Is Wicca a bunch of crap?

Re: Which only goes to prove the point

I view people acting stupidly, and believing stupid things as the source of all problems.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is it that I see my name bolded in other people's posts, so often on these sciforums. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Either way I suppose I'm a bold individual which others can't help but take notice of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Various

For myself, it's a habit I picked up when referring to various other posts. Sometimes I confused people, so I started boldfacing the name of the person I was talking to. Nowadays I boldface as many names as possible for reasons that are almost inexplicable. Sometimes it's a matter of address, and I always want to let other people know when I'm exploiting them so they can tell me to knock it the f--k off if I'm completely off the mark.

Can't speak for anyone else on the issue.

Well, you see ... this I don't argue with.

But to put it practically:

- For all the times Christianity has contributed to difficulties in society, I can understand some wariness about Christian stupidity. The same with Muslim. Strangely, one must tiptoe when examining Judaism in such a light because of the amount of superstition piled on. There are other religions. I'm not wary of "Satanism" because it's "deadly". I'm wary of Satanism because it's codified selfishness.

- But that's what I don't get about people's wariness of Wicca and paganism: if you ignore it, it will go farther away. I've just never seen Wiccans involved in any practical dispute where they weren't the losers by nature of other people's stupid ideas.

- Trekkies should be considered a more worrisome social presence than Wicca, but I don't hear anybody complaining about the Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con at the Springfield Armory these days.

I mean, everybody does stupid things. Some of these stupid things are more detrimental than others. It just seems like you're going after really small game in light of the grander scheme of human considerations.

I mean, what Wiccan dumped you, stole your cat, or otherwise pissed in your Cheerios? I beg your pardon, but it's not me who's bringing the cold wind of rudeness to this discussion. For that ambience we can thank you and our topic poster.

Is it your habit to ignore larger problems in the world in order to go out of your way to seek a problem with people whose worst annoyance to others in the world is generally stupid bumper stickers?

Throw me a bone here: What is your problem?

Why Wiccans instead of some group or label that, oh, I don't know, is actually socially problematic in a practical, functional, or otherwise not-based-on-your-sense-of-aesthetics manner?

Just curious.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No religion should be considered a religion, but as long as the government will accept religion I am going to found my own so I can live tax free, what a great way to screw the system.

 

Re: Various

Hey now, sisster, I never said that I was leading angry mobs with pitchforks and torches to root out wiccan covens and burn 'em at the steak. This is a thread about Wiccans, so I came in and gave my opinon on wicca, makes a sort of sence, doesn't it?

If you take a look at my posting history, even that reflects the fact that I'm more outspoken about christianity than wicca. Don't get all bent out of shape when I talk smack about wicca in a place spacificaly designaged for just that.

 

Something about shape?

No, but if you're going to have a chip on your shoulder, at least have a decent reason.

If you can't give me at least that ...?

You forget that somebody had to design this place specifically for it, which only leads back to a question that everybody seems to be avoiding: Why do people worry about Wicca?

It makes no particular sense, all things considered:

Neither the "designer" nor the advocate have addressed a simple question: Why ever would you ask her that?

Truth Hurts has not painted a clear picture of the problem s/he has with Wicca, rather only a bitch-point built around what seems to be a rude and intrusive inquiry. Do you agree with the topic designer that "It's not my job to read the same wicca books she reads and point by point list why it is complete crap"?

I do. It's quite accurate. But it also means that I, for instance, have no obligation to respect TH's "opinion" of "Wicca", since learning about what one objects to is apparently not part of the deal. Running frightened on ignorance seems to be the preffered modus operandi.

So if anyone, designer, advocate, or otherwise, wants to come in here with a chip on their shoulder, they could at least have the common and decent respect to try to express the reasons for the attitude problem.

Doesn't seem like a whole lot to ask, now, does it?

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Tiassa, why do you care about wicca?

 

Personally, I'm fine with Wiccans. They're not making it their mission to convert me. They're not trying to get their creation myth taught in schools. Besides, it's refreshing to hear a variety of different mythologies, rather than the same old Jesus crap.

 

Because it was good to me

Very simply, because paganism was good to me. It gave me a working set of symbols by which I was able to transcend the need for religion. Come on ... I've gotta give credit where credit is due; even atheism couldn't do that for me.

And in the meantime, while paganism in general and also Wicca specifically have their share of troubles, I'm amazed at the amount of irrelevant concern people show toward the witches. Most people who have problems with "Wicca" have problems with Wiccans, fewer of them by proxy of numbers than Christianity, and less severe by proxy of paradigm than Christianity or others. It really seems to me like a bunch of people who know nothing about spiritualism in general are merely out looking to pick a fight with something for the sake of their boredom.

And that kind of uselessness is mildly irritating. Our topic poster summed up the problem well when noting that one does not have any obligation to learn about what they protest to.

What can I say to that, but, "Whatever"?

In the meantime, if people can't give a coherent statement of a substantive problem, there's not much I can do to address said problem. In the end, it looks like old-fashioned, petty bigotry spawned from ignorance, and I'd much rather think more kindly of people than that. However, faith in people can only realistically extend so far before one must demand some sense of substance.

And I don't think a substantial issue is too much to ask, do you?

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Because it was good to me

I think we can thank Xianity for that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another thing that strikes me about paganism is a much healthier view of life and nature. It seems like the monotheistic religions authoritatively try to suppress natural things, especially sexuality. Most pagan religions embrace this aspect of our humanity.

There are also many pagan religions, including Wicca, which treat nature as something sacred. I would say that having Wiccans around is much more environmentally friendly than having those who believe they have been divinely ordained to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On love

At the outset, I'm tempted to ignore the obvious: it is difficult to consider how my daughter fits into the equation of what love is. I'm tempted to ignore it because I do not understand it. Perhaps a critical point to explaining the confusion is that, for twenty-nine years of my life, until her arrival, I had no known blood connection in the world. My blood parentage was some theoretical "out there", as I am adopted at birth.

So starting with the immediate consideration--family--it is interesting to say that love has always been an intellectualization of sorts. But my daughter ... right now she transcends expression. Maybe I will, in time, grasp enough of that sensation to put some suggestion of words to it, but I tell you that love does have a tangible manifestation; the combination of brain sensations she set off was thitherto unknown to me.

"My family" has always included my closest and most trusted friends; I have as many behavioral conventions with them as I do my parents and brother. In a certain sense, my friends know me better than my family does, though this theory is being challenged of late; my daughter was like a tactical nuclear strike in my family. Everybody has come out to play, so to speak.

In the beginning, my early intellectualizations of love held that it was a symptomatic manifestation of fear, that we love a person because they know us or can know us better than anyone else, thus making us the least lonely--love sprung from a fear of being alone. But this notion relies terribly on a hideously romantic idyll, it seems.

It is also from these early philosophical considerations that I came to realize the inherent problem introduced by recognition of a condition; once one is conscious of a condition, that condition affects judgment insofar as it remains relevant. To this day, I hedge over feeling and expressing love under certain circumstances--is this love real or is it a fear of being alone?

Certainly, my partner knows me well, and certainly she knows me uniquely in that nobody else knows me like she does. But it bothers her that she thinks other people still know me better (I can think of two where she might be right), but they're essentialists (not formal): they don't react directly to the me that they see, but the me that they know in relation to the person that they see. It's merely a matter of form, and my partner doesn't get that. And she's excruciatingly annoying because of that, but I love her nonetheless. Unfortunately, what love entails is perceived differently by the both of us. Love does not have anything to do with the picket-fence of post-Victorian deceptions I am occasionally obliged to maintain; it is merely a bargain with the devil for convenience presently in the best interests of my daughter. So there's that abstract and poetic love, again, that makes us do crazy things. Go figure.

Love seems to involve a state of deep and abiding trust, but this is only rhetorical in the culture I'm most accustomed to. In the end, love seems to be, in the practical, tolerance of deception. Who else, but your family, will put up with you?

But love is a notoriously vague word. How does one love a nation? That's a dangerous delving, as I'm a fan of Goldman's perspective on patriotism, but there are abstract things that people love.

Do you spend any time around sailors, specifically around the kind of people who live on forty-foot sailboats and pretty much live to be on the water? I cannot explain the love that a man can have for his boat, and I haven't been around enough women on the water to get a similar sense, but it's curious and creepy; there's a reason men refer to their boats as mistresses. But I can't explain it.

Is there a genuine love of money, or is it such that greed seeks ennoblement through the idea?

But all of this only points to what love is not.

As to what love is? I would be lying if I said I knew.

Anthropological/scientific: Love is a refined and specific compassion that may be attributed in some way to kin selection; hope in general seems to be the psychological manifestation of the evolutionary drive; hope focused becomes compassion - to hope for another; compassion focused is love.

Anthro-poetic: Love is the specific manifestation of the compassion and common-sense that draws individuals together to form societies. We are, as a species, stronger in numbers, and our numbers are stronger in harmony. Love becomes the binding agent in this formula. It is the grout between the tiles, the mortar between the bricks, the glue between the myriad veneers.

Poetic-literary: Love is at once the most rewarding and most destructive force in the known Universe. It is the essence and motivation of all human action.

Christian: Love is a commodity exchanged for salvation.

Communist: Love is generally an abstraction that gets in the way.

Love, however, is a bit like God in the Western interpretation in the sense that it is believed-but-not-known. Love is not to be defined or otherwise named; not all love has been discovered.

It is impossible to render the essence of love into simple language. Musical language does a better job, mathematical language worse. Human vocal language, though, is a flexible compromise, but not one which has yet achieved the means to define love.

But it does involve trust, hope, and a number of other shiny ideas that people generally loathe.

Sorry, Truth Hurts, it's just that I'm running short on patience today. The answer might be the same on other days, but it would be a little more subtly put. Defining love is a little like seeking true objectivity; one should not undertake such a venture without preparing to sacrifice much.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't care whether a religious group worships Krishna, Jesus, Isis, the purple potato god-king, Super Mario, or your next door neighbor's mom's pussy. As long as they don't come knocking on my door, send spam mail/phone calls, or come demanding donations, I will live and let live.

IF they cross my path, however (for a weird reason, Christians and Muslims tend to have a bad habit of doing this. Hindus and pagans really don't. I'm wondering if this could be an indicator of which is superior), that's when I get pissed and label that religion 'idiocy soup'.

Pagans seem to be a very quiet, sensible bunch, considering the fact that they don't randomly come out during Iraqi war campaigns and try to convert the fucking populace when they're down. They don't seem to breed idiots like GWB. So hey, it's NOT a bunch of crap.

Any missionary-oriented religion that forcibly intrudes into people's lives and personal beliefs is a bunch of crap and a threat to human integrity and must be exterminated as soon as resources become available for the task.

That is my answer to this topic.

 

America's ban on assault weapons lifts in 2004.

 

It's just sickening.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Pagans seem to be a very quiet, sensible bunch, considering the fact that they don't randomly come out during Iraqi war campaigns " - Zero

paganism isnt a religion, a pagan is sumone who is neither a christian, a mohammedan, nor a jew.
so saying that pagans arent violent is wrong, people who practice religious cannibalism are pagans and are loud and senseless. on the otherhand many Druids and wiccans are basically hippies, but they call it a religion, and smoke incense instead of pot and wouldnt hurt anyone. Wicca seems to make more sense then other many religions, although i dont really think the spirits would care if it was a green candle or a red one.