Of Wicca, Cults, Organized Religions, et al...

I am surprised to see so many at such a young age citing Wicca as their religion [although now that I look back at this opening statement, I forget that I’ve witnessed many of much older age who floated from one following — be it “cult” or “Christian denomination” or what-not]. Sure, I see Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., as kids, but that's because of family and community indoctrination, and general social conditioning, e.g.: If you are born in a particular community, you are likely to follow that area's social value set, religion being a major factor inherent. To be Wiccan — or other similar alternative expressions — from my observation means a mode of rejection of the major religions, or a need for establishing identity, or both.

When I first left Christianity — at the ripe old age of 8 — I became what I believed was an atheist (actually, I just became confused). Much later, at 17, I was studying Ecclesiastes (required by my high school), and realized that this author in the scriptures was just like me: asking a lot of strange questions. In the end, I became what I am today, an Agnostic (no, does not translate as "fence-sitter," much as the critics would have you believe, but rather, "one who shoulders responsibility for personal actions and believes that humans do not have the capacity to think on the level of a God; comes from Greek: a gnos). I use my own background here merely as a loose, but relevant analogy.

So, I have read books on Numerology, Astrology, Wicca, Tarot, and just about everything in between. And though there are definitely insights to be gleaned on the surface, I would assert that from a rhetorical point of view, I find these explorations all incredibly lacking in merit and/or grounding – they are not philosophically sound in structure or logically presented. Sure, the major religions of the world have their fill of bull-shit text, especially those of an “indoctrination” core context, but most of the allegories, stories or moral tales are at least rooted in some value that is necessary for personal and social well-being (not without imperfection, either in interpretation and practice). In essence, though I fault the major religions in terms of application as a control dynamic (at times highly abusive even) — there is still much to be learned from excerpts or even entire books contained within those doctrines. I do not find this in any of the fringe religions, not even in voodoo (some forms of which tap into Christianity in order to establish some measure of a foundation – not to say that voodoo requires this connection, with its own bountiful history), although voodoo comprises its own unique and highly interesting set of devices worthy of extensive explication and study.

I'm in no way going to say that this or that text is better than any another, or that the fringe religions (many of which pre-date even Christianity, and Wicca, though not necessarily in its current form, being one of them) are to be considered wasteful "mumbo jumbo" with nothing to offer — in fact, Wicca subscribes to a sense of well-being, and an almost Karmic relationship with Mother Earth and nature, which are aspects to be highly valued and respected. What I am saying, is that much of what is written is not grounded (you'll see a lot of that word in my writings): there appears to be a lacking of composition/division characteristics; there are no cause and effect relationships that can be discerned and presented in consistent fashion (no matter where the stars are today, just to pick on Astrology a bit — and I'm a devout double-Pisces!); there seems to be no sense or measure of a proofing mechanism to build upon. Basically, without these qualifications in place (and the major religions have lost much of them as well), a practitioner is be unable to connect on a religious level — you lose the religious aspect, and are left only with dogma and social structure.

So, I have two items to present to you, the reader, as bits and pieces of information to ponder, and though neither are cryptic in nature, they might each take some time to realize and become useful to you:

1) An ordered list of thoughts, actions, and perceptive filtering — levels of behavioral application:

math (basic language)

scientific reasoning (meditative, single area)

science application (multiple areas, simple-systemic)

art (mastery of multiple sciences, infused and cohesive)
religion (simultaneous relating on multiple, mastered levels of communication — advanced-systemic — a state of resonance on those levels, creating higher degrees of perception)

So, why start with math (of which music, fine arts, theater, writing are manifestations)? Because it is the one language that is strictly rooted in a proofing mechanism, and the most sincere foundation of any discipline (note the "soft-sciences" such as Psychology are lacking in that discipline). There is no rejection of math, because you use it for every decision you make, inherent at a bio-chemi-electrical level — there is only acceptance and perfection of your own abilities to use this vital language.

2) An grand assumption on my part: let us say that God (no gender or quantity reference required for this assumption) is all things, is everywhere, and is all powerful. Argument: if the assumption is considered true, then there is no measure of distinction, no realization of separation — such that a bird sitting on a tree is the bird-tree for that instant, and so on, such that all things are one [aside, you can see a great depiction of this metaphysical concept in the movie "I Heart Huckabees," where Dustin Hofman's character uses the blanket to describe the nature of the universe].

Now, what if this God wishes to sense or perceive the concept of separation, this notion of distinction (and therefore, value by way of comparison)? What better device to make judgments, to perceive a sense of separateness, and to report value and distinction back to the source of inquiry than a human? So, if you follow this quasi-argument to the next level, every personal action becomes our own, unique expression, and our perceptions and reporting (to God as it were, via our thoughts, argumentations, references and 'proofs') become our own — respective to each of us — each of us, presumably, given the assumption and argument here presented, has this capability, this connection, this purpose, and in essence, it becomes then our unique responsibility to be the best individuals in that reporting chain that we can be, assisting God in realization the nature of the qualities of separation and distinction — of uniqueness; of identity.

The first item above, being the order of thinking and behavior, seems nearly Buddhist in nature (losing yourself in one-ness), while the second, being the assumption-argument, re-asserts the necessity of perceived separation. It's a cycle, and if you use religion as a means as I've described it (multiple-level perception), then you become a true vehicle, able to make good of any information. Well, these are just ideas. But, the point being, without grounding, then any text becomes inherently useless, and we resort to a religious doctrine (be it the grand Christian cult, or any fringe religious expression) for answers to non-viable, and useless, trivial questions. An abuse of the very act of “questioning,” which is the most powerful tool at our disposal...

So, be a Wicca if that suits you, or a Christian or Muslim at your whim. But none of these, including my own attempts above, will assist you without establishing a rooted foundation — well, that's my opinion anyway.

Not exactly a Eucharist for the soul, but definitely food for thought...