Wicca. What are you thoughts? what is it and where did it come from? Do you agree?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Annee

We hailed the birth of 5 lambs today. If you ever want to see innocence and purity, it is that first quivering step of a lamb only minutes old. Makes all the ills of the world disappear for a brief, precious time.
The essence of Wiccans.

I did spend one summer on a small farm. Chickens, goats, pigs, horses, cows etc.

No sheep, but did see a calf born.

a reply to: nonspecific

Wicca is a way to ground oneself in life, to cultivate a deeper understanding of the non-dualistic nature of life.
It can be seen as a movement which was started by Gerald Gardner, an organized form of witchcraft.
people connect with nature through the cycle of the year, the wheel of life.
The wheel represents the eternal repeating cycle in which balance of power shifts from light to dark, birth and dying, sowing and harvesting.
Besides the natural rhythm of the seasons with which we are all somewhat familiar, the esoteric side is exposed and passed on through symbols and rituals which aim to gain deeper understanding and insight, and thus become initiated.

Personally i see no harm in this and why it should not have a place in modern society, however, there are those who turn this in a mumbo jumbo of special magical powers, spells and sorcery, and a hierarchical structure with power and position.
That is the downside of an organized form wherein an authority dictates and is in an position to abuse others, this is why i always advocate a solitary way.

Witchcraft is the craft of the wise, those who practise it, are the most generic and grounded people i've ever met.

a reply to: Annee


I surround my home with critters aplenty. Have my life through. ( yes, I dared to end my sentence with a preposition. I'm a rebel!).

I've often described myself as a atheistic pagan; I admit that I enjoy paradoxes.

My perspective: Wicca is a human religion.

All human religions are creative and imaginative expressions of attempts to understand the universe from a non-scientific basis. In time, some of them become little more than methods of political and social control by a given populations "elite."

Wicca has a certain history. It encapsulates certain events in the UK in the 1950s originating with Gerald Gardner's publication of Witchcraft Today. It has since taken on "a life of its own" and displays all the characteristics of any other human religion.

Wicca 2015 is much different from Wicca 1954 in some ways, and similar in other ways.

Thousands of books have been published.

Everyone has their own ideas about "the truth" in Wicca, but, there are recognizable similarities.

Wicca reminds me very much of Gnosticism in the First, Second and Third Centuries.

It's lack of orthodoxy (to date) along with its attempt to incorporate the best elements of other religions and philosophies is the most appealing aspect of it to me.


It is as valid a religion as any other in every sense of the word.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Believing in a female deity does not mean Wicca predates monotheism. It doesn't even come close to doing so. Not only was it invented in the 18th/19th century, it practically plagiarized it's earliest rites and rituals from other more respectable occult traditions from the same time period, and put it's own spin on them to sell books. The entire thing is a sham. Even among occultists, Wicca is considered a joke. The red headed step child of occult organizations, if you will. It's for this reason even practicing occultists consider it dangerous, because it's practitioners are largely ignorant of it's origins or the origins of it's rituals. It's like buying a copy of the necronomicon and thinking you really are conjuring up Cthulhu, but being completely unprepared if something similar happens to decide to make an appearance "for the hell of it".

Even invented religions can be dangerous. You should know that first hand, since you are forever suggesting Christianity is one such religion.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What is "dangerous" about Wicca again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DeadSeraph

What is "dangerous" about Wicca again?

The fact it's a constructed religion with borrowed rituals used to fit that construction. Unfortunately, these rituals and symbols are borrowed from other systems without the associated protective elements that should have been included with each. Feel free to assume the whole thing is nonsense. It makes no difference to me (largely because it is).

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thanks for your answer; I have a few more:

What religion was not "constructed" at some point?

What religion did not borrow "rituals" from earlier religions?

If Wicca is all nonsense, then where is the harm or the danger in it?

I mean for example, I would argue all religion is a delusion, and I can point out ways that level of delusion is dangerous,

But that's not your argument, is it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What religion was not "constructed" at some point? _javascript:quote()

None, really. Every religion had it's beginning. Just like Wicca did in the 19th century.

What religion did not borrow "rituals" from earlier religions?

I personally can't find one.

If Wicca is all nonsense, then where is the harm or the danger in it?

I thought I had explained this, but to describe it further, if you borrow only half a system to call upon spirits, you shouldn't expect yourself to be protected. The Wiccans are probably the LEAST protected of all occult practitioners.

I mean for example, I would argue all religion is a delusion, and I can point out ways that level of delusion is dangerous,

But that's not your argument, is it?

It is and yet it isn't. Learn more. My claims are easily verifiable. See if they can be confirmed. Find out what occultists say about Wicca. Learn about the occult. See if you can test what I have to say. It's a science just like you prefer. I can be proven.

I guess you did not read the ridiculous comment i responded to. I twas not the Ops article i commented on. Pick and choose with little info do you? a reply to: DeathSlayer

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Thank you kindly for you answers and the intentionality of your latter advice.

I have studied religions, philosophies and magickal systems my whole life, and in fact, I have a great amount of respect for Aleister Crowley's actual thought, as opposed to what people believe about him; I am aware of what you are referring to in terms of magickal practices being "a science" which is of course what Crowley argued for.

I just wanted to make sure your real concern was plain here, and that you weren't just arguing for one set of delusions over another.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're welcome?

If you are so familiar with Crowley go read what he has to say about Wicca. It is far less flattering than what I have to say about it.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

IF I'm familiar with Crowley? Hmm.

Aleister Crowley died in 1947.

Gerald Gardner wrote Witchcraft Today (ostensibly the source of modern Wicca) in 1954.

Perhaps you're a little more lenient with your definition of what "Wicca" is than some are?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Or perhaps you are? Read the thread.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

If you are so familiar with Crowley go read what he has to say about Wicca.

perhaps you could supply a link to crowley's quotes concerning wicca

or a reference to wicca from the 19th century - or even pre gardner

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I have read the thread, thank you. No need to be short and/or snide, really.

You came into the discussion on two occasions announcing your own OPINIONS about what Wicca is and isn't.

From the second occasion onward, you're not merely sharing your opinion, you're attempting to dogmatically (based on some dogma you are trying to be coy about) instruct others as to their own understanding of Wicca, which is inane.

If Wicca didn't "begin" with Gardner in 1954, if it extended back beyond him into a "witch cult" from the 1930s or earlier, then your abrupt and dismissive synopsis of the derivation of Wicca is even more asinine.

You're privileging some other sorts of "occult belief" over what you see as "Wicca" ... which is sort of like arguing whether Superman can whip the Hulk in a wrestling match, quite honestly.

If you wish to discuss the matter civilly without the pretension you're displaying to some sort of superior knowledge and understanding about occult matters, then I am here.

If you want to argue wither your particular brand of juju is stronger than someone else's, well ... honestly that's a fool's game.

a reply to: aynock

If Gerald Gardner is your genesis that's fine, he's not mine. There is enough authorship even after Crowley (who should be considered suspect to begin with) to last a life time.

If anyone can demonstrate historically an earlier basis for Wicca that doesn't borrow from Golden Dawn traditions or the like, I'm all ears.

a reply to: Gryphon66

had you read the thread you'd know I didn't credit Gardner with the birth of Wicca.

a reply to: aynock

Notice there is no answer to your very fair and reasonable questions.

I wonder if that is because there are no answers available?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The thread is about Wicca and it's origins.

You're offering a negative answer (i.e. what Wicca is not.)

What is Wicca in your mind (besides dangerous) and where does it have its origin?

Citations to something outside your own authority wouldn't hurt your claim, either.