Ask a Wiccan!

[JardinPrayer]

More years ago than I am willing to acknowledge, I was deeply interested in Wicca. I read stuff by Sybil Leek and thought Wicca got its start well before Christianity with European "witch doctors," or herbal medicine women during the dark ages. How'd I get so mixed up?

[technomage]

More years ago than I am willing to acknowledge, I was deeply interested in Wicca. I read stuff by Sybil Leek and thought Wicca got its start well before Christianity with European "witch doctors," or herbal medicine women during the dark ages. How'd I get so mixed up?

Well, I don't know how you personally got so mixed up ... but starting with Gerald Gardner, the claim was made that Wicca was the "Ancient Religion." Unfortunately, Gardner meant it mystically (not to mention tongue-in-cheek), but a lot of the other authors meant it literally. Heck, in one of her books Starhawk claims that Wicca goes back 35,000 years!

There's also the fact that hearkening back to a "Golden Age" is darn near universal within every culture--most people seem to think that life today is too complex, and that our ancestors had it much better than we did. That "hearkening back to a Golden Age" was part and parcel of the popularity of Wicca in the late 60s and the 70s, and of the resurgence in the mid-90s after the "Satanic Panic."

[Krusader]

Yes, I'm getting on the bandwagon.

Here's the place to ask me questions--either me specifically, or Wiccans in general. I'm not going to set any conditions about having to answer a question in return, though I don't guarantee that I won't ask one.

These questions can be frivolous or serious. Just stick by Campus Decorum.

What do you believe about Jesus Christ - Who do you say He is?

[technomage]

What do you believe about Jesus Christ - Who do you say He is?

To the best of my understanding, there was a Jesus of Nazareth--excuse me, Yehoshua ha'Notzri--a historical apocalyptic preacher. However, we know very little about him as a person--who he was, what he said, and what he did during his life has become subsumed to the doctrinal writings of the NT authors and their spiritual descendants.

The current Christology that has developed around Jesus is so far divorced from the hisotry that Yehoshua himself would not recognize it. Christology is a doctrine: the Gospels that we have (both canonical and non-canonical) that concern the life of Jesus are at least the third stage of the development of that doctrine.
* Jesus makes statement A
* Oral tradition tells of statement A, but tells it in a modified form, which we will notate as B
* Various Gospel writes set down into text their understanding of the doctrinal significance of B--said doctrinal writing to be called C.
* The writers did have certain historical facts to work with--but since none of them met Jesus in person, they had to rely on oral tradition for these facts, as well as for Jesus' statements. We can call this additional material D.
* The Gospel writers may (or may not) also add other tales, to illustrate other doctrinal points. We will call this E.

We know that these oral traditions were not perfectly preserved, because of the occasionally subtle, occasionally dramatic differences in the Gospel acounts.

Crusader, when I speak of "Hesus of Nazareth," I speak of a man who was an apocalyptic preacher. When I speak of "Jesus Christ," I refer to the combined writings and doctrinal teachings of Christianity. The two are separate entities--and indeed, I'm quite persuaded that Jesus of Nazareth would be completely dismayed by Jesus Christ.

Which do you want to know about--my views of Jesus of Nazareth, or of Jesus Christ?

[Krusader]

To the best of my understanding, there was a Jesus of Nazareth--excuse me, Yehoshua ha'Notzri--a historical apocalyptic preacher. However, we know very little about him as a person--who he was, what he said, and what he did during his life has become subsumed to the doctrinal writings of the NT authors and their spiritual descendants.

The current Christology that has developed around Jesus is so far divorced from the hisotry that Yehoshua himself would not recognize it. Christology is a doctrine: the Gospels that we have (both canonical and non-canonical) that concern the life of Jesus are at least the third stage of the development of that doctrine.
* Jesus makes statement A
* Oral tradition tells of statement A, but tells it in a modified form, which we will notate as B
* Various Gospel writes set down into text their understanding of the doctrinal significance of B--said doctrinal writing to be called C.
* The writers did have certain historical facts to work with--but since none of them met Jesus in person, they had to rely on oral tradition for these facts, as well as for Jesus' statements. We can call this additional material D.
* The Gospel writers may (or may not) also add other tales, to illustrate other doctrinal points. We will call this E.

We know that these oral traditions were not perfectly preserved, because of the occasionally subtle, occasionally dramatic differences in the Gospel acounts.

Crusader, when I speak of "Hesus of Nazareth," I speak of a man who was an apocalyptic preacher. When I speak of "Jesus Christ," I refer to the combined writings and doctrinal teachings of Christianity. The two are separate entities--and indeed, I'm quite persuaded that Jesus of Nazareth would be completely dismayed by Jesus Christ.

Which do you want to know about--my views of Jesus of Nazareth, or of Jesus Christ?

You don't really need to answer further, because as you know I would have to tell you that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I think you pretty much explained where you stand.

[technomage]

You don't really need to answer further, because as you know I would have to tell you that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I think you pretty much explained where you stand.

OK. Thanks for participating--and please feel welcome to ask any more questions that occur to you.

[Ryokan]

The Lord and the Lady, actual, supernatural omni-beings, or human constructs to represent the "ultimate reality"?

[technomage]

The Lord and the Lady, actual, supernatural omni-beings, or human constructs to represent the "ultimate reality"?

Um ... yes?

Seriously ... I don't know. It seems self-evident to me that if there is a God, such an entity is beyond our understanding. Therefore, we all have "God-concepts"--the "God of our understanding." In that sense, because God is beyond our understanding, those God-concepts are wrong, by definition. But it seems to me that, in an effort to overcome our lack of understanding, God has chosen to work through the various "God-concepts" that people develop.

In my case, my "God-Concept" is the Wiccan Lord and Lady. I know from the start that my concept is technically wrong ... but the Creator has graciously allowed me some measure of insight. Admittedly, that may very well be like saying that the slowest kid in the class is "improving," but I'll take what I can get.

[Conductor42]

Purple, Orange, or Black?

[technomage]

Purple, Orange, or Black?

Puce.

[JardinPrayer]

Are you a pet owner?

[technomage]

Are you a pet owner?

Um ... no. Though several pets share this house (five cats, five dogs, three birds, and a sugar glider, and a fish), I can definitely state that I am not a pet owner. The ownership goes the other direction.

And now if you'll excuse me, I can hear one of my masters meowing for my attention.

[Dracula Girl]

Why would you follow such a new religion?

[technomage]

Why would you follow such a new religion?

Why would you buy a new car, as opposed to an old one?

It's not that simple, of course. I didn't convert to Wicca because it was "new"--to tell the truth, the relative age of the religion didn't really have anything to do with it. Mundanely, I converted to Wicca at first simply because I though I could possibly get off the drugs--something I had been hooked on for ten years.

But more fundamentally, I converted to Wicca because I thought there was a possibility that I could actually have something that I never really had in Christianity--a relationship with the Creator that made sense. For me, Christianity made sense ... but there were parts of it that just didn't work with other parts of my life. I could be a Christian ... or I could study the stars. I could be a Christian ... or I could understand dinosaurs. I could be a Christian ... or I could live life as it was intended to be lived.

However, that was the insight of a very immature Wiccan. Now I know enough about Wicca (and Christianity) to know that being Christian is not truly incompatable with science, or with 20th century culture. It seemed like that to me, but that was the fault of my upbringing, and of the fact that while I am more-or-less comfident that I was saved, I never understood that salvation. I never truly comprehended that there was anything to be saved from.

[yxboom]

what level warlock are you?