a little understanding about wicca, its not bad

[KarenNC]

All my personal experience (including what I see in this thread)

You might find “Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-Pagans in the United States (Studies in Comparative Religion)” by Helen Berger, Evan Leach and Leigh Schaffer interesting. It was put out by the University of SC Press in 2003 and is still in print. Not exhaustive, but interesting nonetheless. Berger is a sociologist.

"From Publishers Weekly
This wide-ranging, non-random survey and analysis encompasses a broad sample of the Neo-Pagan community, including Wiccans, Pagans, Goddess Worshippers, Druids, Shamans, Unitarian Universalist Pagans, and assorted Odinists and “magic workers.” For all their diversity, a certain profile emerges. Typical Neo-Pagans are white, college-educated middle class women (men account for about a third of Neo-Pagans). "

The folks I know or have known who identify as Wiccan include social workers, IT professionals, stay at home moms, massage therapists, truck drivers, students, artists, administrative assistants, white collar professionals, electricians, nurses, sign language interpreters, authors, teachers, retail clerks, military veterans, etc. They come from a variety of socio-economic and educational backgrounds and are a variety of ages. Some have been teens, usually with their parents because none of the groups with which I have been familiar would allow participation by minors without express parental permission (if participation is allowed at all).

Some have been Democrats, some Republicans, some Libertarian, some independent. Some have been straight, some have been gay; some have been married, some single; some parents, some not; some from Jewish or Christian backgrounds, some from no religious background; some very interested in the “stuff” or trappings, some not.

Overall I find the community a much more mixed bag than you represent.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Any religion that is truly “uncorrupted” by the “great monotheistic religions” is pagan.
If by “corrupted” you mean “potentially influenced in any way” or “aware of”, then there were no pagan religions in the Middle East, nor in the Mediterranean region, etc. for at minimum hundreds of years before the advent of Christianity.

Yeah,… that’s what I mean by “corrupted”. I find that to be a GOOD “corruption”, by the way…!

Quote:Wicca, as a description of a religion, is not a description of a religion but of a very fuzzy group of quasi-spiritualistic semi-nature-worshiping hippies.
I would agree that some folks who label themselves Wiccan do indeed fall into that category. Usually this is to the chagrin of others in the Wiccan community.

In recent years there has been quite a blossoming of folks doing serious scholarly work in Wicca and other Neopagan religions, far beyond the “Wicca 101–how to do spells to get a boyfriend/girlfriend and better grades” kind of junk that is unfortunately prevalent. It is quite encouraging to see.

The very concept of “scholarly work” in neo-paganism (subgroup: wicca) is rather like “scholarly work” in “Harry-Potterism”.

But,… even that is of SOME value, as it will tend to debunk neo-paganism for what it is by illuminating the effects of it’s application as a “systematic thought system”.

The more the “serious practitioners” are shown what neo-paganism is really about, the more they will “evolve” it in the direction of being in accord with the Church.

Once it becomes obvious that it’s goals are simply a restatement of what the Church already gives, individuals will sluff off into the Church, and the “popular” neo-pagan “sects” will take on the characteristics of a combination of the Free Masons and Vampira’s Blood Cafe #4.

Quote:Wicca IS a neo-pagan religious “category” in that it is a direct response TO Christianity.
According to its followers, it is a religion. According to its followers, Christianity is also a religion, whether I agree with its basic beliefs or not and odd as I find the practices and interpretations of those beliefs in some of the groups and individuals who use that label.

Naw,… religions are delineated by their active communities (actual humans meeting in a place -type groups), and “Christianity” has no such “organization”.

People will, can, and are free to say what they like, but to call Christianity anything more than a “category” of varying religions is a rather widespread fallacy.

Now, the CHURCH (Catholic) does contain nearly all Christian groups, in a mysterious way, but that’s a whole different subject which tends to annoy non-Catholic Christians greatly, so I’ll leave that aside for the moment. But then, you’ve been in here for a while, probably longer than I have actually, so you know the whole “Salvation only from within the Church” thing…

Quote:That is also true, due to the fact that God’s revelation, while fully given, is not fully understood. This development, further unfolding, of the faith is consciously noted and a part of the faith itself.
Well, hopefully one day the Gods will help you fully understand We all continue to strive to a fuller understanding of the Gods and our relationship to Them.

The angels do indeed help us out, as the messengers they are of the one God, and the demons in fact do also help us out by giving us some “grist” to “suffer in learning” with, so your gods, which are our angels and demons, are actually there to help us to more fully understand how and why we are to worship not them but their, and our, Creator.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

It’s certainly not because it’s “cool”, “popular”, “convenient”, “socially accepted”, etc. because it is none of those things, not even in the broader Neopagan community.

As I said before, since you’re 3/4 of the way to being a Catholic that’s quite understandable, and your “traditionalism” is (no doubt) treated almost EXACTLY like a Catholic is treated by his protestant brothers.

YOU are the intolerant close-minded “imperialist” rule-bound killjoy to them…

…and if you’re not, you’re not talking loudly enough.

I don’t even get to dress up in neat clothes, use cool tools and make up a new name. Instead I get to live the life of a suburban, homeschooling stay at home mom, who prays to her Deities and pours the occasional libation along with getting to Scout meetings and the library. Most folks just look at me and say “Hunh??”

Like I said,… typical Catholic mom who knows where she’s coming from, and who’s only “fault” is in misidentifying the persons that she talks to while “in the Spirit”.

Oh well, it was basically a case of my Gods coming looking for me for some reason rather than the other way around, certainly not a place I planned to be but it’s a better place than I have ever been overall and I am a better person because of it.

Sounds like you’ve got much MUCH more angel dealings than demon dealings, which is probably very odd indeed for a neo-pagan, which will eventually lead you to that slight “correction of terms” that’s necessary for more full inclusion into the People of God.

I’ve got to chuckle at this point, because we both know I’m speaking the truth, but we both also know that you’re just stubborn enough to chortle yourself, as am I, at my outrageous arrogance to actually SAY such a non-PC thing…!!

Anyway,… always ENORMOUSLY great havin’ talk-story with 'ya…! Auwe…!!! Mahalo nui loa 'oe. A alo--------------ha 'oe…! A hui hou.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

It is illogical, if not completely harmful, to not realize that your beliefs influence your actions. Or more to the point, actions are a reflection of a belief. Right action comes from right belief. You make a separation where there is none.

No one, least of all me, has said that one’s beliefs do not influence one’s actions. However, I do say that most religions which I have encountered that fall under the Neopagan umbrella (as well as most of the ancient European religions that I have studied) say that what you do about and with those beliefs is more important than that you hold them. It is a matter of accountability rather than separation. We are held accountable for our actions, not necessarily for our beliefs.

It is of course desirable that one would do only right action as a result of one’s beliefs. However, it is entirely possible to do what most people would consider a harmful action based on what one considers to be a right belief. Think of those who have beaten children severely or otherwise abused them (what most would consider an objectively wrong action) in order to “drive out the devil and save their souls” (what the group considered a right belief). If I behave kindly to someone out of spite at someone else or out of fear of them, I still behaved kindly (an action that most would call objectively good), even though my intent was not to be kind to the one but to spite the other or out of fear.

Also, one can hold all the right beliefs in the world and not have them reflected in their actions at all, thereby benefitting no-one.

This is different from an orthodoxic view in which right beliefs are paramount, whether or not they are acted on in a constructive way. Look at the difference between Orthodox Judaism, where one is rendered acceptable to God by one’s actions (obedience to the laws whether one thinks they are objectively reasonable or not) and Christianity where one is rendered acceptable to God solely based on what one believes about Jesus.

 

[VociMike]

Has anybody yet cited Chesterton’s quote?

“Paganism was the biggest thing in the world, and Christianity was bigger and everything since has been comparatively small.”

Wicca would seem to be a small and haphazard attempt at retrieving that “biggest thing” before Christianity displaced it. It is fundamentally a nostalgic impulse for those who take it seriously.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No one, least of all me, has said that one’s beliefs do not influence one’s actions. However, I do say that most religions which I have encountered that fall under the Neopagan umbrella (as well as most of the ancient European religions that I have studied) say that what you do about and with those beliefs is more important than that you hold them. It is a matter of accountability rather than separation. We are held accountable for our actions, not necessarily for our beliefs.

I am not a Christian scholar or expert my any means, but as far as I know, Christian is all about accepting responsibility not just for oneself but for others. Actions do reflect this belief…just read the parable of the Good Samaritan.

It is of course desirable that one would do only right action as a result of one’s beliefs. However, it is entirely possible to do what most people would consider a harmful action based on what one considers to be a right belief. Think of those who have beaten children severely or otherwise abused them (what most would consider an objectively wrong action) in order to “drive out the devil and save their souls” (what the group considered a right belief). If I behave kindly to someone out of spite at someone else or out of fear of them, I still behaved kindly (an action that most would call objectively good), even though my intent was not to be kind to the one but to spite the other or out of fear.

Agreed.

Also, one can hold all the right beliefs in the world and not have them reflected in their actions at all, thereby benefitting no-one.

Agreed, this is not the Christian way.

This is different from an orthodoxic view in which right beliefs are paramount, whether or not they are acted on in a constructive way. Look at the difference between Orthodox Judaism, where one is rendered acceptable to God by one’s actions (obedience to the laws whether one thinks they are objectively reasonable or not) and Christianity where one is rendered acceptable to God solely based on what one believes about Jesus.

I don’t agree here. A belief in Jesus has many implications for action. Of course, not all Christians act on their belief, but Jesus’ Himself was always in action and always teaching Love, through action.

And, I know this belief in unbelief, I found it in the Unitarian Universalist church. In my atheist UU years paganism looked like secular humanism with a belief in faerie blessings.

 

[TomPiltoff]

You might find “Voices from the Pagan Census: A National Survey of Witches and Neo-Pagans in the United States (Studies in Comparative Religion)” by Helen Berger, Evan Leach and Leigh Schaffer interesting.

That’s where I stopped reading because, no, I wouldn’t find it interesting.

Because I don’t judge the people, just the religion.

 

[KarenNC]

Yeah,… that’s what I mean by “corrupted”. I find that to be a GOOD “corruption”, by the way…!

You realize that that “corruption” goes both ways.

The very concept of “scholarly work” in neo-paganism (subgroup: wicca) is rather like “scholarly work” in “Harry-Potterism”.

Not really, no. I am talking about academics in philosophy, sociology, religious studies, etc who are giving serious study to the various religions under the umbrella term Neopagan. Though there are, I am sure, some interesting papers out there in academic circles on Harry Potter.

But,… even that is of SOME value, as it will tend to debunk neo-paganism for what it is by illuminating the effects of it’s application as a “systematic thought system”.

Look them up and find out if that’s the case.

The more the “serious practitioners” are shown what neo-paganism is really about, the more they will “evolve” it in the direction of being in accord with the Church.

If you mean that it is likely that it will evolve into something that has at least one if not more centralized distinct branches with national organizations, membership criteria, bureaucracy, etc, then yes, the overall Neopagan movement is already well into that process. Give it a few hundred more years and parts of it will likely look a lot more like the structures you are used to seeing. It is the way of religions as they become more widespread and mainstream.

Once it becomes obvious that it’s goals are simply a restatement of what the Church already gives, individuals will sluff off into the Church, and the “popular” neo-pagan “sects” will take on the characteristics of a combination of the Free Masons and Vampira’s Blood Cafe #4.

Interesting visual. What specific characteristics would those be?

Undoubtedly some individuals will “sluff off into the Church”. It is the way of religions that individuals convert into and out of any given religion on any given day, as I have said before.

I think we have already established that there is not a monolithic “it” when speaking of religions that are part of the Neopagan category.

Naw,… religions are delineated by their active communities (actual humans meeting in a place -type groups), and “Christianity” has no such “organization”.

Most of the religions under the Neopagan umbrella term do have such communities. It’s just that not all of us live near one that reflects our exact beliefs. It’s a problem with a minority religion.

People will, can, and are free to say what they like, but to call Christianity anything more than a “category” of varying religions is a rather widespread fallacy.

I would agree with that.

Now, the CHURCH (Catholic) does contain nearly all Christian groups, in a mysterious way, but that’s a whole different subject which tends to annoy non-Catholic Christians greatly, so I’ll leave that aside for the moment. But then, you’ve been in here for a while, probably longer than I have actually, so you know the whole “Salvation only from within the Church” thing…

Yup. I’ll leave aside my opinion of such as well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Look at the difference between Orthodox Judaism, where one is rendered acceptable to God by one’s actions (obedience to the laws whether one thinks they are objectively reasonable or not) and Christianity where one is rendered acceptable to God solely based on what one believes about Jesus.

Also Karen, I think this is the wrong view of God. I had the same view for many years. Only, perhaps a lot more Angry. This is what I was taught about God, from the time I was born, that as soon as I was baptized (at 8 yrs) it was then on my constant battle to be worthy of God’s Love. Well, I know myself and that I am never going to be worthy of such a thing. Not ever. So, I rejected that god that rejected me and went atheist for many many years.

But, seems I was taught about the wrong god. The Catholic view of God is that He accepts us all. Not only wants us with Him but has gone to extraordinary lengths to get us to Him. For no other reason than Love for us, even me. I never knew this God until I started to look at Catholicism. No one ever told me, not once, that God Is Love.

Not trying to get all preachy or anything, just saying, I don’t agree with your assessment of The Christian God, as found in His Church.

 

[KarenNC]

That’s where I stopped reading because, no, I wouldn’t find it interesting.

No, I understand that there are a lot of folks who aren’t interested in discussing actual facts. Personally, I don’t understand it, but then, there you are. People are different.

Because I don’t judge the people, just the religion.

Interesting.

"*I still believe that 99% of wiccans are

1.) Teenagers who are simply attracted by another religion that they can upset their parents over

2.) People who simply find all the rituals cool. (I get to use amulets! Like a movie!)"*

Sounds an awful lot like “judging the people” to me.

 

[TomPiltoff]

No, I understand that there are a lot of folks who aren’t interested in discussing actual facts. Personally, I don’t understand it, but then, there you are. People are different.

I’m not going to look into facts about Wicca because I don’t need to be educated about any part of it.

I would be in the wrong if I was judging people because they are Wiccan. I do not.

On the other hand, I think the religion is stupid.

So what is the problem? My ignorance of the subtleties of Wicca is not causing any prejudice.

Interesting.

"*I still believe that 99% of wiccans are

1.) Teenagers who are simply attracted by another religion that they can upset their parents over

2.) People who simply find all the rituals cool. (I get to use amulets! Like a movie!)"*

Sounds an awful lot like “judging the people” to me.

Maybe it sounds like it, but it isn’t.

 

[KarenNC]

/quote]

If it makes you happy to so believe,

your “traditionalism” is (no doubt) treated almost EXACTLY like a Catholic is treated by his protestant brothers.

YOU are the intolerant close-minded “imperialist” rule-bound killjoy to them…

There are some parallels. I am much less “rule-bound” than many, however.

…and if you’re not, you’re not talking loudly enough.

NOT something of which I have usually been accused!

Like I said,… typical Catholic mom who knows where she’s coming from, and who’s only “fault” is in misidentifying the persons that she talks to while “in the Spirit”.

Again, if it makes you happy to think that…

Sounds like you’ve got much MUCH more angel dealings than demon dealings, which is probably very odd indeed for a neo-pagan,

Why would you assume that the majority of those following Neopagan religions have “demon dealings”?

Personally, I have had no dealings with what I understand Christianity to refer to as either angels or demons. I have had dealings with my Gods and the spirits of the places in which I have lived.

 

[KarenNC]

Has anybody yet cited Chesterton’s quote?

“Paganism was the biggest thing in the world, and Christianity was bigger and everything since has been comparatively small.”

Wicca would seem to be a small and haphazard attempt at retrieving that “biggest thing” before Christianity displaced it. It is fundamentally a nostalgic impulse for those who take it seriously.

So you are content to let the majority rule? At what point in the history of Christianity did it amass enough followers to become “right” and “true”? What will happen if (as seems possible) Islam becomes “the biggest thing”? Will that negate Christianity?

 

[KarenNC]

I’m not going to look into facts about Wicca because I don’t need to be educated about any part of it.

And I think that says it all.

One has to wonder, however, why you then choose to participate in a discussion on the topic on the Non-Catholic religions forum when part of the express purpose of this forum is to" * explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents"*

Also, might help to remember:
*If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it. *

 

[TomPiltoff]

And I think that says it all.

One has to wonder, however, why you then choose to participate in a discussion on the topic on the Non-Catholic religions forum when part of the express purpose of this forum is to" * explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents"*

Also, might help to remember:
*If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it. *

I chose to add my two cents about my personal experiences with Wiccans.

When I registered with this forum I didn’t sign anything that says I have to research every point of a religion before I comment on it.

I feel fine about making the comments I did because I made clear that when and if I find out somebody I’ve met is Wiccan, I do not look down on them.

I just think their religion is goofy. Does it use amulets and such for ceremonies? That’s all I need to know.

 

[KarenNC]

And, I know this belief in unbelief, I found it in the Unitarian Universalist church.

I’m not clear on what you mean here precisely by “belief in unbelief”.

 

[KarenNC]

I chose to add my two cents about my personal experiences with Wiccans.

And I would be correct in characterizing all Catholics or Baptists as unemployed drunks who beat their wives if the few Catholics or Baptists I had met fit that criteria? And to be firm in my refusal to even look at any information that the reality might differ from that? And then be proud that I did so and say “but I’m not judging the people, I don’t look down at all on unemployed drunks who beat their wives—pillars of the community”?

I just think their religion is goofy. Does it use amulets and such for ceremonies? That’s all I need to know.

So you also consider Catholicism “goofy” and “stupid”? Evangelical Christianity whose members wear cross lapel pins, carry pocket crosses, purity rings, etc?

Sorry, I realized I had made the assumption that you were Catholic, but I see from your public profile that you don’t list any religious affiliation at all. As Catholicism makes extensive use of medals, relics, statues, etc, as foci for worship, it surprised me to read such a statement from a Catholic, but it appears I was wrong in my assumption. I am aware that there are a number of religious groups who consider any use of anything external to the individual as an aid to worship or ceremonies to be “stupid” and even evil.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I just think their religion is goofy. Does it use amulets and such for ceremonies? That’s all I need to know.

rosaries are goofy too.

 

[TomPiltoff]

rosaries are goofy too.

Agreed. I’m an atheist.

 

[TomPiltoff]

And I would be correct in characterizing all Catholics or Baptists as unemployed drunks who beat their wives if the few Catholics or Baptists I had met fit that criteria? And to be firm in my refusal to even look at any information that the reality might differ from that? And then be proud that I did so and say “but I’m not judging the people, I don’t look down at all on unemployed drunks who beat their wives—pillars of the community”?

I’m not going to argue the point with you because there’s no way of proving it.

At the end of the day I’m comfortable knowing for a fact that I don’t discriminate against wiccans in any way.