Wicca stuff

A couple of people mentioned Wicca in another thread, and Tiassa said there's not much about it here. So here: a thread.

What little I know of this Wicca business:

- Many "believers" I have encountered have said things such as "It's based on the Old Ways (tm)", or "It's based on the ancient religion of Europe prior to christianity". Now, there was no single unified religion across Europe way back when. Religious beliefs on one side of a mountain may have been completely different to those on the other side of the mountain.

- Many Wiccans I have encountered refer to these non-existant Old Ways as being happy and peaceful and all, sunshine and friggin rainbows. But there is evidence to suggest many cultures throughout ancient Europe practiced big nasty bloody sacrifices, and not only of other animals but sometimes of humans.

- Many who use the term "druid" in their belief descriptions claim "We do not go about telling people about our ways." This is in direct opposition to what the few written records of the ways of druids say they were like. Druids actively taught their beliefs to the people of their communities. (I may quote some translations of Caesar and Tacitus and all later.)

- Many believers have this idea that it was a "Celtic" religion. There was no single unified culture called "Celts" in Europe, ever. It was an old Greek term (celtoi, or keltoi) used to refer to all the many different races and tribes from the north which the Greeks traded with in the days of the Athenian Empire. Being all different peoples, they had different laws, customs, beliefs, et cetera.

- Many claim it is a "pagan" religion. It's not. To be a pagan religion, it must have been practiced in the countryside of the Roman Empire (this based on the actual meaning of the word "pagan"). I've never heard of anyone proving that Wicca came from a specific religion from way back when which was practiced in Roman territory.

- It seems, from my outsider's perspective, that this entirely modern creation is basically a belief system involving respect for nature. That I can dig. Any religion that promotes the idea "do no harm", and respects the natural universe around us, is kinda groovy. On the other hand, it seems very odd if people would be attracted to this whole Wicca thing simply because they like nature. I'm an atheist and I like nature. Why bring religion into it?

Well, that's about it for now. I'm about to hit the sack. I just thought Wicca deserved as critical a bashing as christianity gets here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not a Wiccan

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can not bash me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adam

Untill your last line i was going to thank you because i want to learn about this stuff. If this is just going to be bagging then i will leave this one alone to

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The story so far ....

Adam

I am, in fact, recalling from other people's libraries the books I've lent out on the subject in hopes of putting together a topic on Wicca. But, for the time being, the short responses which I hope to expand on in the future:

• Now, there was no single unified religion across Europe way back when.

You are absolutely correct that there was no single unified religion across Europe, though if you trace the history of the Ogham alphabet, you'll find some relationship between deities. The "El" of the Bible is in some way related to the "Bel" of Europe and northern Africa prior to Christianity, and "Bel" has ties to "Ba'al" of biblical notoriety. Jean Markale's The Celts, in documenting the movement of the Celts after the Hallstatt period, maps Celtic migration and influence starting approximately in Germany and extending to Britanny (Picts, Brtons, Gaels), Portugal/Spain (Celtiberians), and also down to Greece, Rome, and eventually east of the Aegean and Black Seas. (1) While there was no single unified religion, there are indeed common ties. It is from these traditions that certain of the "old ways" are derived. Much of this pertains to imagery, superstition, and folklore, but some of it pertains to actual knowledge, as well. Some of the herbal remedies of neo-Paganism are derived from pre-Christian Europe. What of the "old ways" have been selected are, in fact, colored much by the presence of Christianity, especially in consideration of your next point:

• But there is evidence to suggest many cultures throughout ancient Europe practiced big nasty bloody sacrifices, and not only of other animals but sometimes of humans

Nobody pretends that the Celts weren't exceptional warriors. Markale traces the wanderings of the Cimbri and Teutons, suggesting that they are Germanic peoples originally, who spent a good deal of time fighting and wandering and seeking a place to settle. Markale does not, in my opinion, romanticize this period. Barry Fell, in tracing certain Ogham inscriptions on the North American continent, notes that the Celts raised 220 ships to fight against Rome in 55 BCE, going so far as to note that Caesar's De Bello Gallico, Book III, is "devoted to the greatest naval battle he was ever called upon to mount." (2)

In terms of the "sunshine and friggin' rainbows", I merely assert that it is a far better thing to preserve the celebratory harmony of past cultures than the combative savagery. To draw a parallel, I suppose modern Wiccans could were they so inclined, continue to fight and seek supremacy, such as we see in Christianity. Yeah, the Catholics were tough warriors, as the Crusades show, and savagely vengeful, as the Inquisitions show. But your average Catholic must cringe to hear the mistaken justifications for violence past coming from the mouths of his/her Protestant brethren.

And in that, we might note that modern neo-paganism is largely maternal in its attributions. Unlike the warring "fathers", the mother is supposed to be a more nurturing influence, less destructive.

• Many who use the term "druid" in their belief descriptions claim "We do not go about telling people about our ways." This is in direct opposition to what the few written records of the ways of druids say they were like. Druids actively taught their beliefs to the people of their communities.

Personally, and this is just personally, I've found the druidic pagans to be mostly cock-and-bull. It has something to do with the Dungeons & Dragons influence. Most druidic pagans I've met fall under two classifications: (A) vaguely-constructed, historically-curious, decent fellows, and (B) former (and present) D&D fans who think they look really good in a heavy, cowled robe. In fact, I recall my first exposure to druid-fantasy was through a series of novels by Lloyd Arthur Esbach. While I've found what history of druidic cultures I know of to be considerably different from such fantasy images, I personally have found such fantastic imaginings to be the center of neo-druidism.

But of the idea that We do not go about telling people about our ways refers to the fact that the revivalists are non-evangelical. That is, we're not supposed to be handing out tracts, not supposed to be telling you that you must believe this, and, most important of all, we are not supposed to be making the religion into a political platform.

• There was no single unified culture called "Celts" in Europe, ever. It was an old Greek term (celtoi, or keltoi) used to refer to all the many different races and tribes from the north which the Greeks traded with in the days of the Athenian Empire.

There was no single unified culture called "Catholic" either. In the opening pages of The Celts, Markale notes,

The dependence on the "Celtic" identity seems largely to be a commercial thing, and any well-versed Wiccan has a broad selection of folklore that reached beyond the post-Gaelic and post-British. In fact, to view the summaries of several diffeent crafts, you'll see that the more modern they are, the more reactionary and specific the forms are (e.g. Minoan). Most common, though, are the Gardnerian and Faerie traditions, to which most prospective witches are introduced. However, even the notion of Gardnerian witchcraft being purist is erroneous. There are certain motifs which exist long after the cultures that give them rise; there are customs and threads of heritage which persist.

Wicca, in this sense, is almost as broad a term as Christian. Wicca represents a multitude of traditions, rites, and canons all linked by a certain devotion to cultural expressions arising in the regions most famous for their Celtic heritage.

One must consider also that the Craft is, in its strongest sense, a psychological religion. Unlike a rigid Protestant Christianity, one does not work with definite images. My own goddess goes nameless until such time as I need a name, and usually I pull a Triune from across traditional lines. She is, in all her aspects, Mother, though the Maiden/Mother/Crone arrangement is never far from mind.

A very singular aspect of Wicca, though, is that no amount of symbols can atone for a deficiency of character. In the presence of waer-loga, regardless of how baubled and decorated, without a second glance at the car-salesman smile, Wiccans generally move away from their shadowed sisters and brothers. The unity that connects Wiccans is more subtle than the visual; typically we would call it spiritual, but the best way to explain this is to watch what happens when rhythm infects a collection of witches. Yeah ... sunshine and friggin' rainbows.

Among our kind, the feeding of the masses isn't a miracle, but an expectation. Toward that point, I will confess that sometimes it seems quite internalized and even segregated. In the Seattle area, pagan journals have begun noting the lack of civic presence among witches, attributing to both self-centeredness and also the fact that, being non-evangelical, when a person who does good happens to be Wiccan, it isn't quite as important to us to note that we did this for the glory of the goddess. Nonetheless, when given the opportunity to come together and celebrate, the common aspect is, indeed, sunshine and friggin' rainbows. And it's a far sight better than wrath and dominion, just for juxtaposition.

• I've never heard of anyone proving that Wicca came from a specific religion from way back when which was practiced in Roman territory.

Well, if you want to split that hair ... have you ever heard of Hadrian's Wall? Again, we seek a "specific religion" that, admittedly, is not. But the type of ideological consolidation that took place under the Roman Christians and the Holy Roman Empire in its decline was unprecedented in the Western World. Before Christianity, there was not a religion quite like it anywhere in the world. And, with luck, there never will be again. But the exacting consolidation demanded by the presence of a specific religion in the sense that we consider Christianity to be a specific religion despite its sectarian, regional, and individual variations is less common than the contemporary western experience suggests.

Take, for instance, revivalist North American shamanism. From tribe to tribe, from generation to generation, the ideas changed and progressed. There is no single indigenous-American religion, but I will not deny that there exists a certain rising neo-discipline that will stand very well on its own as experience fuels its functional breadth.

Buddhism? The non-religion? From monastery to monastery the practices change. Sufism? I dare anyone to summarize Sufism as a "specific religion". It cannot be compressed as such, and its variations seem at once responsive to condition and arbitrary.

But insofar as Wicca coming from Roman territories or not ... well, the Romans did eventually reach Britanny.

• It seems, from my outsider's perspective, that this entirely modern creation is basically a belief system involving respect for nature. That I can dig. Any religion that promotes the idea "do no harm", and respects the natural universe around us, is kinda groovy. On the other hand, it seems very odd if people would be attracted to this whole Wicca thing simply because they like nature. I'm an atheist and I like nature. Why bring religion into it?

It's a way of quantifying life values into symbols more easily understood and processed. It's like any formula describing a process. Certainly, we could undertake certain moral questions every time a new issue arises, but as all people compress this process and operate from standards, a common identity of Wicca is leading toward a more cohesive organizational foundation among its believers. Of course, in me you have a magicker who doesn't use magick in the traditional ways. I'm much more appreciative of what such ideas as Wicca get people in terms of communities. There are some individualistic aspects to work out, but such is the nature of individuals.

I'm quite sure that atheists can reach the point at which they feel an inner kinship to the rest of the Universe, but in rejecting abstractions on the grounds that they qualify as religious symbols, well, such a sense of kinship may well run counter to the atheistic tendency. After all, we're all made of stardust, but the stars don't objectively speak the same language as the atheist, so what's the point?

I can't well say that anyone initiated into Wicca will ever find what they were originally looking for. Wicca brings about its own change of consciousness, and new priorities take the place of the old. Many Wiccans even look back on those old aspirations and find them immature and ridiculous. Of course, hey, a paradigm-rejection party is a great reason to get some Wiccans together, drink heavily, and dance around a bonfire with a drums echoing across the night sky.

• I just thought Wicca deserved as critical a bashing as christianity gets here

Yes, you would, wouldn't you?

Hopefully, the volumes I've recalled to my library will start showing up over the next couple of days as I see people around town. Perhaps then we can get down to the idea of what Wicca is as compared to what one finds worth bashing about it. The current bashing sounds almost like it came from a moderate Christian website anti-Wiccan FAQ. Oh, well. Days to come, days to come.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Notes:

(1) Markale, Jean. The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture. G. Hauch, trans. Rochester: ITI, 1993.

(2) Fell, Barry. America, B.C.: Ancient Settlers in the New World. New York: Pocket, 1989.

 

Good grief Charlie Brown...

I don't recall hearing of a "Bel" in Scandinavian mythologies. Not in Castillean. Nor many others. In fact, I recall a a mention only in the myths of the christian bible and the Middle East, and a mention in Saxon mythologies.

I would like to point out that this Markale chap also wrote a conspiracy theory called The Secret History Of France, and another book about Atlantis. The guy is a crystal-swinging crackpot with ideas that "Celts" were a single people.

There was no Celtic migration. The word "celtoi" or "keltoi" is Greek, it means "all those northern peoples we trade with". As in all the various races and tribes of Europe north of the Mediterraneans and west of the Slavs.

Good grief.
One: The Celts were exceptional warriors? Which celts?
Two: The Teutons were a distinctly Germanic people. Germanic groups were one of the many groups that made up the celts, ie almost all Europeans. It should also be noted that Tacitus says the Germans never referred to themselves as Germans until around the time he went wandering up there, and they only started using the word at all because everyone else was using it to describe them.

I have Caesar's The Gallic Wars here somewhere, I'll check that bit out. Yet I don't see the point of mentioning it. The Romans took on the Greek word for all those northerners.

What celebratory harmony? Half of pre-Christian Europe used to sacrifice animals by the herd and sometimes people too. Again, ceremonial/religious rites are covered quite well by Tacitus, and Caesar has a go at it too.

You are mixing a term mistakenly applied to a race/culture and a term applied to a cross-national/cultural religion.

Piffle. Most I have encountered in life and most websites I have seen are based on romanticised modern notions that have bugger all to do with history.

Such as?

Old English: Waer = covenant; Leogan = to lie, deny.

I am curious. Which goddess? From which supposed ancient religion is this goddess drawn?

At the point of mentioning Hadrian's Wall, you seem to be getting lost in history. First you quote Markale's Hallstatt peiod "celtic" culture, which supposedly died down, then you mention Christian Rome, which was all much later.

And that has what to do with the origins of this modern Wicca religion? I thought it came from old Europe, from what you were saying.

Absolutely. I like the idea of fair play. Christianity gets hammered here every day. It's only fair that people hear the same about other religions/beliefs.

You take that back or I'll tell my big brother on you! I hate those bloody things.

If you can, you might want to take a look at The Pagan Religions Of The Ancient British Isles: Their Nature And Legacy, by Ronald Hutton; T. J. Press Limited, 1991. Or pretty much anything by Hutton. He's one of the best I've ever read for such thigns as religion and culture in pre-Christian Europe, particularly Britain. I'm doing a rather massive essay on the history of alchemy, very slowly, and I tend to quote his research quite a bit.

 

It's an intersting position, Adam

Yes, Adam, 'tis true: anything you can find a problem with, you will. Anyone who looks will.

I'm sorry I can't quote a single source that will put it into a single sentence, but sometimes you do need to see the larger history at play. I highly recomment Fell's America B.C., except that it's about the American continents and I can't see any reason why you'd want to read it, in that case, except for the fact that we have precolumbian inscriptions on the North American continent that, by style at least, and, in some cases, by firm dating methods, from North Africa, Cadiz, and Ireland, with alphabetic correspondences to Irish texts dated to the 6th century era vulgaris (CE).

I think by and large, you're looking for something too definitive, too cohesive. The "old ways" from which Wicca draws are usually whispers of folklore surviving from here and there within the European, and especially within the Gaelic, Pict, and Anglo-Saxon experiences.

It's nice, I know, to classify all religions as being as definitive as the Abramic tradition attempts to be, but such is not the case. Whereas Ogham shows its face on the west side of the Atlantic as early as 500 EV, (Fell, viii), Scandanavian influence in Ireland, for instance, is shown documented in the 9th and 10th centuries EV (de Paor, in Moody & Martin). Being that the Scandanavians were influential conquerers, we might note that (A) the ancient traditions would be watered down by conquest, and (B) influence as per Bel would not necessarily have gone northward to Scandanavia until such contact occurred.

And it's fair to note that you're a skeptical nut without an ounce of soul. But that's beside the point. Take Jeffrey Burton Russell, best known for a series of books exploring the theology of the Devil. Dr Russell would rather be known for his writings debunking 19th-century anti-Christians and studying the meaning and history of heaven in Christianity than he would for the books about the Devil. The fact is that the works concerning the anti-Christians and heaven notwithstanding, he did bang-up research and wrote several impassioned volumes regarding the Devil which have come to represent academic standards in the fields of theology and its subordinate diabology. Have you ever been fascinated with any natural phenomenon? Bermuda Triangle (debunked by statistics), Atlantis (debunked by common notion), ghosts, Ufos, vampires, or any such strangeness? I hope not, because then you're including yourself with the crystal-swinging crackpots.

Really, I'm sure if this topic were any more important to you than the chance to bash on people, you could come up with something better, eh, mate? Crystal-swinging crackpot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Crap, man, do you really expect the whole of the human experience to be as perfect as you envision yourself?

Markale accounts for that. What he is referring to in his maps is the travels of the peoples who would, eventually, come to be known collectively as the Celts. Hell, "America" is named after a mapmaker. What, do you expect "Americans" to be uniform? Markale starts in Germany and works with a running story. I mean, hell, we might as well start referring to Aussies as Brits, judging by the demands you're making.

How about this: are you familiar with the term Indians as refers to the indigenous tribal cultures existing on the North American continent as experienced by post-Columbian European settlers in what would become the United States? There was no cohesive "Indian" culture. There was no cohesive "Indian" religion. Certes, there were empires in Central and South America, but neither did those empires speak for the whole of the people nor create among them a uniform ideal. Of course, you probably wouldn't be interested in taking that comparison into the history since it's largely crystal-swinging crackpots researching that history. What, are you pushing for cultural purity?

Of course you wouldn't see the point. It's merely a testament to the fact that nobody believes the Celtic tradition to be peaceful and bloodless; as Caesar mentioned, they raised one hell of a navy.

What celebratory harmony? The part that survives today. What, you're the one complaining about sunshine and frigging rainbows, man. Get it straight! Think about it this way ... oh, don't bother. What, did the warriors come home and celbrate their victory by killing their wives and neighbors?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We might point to Catholocism and say, "What compassion in Christ?" Yet anyone who looks can see a filtering of the ideal, a reduction of the savagery, and evolution within society. Sure, the churches are, for the most part, well behind the times, but they're hardly static as your criticisms imply. Catholocism agian: the ceremonial/religious rites are covered by Kramer and Sprenger, but that hardly represents what survives of the tradition today.

And you're mistakenly looking for a specific nationality among a cross-cultural phenomenon.

Ooh, that's definitive.

Why don't we put it this way: What would you ask of Wicca in order to establish its legitimacy as a human tradition? I'm sure that, since you're so fluent in your criticisms, you have a standard upon which you base those criticisms. Perhaps your questions and complaints can be better addressed if you explain that standard.

In the meantime, please bear in mind that I've noted before that Sciforums' religious forum is microcosmic. It has long been easy to stand beside the atheists in many issues because, if we look to, say, Cris, about the only thing that really separates us is a matter of terminology. I must admit that, while our Christian posters are smiling quietly to themselves, I'm quite surprised by this proactive atheism that seeks people to bash. Nonetheless, your experience with Wiccans is relevant.

I would say that you've fallen victim to one of the difficulties that plagues the Craft. It's the reason I'm not wholly Wiccan, and generally refer to myself by a number of transitory terms, magicker being one of them and Artist (capitalized, extrapolated from Clive Barker, in fact) being another.

It is sometimes helpful here to pose the question, Why are you an atheist? This does not speak to the most obvious answers, but chases after the motivations beneath the arguments of objectivity. What does that objectivity gain you that you don't find elsewhere? As the crystal-swinging crackpot, Markale, puts it, It would be interesting, for example, to study the prsent day myth of the car. Now, perhaps this sounds absolutely bonkers to you, but living in an area where transportation is among the issues du jour, and where transportation is necessary because people want to live between 30 and 60 miles away from the place of their daily labor, I find the myth of the car to be very relevant. If such connection between the abstract myth of a thing and its real essence are unimportant to you, I can both congratulate and feel sorry for you. Congratulations on removing abstractions from your life, and my condolences for your loss of a vital portion of the human experience.

 

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Now, to discussion.

As stated waaaaaay back in the thread, I thought it only fair that Wicca cop the same treatment of skepticism, criticism, and analysis that christianity ahs been subjected to. You, too, have dished out the criticisms of christianity. Can't you take a little of the same about your own religion? As I've said many times in many threads, I like fair play.

The problem there is that in Wicca, there is no larger history at play. It has ties to the past only on misused names.

I would love to know how you came to these conclusions. Perhaps just a knee-jerk reaction due to the nature of my thread? As I've said before, you basically know absolutely zero on the subject of Adam. My beliefs, motives, and so on, are pure speculation on your part.

Yes, I have been interesting in such things. I am also interested in wicca, and in its history and such. Like all those other things, I like to investigate the origins and meaning. Hence this thread.

And this has what exactly to do with the background of wicca as I have discussed? I made the poin myself that there was no peace love and mungbeans in Keltoi Europe, but that modern wicca chappies all seem to be about crystals and happy thoughts. Your mention of the martial capabilities of various European races and cultures back them seems only to support my idea, yet you present it as an opposing fact.

What exaclty about these celebrations today has anything to do with the Europeans of, say, two and a half thousand years ago? I'm not saying there is nothing, but I am curious to know what there is in common.

No. I recall a thread not too long ago in which I spoke at some length about the changing nature of christian scripture. However, wheras christian scripture changes over time, this modern wicca seems wholly newborn, with no such background in distant history.

Quite the opposite, actually. I tried to point out a lack of any specific nationality, and a lack of such cross-cultural beliefs. To say the past religious beliefs wicca is based on was some cross-cultural phenomenon is incorrect. There was no such cross-cultural phenomenon for it to be based on.

I accept that it is a modern human tradition. I never said otherwise. I called into question only the modern fictions it seems to be based upon.

Absolutely. When considering religions, formalised philosophies, and so on, I like to consider their logical worth, their practical worth, and the veracity of the claimed origins. If a belief seems to me lacking in all three departments, it is then of very little value to me. I believe I have applied this standard to every discussion of religions in which I have taken part here.

Like I said, I'm fair. Not only that, I realise some of my own beliefs are entirely without basis in quantifiable fact. And I apply the same critical eye to my own beliefs constantly. To do otherwise would be to have a closed mind.

That being?

As for cars and their significance, I had a remarkable moment of insight about them when I was 18 and very drunk. Ever since, I have disliked driving unless doing it specifically for fun, such as dashing to and from the bottleshop.

You provided an incorrect origin of the word. I was just trying to help. I'm a very nice, helpful person.

It's not the name of this wiccan goddess idea that I'm curious about. It's the entire concept of a goddess. Where and when does it come from? Which monotheistic, panthesitic, polytheistic, or nature-spirit based religion of ancient Europe had a supreme goddess from which this idea is taken?

A nice idea, one I quite like in terms of religions. Much like the christian "God is too damn big and powerful for we mere mortals to understand." It makes sense. If you're going to say there's some big powerful spirit at the top of the heap, it's very presumptuous to define it.

As for Hadrian's Wall and "celtic culture" coming and going in a day... By the time of the Wall, I don't believe there were any groups still referred to as celts. Not sure about that, but I don't recall any writings from the time using the word too much.

First you say from ancient Europe. Then you narrow it down to Brittany, excluding the rest of Europe. The Romans also had outposts in India. And in many other places. And within those territories, in the Christian era, the non-Christian religions were known as pagan religions. And there were many different ones, among many different cultures. Where precisely did wicca come from in all this? We have wicca today as B. Which particular place/culture/belief in the ancient world is A?

You don't believe christianity gets hammered every day at sciforums? Do you really want me to prove it?

And I agree. There you go, you know one of my beliefs.

Well, I have explained my standards for this sort of thing above. Christians do not often yell at me about the downside of not being part of their religion either, but I have criticised the religion here. So, to be fair, and since wicca was mentioned, I decided to offer the same for wicca. If you feel the need, please have a bash at the big flaws in atheism, in a lack of religious belief.

Alchemy is chemistry. The BS stuff is romanticised nonsense and renaissance charalatans. Apart from the charalatans and the fictions, alchemists were simply early chemists and philsophers; learned men, you might say. If you wish, I will send you a copy of the essay I am writing on the history of alchemy when it is complete.

Non-urban areas of England south of Hadrian's Wall were pagus. Thus it is quite acceptable for Hutton to refer to those areas as Pagan England.

I read about two pages of The Spiral Dance about a year ago. It wasn't very good at all. Of course this could simply be a matter of taste.

Buddhism is actually one of my favourite philosophies. Some quite nifty ideas in there.

Nor can I rule out any such spiritual matters, and I never have. I am not discussing spiritual matter here though. I am discussing purely material, mundane matters, the origins of this modern religion. Perhaps you could post some material about Gardener and others? I am curious why you decided to get into wicca when you show a lack of desire to define the spiritual in terms of formal belief systems.

Every idea deserves criticism. Truth is found by criticising, by asking questions, by whittling away the flotsam to find what is really there.

 

Adam

I think this is a good thread but you put people on the defencive by your starting post which (in my opinion) was a mestake. i find that if you just ask someone about there views and don't judge initially then you get a better responce. Then ask questions about areas that don't make sence.

Saying this thread is to bag wiccam means that you may have got peoples backs up before you could explain what you ment

 

On mothers, goddesses, and whatever else

I'm sure that had a point. After all, it's so in line with the rest of your posts:

I mean, it's such a logical and purposeful response that I won't bother with it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Welcome to the schoolyard, Adam.

Insightful. But do you have any objective criticisms of Wicca? Since you've read so many of my religious posts as to comment on them, I'm sure you can comment on the value of objective results. Since you see this as a Wicca/Christianity issue, what objective complaints do you have about Wicca in your life? That is, what, aside from vague impressions, can you identify and apply in an objective manner? Setting out on the attack with no good reason is, well, proactively stupid.

So we're rewriting history according to your terms? And why are you noting Wicca when we're speaking of something larger in the snippet you're responding to? Why try to limit the subject to your terms when you don't have a response for the actual issue at hand? After all, we were speaking of a larger theology and culture in that particular portion of the discussion than mere Wicca. Focus, Adam, focus.

First off, hardly any of what you responded to with that bit is conclusive.

That you're a skeptical nut is (A) apparent because of your skepticism and your need to bash, and (B) responsorial to your dismissal of Markale as a "crystal-swinging crackpot".

That you expect the human experience to be as perfect as you envision yourself is apparent in your assumption of the need to bash anything without cause. Again, can you establish any objective criticisms of Wicca? Or is it all just your disdain for flowers and friggin' sunshine? I mean, if you want greater respect for your criticisms, you should put more thought into them, apply them objectively, and, if you feel so inclined, propose solutions to them.

That the relationship between abstract myth and its real essence is unimportant to you is evidenced by your focus on a single, coherent culture where there is none to be expected.

That we know zero on the subject of Adam is a matter of your own integrity. If your posts speak of nothing related to you, then we can conclude them dishonest, for they reflect nothing of the genuine Adam or his genuine character, in which case, the criticisms themselves become reflective of that disingenuous spirit. I've always wondered why posters are afraid to let their posts represent themselves.

Furthermore, while we cannot conclude these things about Adam, they are strongly suggested by Adam's disposition toward the topic.

Your motives, beliefs, and so on can only be assessed at this forum from the content of your posts. If you would like our assessment of your motives and beliefs to be more accurate, then post more honestly.

Then why discount Markale for being a crystal-swinging crackpot like you?

I present it as opposing fact? Why don't we look at my post:

Methinks you're looking for facts to oppose. Calm down and take a clear look at your presentation and your position. Just because you're ignoring sentences in order to ride your high horse doesn't mean those sentences aren't there.

Joy, and harmony of celebration. Food, drink, music, high spirits among one's neighbors. Like I said, better to draw those things from the past than the nasty, bloody stuff.

And that's because you're looking for a cohesive body in the sense that we grant Catholic, Christian or English. It's not there, Adam.

Right, and that lack is of a mythic presupposition, that legitimacy comes from nationalism, or comes from cross-cultural dominion. What goes into the heritage recognized as Celtic comes from many cultures, and does not, at any given time, establish itself in the imperial sense of the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, or even the United States of America.

The modern fictions? What you have called into question is whether or not Wiccans take myth or form from older traditions. You have also evaded the question that you responded to.

You haven't dealt with the logical or practical worth of Wicca, but merely hammered on a singular light in which you would like to cast Wicca in order to bash it.

Equal-opportunity scorn. So far, you seem to be standing unquestionably on your topic post as quantifiable fact.

Pop-culture post-Chrisitanity. So far, you seem to be refuting movies about witches and subscribing to Christian anti-Wiccan FAQs.

I'll even give you enough credit on this one to take it seriously. After all, since we know zero about Adam, it would be inappropriate of me to assume this ridiculous answer is your sense of humor showing itself. In terms of myth, you restrict the myth of cars to your own personal experience, and don't seem to look out at how myth interacts with culture. It was a nice try, but since we know zero about Adam, we won't conclude that this is the best you can do.

Since your etymology isn't news to any Wiccan, I'd ask you what incorrect origin of the word I provided. Since you're such a nice, helpful person, I'm sure you can manage that.

That I'll get to when my library has returned to me, because some of them are quite obscure. Common names for the Goddess include Diana, Brigid, Aradia, Cerwiden, and others. The couple of links I've provided should be good for starters, though.

At least we can find some agreement in there somewhere

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But, as the prior portion shows, some do, indeed, attach names; nobody seems to insist, though.

The Book of Ballymote, which I believe is dated ca. 13-14th century EV, contains, among other things, alphabetic correspondences including Ogham. Much of the non-Christian writings in Europe were destroyed by the advancing Catholic Church. Some of the alphabets had no correspondence in Europe, and remained mysterious until they were found in the Americas. But the Celtic experience could not be stamped out. It has survived in the form of legend (oral tradition), art, and, as noted in an earlier post, even knowledge in the form of herbal medicine. But we'll get to a few more links shortly.

Again, you're looking for far too singular an identity. And, furthermore, your lament of first you say ... and then ... is quite unnecessary, as it demonstrates a lack of understanding where history is concerned. In seeking to pin the Celtic experience down to one people at one time in one place, the way you might pin down "Germans" or "Quakers" is not valid in the sense that in order to achieve that identity you must necessarily construct something that isn't there.

Actually, I want to know if you're capable of reading the other three paragraphs that go with that. Just a reminder

I don't mind the partial citations, but when that's all you're considering, well, it's a ridiculous way to go about it, Adam. I know you can read, because we've had literary discussions before. So I fail to understand this political coupon-cutting you're doing with the posts. Why don't you try reading what's there instead of deciding what I mean without paying attention?

You see? If you'd just read through without snipping as short of pieces as you could, you might have found the point you were after. But since you've separated it, what, aside from your need to be fair in your negativity, compels you to your bashing? Self-superior imaginings of your intellect?

Hmm ... perhaps such an argument might be applied to the history of the Celtic experience? After all, the shallow points of your topic point which you have chosen to attack do, in fact, read like a pop-culture, Christian-sponsored, anti-Wiccan FAQ.

Yes, and the Celtic experience occurred there, too. And, as you'll note in the links I'm offering at the end, the Celtic experience did in fact reach France and Spain (Cadiz), and Northern Italy (Po Valley), eventually sacked Delphi, and pushed eastward into Turkey (Galatia).

Two pages? Then you know what you're talking about, Adam ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course, such methodology is well-reflected in your current posts.

Given that you find Markale's ideas to be cracked, and the notion of the Celts false, one wonders what you think of Buddhism, given that it differs from temple to temple. Yet, strangely, Buddhism isn't cracked? Seems to me a mere case of affinities.

And the sad thing about that is that you could have gone to Google and found some excellent ammunition for the separation of Wicca from the Celts. Unfortunately, you go on to attempt to undermine the notion of the Celtic experience as well.

As to the other part, we'll get to that in time, in a more positively-oriented thread that's not dedicated to bashing anything or tearing anything down.

I'll borrow at least a notion from you: Do you regard your mother that way?

Yes, every idea deserves criticism. However, all you've managed to criticize is your own opinion of what Wicca isn't. Frankly ... what a waste. Rather than going out and doing a little more reading than two pages before making your judgements, you step up and take on your idea of what something isn't with the express intent of bashing it. Bashing something is not giving it proper criticism. Bashing is being critical of something because of your own prejudices. Actual criticism is a much more careful, much more educated process.

Links:

• Why Wicca is Not Celtic

(See? And, furthermore, it reasserts that some of this confusion comes from Gardnerian Wicca; and it was way easy to find with Google.)

• Lady of the Depths
• Goddesses index, H
• Celtic & Wiccan page, Brigid

(Pertaining to names of the Goddess)

• Wiccan lectures

(General overview of Wicca according to the author of the page.)

• The Raced Celt ( includes links to further reading in support of the author's summary)
• 1865 article on physiology of the Celt
• Celt-Iberians
• The Celts

(On defining Celts)

Given how much is out there, I only wonder if you couldn't have gotten some of the answers you seek from such pages as these, and then composed a more intelligent criticism of Wicca.

To meet ideas with skepticism, Adam--that's healthy. But just whining about them because you think you can ... well, since we know zero about Adam, think about what portion your topic composes of our general picture of the poster on the other side of the wire. Self-superior? Perhaps, but we don't know, do we? Uninformed? Demonstrably. Proactive and provoking? By admission.

If your whole point is to have something to be negative about, Adam, what of that negativity would you like us to respect?

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, the point of the "You kiss your mother with that mouth?" comment was that, in many of your posts so far, and indeed in your most recent post in this thread, you seem unable to simply have a discussion. You constantly resort to insults and mockery. I would suggest you try to alter this habit if you wish to do well as a professional writer. Unless of course you aim to work for a newspaper or magazine.

1) Nearly every member of the faith I have encountered claims connection to a history which simply does not exist.
2) Nearly every member of the faith I confront with facts about history retorts with insults, taking it all very personally.
3) More specific history. Celts, often thought the originators of modern wiccan belief, were not a culture.
4) More history. Pagans were non-Christians living in the Roman Empire, and did not necessarily have anything at all to do with modern wicca.
5) Re-writing history for the joy of believers is a dangerous habit, as decsribed quite nicely by George Orwell in 1984.

I do not see it as a Wicca/Christianity issue. As for complaints from my life about it? None at all.

I suggest you go read some history. Particularly some of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and maybe get into that author Hutton I mentioned. I have not tried to redefine any terms here at all. I have given their literal meanings.

Actually, I was discussing Wicca specifically. Focus indeed.

Of course it wasn't conclusive. It was a question.

Fine, I'm skeptical. But nut? How do you get to that conclusion?

I have never claimed to be perfect. I do not know where you got this idea. Again, I would suggest you stop commenting on images you hold inside your head, and instead comment on what is posted. As for objective criticism, see above.

And this happens to be one of my problems with wicca. As stated previously, nearly every wiccan I have encountered claims their beliefs originate from the Celts, referring to them as a single unified culture. Or they claim their beliefs are Pagan, when such is clearly not the case. If you are one who does not make such claims, then bravo. You may be more educated than most other wiccans I have encountered.

Amazing. Should I describe all my beliefs in great detail upon first posting on a message board? Or should I wait for the twenty-third post? Apparently it is dishonest to not reveal everything about myself to complete strangers. What exactly are the rules on this?

I don't care about your assessment of my motives and beliefs. Instead of these personal remarks, I would much prefer it if you stuck to the subject matter.

How is it riding a high horse to look at a religion and discuss the facts involved? If that is riding a high horse, I would suggest that dozens of sciforums users are on the same horse. If you do not think so, please read through the threads with "Christianity" or "God" in the title.

Fair enough. It is indeed much better to have a nice happy party than go out and slaughter two dozen cows.

That is one of the points I made early on, and again at the beginning of this post. Wicca was only recently made up from many little snippets taken from here and there, and some made up wholesale from new cloth My problem with that is, as I explained, nearly every wiccan I have ever encountered believes otherwise.

No. I don't recall mentioning that a religion must be based on national borders or imperial dominion to be considered a legitimate religion. I consider wicca a legitimate religion. The illegitimate thing about it is, as I said, the oft-claimed origins.

Wicca takes from older religions in the sense that me walking barefoot means I am taking after Socrates. There is a factor in common, but it doesn't make me Socrates. In the same way, wiccans saying "we worship the goddess" does not in any way indicate a connection to the old religions of pre-Christian Europe.

To which I have already answered: "I accept that it is a modern human tradition." I do not require anything of wicca to establish it as a human tradition. Once again, it is a point already covered.

The logical worth. It is yet another religion. It is unnecessary. It clutters the world with baseless beliefs which don't do anyone any good. If it spreads far enough and develops some form of central authority, it may become just another Catholic church.

The practical worth. It provides opportunities for social gatherings, parties, et cetera. It may bring people some measure of peace, to believe in some greater powers looking after them and the world. It may, if it spreads enough, even reduce the extent to which we humans screw over this planet, by instilling in people greater respect for nature and each other.

Veracity of claimed origins. As previously stated, most wiccans I have encountered have absolutely no idea about history, and believe in a modern myth created by people like Garderner.

And equal opportunity prise when it is due. And I made quite clear than my own beliefs are constantly under review.

I don't know why you insist on mentioning these Christian FAQs. I don't read such things unless people link to them from places like this for a laugh. What I have discussed is some history and my experiences with wiccans.

How is it ridiculous? You have no idea what I thought about on that night when I had my remarkable insight about cars. It was quite interesting. As for restricting it to my own personal experience, well, I am culture. So are you. So is everyone else. It did indeed affect how I interact with people. Particularly people great distances away.

The word you provided was "waer-loga". If you did not intend for that to be read as some original form or warlock, then I apologise.

Fair enough. You have picked a set of goddesses and such from various cultures. What about Nemesis? Shiva? The Bunnarong tribe's Frog Maiden? Apart from the fact of them all being female deities of some kind, is there any connection? Or are you trying to walk in bare feet and call yourself Socrates?

And that has to be one of the greatest tragedies of the past few millennia. Although you may be interested to know that the Vatican does allow access to the deep dark danky secret libraries, provided you book in advance and provide reasonable references and proof that your research is for something interesting or useful. I believe the waiting list to get in there is about 18 months.

I would not pin down "Germans" as one people until after Bismarck did his trick. Quite clever, he was.

Fair enough. What is there?

I guess I misunderstood you then when you said:

Nice.

Again, I can not help the pictures in your head.

I am aware of the areas which "the Celtic experience" affected, where it was, when, and how. If you draw a line on a map south from the western Urals, down toward the Mediterranean, then west across the top of that sea, the bordered Europe was all keltoi Europe in the days of the Athenian Empire.

I also read two pages of Captain Tiddlywinks once. That did not interest me either. If you think it requires the reading of an entire book to decide whether you like it or not, then I'm happy for you that you have so much free time.

I do not find the notion of the Celts false. I find many peoples' ideas about them to be incorrect. Buddhism I quite like because rather than relying on myths and superstitions, it is the teachings of a man who thought we should all simply be groovy to each other. I daresay Prince Siddhartha would have enjoyed the movie Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Google is nice. But I have access to some of Victoria's largest libraries, within walking distance. Plus the memories in my head from many books read. But yes, Google is nice, and I use it often. I don't believe I have attempted to undermine "the notion of the Celtic experience", as you say, but rather the notion that wicca is somehow connected with celtic Europe through it's beliefs and practices.

Yes. Years ago, and many times since, I considered what family relations are actually worth, what they mean. I have applied the same critical eye to such things as friends, work, television, money, death, life, love, marriage, meteorology, and many other things.

In return, I would suggest you read books by educated people rather than Starhawk and Big Hooting Owl Of Liverpool to learn some history. Again, I recommend Hutton. His books are not only very well researched, but enjoyable reading.

Please then demonstrate.

Would you really like me to post some of the things you have said about other religions, and about other sciforums users? Some very negative stuff in there. But no, I'm not going to go to that effort. You can read them yourself if you wish.

 

Interesting.

Adam, I believe you mentioned somwhere that the Wiccan Rede was a hyjacked version of the Hypocratic Oath?

I use a version of the Rede in my ethical system. My ethical code 'do no harm to those who do not harm you' did come from the Hypocratic oath, but I am always being annoyed to have to explain that, yes, I am an athiest, not a Wiccan.

So, on what do you base that claim?

Now, as for 'bashing' - I have talked to a few PhD candidates in my time. A PhD candidate submits his thesis, after carefully analyzing it for flaws, and waits for people to bash it. He defends it, and hopefully, he is awarded his PhD. Or look at what happens when a paper is submitted to a scientific journal. Bash bash bash bash, and the truth survives a good bashing.

Granted, this isn't science, but don't all ideas deserve a good bashing? I've bashed my own, I've bashed others, and I consider bashing a form of friendship.

It is by bashing that we separate the wheat from the chaff. It is by bashing that we progress to the truth.

Tiassa:
I would really, really not advise getting into a 'athiesm vs. Wicca' debate.

I have no real bias either for or against Wicca, although I do find thier veiw of women (and indeed, this is mere ancedote) rather absurd. Women are not naturally good, as compared to men. We are not 'life givers' and we are not nurturing to all. I find the implication that we are to be, degrading.

That said, I leave you two to it.

 

Xev

Seeing as we are talking about ethics i want to post this:

So many people say that they follow the 10 comandments (i except jews from this bit because they ARE there religion) or a "form" of them. I DON'T, in fact i don't even rember what they are except for "you shall not kill". I try to follow Jeasu's ONE comandment "love one another as i have loved you". That is about the only part of my religion I have never questioned. It is the basis for ALL my ethics and atitidudes. I was told last night that i am to selfefacing which surprised me because i don't see myself that way. That is how i strive to live my life. To be total selfless is my ideal that i strive for. Service is my aim

 

I acually have much more respect for Wiccans, New Agers,etc... because they're the only ones I know that don't promise to sodomize you with a pitch-fork if you don't believe in their faith.

 

Asguard:

That's a good one. JC had a lot of good things to say.

 

Sorry, which claim? The oath bit?

 

Adam: Yes, the Oath bit.

Interestinly enough, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizan has a paragraph with almost the same wording as the Rede.

 

Xev

A couple of points in response.

(1) Neither would I.
(2) Especially considering that I am one of the long and vocal proponents of atheism at this website when it comes down to theist-vs-atheist, why would I engage such a debate?
(3) What, then, is the point of this proactive warning?

This debate, quite obviously, has little if anything to do with atheism, and that's why I'm puzzled here.

Wow, I find that to be incredibly foreign to my experience. Accepting "mere anecdote", I'm still quite intrigued at how you came to this perception. If you care to discuss it, of course.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Space monkey & iMac user,

History, like politics, is largely a matter of interpretation. And that is normally very subjective. Keeping that in mind, it seems pretty pointless debating the origins and the growth of this "wicca". One side would simply put a + spin on the same historical events, while the other would put a - spin.

What I was more interested in is why out iMac user chooses wicca over others? His brief answer about being "unable to reject the realm of the spirit" is thin and unsatisfactory.

What is this "realm of the spirit"?

How does wicca address this issue to his satisfaction?

Are there any objective tests which were applied to W?

Can ppl why fly around on broomsticks?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

etc.

============

I notice that the SSM has also said that he agrees that one cannot "reject the realm of the spirit". So, the same questions apply to you as well ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, leaping from "There may be more to us than the mundane" to "I think I'll call myself a wiccan" does seem strange. Why not choose christianity, Buddhism, Falun Gong, the Supreme Truth chaps from Japan?

 

You honor me ... oh, and ... I'm sorry ...

All fine questions, including the bit about broomsticks. I had hoped to actually find a way to resolve the present debate with the ... uh ... Space Monkey ... (I'm following your precedent, but hesitantly at this point) ... before delving into some of those vital questions. Simply, I had hoped to present them away from the cloud of apparently needful bashing.

But, as they have arisen, there's no time like the present.

• What I was more interested in is why iMac user chooses wicca over others?

I have often said that what separates me from the atheists is a matter of vocabulary, and this result is from, as you have noted, my inability to dismiss spiritual realms. (We'll get to that ....)

To start with counterpoint, when I moved "out" of the Christian realm, I landed amid the Satanism rage of the 1980's; I had always taken a different, less aggressive view of Satanic philosophy than others I knew, and as I read about the subject I found out why. Satanism is, in fact, when you get down to the Nine Statements, the religion everybody seems to want; holy license to be selfish. Ayn Rand, Machiavelli, and Mark Twain are among Church of Satan literary recommendations and are intended to be somewhat conclusive in their moral derivations, Twain's warnings otherwise notwithstanding. It now seems strange, this philosophy which licenses greed; as opposed to my Christian brethren, who were afflicted with greed. To license greed is no better than to be afflicted with it, since greed is a disease in this moral consideration--that is, greed is the problem, not whether or not it is licensed. The absolute nail in the coffin, however, was not the request to lead a foundling blood cult, though there was actually some sense of satisfaction in explaining that crew out of their idea by showing a larger stake than whatever the hell it was they were looking for. The absolute nail in the Satanist coffin, though, was when I realized that I was still trapped within the Christian sphere of influence. That is, I hadn't left the savage arena, but merely "switched teams" as such. It didn't mean the game had any more purpose. Jesus or the Devil, as with licensed or afflicted greed ... the problem was the religion and not which side you took.

And so I spent a few years just getting to know magic again. Not magick as in ceremonial and ritual magick, but the simple magic of being human. It was not the easiest education, as that magic is well-corrupted by years of realist siege. I even went through an atheist period, but could not shake the persistent importance of the "intangibles". And here is where I will be as harsh toward atheism as I ever expect to get: it seems that much as I draw the line and say that the issue is not "which side you're on" but that you're in the game at all, That is, when it comes to fancy or speculation, it matters none "which side you're on", but that you speculate or view the world fancifully at all. In the religious term, we might say it matters not which spirit you pick, the problem is that you pick spirit at all. Unfortunately, my particular atheist phase marked this pattern as one deeply recurring. It did not appear to discriminate 'twixt degrees of atheism, whether those who chose to actively acknowledge no sense of God or those for whom such questions as God do not seem to occur. The pattern seemed to be an unhealthy focus on the objective which created certain results. It should be noted that this focus is hardly uniform, but among those I knew for that period in which God and spirit were impossibilities, there existed a general trend toward eliminating any intangible factor. It did, in fact, license a certain immorality, but being a general philosophy did not necessarily manifest itself in such a manner. But wherever something good rang hollow, it came from that something's inability to look beyond actuarial tables, statistical formulae, and so forth. For instance, a close friend of mine will argue, when discussing poverty abroad and so forth, that this or that people aren't poor because they have what, a bowl of rice a day? While also imagining the poor to be uniformly fed, the perspective overlooks the intangible aspect of happiness. That is, would my friend consider himself privileged to have a single bowl of rice to eat every day of his life? But since "you can't know what makes people happy", such a consideration is inappropriate to this particular harsh objectivism. The result of which seems horrible to me. It should be said that in no way can I blame atheism itself for this; that's a ridiculous leap. But the lack of intangible factors results in frightening conclusions. As my father put it once, when child labor issues came to CNN, "The kids should be happy to work because at least they're doing something to contribute to the family." You know ... I don't know, what about ... school? But the social advantages to be gained from educating a generation to be more than stock labor are apparently subjective and therefore intangible, so we ought not consider them. I can point it out with a simple bumper sticker from recent Seattle history: Why can we spend a billion dollars on sports arenas but not for our schools? Quite frankly, because the billion dollars spent on two stadia are tangible hypotheticals. That is, we'll make lots of money in the future with these facilities, so we ought to look at them as investments; that is, we will see a good, profitable return. Unfortunately, the profitable return for investing in the schools doesn't fit quite right on a ledger page: 20,000 kids taught to read this year? 100,000? Hey, great, great. But they don't need to read. Look, see this red button on the assembly line here? See this picture? They don't need to know how to read in order to do their job and make money. I can't quite stomach the idea that schools and libraries and fire departments are luxuries (Oregon Measure Five, 1990--property tax revision that would have worked but for legislative interference ... schools, libraries, and fire departments all took a hit. But what happened in the schools made people panic, and then the legislature tried to patchwork it to voter satisfaction and blew the whole thing to pieces. Property taxes went up, schools still had a funding issue, and the people were outraged. It should be noted, though, that before the property-tax revisions provided the schools plenty of money, there was a necessary, explained, and known-before-they-voted-for-it problem with funding the schools that was expected to last five years. Everybody panicked two years into it. Gee, maybe if they'd thought about the intangible of making learning suffer for five years? Before they voted, that is?)

It's not that this harsh objectivity is limited to atheism (it infected many regardless of religion or lack thereof), but in needing more intangibles, I could hardly abide by a philosophy which seemed to compel me against including them.

In the meantime, young Tiassa, all of 18 or 19, is working at a Pizza Hut and running around to allegedly haunted houses and other such strange places. Pioneer cemeteries I always liked, and you could feel something different in the air even before you saw the vandalism. I have many taboos about f--king with the dead, many of them purely based on this time. Sitting in a field, I watched sephirothic lights dance, some in familiar patterns, others in patterns I would come to recognize, and still others that I've not found significant. The relationship between natural phenomenon, psychology, and intangible factors is probably where I buried my religion during my atheist phase. After all, at this point, Lovecraft, Barker, and Charles Grant are at the forefront of my literary attention. And that's another thing I'll rip my own atheist phase (and therefore myself) for: I gave up a lot of the connection I had to things not mundane. Crap, I even read Anne Tyler novels during this period ....

But a series of odd phenomena, including the spectres of living cats prowling the night (and this is at least a year before marijuana would become a factor in my life--I'd smoked it only once), a fifteen-foot-tall Ihavenoideawhatitisgoddamnit, knots untying themselves, spectral eyes in the darkness giving my friend a heart attack (literally, at age 23), falling in an open grave that wasn't there, seeing entire rooms of a "haunted church" change in an instant, tracking a bipedal cloven-hoofed animal (I have its antler), and that's just the stuff that sticks out like a sore thumb ...

I'm not going to say that the cats were pan-dimensional or that the shadow of the Devil did rise from the gully, or that I was actually tracking a satyr, but I can say that the appearance of the blue eyes in the belfry of a "haunted" church was definitely (A) a sensory experience of multiple entities, and (B) the reason our friend fell over, though to be honest it was at his next physical that his doctor, upon checking him out, asked him if he remembered when he had the heart attack. I can't say that I actually saw dancing anything in a field, I can't literally say that it wasn't some glitch in my immediate perception that made the moon move 180º around the sky in a matter of minutes.

However ... being that I prefer the natural explanation of natural phenomena, I would accept any, but I've hardly given enough toward any of them because it's beside the point. (In addition, I've managed to explain away a good half of what I think I saw over that period, and with time and more knowledge, I'll get to some of the others.) What is the point is that I have seen a few things interesting enough to make me wonder about how any natural phenomenon will play out--angels, Ufos, ghosts, monsters in the lake, &c. For instance, conclusive proof of ghosts would not prove anything but proof of ghosts. What actual event is occurring there will be the reality of what ghosts are. I generally hold with explanations that involve the participation of the witness in the manifestation of the event; the actions of ghosts are so often symbolic to the witnesses that I can't help but lean toward psychiatric phenomena. But, to be purely speculative, what happens if one day we do measure an extremely subtle energy flux and what it turns out is that the witness is seeing is a natural occurrence but lending it their own manifestation in the sense that the perceptory process, being aberrant, triggers a specific assimilatory response in the brain? That is, for some reason, the witness can perceive the otherwise imperceptible disturbance, but making it into a ghost or an angel or such is all of their own mind as determined by the organic response to perception.

Just as a for instance, because I'm well aware that not only is the human race not finished discovering new things about the Universe, it is also not finished discovering new ways of discovering things. That is, what happens if the vibrations of will common to Crowleyan philosophy and others turns out to be manifest in some sense of radiation (e.g. aura?) that humans are not capable of detecting? Not that I ever expect to be able to make the blue-glass paperweight on my desk levitate just by thinking about it. But since everything in our Universe seems to be deliniated electrochemically (it's all a matter of ratios) there most likely exist .... (edit: I have no idea how this sentence was supposed to end.)

Enter Wicca. I still can't even tell you how. But it crept quietly into the circle of my association, apparently through myself and a friend. I still wonder if he picked it up from some girl he was trying to charm, and I can't remember what her name was. But it quickly fell victim to the first warlock I would meet. What followed was an ugly descent into D&D witchcraft which I countered with everything under the sun. I think I even threw the Necronomicon in there for good measure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But in the end, I had a broad range of interests all deriving from Western theology. And here I submit a ... well, a process that I hope isn't that thin. But just as I'm seen here debating some ludicrously liberal civil rights and other issues of liberty, we might say that the reason I'm so convinced I'm right is that my way the most people are free or otherwise benefitted. It's a simple paradigm issue. That's what happens when you're taught Kant by Catholics while moonlighting as your school's foremost Satanist. Seriously. My a priori, like the comfort Christians used to enjoy in the civic arena, is so naked that few people actually challenge it because to challenge it directly is to say that liberty is a privilege and not an inherent right, to directly presume the innocent guilty, and to have to objectively place oneself in the privileged class. It's nearly anarchic, as we've seen, but that's the point. Everybody's free and if they're smart enough to figure out what that means, we'll do okay as a species. That's not a presumption that they're smart enough to figure it out; reality suggests quite firmly nearly the opposite, so it's problematic. But it's what I aspire to, and when I figure out how to pull it off, I'll let y'all know. I promise. Try to stop me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that's what happened. Diabology, Qabalism, Wicca, various ad hoc philosophical menageries pulled from fables, childhood stories, the most poignant experiences I knew. In the end, the more formalized systems fell away, and the sunshine and friggin' rainbows became not only a living result, but in its fleeting nature something to hope for and have faith in.

Wicca gave me a number of things. A craving for peace and harmony, a better appreciation of rhythm, a new curiosity into my fellow human beings which made them less and less unreal.

None of this, of course, helped me get through college. If for no other reason, I'm glad I at least went because I found Emma Goldman, Sherwood Anderson, and a few other treasures before I dropped out. All in all, I'd say it was profitable. But by that time, the myriad concerns of my studies (ha!), having a girlfriend (ugh!), and substance-abusing myself out of school (woo-hoo!) put the magic in the backseat. I did find Barret's Magus during that period, and also my Clavicula Solomonis. By the time my theological experience started moving beyond the western experience and touching on Sufism, Buddhism, HIndu and others, I wasn't really interested in realigning myself yet again. And the scope of my vision changed. If anything, what little intellgence is in the most part of the psychobabble pseudo-magick I saw along the way pointed me toward examining things in terms larger than the mere world. God, as such, or the Universe, if you will. Whatever the whole of creation is, life holds a very unique place in it, and right now, as far as we can tell, the self-aware experience is extremely limited in the Universe. The old somewhat-Wiccan structures still work in a sense, but I learned it as an Earth-scheme and not a Universal-scheme.

And it's what I'm stuck with. Insofar as I can tell, I'll never be a Sufi, and since I already believe that life is suffering, why should I codify it by turning Buddhist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm not ready to rule out the invisibles, intangibles, and undetecteds. While whatever part of me is still a witch is and always has been composite, Wicca was a useful and worthwhile experience, and it's never that far from me.

And I do speak ill of some aspects of the Wiccan experience. I met a number whom I absolutely could not stand, and they were instrumental in keeping me away from coven structures and locked in my own ivory tower of hope. In the end, though, you just let down your hair and keep waiting for the next sunshine and the next friggin' raiinbow. It's not like they're hard to find. But I'm still more at home among Wiccans than just about anyone else. Maybe the crowd at a Phish show, but I can't afford to follow them. I guess I could always string necklace beads or sell water for $2.00 a pint ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When I was four years old, "Uncle Shelby" told me a story about a tree. Go figure. When I was twenty-four years old, I tried to read about a guy who was married to a tree. Don't bother trying to figure. Trying to read about the guy who was married to a tree is part of the mystery of the goddess (Frazier's Golden Bough), which is a part of trying to understand why I've chosen "goddess" as a representation for such abstractions as she represents. But this standard reflects a story I learned from a Jewish guy who plays guitar and wrote really funny books when I was four. And that story reflects, insofar as I can tell, everything that people--parents, preachers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, the pre-school lady ... a whole-bunch of grown-ups--tried to teach me about right and wrong.

In that sense, Wicca is the most cogent representation of my connection to that direct experience. And that I'll keep locked up in my Ivory Tower of Hope. And, like I said a long time ago in a topic far away, the Craft in general, and the Goddess herself, weren't upset when I "outgrew" the philosophy. I mentioned somewhere in here that the structures are still there, but they're microcosmic compared to the things I have occasion to consider.

Hmph ... that was ... well, now aren't you glad you asked?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• What is this "realm of the spirit"?

Specifically, the realm of spirit is the realm of all factors intangible. Whether it is the metaphoric "spirit" of a nation turned toward war, or interesting lights hovering in the trees ... it's part of an experience which is only real in the sense that humans recognize reality in non-literal, intangible, or in which that which is known inwardly, or, known to the self.

In the same way, for instance, as superstitions about masturbation--e.g. hair on the palms of your hands or going blind--contained a certain element of truth in their goal but not in their veracity (e.g. too much wanking is unhealthy at least psychologically, and therefore self-restraint is advisable), so, too, do other superstitions need to be contained through identification and adaptation. You won't find me throwing salt over my shoulder unless I'm supremely stoned and feeling inwardly sarcastic, or knocking on wood unless I'm out among the trees feeling kinship to the firs and pines and cedars themselves. Yes, when I was in Hawaii, I hugged that damn banyan tree. Why? Because it felt good to be close to a representation of so much human will and hope. But you'll find certain recognizable trends among Wicca that you'll find elsewhere in society. In the Wiccan manifestation, and to be as vague as the SSM for just a moment, it's worth noting that of the Wiccans I've known, among the positively oriented there exists a certain realism, recognizing that the faery in the glade only exists because we empower it to be so. Did God create Man or does man create gods? If human beings only exist for the benefit of the divine (e.g. God, an end result of a particular philosophy I have encountered among Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, and just about every Christian sect I've encountered except for the Society of Friends) then the divine cannot exist without the human adoration. Thus, we empower gods. I have long acknowledged that my Goddess is alive on the one hand, for everybody, but in the particular, only for me, who empowers her. This empowerment is true of all Wiccans, though whether they realize the process is at play or not is its own issue, and I'm well aware of what that invites. The result, though, of overlapping (though not entirely common) visions is a composite deity empowered by the collective hopes of the thousands or millions. It isn't much, but it isn't after your children, either.

The realm of spirit, therefore, becomes a realm in which all that is not known exists in its potentiality. That something might be is a real possibility, and what that something's properties are happen to be a real possibility though we cannot know it. Some do, in fact, absorb themselves in this idea, seeking an answer as if such a philosophical answer to a question that does not exist will solve anything. Nonetheless, we thank them for the effort, and for sparing us the necessity of having to put the effort into finding such an abstract answer for ourselves. Who knows? Perhaps someone exploring the nature of divinity will, someday, stumble onto something useful. It could happen. In the meantime, a philosophy that encourages you to assemble the most noble way possible cannot hurt, and even might be helpful. That gamble is well worth it, in my opinion. Of course, why this is presents its own host of questions that we can get to if we must, but it becomes a digression in four more words.

Why do the staunchest realists creep forward in their seats, silence their banal chatter, and forget about their beers in the bottom of the tenth and Hasegawa is pushing to wrap it up now? What about their televison faery-land, with its don't-call-me-now-you-stupid-S-O-B rules and its "How can you mention the no earned runs and not jinx him" mentality really escapes the living experience? What abstract cause have we to chuckle when they pitch Ichiro out? It's not like I'm the one out there wearing the jersey and scaring the piss out of the pitcher. But everybody seems to have a connection to the intangible, the abstract, the hopeful. I don't understand why so many people shun it. The burden of hypocrisy just tears at you in the abstract. There is a direct correllation between how much of a functional grasp I have on the world and how much I drink once I'm drunk. This is true of people far more intelligent and far less superstitious than myself. (And I'll thank the OTO for that realization, of all groups; don't ask, it's another post for another time.) What is it creeping about our subconscious that makes today any different from yesterday? A buttload of e-mail you put off until tomorrow? Well, if you'd done it yesterday when it came in ... (and in this lesson I am standing absolutely firm, having just learned it the very hard way).

Even the strictist objectivists fall victim to the subjectivities of human nature. I tend, at my most critical, to view it as the difference between recognizing that people are imperfect and accepting that fact. The realm of the spirit is the realm of the subjective; that which compels us to respond to instinct and "intuition" (e.g. "woman's intuition") and superstition (e.g. "woman's intuition", socio-political class, general -isms) instead of strict, objective reality.

In other words, the realm of the spirit is everything which we refuse to classify as real, but which we respond to as if it was real.

• How does wicca address this issue to his satisfaction?

It allows for boundless possibility. Outright. Compared to Donald Michael Krieg's Modern Magick, which amounts to a compendium of Golden Dawn and otherwise Crowleyan ideas, Wicca absolutely allows for greater possibility of discovery. Instead of rushing to classification, it remains intentionally aloof and curious. Certes, the ritual aspects of it have their compartmentalized specifics, but among genuine witches, only the snottiest and most borderline are that openly demanding about ritual. Of course, they're the ones who are usually compelled to put the effort into large gatherings, so even our most "Sunday Wiccan" types have value. But where other esoterica pushed toward more definitive classification, Wicca pushed toward discovery of the nature of the classifications, and thus insight into otherwise-ignored aspects of the mundane world. In the long run, Tibetan mysticism and Tibetan Buddhism would have probably done me better, but exposure being such as it is, Wicca is a quiet but significant foundation to my present station in the world. Sure, I'd like more money, but I can still drop jaws from time to time. And what more can I ask than to give a person something they won't forget, and will hold fondly? The thing about sunshine and friggin' rainbows is that they're bloody infectious if you let them be.

It's all a better world when everyone's happy. So shoot me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• Are there any objective tests which were applied to W?

I've never bothered. I can cite some incidental objectivism, such as when I speak of the problem of the warlock. But I also know that a lack of education in any discipline will cause bad results. The best you can do is to stand off darkness whenever it directly challenges you. To assume that any darkness requires challenge is to forget that darkness is essential to light. How to minimize the disease that darkness brings ... therein lies the question, eh?

But no ... while Wicca has never gone out of its way to create the impression of physical legitimacy (I'm thinking of Scientology for this comparison, and their little equipment for attitude-adjustment meditation), nor has it ever held objective legitimacy beyond the absolutely empirical. Nor should it be. If Wicca held that kind of objective legitimacy, nobody would be such a sour-puss about anything because the mandate of Life itself would be joy and harmony. (I'm not pointing any specific fingers, but look around at how unhappy people are, in the US at least. F--king miserable lot. And this from someone who just had his best tax year ever--thanx much to GWBjr for putting that public money toward my irresponsibility

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

And I'll stand on that answer. What does anyone do to make themselves feel good that actually matters? Cologne? Fashion? Material exuberance? Cocaine?

• Can ppl why fly around on broomsticks?

Yes. Absolutely.

Er ... as long as ... well, that is ...

Okay, it's time to bust a serious myth about witches, here.

Now, you've all heard of our infamous flying ointment, right?

Part of the myth is definitively erroneous. That is, Christians, in an effort to defame witchery in Europe, invented the myth that the key ingredient of the witches' flying ointment was the fat stripped from an unbaptized infant. This is not true, and everyone knows it.

Baby fat? Incidental. I doubt it happened except in a couple of ... well ... human ... cases. I mean, nobody's going to pretend that it didn't happen, but read the f--king Magus ... now that is insanity. Goose blood? Incense? What the hell?

But no. Baby fat has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I recommend jojoba wax.

Everybody should know by now what the flying ointment's secret is.

Think of it this way ... the ointment is applied to the wrists, the temples, the center of the forehead, and anywhere else you feel like putting it. But be careful with your imagination, because the secret of the witches' oil is two ingredients.

Understand, the clove, while it lends a nice scent, is also a mild irritant that will open your pores.

Your temples, the center of your forehead.

The clove, then, acts as a nice escort for the hashish oil in the flying ointment.

Understanding this and all its ramifications, Yes, you, too, can fly on a broomstick.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thanx much, and you asked ...,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!