Views on Wicca

[BlessedBe13]

Nothinginsecret:

Asking for your source is *not *an appeal to Argument from Authority.

However, the Catholic view that it is correct because the Bible says so is the fallacy of Argument from Authority/Appealing to Authority.

Sources are also irrelavant because it is the argument that is important, not where it is coming from (as Heathen Dawn said previously). Just because a priest says something to me doesn’t mean that I have to take it as true. Just because someone is a doctor I don’t have to take what they say as true. They could be making bad arguments. However, if some joe schmo, or a high school dropout, came upto me and started talking about something (not necessarily religious), he could still be making a better argument, with valid points, than the priest or doctor, even if he’s a “nobody” or a dropout.

(And I thought I’d never learn anything useful from my Practical Logic class )

 

[Nothinginsecret]

BlessedBe13:

However, the Catholic view that it is correct because the Bible says so is the fallacy of Argument from Authority/Appealing to Authority.

This thread doesn’t address Catholicism. It deals with Wicca, and a number of claims have been made with no basis in fact on which to judge them.

Your word alone will not do in this matter.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

I noticed you failed to comment on my previous posts.

As I said in my previous post, real-life commitments do not permit me to answer all things.

Although I don’t mind if you don’t I would like to know that you did read my last posts.

I did.

One thing that I am curious about is what brought you to Wicca instead of more developed wisdom traditions like Buddhism, Hinduism and the like. Do you think Wicca compares to these with regard to complexity and compleatness in addressing a whole understanding of metaphysics? Would you argue that Wicca is equal to them with regards to fostering wisdom?

I didn’t turn to Wicca for having a highly-developed philosophy. That doesn’t mean I don’t have one, simply that I take them from other sources—from Hinduism, for instance, which is compatible with Wicca (both pagan). What Wicca gives me is orthopraxis, ritual, magical discipline.

Although I recognize that you appear to have an issue with authority and with claims of Truth, I don’t see how that caused you to embrace Wicca over these very ancient traditions with such a board and, I would argue, appealing practices.

Maybe I thought a new, as opposed to an ancient, religion would have less historical baggage (for example: ancient pagans were often as patriarchal as the monotheists, treating women like chattel; equality of the sexes is a modern concept, and so Wicca as a modern religion has it).

What disciplines are found within Wicca that foster wisdom and is there any practices of purification (i.e. renunciation) the refine the human psyche or soul to come to greater awareness of reality?

It is not Wiccan, indeed not pagan in general, to believe renunciation is the way to achieve greater awareness of reality. Earthly things are not obstacles to spiritual enlightenment, on the contrary, they’re windows to the spiritual realities.

Rituals are wonderful vehicles to stimulate our awareness of the unseen but is there a recognition within Wicca to prefect the practitioner?

No, since the Goddess and the God do not require perfection.

What role does sexual intercourse play in Wicca?

Not as much as people tend to think. Ritual sex is usually performed only by the High Priestess with the High Priest on Beltane (1 May), and that too in private. Sex is regarded a sacrament, but promiscuity is not encouraged.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

hlgomez:

Have you ever came to ask yourself why are you here on earth? Where do you think you’re going?

Yup, done so since I was eight years old, that’s why I’m not an atheist today.

Nothinginsecret:

Drawing one’s argument regarding matters that concern one’s eternal soul from thin air is fallacy.

They’re not from thin air.

Asking for your source is *not *an appeal to Argument from Authority. It is an attempt to ascertain whether your claims have any basis in fact, or if they are imaginary.

It’s not a good attempt then, since knowing the source doesn’t tell you a thing about the reliability of the content that comes from it.

So far, you leave us to believe the latter.

I don’t suck my beliefs from thin air, but even if I did, it would say nothing of their factuality. Conversely, if you participated in an atheist forum, you could cite your SOURCE (the Bible) till the cows came home, but the denizens of that forum would deem it just as imaginary as if you had cited your beliefs from thin air, because they believe your SOURCE was, ultimately, conjured from thin air.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

With this said I would argument that “we” as physical creatures don’t exist as independent organisms and thus “Spirits” don’t either. Not one physical element is with us from birth to old age that is not replace or discarded. The nutrients we ingest repair and replace every cell of our bodies every few years. What element of “you” is actually “yours”?

But I reckon you’ll fail the Baseball Bat Test (crack it on your nut, and then let’s see you say there is no objective reality, no real personality et cetera; sorry for the violent example, it’s not originally mine).

If you have not proof in the “seen” world you have little argument for positing the distinction of independent spiritual life in the unseen world thus I argue that the notion of polytheism is a crude (i.e. false) conclusion made early on in God’s revelation of Himself to us thus who fail to recognize the interdependent nature of all things to both seen and unseen to the one uncreated creator, whom is called God, Yhwh, Allah, etc by different expressions of faith. All have this general understanding and all refute this crude conclusion that the polytheist posits. I am at a loss why you would attempt to revive such a notion except as a vehicle of distinction and thus identity which in-and-of-itself doesn’t merit reasonable consideration.

People have experienced different Gods, and Their mythologies show Their differing personalities. To say Zeus is the same thing as Yahweh is to ignore the evidence of distinctions.

I dare say that I think you mean to say “Spirits” and not Gods, since it is part of the definition of Godhood to have independence of self outside of the self.

Whose definition?

If a thing is not it’s own source of selfhood, it is a creation and thus not actually a god but a creature.

The Gods may be eternal, uncreated. Even if not, I don’t buy classical monotheistic restrictions upon what a God should be. You may think anything less than omnipotent and omniscient cannot be called a deity, but my view is different.

You completely dismantle your claim of polytheism by attributing the “Gods” existence to the “Ultimate Source”. I assume you don’t realize that this isn’t “polytheism” you are positing but “pantheism”

It’s called “soft polytheism.”

which is a step in the right direction but continues to ignore the supremacy of the Creator and the ultimate hierarchy which points ultimately to one uncreated Creator, whom is called God, Yhwh, Allah, etc.

The way I see it, monotheists tangle themselves in such a philosophical web because they conflate the Prime Mover with a personal deity. It had to happen when a personal deity, Yahweh, was raised to the status of Prime Mover, but it’s still artificial. That’s why the Big Bang Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence disproves atheism, but doesn’t prove Christianity or Islam.

 

[Nothinginsecret]

Heathen Dawn:

They’re not from thin air.

Where are they from?

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

I didn’t turn to Wicca for having a highly-developed philosophy. That doesn’t mean I don’t have one, simply that I take them from other sources—from Hinduism, for instance, which is compatible with Wicca (both pagan). What Wicca gives me is orthopraxis, ritual, magical discipline.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

I studied Hinduism and Ashtanga Vinyasa for many years and I would dare say that it doesn’t seem to be as compatable as you suggest. What branch of Hinduism are you speaking about?

Maybe I thought a new, as opposed to an ancient, religion would have less historical baggage (for example: ancient pagans were often as patriarchal as the monotheists, treating women like chattel; equality of the sexes is a modern concept, and so Wicca as a modern religion has it).

So you blame religion for the inequality of the sex in every culture of the world? How many women in primative cultures have you had the opportunity to meet and interact with? Why do you believe they were labelled the “weaker sex”? How many primative cultures relay on the women members to hunt, defend the tribe or wander around without protection? If they did, how often would the tribes women-folk be killed, captured and taken as brides by other tribes? How many men does it take to repopulate a primative tribe after a particularly high mortality rate? How many children can one woman birth in a years time? You see, there are very realistic reasons for primative cultures to be patriarchal and it wasn’t a matter of preference but survival. Sure, in our protected modern society, women should have equality and complete freedom and the freedom to discard their life-giving duty to the tribe-rite-large.

It is not Wiccan, indeed not pagan in general, to believe renunciation is the way to achieve greater awareness of reality. Earthly things are not obstacles to spiritual enlightenment, on the contrary, they’re windows to the spiritual realities.

Earlier you cited Hinduism as an example of a campatible pagan belief structure to your own, yet their is clear teachings for Gurus and Yogis to purify the body and mind through renunciation practices like meditation and yoga. Why does Wicca deviate from this kind of practice. In most pagan practices that are recorded, practitioners engage in methods that refine and mind and body in order to refine them more keenly to the “spirit-world” or the ultimate reality are you saying that Wicca does not share this in common with them?

No, since the Goddess and the God do not require perfection.

Are you suggesting the reality at it’s most primative level is a dualism? Why is the most simple of lifeforms asexual?

Not as much as people tend to think. Ritual sex is usually performed only by the High Priestess with the High Priest on Beltane (1 May), and that too in private. Sex is regarded a sacrament, but promiscuity is not encouraged.

Historically, sex produces children. Is it the practice of High Priestesses and High Priests to have children as a product of Beltane? How is this natural aftereffect dealt with? How was it dealt with in the past?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

But I reckon you’ll fail the Baseball Bat Test (crack it on your nut, and then let’s see you say there is no objective reality, no real personality et cetera; sorry for the violent example, it’s not originally mine).

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

First, you are assuming that I am a man. Second, your example ignores the evidence of Eastern Monastics who have emulated themselves without even a wimper. From your response, I assume you think of your physical self as yourself and fail to even fathom the possibility that one can separate from this “shell”. I also recognize that you tie a great deal of your personal identity to being female and the posit that their is a spiritual distinction between male and female that goes all the way to the profound level of Godhood. This creates a situations where there is not peace within the self alone and that even at the most profound level of reality their exists a need for co-mingling of the sexes. Why is this? Do you equate creation only with sex and birth?

People have experienced different Gods, and Their mythologies show Their differing personalities. To say Zeus is the same thing as Yahweh is to ignore the evidence of distinctions.

Perhaps we then should take a look at the personalities of Zeus and even Odin before assuming anything? What do you know about them?

Whose definition?

Pick one and let’s take it from there shall we?

The Gods may be eternal, uncreated. Even if not, I don’t buy classical monotheistic restrictions upon what a God should be. You may think anything less than omnipotent and omniscient cannot be called a deity, but my view is different.

Well, lets not limit ourselves with monotheistic restrictions. Lets look at what Hinduism has to say about Godhood, shall we?

It’s called “soft polytheism.”

It’s called “pantheism” and it an evolution of Classical Polytheism. Look it up.

The way I see it, monotheists tangle themselves in such a philosophical web because they conflate the Prime Mover with a personal deity. It had to happen when a personal deity, Yahweh, was raised to the status of Prime Mover, but it’s still artificial. That’s why the Big Bang Cosmological Argument for God’s Existence disproves atheism, but doesn’t prove Christianity or Islam.

This might be the most intelligent thing I’ve seen you write so far, perhaps we should dwell on this a bit before running off to anything else.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Nothingsecret:

Where are they from?

Let’s see… you can get about my afterlife beliefs from here:

geocities.com/spirit_teachings/ (summary of a book)

Now, my question is: does this contribute anything to the debate? I mean, now that I’ve pointed to a source, is it any better than having my thoughts come from thin air? Really.

chrisb:

I studied Hinduism and Ashtanga Vinyasa for many years and I would dare say that it doesn’t seem to be as compatable as you suggest. What branch of Hinduism are you speaking about?

The branch of Hinduism that offers prayers to Mother Earth, for instance.

So you blame religion for the inequality of the sex in every culture of the world? How many women in primative cultures have you had the opportunity to meet and interact with? Why do you believe they were labelled the “weaker sex”? How many primative cultures relay on the women members to hunt, defend the tribe or wander around without protection? If they did, how often would the tribes women-folk be killed, captured and taken as brides by other tribes? How many men does it take to repopulate a primative tribe after a particularly high mortality rate? How many children can one woman birth in a years time? You see, there are very realistic reasons for primative cultures to be patriarchal and it wasn’t a matter of preference but survival. Sure, in our protected modern society, women should have equality and complete freedom and the freedom to discard their life-giving duty to the tribe-rite-large.

Patriarchy may have purely social reasons, but its staying in our day and age is the result of its canonisation in religious precepts. It’s just like the issue of slavery or the divine right of kings.

Earlier you cited Hinduism as an example of a campatible pagan belief structure to your own, yet their is clear teachings for Gurus and Yogis to purify the body and mind through renunciation practices like meditation and yoga. Why does Wicca deviate from this kind of practice. In most pagan practices that are recorded, practitioners engage in methods that refine and mind and body in order to refine them more keenly to the “spirit-world” or the ultimate reality are you saying that Wicca does not share this in common with them?

Most religions have a world-denying, ascetic aspect. The Greek polytheists, for example, had the Orphics. But this is a strain, not the main body.

Are you suggesting the reality at it’s most primative level is a dualism? Why is the most simple of lifeforms asexual?

No, I am saying there is a Goddess and there is a God, and unlike the Christian God they don’t require stainless people. As simple as that.

Historically, sex produces children. Is it the practice of High Priestesses and High Priests to have children as a product of Beltane?

In our day and age the High Priest is supposed to use a condom.

(cont. on next post)

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

(cont. from previous post)

First, you are assuming that I am a man.

Um no, sorry. “Nut” = head. Wrong side of the Atlantic Ocean, I suppose.

From your response, I assume you think of your physical self as yourself and fail to even fathom the possibility that one can separate from this “shell”.

Wrong, I’m not a materialist, I do believe in a spiritual body that survives death and which is one’s real self. But I do not believe individuality is an illusion; it is absolutely real.

Perhaps we then should take a look at the personalities of Zeus and even Odin before assuming anything? What do you know about them?

What about them? You can glean them from Their mythologies.

Pick one and let’s take it from there shall we?

A God is a person immortal (never dies, never decays) and with special powers over nature and holding the Divine Mysteries, which cannot be communicated by word or symbol.

It’s called “pantheism” and it an evolution of Classical Polytheism. Look it up.

Nope. I’m not a pantheist, I’m a panentheist. In soft polytheism the Gods and Goddesses are thought to be faces of one overarching Divinity, who may be pantheistic (=universe) or panentheistic (>universe). And you can have pantheism (or panentheism) without polytheism at all. Pantheism sometimes evolved from classical polytheism but not always. Spinoza became a pantheist through freethinking rather than from developing polytheism.

 

[Nothinginsecret]

Heathen Dawn:

Let’s see… you can get about my afterlife beliefs from here:

geocities.com/spirit_teachings/ (summary of a book)

Now, my question is: does this contribute anything to the debate? I mean, now that I’ve pointed to a source, is it any better than having my thoughts come from thin air? Really.

As far as Wicca being more credible, no. It’s not any better.

But now we each have access to documentation of each others core beliefs, as opposed to one side having access to such documentation and the other relying solely on the word of the other.

It’s a fair arrangement, wouldn’t you agree?

Now, it’s worth pointing out something that should be very clear at this point. It took a bit of arm twisting to get a source of documentation of your beliefs from you. As an occultist, I’m sure this is common of you. Occult religions like Wicca are secretive by nature. Such is the meaning of the word, “occult.”

There is a reason for this and anyone who has studied occult religions knows this. Occult religions are never in reality what they are advertised as. They operate on the principle of degrees where a little bit of knowledge is revealed at a time, slowly. But the highest tenets are kept secret and known only by the adepts. There is always the carrot dangled of “spiritual truths” and Gnosis to those who commit. But each revelation is a disappointment which compels the initiate to continue their commitment–the hopes that they will eventually be “enlightened.”

Initiates become deluded due to the fact that the information is revealed so slowly, over such a long period of time, that they fail to see that they are being led into something that was not at all what they were at first told.

Contrast this with Jesus Christ who said, “In secrecy I have said nothing.” This one sentence destroys Gnosis completely. Christ’s teachings are for ALL men. A person who seeks information regarding Traditional Christianity may readily find it. The good and the bad are there to see. One may buy a Christian Bible, Catholic Catachism; read the Catholic Encyclopedia. They will not be led into an organization of teachings that are initially hidden from them.

Given that God IS truth, such is the nature of His church. Given that Satan is the father of lies, such is the nature of occult religion.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

The branch of Hinduism that offers prayers to Mother Earth, for instance.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

I am not familiar with any form of Hinduism that posits a dualism? The Sanatana Dharma, or “eternal faith,” known today as Hinduism, is a family of religions that accept the authority of the Vedas. Its four principal denominations are Saivism, Saktism, Vaishnavism, and Snartism. Which one are you talking about?

Patriarchy may have purely social reasons, but its staying in our day and age is the result of its canonisation in religious precepts. ItÕs just like the issue of slavery or the divine right of kings.

Patriarchy could be argued to be the “natural” state of humanity by right of survival. I dare say that slavery and the divine right of kings are much later conventions. With regards to slavery, would you have rather primitive cultures simply kill all survivors of inter-tribal struggle or take those that survived “into” there tribes at some level beneath full-tribal membership? That was the origin of slavery. It was originally an act of benevolence exercised by the victors. It was only abused as a form of multi-generational imprisonment in the Western Modern Age. As far as the divine right of kings I would say that was simply a means to confer lordship to tribal-leaders to ensure stability within the dark and middle ages. All three of these situations have much more to do with tribal survival, benevolence and stability and very little to do with religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all spoke out regarding the proper care and even freedom of slaves during Jubilee, once a year. They did nothing to encourage the unjust imprisonment of generations for exploitation as you appear to infer. Why do you think pagan cultures, like Rome and Egypt had slaves?

Most religions have a world-denying, ascetic aspect. The Greek polytheists, for example, had the Orphics. But this is a strain, not the main body.

Why do you catagorize ascetic practices as “world-denying”? How about “ego” denying? Every world religion has as inegrated core element that is a wisdom tradition which includes the development of their practitioners, morally, ethically, spiritual, physical, the cultivation of the divine nature, what have you. One can argue that any religious practice is only nominally for the masses and primarily for those individuals who reach beyond the mundain into the sphere of the divine to claim their proper inheritance. If one reaches into the divine without the proper development it spoils the practitioner and the Reign of the Self (i.e. the little-self or Ego) then ensues to the detriment of all. What safeguards are in place for such failures in Wicca?

No, I am saying there is a Goddess and there is a God, and unlike the Christian God they donÕt require stainless people. As simple as that.

God needs no additional labels, like “Christian” or “Pagan” and He/She/It doesn’t require stainless people but repentant people and that is simply that. ]

In our day and age the High Priest is supposed to use a condom.

Well that is convenient but what is the responsibility of the High Priestess and Hight Priest of the past? What happens when your rites produce offspring? I wonder if you only see half of the meaning of the act of sex in your religious practice?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Nothinginsecret:

As far as Wicca being more credible, no. It’s not any better.

So now you know why I was in no hurry to give a source. Because its effect would be nil.

Now, it’s worth pointing out something that should be very clear at this point. It took a bit of arm twisting to get a source of documentation of your beliefs from you.

See above: it’s because I don’t place much value in sources. I place value in arguments. You’ve now confirmed my thoughts. In short: not because I had anything to hide, but because it would bring me no intellectual gain.

Occult religions like Wicca are secretive by nature.

Wicca is not secretive.

Such is the meaning of the word, “occult.”

Occult is anything hidden. Including God and angels. The only way to be occult-free is to hold to metaphysical naturalism, as atheists do (the view that nature is all there is).

There is a reason for this and anyone who has studied occult religions knows this. Occult religions are never in reality what they are advertised as. They operate on the principle of degrees where a little bit of knowledge is revealed at a time, slowly. But the highest tenets are kept secret and known only by the adepts. There is always the carrot dangled of “spiritual truths” and Gnosis to those who commit. But each revelation is a disappointment which compels the initiate to continue their commitment–the hopes that they will eventually be “enlightened.”

Initiates become deluded due to the fact that the information is revealed so slowly, over such a long period of time, that they fail to see that they are being led into something that was not at all what they were at first told.

All this is based on a strawman, so I don’t feel compelled to respond.

Contrast this with Jesus Christ who said, “In secrecy I have said nothing.”

Jesus? The one who taught his disciples in parables, so that other people would not learn the mysteries?

Luke 8:10

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

One may buy a Christian Bible, Catholic Catachism; read the Catholic Encyclopedia.

And one may obtain each and every book of Wicca, dating from its very inception till this day. Nothing hidden.

Given that Satan is the father of lies, such is the nature of occult religion.

You’re welcome to keep your belief in Satan. I reject that belief no matter its source.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

I am not familiar with any form of Hinduism that posits a dualism?

What dualism are you referring to?

Why do you catagorize ascetic practices as “world-denying”? How about “ego” denying?

Renunciation of what, then, are you talking about?

Every world religion has as inegrated core element that is a wisdom tradition which includes the development of their practitioners, morally, ethically, spiritual, physical, the cultivation of the divine nature, what have you. One can argue that any religious practice is only nominally for the masses and primarily for those individuals who reach beyond the mundain into the sphere of the divine to claim their proper inheritance. If one reaches into the divine without the proper development it spoils the practitioner and the Reign of the Self (i.e. the little-self or Ego) then ensues to the detriment of all.

Would it be right to say you’re arguing here for spiritual élitism?

Well that is convenient but what is the responsibility of the High Priestess and Hight Priest of the past?

To tell the truth, I don’t know what they did in the days before consciousness of safe sex.

I wonder if you only see half of the meaning of the act of sex in your religious practice?

It doesn’t even have to be a physical act of sex. It can be symbolised by lowering the athame (magic knife) into a wine-filled chalice.

 

[Nothinginsecret]

Heathen Dawn:

And one may obtain each and every book of Wicca, dating from its very inception till this day.

You’ve very skillfully avoided the point. Here it is once more.

A person who is interested in Roman Catholicsm has the opportunity to view ALL Catholic doctrine and teachings. There is a Catechism available to ANYONE.

While Wicca makes some books available, as all occult religions do in order to advertise, there is no Wiccan Catechism.

A person who is interested in Wicca must become involved long term in order to learn the tenets of Wicca. They are not able to make an educated decision up front.

Here is a good example of the Wiccan mentality regarding this matter:

A Catechism for a Wiccan Child
by J.L.Stanley
Church of the Iron Oak

When they ask to see your gods,
your book of prayers,
show them lines
drawn delicately with veins
on the underside of a bird’s wing.
Tell them you believe
in giant sycamores, mottled
and stark against a winter sky,
and in nights so frozen
stars crack open,
spilling streams of molten ice to earth.
And tell them how you drank
the holy wine of honeysuckle
on a warm spring day
and of the softness
of your mother,
who never taught you death was life’s reward,
but who believed in the earth
and in the sun,
and a million, million light years
of being.

Reprinted from Church of the Iron Oak.

That would answer most people’s questions very clearly, no?

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Nothinginsecret:

You’ve very skillfully avoided the point.

I did not. Please abstain from attributions of malice to me.

While Wicca makes some books available,

All books are available. Look what a wealth of information you have here and here, for example—from the earliest days of Wicca too.

there is no Wiccan Catechism, nor anything even remotely approaching one.

A Wiccan Catechism?! Why not a Wiccan doctrine of Original Sin and Atonment while we’re about it?! My Gods, Nothinginsecret, you can’t expect all religions to be copies of your own! The reason Wicca doesn’t have a Catechism is it doesn’t attach the utmost important to dogmata.

A person who is interested in Wicca must become involved long term in order to learn the tenets of Wicca. They are not able to make an educated decision up front.

This is false. Entirely false. There is nothing hidden—no information hidden from non-initiates. The only thing initiates have that non-initiates don’t is some Mysteries of the Gods, and that’s knowledge that no book or course or symbol or human teacher could possibly give you, only the Gods can.

Here is a good example:

A Catechism for a Wiccan Child
by J.L.Stanley
Church of the Iron Oak

I didn’t find it on that site. Never mind, I’ll answer the pertinent material.

When they ask to see your gods,
your book of prayers,
show them lines
drawn delicately with veins
on the underside of a bird’s wing.
Tell them you believe
in giant sycamores, mottled
and stark against a winter sky,
and in nights so frozen
stars crack open,
spilling streams of molten ice to earth.
And tell them how you drank
the holy wine of honeysuckle
on a warm spring day
and of the softness
of your mother,
who never taught you death was life’s reward,
but who believed in the earth
and in the sun,
and a million, million light years
of being.

Hmmm … whereas you attribute this piece to malice—the intention of people to hide, to conceal, to be deceptive—I see this as an affirmation that the treasures of faith cannot be put on the table like a trinket as the atheists want them to be, but can only be conveyed with symbols that touch people’s inner selves.

That would answer most people’s questions very clearly, no?

I’m not the one with the attitude problem. Someone else is. I wonder who that could be?

 

[Nothinginsecret]

Heathen Dawn:

There is nothing hidden—no information hidden from non-initiates. The only thing initiates have that non-initiates don’t is some Mysteries of the Gods, and that’s knowledge that no book or course or symbol or human teacher could possibly give you, only the Gods can.

This is the part of Wicca that most interests me and is precisely what I am addressing. I don’t subscribe to Gnosis. It is elitist. In the end, the elite win because they have knowledge of “The Mysteries of the gods,” and the outsiders, or initiates, don’t.

And who determines what these “Mysteries of the gods” which cannot be written down are? Why, the elite adepts, of course. And that assures that they will remain adepts and the outsiders will remain outsiders. The power of the adepts is entrenched.

I prefer the Christian model where a person may see what they are getting involved in before hand. The truth, by nature, can be presented easily. Gnostic religions obscure the truth.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Nothinginsecret:

I don’t subscribe to Gnosis. It is elitist.

I assure you, you’ll never find a greater enemy of élitism, and a greater preacher for equalism, than I am. I have even written quite a few articles (on my website) deploring the tendency towards élitism showing among some pagans. I’m against the notion of a rat-race towards spiritual enlightenment, totally against it. That said, the problem is not the idea of gnosis itself, but prideful people, puffed-up Pharisees.

In other words: I’m not going to give up on the search for gnosis just because a lot of arrogant people have turned it into a competition.

And who determines what these “Mysteries of the gods” which cannot be written down are?

You know them when the Gods teach you them.

I prefer the Christian model where a person may see what they are getting involved in before hand. The truth, by nature can be presented easily.

I prefer this model too. But I don’t see it absent from Wicca like you do.

Gnostic religions, by nature, obscure the truth.

Some of them do. That’s why I’m not going to even consider Scientology or Falun Gong.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

What dualism are you referring to?

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

A dualism is the exsistence of two ultimate essenses which make of reality. I assume because there exists a male and a female God in your metaphysics you recognize them as two distinct essences. That posit is a dualism because what you are saying is that the ultimate nature of reality is a division into two distinct esssences which commingle. Some would argue that this is nothing more than simple “projection” of the human nature, the only nature we understood in primative times, onto the reality. This is not what is taught in Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Even Taoism doesn’t start with the Yin/Yang which is a manifestation of the Tao, which is one essense and the source of all things.

It is a foundation belief of Hinduism in the Vedas. They believe that their sacred scripture, the Vedas, are divine wors that manifest the glorious primal energy of both creation and eternity.

they believe in a supreme Ground of All Being, the Brahman, who is uncreated, unborn, changeless, incorruptible, and utterly holy.

“‘Ekam sad vipra behudha vadanti.’ Truth is one, but is called by different names.” - The Vedas

Renunciation of what, then, are you talking about?

Sin! The ego! The lower self! The desire to see oneself as independant and separate from all things. The extend of one’s slaverly to one’s sin is the extend that one will ultimately need purification and repentance and reform. Bringing oneself to the awareness of sin and one’s own sin is the first step. There are many and few take them to the face of God.

Would it be right to say youêre arguing here for spiritual ?litism?

Do you recognize that some animals are prey and some are predator? Some are above and some are below. the fact that some men can be closer to God should not repulse you, what should repulse you is how far we have moved away from Him. Each step brings us closer and opens the blossom of the Holy Spirit (Christ in us) that much more. As we open up to the divine self we shed our separateness and we die in the self to be born in Christ. We are no more but Christ in us as St. Paul said. Elitism is the elevation of the “Self” over others. This is the Reign of the Ego and the birth of the One Who Divides. You should be capable of many this distinction.

To tell the truth, I donêt know what they did in the days before consciousness of safe sex.

Or do you mean before you separated sex from the creation of children? Sex does create bonding pairs through chemical and emotional elements but that is to insure that the couple does not separate before the child reach adulthood. It is once again a means of survival and an ends to a means. To use it as any other means is to misuse it and to misunderstand it. many do and it is unfortunate.

It doesnêt even have to be a physical act of sex. It can be symbolised by lowering the athame (magic knife) into a wine-filled chalice.

Fertility Ritual. I get it. What I don’t get is why you would do it when you don’t even want children? Please explain? Again this is misuse and misunderstanding of not only sex but even your own pagan fertility ritual. You see most primative culture wanted their women to be pregnant through the winter months when the tribe had stores of food and large predators were less mobile. It would also allow for late spring and early summer births when survival of children would be most high. Again it’s all about survival not pair bonding as you appear to limit it.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[chrisb]

Nothinginsecret:

This is the part of Wicca that most interests me and is precisely what I am addressing. I don’t subscribe to Gnosis. It is elitist. In the end, the elite win because they have knowledge of “The Mysteries of the gods,” and the outsiders, or initiates, don’t.

And who determines what these “Mysteries of the gods” which cannot be written down are? Why, the elite adepts, of course. And that assures that they will remain adepts and the outsiders will remain outsiders. The power of the adepts is entrenched.

I prefer the Christian model where a person may see what they are getting involved in before hand. The truth, by nature, can be presented easily. Gnostic religions obscure the truth.

In nomine Jeus I offer you peace,

Be cautious brother.

Happy is he who has found wisdom, he who has acquired understanding, for wisdom is more profitable than silver, and the gain she brings is better than gold! She is more precious than red coral, and none of your jewels can compare with her. In her right hand is long life, in her left are riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways and her paths all lead to prosperity. She is a tree of life to those who grasp her, and those who hold fast to her are safe. - Proverbs 3:13-18

Who are they who fail to grasp her? Who are they who have long life, riches and honor? Wisdom (Gnosis) are the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Common sense suits itself to the ways of the world. Wisdom tries to conform to the ways of Heaven.

May we be guided by the Holy Spirit to know the difference. Amen.

In Hoc Salus,