You spot fake witches because they believe in magic instead of Magick. Being a witch is a spiritual practice, if curses actually worked the world would be very different (and way, way more fucked than it currently is)
I like the “headology,” or the idea that what people believe is what is real.
“So people see you coming in the hat and the cloak and they know you’re a witch and that’s why your magic works?” said Esk.
“That’s right,” said Granny. “It’s called headology.” She tapped her silver hair, which was drawn into a tight bun that could crack rocks.
“But it’s not real!” Esk protested. “That’s not magic, it’s—it’s—”
“Listen,” said Granny, “If you give someone a bottle of red jollop for their wind it may work, right, but if you want it to work for sure then you let their mind make it work for them. Tell ’em it’s moonbeams bottled in fairy wine or something. Mumble over it a bit. It’s the same with cursing.”
When I read Mortimer, in which he reveals the afterlife is just what people believe it to be, I tried to convince myself I would be reborn as an eternal goddess just in case that’s actually how it works 😆
I follow discordianism,which is actually newer than Wicca by a decade or two. But I’ll be the first one to admit it’s fake lol. It was written by a couple of guys while they drank beer and ate hotdogs at a bowling alley. The open and deliberate fakeness is part of what appealed to me.
That’s a linguistics debate. Are all Christians fake christians just because the god they believe in is an imaginary friend? Or are they real christians because they actively believe in their imaginary friend?
Or was your argument that the age of a belief lends creedence to it’s legitimacy regardless of its truth value?
I feel like the concept of magic doesn’t become any more credible if you use the archiac spelling “magick”, and differentiating between “spiritual” vs “supernatural” is splitting hairs. It’s close enough to the same exact thing that i don’t believe a person can call bullshit on one without calling bullshit on both. If brooms and cauldrens are fake then so is Beltane.
I think that you don’t think that there’s any meaningful difference between “spiritual” and "supernatural " then you’re missing the point.
I used to be an atheist anti-christian skeptic type that didn’t understand my partner’s beliefs at all, because why have beliefs if you know they aren’t real? sugar_in_your_tea’s above quote from Equal Rites actually fits it really well.
Your beliefs have an impact on how you act, and your acts have an impact on the world. Therefore I choose to live by a set of guiding principles and interact with the world in a way that fits what I want it to be like. The whole point is that you can only influence what you interact with, but also you never know what you’ll interact with.
That said, I think that people who claim to be able to influence the lives of others without interacting with them directly are on ego trips.
However, I also don’t think that anyone can say anything for certain, as we live in a universe driven by probability, where “spooky action at a distance” is an actual scientific phenomenon.
tl;dr: Spiritual describes how people interact with the world but supernatural describes hypothetical (meta)physical phenomena.
This is why I usually self-describe as “Christian” : I believe (for the most part) in the philosophy of Jesus Christ.
Do I think he was a real guy ? Probably not. Historical evidence seems to suggest he was at least two guys, plus a story about an angel, plus a few other things on top. That’s kinda irrelevant to me, though.
Do I believe in god ? Only in the deistic sense, even then I’m not sure.
Jesus is like Frodo or Heracles to me, a character that we can learn from. I really like the whole “love your neighbor as yourself” “give to the poor and help the needy” which I see as his main message.
I’m a Christian in the same sense that I’m a Pragmatist, but Christianity has the edge in that it has a story and a character to relate to. The guy preaching love and getting trampled by the world for it, is sadly still a relevant image today.
Magick is demonstrably not bullshit. It works, just like prayer works, just like meditation works. Partly because you believe in it, partly because rituals have inherent effects on human minds and emotions.
Spirituality serves the purpose of using those parts of your brain and mind that are not strictly rational, and/or inaccessible through rational thought alone.
Just thinking real hard about it can’t help you get over a breakup, for example. Or get closure over someone’s death. Spirituality is there for those sorts of times.
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.
That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a faith.
I would disagree with this on a couple levels.
First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.
And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.
I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.
“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.
You spot fake witches because they believe in magic instead of Magick. Being a witch is a spiritual practice, if curses actually worked the world would be very different (and way, way more fucked than it currently is)
I like the “headology,” or the idea that what people believe is what is real.
When I read Mortimer, in which he reveals the afterlife is just what people believe it to be, I tried to convince myself I would be reborn as an eternal goddess just in case that’s actually how it works 😆
Hey, you never know!
Wicca was invented in 1954. They’re all fake witches.
Wake up babe, new religion just dropped
I follow discordianism,which is actually newer than Wicca by a decade or two. But I’ll be the first one to admit it’s fake lol. It was written by a couple of guys while they drank beer and ate hotdogs at a bowling alley. The open and deliberate fakeness is part of what appealed to me.
Hail Eris!
fnord
That’s a linguistics debate. Are all Christians fake christians just because the god they believe in is an imaginary friend? Or are they real christians because they actively believe in their imaginary friend?
Or was your argument that the age of a belief lends creedence to it’s legitimacy regardless of its truth value?
Right. It’s all fake, regardless of age.
Sure, but just to clarify/reiterate my point, you can be a real member of a group that believes fake things.
I feel like the concept of magic doesn’t become any more credible if you use the archiac spelling “magick”, and differentiating between “spiritual” vs “supernatural” is splitting hairs. It’s close enough to the same exact thing that i don’t believe a person can call bullshit on one without calling bullshit on both. If brooms and cauldrens are fake then so is Beltane.
I think that you don’t think that there’s any meaningful difference between “spiritual” and "supernatural " then you’re missing the point.
I used to be an atheist anti-christian skeptic type that didn’t understand my partner’s beliefs at all, because why have beliefs if you know they aren’t real? sugar_in_your_tea’s above quote from Equal Rites actually fits it really well.
Your beliefs have an impact on how you act, and your acts have an impact on the world. Therefore I choose to live by a set of guiding principles and interact with the world in a way that fits what I want it to be like. The whole point is that you can only influence what you interact with, but also you never know what you’ll interact with.
That said, I think that people who claim to be able to influence the lives of others without interacting with them directly are on ego trips.
However, I also don’t think that anyone can say anything for certain, as we live in a universe driven by probability, where “spooky action at a distance” is an actual scientific phenomenon.
tl;dr: Spiritual describes how people interact with the world but supernatural describes hypothetical (meta)physical phenomena.
This is why I usually self-describe as “Christian” : I believe (for the most part) in the philosophy of Jesus Christ.
Do I think he was a real guy ? Probably not. Historical evidence seems to suggest he was at least two guys, plus a story about an angel, plus a few other things on top. That’s kinda irrelevant to me, though.
Do I believe in god ? Only in the deistic sense, even then I’m not sure.
Jesus is like Frodo or Heracles to me, a character that we can learn from. I really like the whole “love your neighbor as yourself” “give to the poor and help the needy” which I see as his main message.
I’m a Christian in the same sense that I’m a Pragmatist, but Christianity has the edge in that it has a story and a character to relate to. The guy preaching love and getting trampled by the world for it, is sadly still a relevant image today.
Magick is demonstrably not bullshit. It works, just like prayer works, just like meditation works. Partly because you believe in it, partly because rituals have inherent effects on human minds and emotions.
Spirituality serves the purpose of using those parts of your brain and mind that are not strictly rational, and/or inaccessible through rational thought alone.
Just thinking real hard about it can’t help you get over a breakup, for example. Or get closure over someone’s death. Spirituality is there for those sorts of times.
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.
I would disagree with this on a couple levels.
First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.
And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.
I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.
“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.