It is a wholly constructed faith based partly on fragments of things that existed previously but with no input from those cultures so there’s no “authentic” Wiccan beliefs other than those from the 1950s.
Your idea of faith seems to be mostly guided by the abrahamic faiths. They claim to be the literal truth, on the other hand most other religions are a lot less categorical.
In the introduction to one of his books, Aleister Crowley says :
“In this book it is spoken of the sephiroth & the paths, of spirits & conjurations, or gods, spheres, planes & many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things certain results follow: students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them.”
I don’t know the position of Wiccans, but Thelema (where the term “Magick” originates) literally says “we actually don’t give a fuck whether these things are true. Actually, scratch that, if you believe in them you’re an idiot”
I don’t think Wiccans are under any illusion their religion isn’t constructed. I believe it’s even part of their practice to actively construct new things within it, establish their own spells and whatnot.
Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
While I don’t personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.
Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An “authentic Wiccan” dosen’t need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.
Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
Not really? We don’t have distinct points of creation for many faiths. With Wicca it can be set in a specific time and place. You aren’t going to find Wiccans from 100 years ago.
Wicca is a blend of multiple different religious ideologies that existed in Europe at some point in the past. If you took someone from modern day Colchester in 200ce they might recognize parts of their ancestral faiths but parts will be from other tribes and peoples. Hence Wicca doesn’t have an “authentic” set of beliefs as much as an intentionally created one. That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a fait h.
“genuinely” herein lies the key. Interesting to pick Jedi as an example because I think we can agree that people who out that on a census or whatever typically have their tongue firmly in cheek. Wicca probably sits somewhere on a spectrum between that and the major religions. You’d be mad naive to assume that everyone holds beliefs exactly as stated. My papi was a priest and we’re pretty sure never believed in god. L Ron Hubbard himself was for sure was grifting FFS. Add to that and most religions can’t even agree what authentic means for their community and LOL
Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I’m glad you caught it.
But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of “genuine” belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.
We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
It is a wholly constructed faith based partly on fragments of things that existed previously but with no input from those cultures so there’s no “authentic” Wiccan beliefs other than those from the 1950s.
Your idea of faith seems to be mostly guided by the abrahamic faiths. They claim to be the literal truth, on the other hand most other religions are a lot less categorical.
In the introduction to one of his books, Aleister Crowley says :
I don’t know the position of Wiccans, but Thelema (where the term “Magick” originates) literally says “we actually don’t give a fuck whether these things are true. Actually, scratch that, if you believe in them you’re an idiot”
I don’t think Wiccans are under any illusion their religion isn’t constructed. I believe it’s even part of their practice to actively construct new things within it, establish their own spells and whatnot.
Thelema was also intentionally created though they are unrelated as far as I am aware.
Wiccans are not a monolith. Some have claimed to be an ancient faith reborn while others are aware of the hodgepodge nature.
Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
While I don’t personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.
Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An “authentic Wiccan” dosen’t need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.
Not really? We don’t have distinct points of creation for many faiths. With Wicca it can be set in a specific time and place. You aren’t going to find Wiccans from 100 years ago.
Wicca is a blend of multiple different religious ideologies that existed in Europe at some point in the past. If you took someone from modern day Colchester in 200ce they might recognize parts of their ancestral faiths but parts will be from other tribes and peoples. Hence Wicca doesn’t have an “authentic” set of beliefs as much as an intentionally created one. That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a fait h.
“genuinely” herein lies the key. Interesting to pick Jedi as an example because I think we can agree that people who out that on a census or whatever typically have their tongue firmly in cheek. Wicca probably sits somewhere on a spectrum between that and the major religions. You’d be mad naive to assume that everyone holds beliefs exactly as stated. My papi was a priest and we’re pretty sure never believed in god. L Ron Hubbard himself was for sure was grifting FFS. Add to that and most religions can’t even agree what authentic means for their community and LOL
Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I’m glad you caught it.
But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of “genuine” belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.
We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.