Ask a Wiccan!

[technomage]

This is only a moral imperative to the extent that God is sinless, though.

Lee, that may be your belief--but neither your beliefs nor mine affect what is. If your beliefs are wrong, then it is quite possible for "Love God, and Love Your Neighbor" to both be moral imperatives without any concept of "sin" ever entering the picture.

Now should we love killer whales trying to drown a baby grey whale so they can eat it?

Why not? Life feeds on life, Lee. It's not necessarily pretty, but it is true.

Job 4:17 Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

Lee, that's one thing you're going to have to understand if you're going to gain any understanding of how Wiccan think and believe. "Righteousness" has nothing to do with it. Morality in the sense of what you are speaking is a human invented concept: to the best of my understanding, it is not something that is applicable to God.

How could we ask a lion not to be a lion?

Why would we want to?

That's a serious question, Lee.

My position, of course is that they did!

You've expressed that.

First, I have been tempted to witchcraft, and also attacked by witchcraft (it would seem), and "the Lord delivered me from them all."

So precisely what makes you think that the "witchcraft" you were tempted to or attacked by has anything to do with what I do?

Lee, you do not even understand what witchcraft is. You definitely don't understand what Wicca is. Yet you feel you understand it enough to condemn it--ok, on the grounds of "It's not Christian," you do have some room to stand.

But you want to go condemning specific aspects of Wicca ... and the only thing you are accomplishing is expressing your own ignorance of what Wicca is.

Lee, I don't say that to condemn you--I say that because your questions have little or nothing to do with Wicca.

[Krusader]

Hey, pardon my innocence here...I'm also asking this sincerely: Are you saying that Peter's epistles were not written by Peter...the Peter who sat at the last supper and was an eye witness to his crucifixion? When I studied hermanutics with my church's bible training institute, I was taught that one of the ways it was determined whether a scripture would be included in the canon was if it was written by an eye witness. I'm not the bible student I wish to someday be and my church history is practically non-existent...so I'm asking if I've understood your assertion clearly.

Jardin, here is one scholar's take on 2nd Peter. This isn't from some ranting fundie either:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=707

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Lee: This is only a moral imperative to the extent that God is sinless, though.

Justin: If your beliefs are wrong, then it is quite possible for "Love God, and Love Your Neighbor" to both be moral imperatives without any concept of "sin" ever entering the picture.

Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

Lee: Now should we love killer whales trying to drown a baby grey whale so they can eat it?

Justin: Why not? Life feeds on life, Lee. It's not necessarily pretty, but it is true.

But the question is if we should love this, not whether this is what happens in nature.

Justin: Morality in the sense of what you are speaking is a human invented concept: to the best of my understanding, it is not something that is applicable to God.

That's kind of my point here, though, that this view in Wicca leaves us without real moral imperatives.

Lee: How could we ask a lion not to be a lion?

Justin: Why would we want to?

Well, that again is my point, so then if we should not ask a lion not to be a lion, we should also not ask a human not to be different either, and again we have no moral imperatives.

Lee: First, I have been tempted to witchcraft, and also attacked by witchcraft (it would seem), and "the Lord delivered me from them all."

Justin: So precisely what makes you think that the "witchcraft" you were tempted to or attacked by has anything to do with what I do?

Because you do claim to be involved in witchcraft, with supernatural power that goes with that, that does not acknowledge Jesus as revealed in Scripture? As in what you mentioned, it is not Christianity, and yet there is power there, thus I must conclude this is not the power that delivered me from being signed up or knocked down by call-it-what-you-will-craft. And I don't think that there are powers apart from Christ that are yet neutral in regard to Christ, or somehow apart from him and yet congenial in regard to him.

Blessings to you,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

What "sin?" Sin is an act that (in Judeo-Christian beliefs) separates us from God ... but if God is manifest within Creation, then there is no "sin."

But the question is if we should love this, not whether this is what happens in nature.

Do you love your wife and children? Yet they feed on life. So do you.

Lee, ALL life feeds on life. That's part and parcel of existence in creation. To live, we kill. Now, what precisely that has to do with our reliationship to the Creator I don't know ... you're the one who brought it up.

That's kind of my point here, though, that this view in Wicca leaves us without real moral imperatives.

Well, that again is my point, so then if we should not ask a lion not to be a lion, we should also not ask a human not to be different either, and again we have no moral imperatives.

Lee, it is possible for you to be more incorrect ... but I'm honestly not sure how. We do have moral imperatives--they don't come from God because they don't have to.

Because you do claim to be involved in witchcraft, with supernatural power that goes with that, that does not acknowledge Jesus as revealed in Scripture? As in what you mentioned, it is not Christianity, and yet there is power there, thus I must conclude this is not the power that delivered me from being signed up or knocked down by call-it-what-you-will-craft. And I don't think that there are powers apart from Christ that are yet neutral in regard to Christ, or somehow apart from him and yet congenial in regard to him.

Well, I respect your thoughts on this ... but frankly, what we think or do not think is not really relevant to who and what God is.

[tmancour]

Quick existential question, Lee:

Do you do what is Good because it is Good, independent of divine judgement . . .

. . . or do you do what is Good because Jehovha says it is Good?

Does Good and Evil exist independent of Jehovha?

(I'm assuming, of course, that you try to do Good. Pretty safe assumption, from our past conversations.)

Arion the Blue

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

Justin: What "sin?" Sin is an act that (in Judeo-Christian beliefs) separates us from God ... but if God is manifest within Creation, then there is no "sin."

I should have said "imperfection" rather than sin, but yes, this is my point again! There is no sin in this view, and thus no moral imperatives.

Justin: Do you love your wife and children? Yet they feed on life. So do you.

Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God. If not, are we not asking a lion not to be a lion, or a person not to be a person?

We do have moral imperatives--they don't come from God because they don't have to.

Well, I would wonder what that source would be. And why God is not subject to them, and lions are not, either, though (apparently) we are.

... what we think or do not think is not really relevant to who and what God is.

Yes, I agree, making a god is a bad idea...

Arion: Do you do what is Good because it is Good, independent of divine judgment . . .
. . . or do you do what is Good because Jehovha says it is Good?

I have difficulty assessing my motives, to tell the truth! I do believe that good behavior generally starts out as a punishment-avoidance decision (which has been true of me), and should go on from there, to doing good for its own sake, out of love.

Does Good and Evil exist independent of Jehovha?

Yes, I believe that good and evil are not adjustable (as far as principles, e.g. loving others, in the sense of wanting what's best for them). Applications can vary, but the principles are like moral axioms, I believe, so self-existent, in that sense...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

I should have said "imperfection" rather than sin....

What do you consider "imperfect?" As far as I can tell, the Universe is exactly as it is supposed to be.

but yes, this is my point again! There is no sin in this view, and thus no moral imperatives.

Are there moral imperatives in secular culture? Of course there are ... these moral imperatives are devloped by the culture they originate from.

And that's the crux of the issue, Lee--you believe that moral imperatives are transcendant. OK, I respect your belief ... but it is a subjective belief on your part, and I'm sure you'll agree that our subjective beliefs do not dictate the nature of the Universe.

However, all the evidence I have available indicates that moral imperatives are products of the various human cultures.

Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God.

Why not? For my part, I would say yes.

Well, I would wonder what that source would be. And why God is not subject to them, and lions are not, either, though (apparently) we are.

Since these moral imperatives are developed by human cultures, they apply to people living in the cultured. God is not subject to the culture ... come to think of it, neither are lions, unless they're pets. Even at that, getting them to agree to moral strictures might be a bit difficult.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Justin: What do you consider "imperfect?" As far as I can tell, the Universe is exactly as it is supposed to be.

Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Are there moral imperatives in secular culture? Of course there are ... these moral imperatives are developed by the culture they originate from.

Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

Lee: Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God.

Justin: Why not? For my part, I would say yes.

May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Ah, but are these "functions of the Universe," or of men who do not listen to the moral imperatives of their culture?

Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

Well, I understand your uncertanty ... but if they're not "imperatives" by your definition, they are at least strong enough to be enforced by the culture.

May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

What isn't there to love? More importantly, does my love (or lack of it) change the situation?

And why would I choose (for example) to save the seal at the expense of the whale? That's a form of intervention based on personal choices ... but where then does intervention stop?

[tmancour]

Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Of course we do. They are criminals. We don't need to consider them "sinners" in order to find them abhorent.

Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

I'm not certain the distinction is important. In practical terms, they serve the same function in our society and culture. Ironically, it is most often Christians who violate these supposed "imperatives" (murder, torture, terrorism, coersion) and use their faith and "imperative knowlege" of What God Wants as their excuse.

May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

What's not to love? Killer whales have to eat. Babies are fair game in the wild. It sounds as if your issue springs from anthropomorphizing the process. Because of the "moral imperative" implicit in Christianity that Death is always evil, an enemy of Good (except when it is Jehovha-sanctioned), you look upon this cetacean infantacide as evil, when it is actually just a tasty snack for the orca and a REALLY bad day for the baby gray.

I find it ironic and amusing that many Christians, when they pray before a meal, thank God for the meat in front of them -- but make no mention of gratitude to the beast itself. Same for plants -- vegetarianism is no defense -- all life feeds on the dead. It is only when you divorce yourself from the idea that death in the service of life is noble, and worthy of respect, that you can go on and commit horrible atrocities with a clear conscience. When your subconscious has a fear of a herd of ungrateful animal spirits hounding you for your ingratitude, it seeks to make amends somehow. But in order to leave this behind, you have to put animals and plants in completely seperate boxes from humanity -- and then can justify just about any perverse crime by seeing the victim in that same light ("they're just like animals!" The cry of colonialism and imperialism). Someone who hold ALL life as sacred also holds all death as sacred -- especially when it is in service to the Lifeforce.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

Justin: What isn't there to love?

Arion: What's not to love?

Well, I'm not sure what to hope here. Maybe I hope you really don't see the problem here, but that is almost as bad as seeing it, and saying you don't.

Arion: Killer whales have to eat.

Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Justin: but where then does intervention stop?

Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

Though we cannot change the order of nature now, we can see that sorrow, until it ends, it's a picture of sin, yet not believing in sin makes it impossible to have any objection here. I guess that is what I would hope, about the first question, that you all are insisting on being consistent, and thinking the cost of loving every aspect of all that happens (or saying you do) is not too great. I would say, however, that it is.

Arion: We don't need to consider them "sinners" in order to find them abhorrent.

Certainly, but I put a human predator in a different class than a rotting corpse.

Arion: Ironically, it is most often Christians who violate these supposed "imperatives" (murder, torture, terrorism, coersion) and use their faith and "imperative knowlege" of What God Wants as their excuse.

You do seem to be saying this is really inherently wrong, and not just a current consensus here. I would agree...

Arion: I find it ironic and amusing that many Christians, when they pray before a meal, thank God for the meat in front of them -- but make no mention of gratitude to the beast itself.

Perhaps because the beast was not intending this?

Someone who hold ALL life as sacred also holds all death as sacred...

I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

And I shall never worship an earthworm or a dung beetle, nor my shadow, nor the light behind it. Again, we are losing a distinction here, how can I worship Everything, which includes myself? Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Is it any different from the cow that tears the grass out, and grinds it to death between its teeth? Lee, one more time--LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE. What part of this are you failing to accept?

Do you love your own life? Yet you also kill to eat. So in answer to that question--what's the difference between Lee eating a hamburger, and Orca eating a baby seal?

Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

So we have pie-in-the-sky in heaven, or after the end of the world? That does nothing to remove the necessity of life feeding on life.

I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

Only in your own mind, Lee. The distinction is false, and you are incorrect ("wrong" as in "not in accord with fact," not "morally wrong") to insist on a distinction that does not exist.

Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Lee, the only thing you are demonstrating here is that you do not understand. After so many times of going around and around with you, I am beginning to wonder if you are incapable of understanding, or unwilling, to understand.

[tmancour]

Well, I'm not sure what to hope here. Maybe I hope you really don't see the problem here, but that is almost as bad as seeing it, and saying you don't.

Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Lee, you see it as a problem. We don't. You see death as a problem. We don't. We see it as a part of Life. That's LIFE. As in alive. As in being a living entity that respirates, defecates, consumes and reproduces. To aspire to anything else is to reject LIFE. I know you and Christianity seem to want to reject DEATH -- to do so is to also give up LIFE. To give up LIVING. And Wicca and Paganism are LIFE affirming religions -- the whole picture, not just the fun bits. Christianity is obsessed with death, because it is predicated on a fear of DEATH. Now, one can argue that the many facets of human religion are, in part, means of releasing that fear of DEATH. Some try to accept death as a natural part of the life cycle, a necessary thing that is not to be feared even if it is sorrowful -- like Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism and Shinto.

The Abrahamics, instead of releasing this fear through introspection, self-knowlege and awareness of LIFE, deal with their fear by asserting that a better or worse "afterlife" awaits them -- and that sometime in the future the LIFE and WORLD that you fear will go away, and everyone will be happy, all together.

Endless. Staring. Happy.

You say so.

Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

No tears, no mourning, no crying, no pain. Endless bliss. Nothing to look forward to. Nothing to regret. Just stare at the light . . . and smile. Never have another original, self-defining thought again. Just bask in the Bliss, the Glory, and . . . do nothing.

Forever.

Eternal bliss or eternal torment. Without point or reason. Without any real purpose. To glorify God? Does he need your affirmation that badly? Do you need to devote yourself to such a singlemindedness that the result is spending eternity as a bliss-ninny, no different from any of your coreligionists in any special way? As individual as a cosmic light-bulb? Is that your aspiration?

That seems as pointless and stupid -- not to mention completely unsupported by anything remotely resembling a fact -- as the concept of eternal torment authored by an omnipotent diety.

Though we cannot change the order of nature now, we can see that sorrow, until it ends, it's a picture of sin, yet not believing in sin makes it impossible to have any objection here.

I don't understand this. How is sorrow, a perfectly normal, natural, and HUMAN emotion, a "picture of sin"? I don't accept that as axiomatic. Regardless of my belief or lack in sin, why is honest sorrow bad? We have to suffer, sometimes Lee, in order to learn. Our sorrow and our pain help define us, temper us, allow us to grow. Without growth, there is only stagnation. We are gifted with sorrow as a means of plumbing the depths of our souls, of discovering the shape of our spirits. It gives our flat spiritual selves dimension.

When you reject sorrow, you reject empathy. You reject memory. You reject the very pain that makes you human. If a painless existance is what you desire, there are a number of opiates that can provide just that. I think that, given the choice, most people want to keep their sorrow -- or forget it utterly -- a choice that Nature has provided means for us to choose. Most choose to accept their sorrow and the gifts it brings. Some recoil, their minds convinced that they are not strong enough to bear it. And some who walk the Earth feel no sorrow at all -- are they the kind of people you would have us emulate?

I guess that is what I would hope, about the first question, that you all are insisting on being consistent, and thinking the cost of loving every aspect of all that happens (or saying you do) is not too great. I would say, however, that it is.

What "cost" is this? LIFE is not exclusively a spiritual profit/loss chart. I do love all aspects of it -- because to exclude some diminishes the whole. What of the "cost" of loving Jehovah? Do you not give up something there? I would say that you do.

Certainly, but I put a human predator in a different class than a rotting corpse.

You do seem to be saying this is really inherently wrong, and not just a current consensus here. I would agree...

The point was that I do not require a divinity to instruct me that the human predator isn't to be tolerated in my society. Figured that one out on my own. So did a couple thousand generations of my ancestors. Whether or not to tolerate such people in my society has less to do with inherent wrongness as it does with a societal concensus, of which I am a part and participating member. And I am quite happy merely applying my subjective standards on such people without worrying about whether or not allowing those people to live in my society is right or wrong.

Perhaps because the beast was not intending this?

Is that not even more reason to thank it? That animal "saved your life", intentionally or not, by providing you sustenance. Should it not get thanks for its sacrifice while you're dishing out gratitude? If you were rescued as a child by a fireman who himself didn't survive the blaze, would you not be grateful to him, even though it was "Jehovah" who decided to take him so cruelly but spare you? My moral compass says "yes", you thank whoever contributed to your continued survival, whether they intended to or not. It might not mean a durn thing to the spirit of the animal involved, but it should mean something to you that an animal -- or a plant, for that matter -- gave its life for you.

It's only polite.

I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

"Sacred" is a spiritual short-hand for identifying objects, emotions, places, people, or ideas as somehow special and worthy of note within that part of your consciousness that defines such things. You hold the Bible, the sacraments, and other trappings of your religion as sacred, and the rest of the world as profane. You have narrowed the spotlight in your mind to include a few objects, institutions, and ideas as sacred. Me, I think that everything in my environment that contributes to my continued existance is worthy of this special consideration. Yes, it's a big list. Trying to fit it all in every day is time consuming, so we portion off these elements into abstract ideas or symbols that allow us to say a whole lot with a very little. And each of us, Christian and Pagan alike, make their own determination of what is "sacred". Sometimes a group of people can reach a concensus on that. More often, not. You may exclude things of this world in your determination. I include a few of them. You may exclude everything but the Bible and its designated agents and assigns, but I have to include my wife and children in mine. Etc, etc.

And I shall never worship an earthworm or a dung beetle, nor my shadow, nor the light behind it. Again, we are losing a distinction here, how can I worship Everything, which includes myself? Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Define "worship".

Is Adoration worship? Respect? Affinity? Appreciation? Love? Veneration? Subserviance? I don't think I've ever "worshipped" an earthworm or a beetle -- that doesn't stop me from feeling a sense of respect for their vital role in the cycle of life. I've never "worshipped" my shadow, but I appreciate that it is a part of me, a representation of me, and I appreciate it for the rich metaphor it gifts me with. I appreciate the light behind it for a similar body of metaphor, the ability to let me see (handy thing, that) and the nifty way photons work. But worship . . . ?

I worship the Goddess, who is our Mother, the agency of our LIFE, from whose passion and in whose womb we were brought into the world. I worship the Horned God, whose DEATH in eternal cycle brings us LIFE.

I adore the Moon, and the Sun, for the Sun lights us and brings us LIFE, and the Moon brought tidal forces that stirred the great primordial cauldron of Earth and threw upon her shores my remotest ancestors. I adore the Trees which gave us shelter when dragons walked the Earth, and followed it up with opposable thumbs (big hit with the kids, weren't they?). I adore the water that all life depends upon, the earth upon which all life grows, the air which we all breathe and the fires of the sun or its imitators who keep us safe from predators and warm in the winter.

I respect the animals and plants who I share this world with. I respect their lives, and I respect their deaths and give them my gratitude when their deaths contribute to my well-being. I feel an affinity with some animals who share lives that resemble mine, and may have feelings resembling mine, and therefore accord them a little more respect and appreciation than your average loblolly pine.

I love my family, and the other interpersonal relationships around which my life happily revolves. My mother and father, my brothers who all raised me into the person I am. Especially my loving Wife, who balances so many things and makes me so complete that a love so passionate that "worship" may not be too strong a word. And I love my children, who are making me into the man I will become, giving my life purpose and meaning.

I venerate my ancestors, for they shaped the people who shaped me and contributed the DNA I walk around with these days. I venerate the Wise before me. I venerate the abstract concepts of Freedom, Inventiveness, Art, Imagination, and Courage.

I adore the Stars because we were all once starstuff, and we will be again.

I am subservient to . . . no one. I am a Free Man, who has recognized his inherent freedom against fear and loss and will not cower before a diety unworthy of my worship. To do so would dishonor all of the above.

Part of the problem, Lee, is that the Abrahamic faiths have been trying to use Bronze Age reasoning and metaphors to try to cope with modern issues, and the fact is that our cultures and societies are more sophisticated than that, now. Our cultures have evolved more elaborate and refined ways of describing our inner struggles. We have more accurate and useful spiritual tools at our disposal now. That's one of the factors propelling Paganism to prominence -- for all of our Neolithic rhetoric, we are redifining how we think of religion as it relates to individuals. We are using this more sophisticated map to find more comfortable ways to achieve the ultimate goals, means without recourse to guilt and sin and fear. And you guys are sitting there talking about spiritual matters and righteousness in the same limited vocabulary you had two thousand years ago.


Arion

[Geifodd]

This conversation about "life feeding on life" is very interesting to me. I have always felt that people tend to try and anthropomorphize Nature too much, often in an attempt to prove that the Creator is somehow moral in any humanly-meaningful sense of the term. But any honest observation of Nature and its workings will show one that if there is indeed a Creator (and of course I believe that there is), It is certainly not the "loving god of compassion and justice" that many people want to believe It to be. Anthropomorphizers of the Creator may quote scripture as "proof" all they like, but I quote natural selection, natural disasters and the law of the jungle as mine.

One thing that has distressed me about some aspects of the Pagan scene is what I believe is most typically referred to as the "fluff bunny Pagan." I am sure Justin must have come across creatures such as this, who talk about embracing Nature, but whose idea of "Nature" seems largely to be something out of a My Little Pony cartoon. I have always wanted to throw a fluff bunny into the middle of a hurricane and see what they think of Nature afterwards -- assuming that they survive, of course.

[Geifodd]

Arion, just a few questions:

I worship the Goddess, who is our Mother, the agency of our LIFE, from whose passion and in whose womb we were brought into the world. I worship the Horned God, whose DEATH in eternal cycle brings us LIFE.

I will not insult you by drawing comparisons between your Horned God and my Satan. However, I would be much interested to know if you consider the God and the Goddess to be conscious entities, or if you perceive Them as being more like impersonal forces that are merely personified through human symbolism. I would also be interested to know what you would think of Them and Their roles if you were a hard polytheist (I am assuming that you aren't, but please correct me if my assumption is inaccurate). If you were a hard polytheist, what two deities of Pagan mythology would you most likely identify with your God and Goddess in particular? I am guessing that you might identify the God specifically with Pan, and the Goddess specifically with somebody like Inanna/Ishtar. Would this be accurate?

I am not sure how useful these questions are, I am just curious.