Have you considered your view of and relationship with deity?
My view is fairly personal and individual. Each person views deity in their own personal way. What could I say about my view of deity that one would understand? My view on the deity I follow is undoubtedly different from others who may follow the same deity because I interact differently with her (though, through conversations, I have noticed similarities between how I view and interact with her, and others).
I follow the Goddess Hecate. I view her in the way she wants me to, which, as I said is undoubtedly different than another's view. Through my visions with her, she adorns herself in a light colored hooded cloak, carrying a staff. These are typical and common symbolic representations of her. Ancient followers also depicted her as wearing a skirt and hunting boots. I do not see her in this way. Modern society sees Hecate as an old hag; the Crone we commonly associate with the Halloween Witch. To me she is a young woman, whose face I cannot see (whether its due to her own refusal to show me, or my own refusal to know out of respect for her, I don't know, nor do I really care; her physical appearance is not as important as the words she says to me; the advice she gives to me and the lessons she teaches me). My relationship with her is deeply personal. I accept responsibility for my actions towards her and speak to her with total honesty, and she does the same. Though sometimes harsh, what she says to me is what I need to hear, and that should be the goal of anyone who follows ANY sort of deity...not to be coddled and told what one wants to hear, but what they need to hear, even if they don't want to.
Have you concluded that these actually fit within the framework of Wicca?
Again, because I don't identify as Wiccan, whether or not they fit within the framework of Wicca is moot. However, if I WERE Wiccan, I would probably have to say no, as she has not divulged to me any consort to work with, nor has she indicated, really, any desire to be honored alongside one. But because I understand Wicca and its relationship with its Gods, I acknowledge the lack of association with my Goddess, her desires and the Wiccan framework.
Are you certain you're not trying to fit square pegs into round holes?
Because I'm not Wiccan, I don't do that. However, I DO note when other people do this, and make note of it to them. Quite often I am accused of "being mean" or "trolling" when I do this, simply because I acknowledge the errors in peoples understanding of whats acceptable within the Wiccan construct, and they don't like that. They want Wicca to be a religion in which they can do whatever they want, even if it means destroying what makes Wicca, Wicca. They want to maintain the label, even if it means re-defining it.
I understand that for one to be Wiccan, there needs to be a dual deity figure, AT LEAST. To omit even ONE deity from this construct turns Wicca into Eclectic Paganism.
Do you understand the difference between a nature religion, and a fertility religion?
Based on my own understanding, a nature religion would focus on the agricultural aspects of the world. A fertility religion focuses on the fertile nature of the world.
A nature-based religion doesn't need to focus on the sexual process in which to create nature (while we think of sex purely in a mammalian fashion, the natural world, including plants have their own form of "sex" to procreate...one would have to look further into the botanical aspects of plant-life procreation...I won't go into it). All they focus on is when life begins, waxes, wanes and eventually dies (thus starting the cycle again). A fertility religion focuses on the fertile aspect of nature; the creation process and its symbolic nature in relation to the Gods.
Do you know the real history of Wicca and the various influences that led to its development?
Anyone reading my blogs would realize my understanding of where Wicca comes from, but for the purposes of this question, I'll elaborate:
I know that Wicca started roughly at the end of the 1940's to the beginning of the 1950's (give or take a few years). I recognize that Wicca is a modern, 20th century religion. I also acknowledge that age does not determine the validity of a religion or belief. All religions, spiritualities, philosophies of life and lack thereof started somewhere with someones idea, gained popularity, spread and evolved over the years. Just because something is approximately 70-80 years old does not mean that it is less valid than one that is over 2,000 years old.
I recognize that Gardner pieced together his religion from different aspects after he discovered "holes" in the spirituality he discovered. He filled in these "holes" with aspects from such spiritualities as Buddhism, Native American spiritualities, European spiritualities, etc. I know that one of his bigger influences was Aleister Crowley and his system of Thelema (where the Rede stems from), as well as aspects of the Golden Dawn. But again, because this new spirituality he was creating was pieced together doesn't make it invalid either. Even Christianity was "pieced" together in its beginnings to make it more acceptable to the current society.
Do you understand the Wiccan Rede's place in Wicca?
I challenge back at the HPs who asked these questions that the Rede does have a central importance to Wicca (however misunderstood it may be). Wicca's Rede is not a law or a hard rule that one MUST abide by, lest the "Wiccan Police" arrest them (also it is only EIGHT WORDS, not a long poem). It also does not dictate that one must never harm anyone or anything at all, ever in their life, because to do so is impossible. I understand that the Rede is a guideline; advice meant to make the Wiccan think about their actions before they take them. Is this action truly necessary? Is there any other way to take care of the situation that would be less harmful? IS is harmful? Will you take responsibility for your actions should your actions BE harmful to another, and will you accept any consequences? THIS is what the Rede SHOULD be (if it is not already). It causes one to be mindful of their actions and seek alternative ways before any "esoteric" ways.
Do you understand the threefold law was not an inherent part of Wicca and is not accepted throughout Wicca widespread?
My PERSONAL view of the Threefold Law is that it is redundant. It is also not agreed upon as to what it means or how it is implemented. The HPs who asked these questions is under the impression that what's sent out should be returned BY the person in three ways (or experienced in three ways). Should Person A do something to Person B, Person B is to exact something in return to Person A in either three ways or on three levels of understanding (that is, be the action good OR bad).
First of all, how is one to exact return on Person A without Person B resisting? Of course, everything is dependent on Person B knowing all actions Person A is doing, as Person A sough the permission of Person B in the first place (or should have).
Personally its all confusing, and truly redundant.
Previous:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Coming Soon:
Part 6 - This entails a bit more elaboration in its answers so it may take me a bit to post
No comments:
Post a Comment