The White Wolf Questions The Wiccans
In all fairness, given the (brief) blasting of my take on Christian principles, which none of you who identify with this belief system felt worthy of comment, I should also address the faults I found with the Wiccan path. While on this subject I have no drive to play fair (in the context of this expository writing) you folks luck out, as I can't continue on the route of this essay without addressing it anyway.
So, let's delve into some of the last whys that got me to the where that some of you have been waiting for. Forgive me if I jump around, but this hasn't always been a cohesive narrative to begin with, and the closer to now I get, the less cohesive it is likely to be.
While you Christians failed to react to my attack on you (or more accurately, my attacks on your faith as I understood it) I hope that any questions you have as to what I am referring to are asked so that I can clarify. I am approaching this somewhat from and insider's point of view, so some such questions may be required from any of you who are not "inside", as well as some of you who may be, for better clarification.
My first issue is with the "build your own religion" phenomenon. Not that I take issue with those who follow a non-mainstream religion. If I did I would war with myself. No, my issue isn't with those who follow their own path. It is with those who say that the perameters of your religion can be whatever you want them to be. I understand that it is a razor's edge that I am walking on, so let me attempt to define the difference.**
The difference resides somewhat in the espousing of the theory. Espousing that religion and God are whatever you make of them. To me, this frequently spouted mantra has always screamed of atheism. A timid atheism, but atheism just the same. "I don't believe in God, but I refuse not to believe in God, so I will make one up and let anyone else do the same." It seems to me that if God is whatever you want Him/Her to be, then God isn't. God is just your imaginary friend. This isn't to deny that God has different aspects and different, yet equally valid approaches, but somewhere within there has to be a constant. Otherwise worship of Him/Her is pointless.
Yes there are many paths to walk, but the moment you state to me that whatever path you walk is right, without limitations, I see that you are an atheist who is afraid to admit it.
The second problem I had wasn't with the Wiccan path necessarily as much as with general interpretation. Specifically in regards to the Rede. Within and without the Wiccan path this has often been misinterpreted.
The Rede, even within itself, focuses on the last eight words, (for those of you who are semi-informed and didn't follow the above link, the last eight words do not comprise the entire Rede) "And it harm none, do as you will." Still, the words are the most important, and the require more thought than most give them.
First of all, if that line is what grabs you and leads you to a Goddess path, read the whole line. It doesn't say "do as you will", it say "And it harm none, do as you will." We've been attacked as lacking morals by those who read only the last four words. Many fluffbunnies flock to us declaring that any god that says "do whatever you want" is alright by them. The problem is that those first four words are there.
Of course some play semantics with those first four words anyway. Because surely She can't mean "none" in an all inclusive (bugs, germs, etc...) manner. That would be impossible. Surely She doesn't demand the impossible? Of course not.
Some even then take this and proceed to compartmentalize beyond just limiting to humans to reference something as minimal as "If in doing so you do no noticeable, tangible physical damage to a human who is not yourself, do as you will." Not as poetic is it?
If you take it to this extreme I have to ask: Do you believe the Goddess rewards you for being stupid and/or unobservant? Because if your moral directive is limited to whether or not you know damage has been caused, the less intelligent and less observant you are, the more you can get away with. (If you want to raise questions about it, I can resolve mental handicaps with the above. Ask and you shall receive.)
Anything short of getting away with it because you don't know any better requires deeper consideration of the ramifications beyond those eight words. Because you can't live your life without doing harm, no matter how you define it, short of the line that removes any connection to moral edict. As such, any impact on moral conduct requires dissection of the eight written words in regards to what would be communicated here.
What intention lies within these words? If it harm none, do as you will. This indicates that She has a purpose behind Her rules, and what that is is even somewhat indicated here. There are no arbitrary edicts. No list of ten or more rules to live by, but rather what is at the core of those rules. She loves all of Her creations, and wants them to live their lives and enjoy them to the fullest, provided that doesn't harm Her other children.
As such, looking at this, we have to look at the other side of the coin. We addressed what happens if it harm none. Now what if there will be harm? (I realize the edict implies avoidance of this, I mean "will" as in there is no avoiding it.) This is the first of the dangerous unwritten lines in association with the written eight. Don't call me on the carpet over this if you don't at least read the explanation that follows it. As I have implied, this would not be written down in Wicca 101 for good reason: If harm will be done, harm as you will.
As I pointed out, the first requirement in regards to this is that harm is in fact unavoidable, at least by your own action. Second, this does not imply an abandon of Her desire for balance, and Her concern for the welfare of Her children. This is somewhat of a pre-emptive eye-for-an-eye philosophy. My most common example is a convenient store robbery. If someone is going to get shot, and you have the ability to make it the robber instead of you, feel free to do so. This is murky ground, but fortunately ties in with the third line.
Now we turn the coin on its side and take into account the rim. The more common ground than the previous two: If harm will not be done, harm with caution. This is made clear by the previous two. The edict is don't, so bear that in mind. Still, there are many greater good scenarios, and just common sense in regards to life. In my convenient store robbery example the truth is, you can never be sure if he is going to pull the trigger until he does. This is where most of our moral responsibility comes into play. Through regular communion with Her, and with others who walk our path, we come to understand Her. Then in every moment in our life we are bound to put that understanding to use.
There are few absolutes in life. We have no "Thou shalt nots" because there are points when that rule wouldn't stand. We also don't have freedom to do as we wish. We must consider Her in all things and do our best to be stewards of Her creation.
I am sorry, fluffbunnies, but this Rede doesn't provide the easy way out. Quite the opposite. This one requires you to continually think.
My third issue was with spellcraft. Again not because of the action itself, but the people in association with it. Few could sufficiently explain how it worked or when it worked. Much attention is paid to the rituals and the details of precisely how to make it work, and nothing evidenced to show that it actually does. I don't disbelieve in spellcrafting. I do find it hard to believe that nobody seems to be able to state what it really is. At least not within the Wiccan path. Wiccans as a whole, no matter how enlightened overall, seem hell bent on insisting that certain spells, rituals and etc... work and are solidly against explanation as to what the practice really is. Outside of Wicca, you will find many who are willing to more accurately apply what is going on. Prayer. All of your focusing of your energy and concentration isn't bringing out your inner sorcerer. It is bringing you in touch with Her, and allowing you to address your concerns with her.
Ultimately, in studying these individual components and many like them, I came to find that few Wiccans, and many Pagans had answers to these kinds of questions. In exasperation I began sifting through the mounds of fluffbunnies to find the few true Wiccans who knew what was going on. I found in virtually every case the same phrase, or something similar. "I say I am Wiccan because it is something that people can easily identify with. The truth is a little more complicated." It seemed everyone was a Pagan with Wiccan leanings, or an Eclectic Pagan that called themselves Wiccan to save themselves a lengthy explanation. The only ones who didn't clarify what they were beyond Wiccan were the fluffbunnies. It seemed more and more like Wicca was a common watering hole along the paths that many of us were walking, rather than a path that anybody could actually take and stick to.
So where did I end up after that watering hole? The path of the White Wolf. What is that? Something that I will finally begin to explain. Next time.
**Edited 7/11/06 01:41 EST: Sojourner also just addressed this issue and provided a link to a Witches Voice article on the same, both are worth looking at.
So, let's delve into some of the last whys that got me to the where that some of you have been waiting for. Forgive me if I jump around, but this hasn't always been a cohesive narrative to begin with, and the closer to now I get, the less cohesive it is likely to be.
While you Christians failed to react to my attack on you (or more accurately, my attacks on your faith as I understood it) I hope that any questions you have as to what I am referring to are asked so that I can clarify. I am approaching this somewhat from and insider's point of view, so some such questions may be required from any of you who are not "inside", as well as some of you who may be, for better clarification.
My first issue is with the "build your own religion" phenomenon. Not that I take issue with those who follow a non-mainstream religion. If I did I would war with myself. No, my issue isn't with those who follow their own path. It is with those who say that the perameters of your religion can be whatever you want them to be. I understand that it is a razor's edge that I am walking on, so let me attempt to define the difference.**
The difference resides somewhat in the espousing of the theory. Espousing that religion and God are whatever you make of them. To me, this frequently spouted mantra has always screamed of atheism. A timid atheism, but atheism just the same. "I don't believe in God, but I refuse not to believe in God, so I will make one up and let anyone else do the same." It seems to me that if God is whatever you want Him/Her to be, then God isn't. God is just your imaginary friend. This isn't to deny that God has different aspects and different, yet equally valid approaches, but somewhere within there has to be a constant. Otherwise worship of Him/Her is pointless.
Yes there are many paths to walk, but the moment you state to me that whatever path you walk is right, without limitations, I see that you are an atheist who is afraid to admit it.
The second problem I had wasn't with the Wiccan path necessarily as much as with general interpretation. Specifically in regards to the Rede. Within and without the Wiccan path this has often been misinterpreted.
The Rede, even within itself, focuses on the last eight words, (for those of you who are semi-informed and didn't follow the above link, the last eight words do not comprise the entire Rede) "And it harm none, do as you will." Still, the words are the most important, and the require more thought than most give them.
First of all, if that line is what grabs you and leads you to a Goddess path, read the whole line. It doesn't say "do as you will", it say "And it harm none, do as you will." We've been attacked as lacking morals by those who read only the last four words. Many fluffbunnies flock to us declaring that any god that says "do whatever you want" is alright by them. The problem is that those first four words are there.
Of course some play semantics with those first four words anyway. Because surely She can't mean "none" in an all inclusive (bugs, germs, etc...) manner. That would be impossible. Surely She doesn't demand the impossible? Of course not.
Some even then take this and proceed to compartmentalize beyond just limiting to humans to reference something as minimal as "If in doing so you do no noticeable, tangible physical damage to a human who is not yourself, do as you will." Not as poetic is it?
If you take it to this extreme I have to ask: Do you believe the Goddess rewards you for being stupid and/or unobservant? Because if your moral directive is limited to whether or not you know damage has been caused, the less intelligent and less observant you are, the more you can get away with. (If you want to raise questions about it, I can resolve mental handicaps with the above. Ask and you shall receive.)
Anything short of getting away with it because you don't know any better requires deeper consideration of the ramifications beyond those eight words. Because you can't live your life without doing harm, no matter how you define it, short of the line that removes any connection to moral edict. As such, any impact on moral conduct requires dissection of the eight written words in regards to what would be communicated here.
What intention lies within these words? If it harm none, do as you will. This indicates that She has a purpose behind Her rules, and what that is is even somewhat indicated here. There are no arbitrary edicts. No list of ten or more rules to live by, but rather what is at the core of those rules. She loves all of Her creations, and wants them to live their lives and enjoy them to the fullest, provided that doesn't harm Her other children.
As such, looking at this, we have to look at the other side of the coin. We addressed what happens if it harm none. Now what if there will be harm? (I realize the edict implies avoidance of this, I mean "will" as in there is no avoiding it.) This is the first of the dangerous unwritten lines in association with the written eight. Don't call me on the carpet over this if you don't at least read the explanation that follows it. As I have implied, this would not be written down in Wicca 101 for good reason: If harm will be done, harm as you will.
As I pointed out, the first requirement in regards to this is that harm is in fact unavoidable, at least by your own action. Second, this does not imply an abandon of Her desire for balance, and Her concern for the welfare of Her children. This is somewhat of a pre-emptive eye-for-an-eye philosophy. My most common example is a convenient store robbery. If someone is going to get shot, and you have the ability to make it the robber instead of you, feel free to do so. This is murky ground, but fortunately ties in with the third line.
Now we turn the coin on its side and take into account the rim. The more common ground than the previous two: If harm will not be done, harm with caution. This is made clear by the previous two. The edict is don't, so bear that in mind. Still, there are many greater good scenarios, and just common sense in regards to life. In my convenient store robbery example the truth is, you can never be sure if he is going to pull the trigger until he does. This is where most of our moral responsibility comes into play. Through regular communion with Her, and with others who walk our path, we come to understand Her. Then in every moment in our life we are bound to put that understanding to use.
There are few absolutes in life. We have no "Thou shalt nots" because there are points when that rule wouldn't stand. We also don't have freedom to do as we wish. We must consider Her in all things and do our best to be stewards of Her creation.
I am sorry, fluffbunnies, but this Rede doesn't provide the easy way out. Quite the opposite. This one requires you to continually think.
My third issue was with spellcraft. Again not because of the action itself, but the people in association with it. Few could sufficiently explain how it worked or when it worked. Much attention is paid to the rituals and the details of precisely how to make it work, and nothing evidenced to show that it actually does. I don't disbelieve in spellcrafting. I do find it hard to believe that nobody seems to be able to state what it really is. At least not within the Wiccan path. Wiccans as a whole, no matter how enlightened overall, seem hell bent on insisting that certain spells, rituals and etc... work and are solidly against explanation as to what the practice really is. Outside of Wicca, you will find many who are willing to more accurately apply what is going on. Prayer. All of your focusing of your energy and concentration isn't bringing out your inner sorcerer. It is bringing you in touch with Her, and allowing you to address your concerns with her.
Ultimately, in studying these individual components and many like them, I came to find that few Wiccans, and many Pagans had answers to these kinds of questions. In exasperation I began sifting through the mounds of fluffbunnies to find the few true Wiccans who knew what was going on. I found in virtually every case the same phrase, or something similar. "I say I am Wiccan because it is something that people can easily identify with. The truth is a little more complicated." It seemed everyone was a Pagan with Wiccan leanings, or an Eclectic Pagan that called themselves Wiccan to save themselves a lengthy explanation. The only ones who didn't clarify what they were beyond Wiccan were the fluffbunnies. It seemed more and more like Wicca was a common watering hole along the paths that many of us were walking, rather than a path that anybody could actually take and stick to.
So where did I end up after that watering hole? The path of the White Wolf. What is that? Something that I will finally begin to explain. Next time.
**Edited 7/11/06 01:41 EST: Sojourner also just addressed this issue and provided a link to a Witches Voice article on the same, both are worth looking at.
posted by Wanderer at 3:32 AM
20 Comments:
I had more respect for your path before you said you didn't disbelieve in spellcraft.
Wanderer - Thanks for being honest about the places you've been. I'm glad to be able to read your story and learn from it.
I am confused about one thing - "While you Christians failed to react to my attack on you (or more accurately, my attacks on your faith as I understood it)" - I know I've been gone for some time, was this from earlier White Wolf posts? Or elsewhere in blogdom? I've never really seen what you say as attacks, but rather some very valid criticisms that we as christians ought to listen to. Can you point me in the direction of those conversations?
Thanks,
Grey Owl
You're the only religious person to think you should listen to criticisms of your cult.
Thanks for your lack of arrogance.
I'm always building a spiritual path one step at time. I just can't complete taking any relgiouls teaching to be the only truth.
Maybe someday I'll have it figure it out. But not to soon either I want to learn and grow in spiritual.
Grey Owl - I refer not actually to any of the "White Wolf" Posts, but actually to my Angry Drunk Rant which appeared to have gone unnoticed to the greater extent.
Perhaps the title got people thinking "Oh, he didn't really mean that" since I had admitted to intoxication. Always a foolish reaction in my opinion. People will use the excuse that somebody doesn't mean what they say when they are intoxicated. Normally the truth is that they mean what they say, they are just too polite to make the statement.
MC - If you suddenly lost respect due to that line, you have a selective memory. We have had conversations on this subject several times. The last time, if memory serves, while we were driving around the county setting up for the booster draft.
yeah but I thought I remembered at that point you said you didn't believe in spellcraft, you thought it was just window-dressing for prayer, like counting rosary beads even though you know how many there are or the like.
I guess when you say you don't disbelieve in spellcraft I take that to mean that you think spells work and that people really can do magic. Perhaps I misunderstood?
MC - "Outside of Wicca, you will find many who are willing to more accurately apply what is going on. Prayer. All of your focusing of your energy and concentration isn't bringing out your inner sorcerer. It is bringing you in touch with Her, and allowing you to address your concerns with her."
You didn't misremember what I said, just perhaps missed that I was reiterating that here. Maybe I took too long between stating I believed and getting to the above portion and thus clouded your interpretation.
I guess I'm just not seeing how not disbelieving in spellcraft and saying it's all a sham that basically amounts to prayer are reconcilable.
Okay, then let me try this one again.
Prayer: You ask God's assistance in a specific area, and God answers, or doesn't, depending on any number of reasons.
Spellcraft: You ask God's assistance in a specific area, and God answers, or doesn't.
It is somewhat akin to:
Truck: A large, commercial vehicle used for transport or other hard labor.
Lorry: A large, commercial vehicle used for transport or other hard labor.
The point is, Spellcraft has nothing to do with Harry Potter. Christians pray in various ways in an attempt to enact a miracle via the interaction of their God. We use spellcraft (and prayer) in many various ways in an attempt to enact a miracle via the interaction of God.
Why then do we use the differing terminology and concept? Because our religion is different. Because the basis behind, and the specifics behind how and why She responds are different than their concept.
The reason I can reconcile it is because I acknowledge that many of these rituals have a place and a purpose, despite the fact that I equally acknowledge that the end of fact has nothing to do with any power of mine.
Why do I use the different wording? Because prayer is a communication. Sometimes a request, sometimes not. The concept behind spellcraft is in doing something behind, to give your request more significant. I.E. lighting of candles (scented or votive), making use of sacred tools (athame or rosary), or going through special motions (walking widdershins around the circle, or genuflecting and making the sign of the cross.)
One is a simple request, the other involves symbolically acting in the direction you would have the Goddess assist you in. It is a focus point, not a hocus pocus point.
Interesting post, and it comments on much of the fluff bunniness that drives me crazy. (Aside note, the Juggler did a great bunny hunting series in April if you haven't read that. A real hoot.)
As for your blog, I've done a lot of thinking on these things over the years. I don't explain Wicca as "making up your own religion," but rahter the attempt to create what paganism might have become had Christianity not arisen. I'm not one of those people who dresses up like a Druid or prances around like I'm at RenFest when I'm not (although yes I do have a lukewarm costume).
As for the Rede, I interpret that as something quite a bit different than what you addressed in your post. "An it harm none, do what you will." Well, actually I don't see a prohibition, a don't, against harm itself. Just that you should not make a decision to harm someone for yourself. If your actions won't harm anyone else, then you aren't under a social obligation to heed the will of others and your community. But if your actions might harm someone, then you are under a moral obligation to curtail your behavior. The best example I have is drunk driving; you can drink what you want but you should submit to the laws of your society that says you shouldn't drive drunk. So I see the Rede as that dividing line telling you when it should be about you and when it should be about other people.
As for spell craft, well I think it involves more than prayer but that it doesn't involve some sort of hocus-pocus spirits and demons bit. Have you ever read Blink? I think spell work is work you do to retrain your subconsious, and that it's a bit of trial and error to know how well you can do that. For instance, when I started using public transportation, I had a real problem with how crowded it was. So I did a really calming stretch of rituals around some of the things that I have with me when I commute. And being surrounded by them in transport connected me to that feeling of calmness and helped in a way that just saying a quick prayer with nothing to remind me tends to do. So I see spell work as consciously working with or retraining your unconsious mind, even if I don't believe in the whole make the rains come type.
Cheers!!
spell (2)
n.
A word or formula believed to have magic power.
(dictionary.com)
Ergo, Harry Potter. Hoping someone arbitrarily agrees to your request is neither magical nor powerful.
That is in response to the first part of your post where you insist that prayer and spells are the same thing. In response to the second part of your post where you insist they're two different things, I have the following.
Your argument that it is a spell rather than a prayer because you are acting in the direction you would have the goddess assist you would only hold water if you wanted her to help you dance in a circle or wave glass knives, unless you believed that you are gaining some kind of leverage over the goddess or in some way convincing her to do as you ask, which implies that you have leverage over the goddess by possessing something she wants or the ability to do what it wants you to do but the discretion to choose whether or not to use it. If you mean to take the angle that doing these things proves to the goddess that you're earnest in your desire to have favors done for you, then you imply that one would have a reason to lie to the goddess about what one wants and that if you were lying you would be unable to perform the ritual.
The only other alternative, logically, is to believe in the innate power and intrinsic executive force of the ritual itself, a la "I cast a level 3 fireball at your half-elf thief. *push coke-bottle glasses with tape around nose piece further up your nose*"
Olive - many good points, and I will address them further later on, as I am running short on time and don't want to short you on a response.
MC - I will respond again this evening as you seem to insist on pushing the issue out here, even though, as I said, we have covered this ground several times already. Short version: If you believe in prayer, you believe in a formula thought to have magical power. It gets an omniscient, intangible being to do as you ask. For the second part, look back to all of my points about using the actions as a focus. Consider purity of heart issues and the like. My time is up for the moment. I will be back to this.
Wanderer - just went back and read the drunken ranting. Dang, wish I'd been around to get in on the fun. I'd like to respond in greater depth, but for now I'll just say: good observations, and I've ranted about them myself.
mc - "You're the only religious person to think you should listen to criticisms of your cult. Thanks for your lack of arrogance." - thanks, i think...
Olive - I agree that the bunny hunting series was amusing.
Interesting note on your explanation of Wicca. I would tend to find some agreement in the concept, in association with my own path, provided I am correct that we are in agreement that it is not a recreation of that which was practiced in the past, but rather a modern practice with similar roots as far as belief systems.
"Well, actually I don't see a prohibition, a don't, against harm itself. Just that you should not make a decision to harm someone for yourself. If your actions won't harm anyone else, then you aren't under a social obligation to heed the will of others and your community. But if your actions might harm someone, then you are under a moral obligation to curtail your behavior.
You seem to be somewhat contradictory in your presentation here. However, if I read the concept behind what you are saying correctly, it would seem that you are at least heading down the path of interpretation that I detailed.
Again in your comments on spellwork, I see you basically reiterating the ground I covered with MC several times here, although I acknowledge that wasn't necessarily made clear in the original post.
Thanks for the comments. It is always interesting to look at these things from a different (even if extremely similar) point of view.
hey Steve, i'm way too tired to read this post thoroughly, so I'm going to come back to it. BUT, since you (sort of) asked, I will say that I did have some thoughts on your angry drunk rant, as I suppose some others did as well. However, and feel free to disagree with me at any time, most of us have learned the hard way that discussions with angry drunks, albeit honest ones, rarely end well and the topic is usually best addressed another time when the angry one at least isn't drunk. Am I wrong? :-)
Also, a self-defined rant isn't typically an invitation to discussion, but usually one sided by nature. So for those reasons, I chose to wait until a better time to further discuss your thoughts-- which i'm too worn out to even remember right now. Like I said, I'll come back soon. It's been weird and tiring in my world lately.
MC - I was intending to get back to you as well, but the main points of response did get crammed into that comment I made before I took off. As such, I would only be dusting off the same points and straightening them up a bit. So for the moment I will leave it be.
Cindy - I am sorry that your world is so weird and tiring. I do see your point about addressing drunks, but from that standpoint, that is the advantage of this particular style of communication. Odds are by the time someone posts and I get back to it, I wouldn't be anymore. If you wanted to make sure, you could give it 12-24 hours. I assure you I am not still drunk. (That would be one hell of a bender.)
I also understand that self-styled rants aren't generally invitations for response. Seraphim pointed that out to me, asking if I was willing to accept comments. When I said I was, he didn't.
I do appreciate you taking the time to respond with your honest thoughts on the matter.
Heh heh. That remoinds me - I knew a guy who went on a bender the night before a buisness trip, then got up the next morning and drove to the airport. He got stopped by the cops and blew over the legal limit - 10 hours later. Apparently, he didn't have any breakfast....
I agree with this post on several major points, Steve:
"It seems to me that if God is whatever you want Him/Her to be, then God isn't. God is just your imaginary friend."
"Yes there are many paths to walk, but the moment you state to me that whatever path you walk is right, without limitations, I see that you are an atheist who is afraid to admit it."
And,
"There are no arbitrary edicts. No list of ten or more rules to live by, but rather what is at the core of those rules."
I do have to qualify my agreement with that last one to say I don't consider the 10 commandments to have been arbitrary. (Did I understand you right?) And, that Jesus also pared it down to a common edict: love the lord your god with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. All the commandments are summed up in those 2 principles.
Does it bug you when we agree?
Why should it bug me when we agree?
Post a Comment
<< Home