type threads; one of the reasons I've been gone for a while. I have a friend who is Wiccan and know some of her coven. It is surprising and disappointing not to see any posts from Wiccans. I'll be staying tuned to this topic :-)

[falcon9]

So does this mean Falcon can finally leave Bible threads alone?Or are we supposed to harass people in this thread ...

Only if you're dumber than a bucket of wet sand, if not then no.

[falcon9]

So nice to see a "different" thread! Tired of "coffee or tea", "favorite dog/cat", etc. type threads; one of the reasons I've been gone for a while. I have a friend who is Wiccan and know some of her coven. It is surprising and disappointing not to see any posts from Wiccans. I'll be staying tuned to this topic :-)

Wiccans, (individual or, covened), do seem to be fewer than other religious memberships but, they are around.  We ran into two just by renting a house from them, (it wasn't advertised as 'wiccan house for rent' but, that would've clinched the deal for us!).

[duroz]

So does this mean Falcon can finally leave Bible threads alone?Or are we supposed to harass people in this thread by repeatedly posting a picture of Charles Laughton getting smacked in the face with "the book of shadows"?

Well let's see you come up with that picture!! Go for it!

[jcribb16]

So does this mean Falcon can finally leave Bible threads alone?Or are we supposed to harass people in this thread by repeatedly posting a picture of Charles Laughton getting smacked in the face with "the book of shadows"?

Both great questions.  The golden rule could be looked at at least 2 different ways (one where you treat others kindly in return for kindness; or the "newer version" where others treat you the opposite of kindness, yet you don't dare treat them the opposite of kindness.)  I can guarantee you the Bible threads will not be left alone - that would be way too difficult and way too boring for some.

[falcon9]

The golden rule could be looked at at least 2 different ways (one where you treat others kindly in return for kindness; or the "newer version" where others treat you the opposite of kindness, yet you don't dare treat them the opposite of kindness.)

That's too narrow of a 'view'.  The "golden rule" suggests that someone be treated as they treat others.  As it applies to initial proselytizing by xtians, (variously in verses threads and scattered randomly throughout the forums as religious declarations), the "rule" would mean that the presumptuous rudeness of such proselytizations can be met with opposition, (such reactions may be perceived as "rude" in turn by the initiators of "rude" religious posts but, is a fair application of the "golden rule").  

I can guarantee you the Bible threads will not be left alone - that would be way too difficult and way too boring for some.

There's no presumptive free pass for unopposed proselytiation and to expect such a thing is unreasonably-blind.

"Sit too close to the fire, night-blindness occurs.  Look away from the light and the eyes become accustomed to the formerly unseen."
-- anon wiccan

[jcribb16]

The golden rule could be looked at at least 2 different ways (one where you treat others kindly in return for kindness; or the "newer version" where others treat you the opposite of kindness, yet you don't dare treat them the opposite of kindness.)

That's too narrow of a 'view'.  The "golden rule" suggests that someone be treated as they treat others.  As it applies to initial proselytizing by xtians, (variously in verses threads and scattered randomly throughout the forums as religious declarations), the "rule" would mean that the presumptuous rudeness of such proselytizations can be met with opposition, (such reactions may be perceived as "rude" in turn by the initiators of "rude" religious posts but, is a fair application of the "golden rule").  

I can guarantee you the Bible threads will not be left alone - that would be way too difficult and way too boring for some.

There's no presumptive free pass for unopposed proselytiation and to expect such a thing is unreasonably-blind.

"Sit too close to the fire, night-blindness occurs.  Look away from the light and the eyes become accustomed to the formerly unseen."
-- anon wiccan

Sorry to disagree with you, but the initial posts being made of well within people's freedom of opinions, speeches, and expression.  You can disagree with their beliefs, but you are wrong in messing with them most every single time any one thing is said.  You are trying to block their freedom as if you are ruling that they are not allowed to say anything about God, or you will plague, pester, agitate, provoke, needle, and hound them, instead of understanding that their personal views are as important as yours are.  Free choice and free will.  You don't have to agree, but you don't have to torment them "mentally" with the words, quotes, and pics you use.  If they mess with you, dare you, and tell you that you MUST be saved, in a hostile or mean way, then yes, by all means, what you are doing is what they probably deserve.  Other than that, they aren't speaking to only "YOU" - rather to those who would be interested, and so there's no sense in you going in deliberately just to provoke them. (Note:  I'm not necessary speaking of the debate threads, although you do make it a habit of doing what you do; I am mainly speaking of off-topic inspirational or Bible verse threads who are interesting and inspiring for those who do enjoy them.)

[JediJohnnie]

So is Fal-con now engaging in the very "proselytiation" that he claims offends him,by creating this thread?