• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

WICCA

okcitykid

Minister Peacefulpoet
Investigating WICCA, Any WICCANS out there who can share why you have chosen WICCA and any advice or information you could share.

Comments from all others welcome, but know that I am not real schooled in WICCA at this time and may not reply due to my limited knowledge.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Doesn't really need to be capitalized. However, here's the bare-bones;

First came about in the 1940s or so, by a British guy(who I think may have been an anthropologist?) trying to reconstruct a sort of European proto-faith, taking the common elements from the European pagan beliefs(Celt, Gael, Norse, Germanic, ect). Thus we have a Mother-Goddess associated with the Sun, a Horned-God(masculine) associated with the Moon, ect.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
As someone (who like many) initially became acquainted with Neopaganism through Wicca, I certainly have a few insights I can share with you. I'd like to preface this by saying Wicca is a diverse branch of Neopaganism, so what I say shouldn't be taken as "this is how it always is."

There were two things that attracted me about Wicca when I first started looking into it.

First, was its emphasis on nature. Wicca is typically characterized as a nature-centered religion, which basically means the objects of worship or reverence are found in nature. Things like celebrating the seasonal/solar cycle and lunar cycle appealed to me. The idea of deifying nature itself was very new to me at the time because my culture teaches its populace that gods can't be nature or immanent.

Second, was the acceptance of the otherworlds, the idea of spellcraft, and the overall aesthetic of the religion. I'd had "spirit guides" for a very long time, but had no idea there was any sort of religious movement that not only accepted their existence, but encouraged people to cultivate those kinds of relationships. The idea of spellcraft (usually called magick within Wicca and Neopaganism) was also very intriguing to me, as before then I thought spells were just things you read about in fantasy stories, not something you could actually do. And, as a huge fan of fantasy, the aesthetic of wandering in the otherworlds and practicing spellcraft was very appealing to me.

Both of these things that appealed to me about Wicca are things that I have retained in my current practice, but Wicca was ultimately not where I belonged within the Neopagan spectrum.
There was pretty much one main reason for this.

Although Wicca may be polytheistic, the principal manner through which it understands the gods is duotheistic or ditheistic. There are two main gods: the God and Goddess. Much of Wiccan worship and symbolism revolves around sex and gender polarity. This is masculine, that is feminine, yada, yada, yada. As someone who rejects the construct of gender entirely, that was simply unacceptable to me. To not mince words, I found Wicca to be inescapably sexist (because I find the concept of gender inherently sexist) and entirely too anthropomorphic (because it slaps sex and gender on to aspects of reality that honestly have neither) with its approach to the gods.

There were other things that didn't jive well too. The Wiccan Rede and Threefold Law never struck me as particularly sound ethical maxims, and I had no interest in adhering to them. The manner in which Wiccans do spellcraft and ritual was modeled on ceremonial magick and western occultism, which is a style I found that I didn't particularly like. Much of the Wiccan literature and overall flavor of practice is much too whitelighter for my taste, although in theory it doesn't have to be. I left it behind for my own brand of religious Witchcraft that could variously be described as Green Witchcraft or Druidic Witchcraft.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
It started with the idea that the witch scare (1500 to 1700) must have been about something — surely people weren't burnt for nothing? In the 20th century, the Egyptologist Margaret Murray claimed that the witches were actually pagans, although her historical evidence was badly flawed, going on non-existent. They hadn't worshiped Satan, but the Celtic horned god — and a goddess, too.

In the 1940, Gerald Gardner seized on this as the religion he'd been looking for all his life. He added ritual magic (he was trained in Thelema) and various other ideas — he had been a Theosophist and done anthropological research on the religion of a Malayan hill-tribe — and created Wicca. Wicca is thus a reconstruction of a religion which never existed, but none the worse for all that. If Muhammad could create a religion, why not Gerald?

This is a good start for further information on Wicca today
A Pagan Primer -- For Those New to Paganism (The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum)
 

okcitykid

Minister Peacefulpoet
As someone (who like many) initially became acquainted with Neopaganism through Wicca, I certainly have a few insights I can share with you. I'd like to preface this by saying Wicca is a diverse branch of Neopaganism, so what I say shouldn't be taken as "this is how it always is."

There were two things that attracted me about Wicca when I first started looking into it.

First, was its emphasis on nature. Wicca is typically characterized as a nature-centered religion, which basically means the objects of worship or reverence are found in nature. Things like celebrating the seasonal/solar cycle and lunar cycle appealed to me. The idea of deifying nature itself was very new to me at the time because my culture teaches its populace that gods can't be nature or immanent.

Second, was the acceptance of the otherworlds, the idea of spellcraft, and the overall aesthetic of the religion. I'd had "spirit guides" for a very long time, but had no idea there was any sort of religious movement that not only accepted their existence, but encouraged people to cultivate those kinds of relationships. The idea of spellcraft (usually called magick within Wicca and Neopaganism) was also very intriguing to me, as before then I thought spells were just things you read about in fantasy stories, not something you could actually do. And, as a huge fan of fantasy, the aesthetic of wandering in the otherworlds and practicing spellcraft was very appealing to me.

Both of these things that appealed to me about Wicca are things that I have retained in my current practice, but Wicca was ultimately not where I belonged within the Neopagan spectrum.
There was pretty much one main reason for this.

Although Wicca may be polytheistic, the principal manner through which it understands the gods is duotheistic or ditheistic. There are two main gods: the God and Goddess. Much of Wiccan worship and symbolism revolves around sex and gender polarity. This is masculine, that is feminine, yada, yada, yada. As someone who rejects the construct of gender entirely, that was simply unacceptable to me. To not mince words, I found Wicca to be inescapably sexist (because I find the concept of gender inherently sexist) and entirely too anthropomorphic (because it slaps sex and gender on to aspects of reality that honestly have neither) with its approach to the gods.

There were other things that didn't jive well too. The Wiccan Rede and Threefold Law never struck me as particularly sound ethical maxims, and I had no interest in adhering to them. The manner in which Wiccans do spellcraft and ritual was modeled on ceremonial magick and western occultism, which is a style I found that I didn't particularly like. Much of the Wiccan literature and overall flavor of practice is much too whitelighter for my taste, although in theory it doesn't have to be. I left it behind for my own brand of religious Witchcraft that could variously be described as Green Witchcraft or Druidic Witchcraft.

It is possible that you are both equally Feminine and Masculine, so the idea of a person being more feminine or masculine may seem strange to you. I could understand strangeness, but to call it sexist is unfair. A sexist person believes that feminism or masculine is greater than the other. Some of us are more of one than the other. But we must be open minded enough to see the other as equal and that is not always an easy thing. This is a process for most of us that must be learned.

But thank you for all the other information, I will research it, Thank you.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
It is possible that you are both equally Feminine and Masculine, so the idea of a person being more feminine or masculine may seem strange to you. I could understand strangeness, but to call it sexist is unfair. A sexist person believes that feminism or masculine is greater than the other. Some of us are more of one than the other. But we must be open minded enough to see the other as equal and that is not always an easy thing. This is a process for most of us that must be learned.

But thank you for all the other information, I will research it, Thank you.
I can't speak for Q, but for myself, I find the focus on genders to be unnecessary, when speaking of the spirits. If some of them are or have been amongst the living creatures that have gender, then it may be appropriate, but outside of the macro-scale biological beings that do have gender, it's really a meaningless concept. One of the things that turned me off Wicca was this insistence of a God and a Goddess; for me, deity really doesn't, probably can't be gendered. But that's my opinion.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It is possible that you are both equally Feminine and Masculine, so the idea of a person being more feminine or masculine may seem strange to you.

No. I reject this way of classifying things entirely as complete BS. Humans are humans. They are not "masculine" and they are not "feminine," period. They are who they are. Individual people, who deserve better than to be stereotyped on the basis of something a superficial as whether or not they have a penis or vagina... or black skin or white skin for that matter.

A sexist person believes that feminism or masculine is greater than the other.

All sexism means is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex. The social construct of gender - of "masculine" and "feminine" - is inherently sexist and I don't think it's unfair at all to call it like it is. The entire social construct rests upon stereotyping (i.e., "boys should be bold, girls should be gentle") people based on their biological sex. If that isn't sexism, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, it's so engrained in our cultural thinking, people fail to see it for what it is.

Add to that the fact that the vast majority of reality lacks sex entirely, and I really can't justify a theology that fixates on sex and gender. The idea of referring to Sun Spirit as "male" or "female" (when it clearly doesn't have a biological sex, as the sun isn't a biological entity) or "masculine" or "feminine" (we already know how I feel about the construct of gender) is just absurd to me. If it works for others, go for it, but it is totally not my thing. I won't sit here and deny that as humans, most (?) of us connect with the sex and gender binaries that pertain to our species. I do not.
 

okcitykid

Minister Peacefulpoet
While I do not believe that all men are masculine nor all women are feminine, there is a distinct difference between masculine and feminine and believing this is NOT SEXIST. If you see that a black man is a black man and a white man is a white man that does not make you racist.

If you refuse to see a masculine or feminine spirit, that is your choice, but I, nor others are not sexist because we recognize these things and I hereby refuse any such label.

Your (SELF RIGHTEOUS) labels do not educate or inspire anything good, you can keep them.

Feminine inspires while masculine creates. They both serve important and equal roles in the creation of life.
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
While I do not believe that all men are masculine nor all women are feminine, there is a distinct difference between masculine and feminine and believing this is NOT SEXIST. If you see that a black man is a black man and a white man is a white man that does not make you racist.

Please keep in mind that I never use sex and gender as synonymns. Maybe there's been some confusion about that, because this isn't an analogous comparison. An analogous comparison to race would be seeing a black man and thinking "oh, he's a rapper" and seeing a white man and going "oh, he's a rock musician." I'm talking about the things we project onto people because of physical appearances; I'm talking about stereotypes.

Also, please recognize the difference between calling an idea sexist and the person holding it sexist. I did not say I think people who believe in the social construct of gender are sexist, much less that I condemn anyone for holding that view even if I think it is sexist. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just said if it works for you, go for it! All this means is while others, such as yourself, would label something like inspiration and creation as "feminine" and "masculine" respectively, I just call things like they are without stuffing them in gender boxes. Or, I've got other systems I use that don't feed into what I perceive as sexism. Wicca does a lot of the stuffing things into gender boxes, and how I think transcends that kind of dualism.


But as I said, if others want to use the gender map of the territory, by all means they can and should do so. I'm simply explaining why it doesn't work for me, as it was a major factor behind my decision to abandon Wicca as a Neopagan religion. Wicca is beautiful at what it does, but what it does isn't what I needed my religion to do. Wicca is much more appealing to the mainstream than my religion could ever be. Perhaps that's why it is still generally the dominant strain within the Neopagan movement? It connects with people well.
 

Goblin

Sorcerer
Wicca is a typically duotheistic religion of pairs. It is often anamistic or pantheistic.

But "barebones" it is a combination or pagan religion and Jewish magick originally.
The connection between magick and pagan gods comes from margret murrys ancient witchcraft theory that medieval witches were a continuation of pagan religion.
Which probably isn't true, but none the less wicca serves the spiritual needs of a large and growing population. I practice wicca, personally.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Doesn't really need to be capitalized. However, here's the bare-bones;

First came about in the 1940s or so, by a British guy(who I think may have been an anthropologist?) trying to reconstruct a sort of European proto-faith, taking the common elements from the European pagan beliefs(Celt, Gael, Norse, Germanic, ect). Thus we have a Mother-Goddess associated with the Sun, a Horned-God(masculine) associated with the Moon, ect.
That was Gerald Gardner. The founder of modern wicca.
 

okcitykid

Minister Peacefulpoet
Doesn't really need to be capitalized. However, here's the bare-bones;

First came about in the 1940s or so, by a British guy(who I think may have been an anthropologist?) trying to reconstruct a sort of European proto-faith, taking the common elements from the European pagan beliefs(Celt, Gael, Norse, Germanic, ect). Thus we have a Mother-Goddess associated with the Sun, a Horned-God(masculine) associated with the Moon, ect.

Thanks for the reply, sorry it has taken so long to get back, slow at learning how this forum works.
 
Top