Is deism the most harmless of the lot?

[Beeth]

First off, this isn't about whether deism is right or wrong. This thread is about how deism may or may not affect the progressive cause, either positively or otherwise.

For instance, a theist may object to gay marriage on the grounds that 'god said so'. But the deist who believes that god never interferes may not hold any regressive, obscurantist views.

So my point is, a deist (whether or not you agree with his philosophy) is more likely to be harmless since he couldn't possibly have an agenda regarding these issues. Since his god doesn't interfere in the fucntinings of society, neither will he. At least this attitude will make him harmless, if not radical according to leftist standards.

[eric922]

I think Deism is fairly harmless, however I do think some religions can actually be useful. Buddhism is useful to me personally. On political issues Wicca and neo-paganism in general is far more progressive than most traditional religions. Wicca promotes feminism, environmentalism, supports homosexuality, and in a lot of cases even promotes socialism. There is an entire sect of Wicca, Reclaiming, that is anarchist in its outlook.

I know I mention Wicca a lot in threads regarding religion and leftism, but that's because I've found a lot to admire in it and this coming from someone who used to mock it as a religion for teenage girls. Damn, was I ignorant back then.

[Welshy]

I think Deism is fairly harmless, however I do think some religions can actually be useful. Buddhism is useful to me personally.

Buddhism on the personal level is harmless, though some of its advocation of sleep depravation seem risky for me, but like all religions it doesn't exist purely at the individual level and the role the sinhala buddhist monks had in providing moral support and blessing for the war against the Tamils is quite frankly disgusting and there have been cases in Korean, IIRC, where temples have fought each other.



On political issues Wicca and neo-paganism in general is far more progressive than most traditional religions. Wicca promotes feminism, environmentalism, supports homosexuality, and in a lot of cases even promotes socialism. There is an entire sect of Wicca, Reclaiming, that is anarchist in its outlook.

Wicca is rather silly, IMO, and neo-paganism is full of neo-nazis.



I know I mention Wicca a lot in threads regarding religion and leftism, but that's because I've found a lot to admire in it and this coming from someone who used to mock it as a religion for teenage girls. Damn, was I ignorant back then.

While Wicca ultimately is no sillier than any other religion, some of their mishmash of other old pagan religions makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

[pluckedflowers]

What religion doesn't have adherents who couch their support for progressive causes in religious language? I'd say this is a bad way to answer the question of whether a given religion is good or bad, but I don't think it's a particularly useful question to begin with.

[eric922]

Just wondering why do you consider it silly, I mean more so than any other religion? I think the positive attributes I listed make it a more progressive faith than the Abrahamic ones.

I don't think it is correct to say it is "full" of Neo-Nazis. From everything I've read they are a small, but disgusting minority that the wider Pagan community condemns.

[QUOTE]While Wicca ultimately is no sillier than any other religion, some of their mishmash of other old pagan religions makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

Like I said I used to feel kind of the same way until I read Drawing Down the Moon. The author noted that most Wiccans do freely admit they aren't being completely accurate to ancient Paganism, but they can't because so much has been lost. They are trying to recreate the spirit of the ancient faiths. Some of them have done extremely meticulous research. She mentioned one group centered around the Egyptian Pantheon that make it
require their prospective members to read a various books on Egyptian history and religion because they want to be as accurate as possible.

Honesty, I'm not sure the mishmash charge is all that accurate. As I said above they are trying to be faithful to the spirit of ancient paganism, if not the form. Besides, even if they are "mishmashing. "Mishmash" is kind faithful to paganism itself. Ancient peoples combined their gods all the time. The Greek Gods became the Roman Gods, who later identified with the Egyptian Gods, etc.

Sorry it didn't quote you correctly on the first part for some reason.

[eric922]

What religion doesn't have adherents who couch their support for progressive causes in religious language? I'd say this is a bad way to answer the question of whether a given religion is good or bad, but I don't think it's a particularly useful question to begin with.
I assume you are responding to me, if not feel free to ignore this post. I think the difference between Wicca and Christianity is that while there are Christians who couch their support in religious language, it isn't a part of Christianity. For instance, Feminism is a part of Wicca, it's impossible to follow Wicca and be a supporter of patriarchy because the religion itself is based around the equality of the sexes. There is no way to get around it.

[Welshy]

Wicca is rather silly, IMO, and neo-paganism is full of neo-nazis.
Just wondering why do you consider it silly, I mean more so than any other religion? I think the positive attributes I listed make it a more progressive faith than the Abrahamic ones.

I've seen videos of some of their meetings and stuff and it just seems all comical to me. I mean personally I don't care what they actually do, I just find it ridiculous, but I find all religions ridiculous, though I like buddhist philosophy though, so it's not that big of a deal I guess.



I don't think it is correct to say it is "full" of Neo-Nazis. From everything I've read they are a small, but disgusting minority that the wider Pagan community condemns.

I'm aware however Neo-nazis in Asatru and Slavic neo-paganism is a serious problem and Asatru does have a good deal of conservatives in it.




Like I said I used to feel kind of the same way until I read Drawing Down the Moon. The author noted that most Wiccans do freely admit they aren't being completely accurate to ancient Paganism, but they can't because so much has been lost. They are trying to recreate the spirit of the ancient faiths. Some of them have done extremely meticulous research. She mentioned one group centered around the Egyptian Pantheon that make it
require their prospective members to read a various books on Egyptian history and religion because they want to be as accurate as possible.

This is where I find it at its silliest. You can't recreate the spirit of ancient faiths because they are products of their particular times and locations, to try to bring them into the modern context while trying to maintain the same spirit is create something that is quite anachronistic



Honesty, I'm not sure the mishmash charge is all that accurate. As I said above they are trying to be faithful to the spirit of ancient paganism, if not the form. Besides, even if they are "mishmashing. "Mishmash" is kind faithful to paganism itself. Ancient peoples combined their gods all the time. The Greek Gods became the Roman Gods, who later identified with the Egyptian Gods, etc.

Yes but that mishmashing was either made easy by the fact that with the european paganism they were all descendent from same proto-religion. And as far as the identifying with Egyptian gods that was a political thing, something that would make no sense for the modern day

[Beeth]

I think Deism is fairly harmless, however I do think some religions can actually be useful. Buddhism is useful to me personally. On political issues Wicca and neo-paganism in general is far more progressive than most traditional religions. Wicca promotes feminism, environmentalism, supports homosexuality, and in a lot of cases even promotes socialism. There is an entire sect of Wicca, Reclaiming, that is anarchist in its outlook.

I know I mention Wicca a lot in threads regarding religion and leftism, but that's because I've found a lot to admire in it and this coming from someone who used to mock it as a religion for teenage girls. Damn, was I ignorant back then.

I meant among theistic religions. Buddhism wouldn't fall under that category, since I believe it is agnostic. I don't know enough abut Wicca, is it a new age religion?

[pluckedflowers]

I assume you are responding to me, if not feel free to ignore this post. I think the difference between Wicca and Christianity is that while there are Christians who couch their support in religious language, it isn't a part of Christianity. For instance, Feminism is a part of Wicca, it's impossible to follow Wicca and be a supporter of patriarchy because the religion itself is based around the equality of the sexes. There is no way to get around it.

I wasn't responding to you in particular, just the general tenor of the thread. But I really don't think the distinction you make between what some Christians do and what is "part of Christianity" (or Wicca, for that matter) is very meaningful unless we adopt an essentialist understanding of religion. That is, unless we believe that there is some essence to a religion independent of what actual communities of religious people do. I don't see any reason for us to posit such a thing.

[eric922]

I meant among theistic religions. Buddhism wouldn't fall under that category, since I believe it is agnostic. I don't know enough abut Wicca, is it a new age religion?

See I hate the term "New Age" because it is thrown around so much and I really don't know what it means anymore. It's extremely vague and has became kind of a demeaning term.

However, I'll try and summarize Wicca briefly. It is a neo-Pagan faith. It usually worships a God and a Goddess personified respectively as the sun and moon. It also involves the use of magic or witchcraft, though it isn't a requirement. Honestly, Wikipedia could probably do a better job at this than me.

[Comrade Lenin]

Deism would not affect the progressive cause. Deism is simply the belief that god created the world and let it run like a clock. Along with this in Deism god is simply a creating force.

[Rafiq]

Buddhism is even more reactionary than Christianity and we don't oppose religion because it's "harmful", we oppose it because it's antiscientific. Deism is still a form of Idealism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[The Jay]

Buddhism is even more reactionary than Christianity and we don't oppose religion because it's "harmful", we oppose it because it's antiscientific. Deism is still a form of Idealism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


No it is not a form of Idealism, but it is stupid imo.

[Rafiq]

No it is not a form of Idealism, but it is stupid imo.

If it is held that a conscience being preceeds all material existence, i.e. That this existence is a reflection of some "Idea" by a being that "thinks" and "does", whatever it is, it's Idealism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[The Jay]

If it is held that a conscience being preceeds all material existence, i.e. That this existence is a reflection of some "Idea" by a being that "thinks" and "does", whatever it is, it's Idealism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

No. Deism suggests that the only explanation for the existence of the Universe is due to supernatural creation. This does not subscribe to the notion of a pre-ordained march of ideas creating the world through the idea itself. Theism is not Idealism. If you still think that it is please elaborate.

[hatzel]

we oppose it because it's antiscientific

Personally I oppose anything that isn't antiscientific because I'm not too keen on the ideologies of capital oooooh yeah I just went there y'all saw me do it that shit was tighttttt :drool:

[Igor]

Pretty much any religion on a personal level is harmless though, it's the institutions tied to capitalism that fuck us up. Sure, deism is harmless now but if they ever got big and organized, they'd be as bad as rest of them. They're the Andorra of religions, only because they're small and irrelevant doesn't change their very nature.

also Buddhism is reactionary as fuck, don't let the Richard Gere and the "eastern religions are so, spiritual, man" types get you there

[Rafiq]

No. Deism suggests that the only explanation for the existence of the Universe is due to supernatural creation. This does not subscribe to the notion of a pre-ordained march of ideas creating the world through the idea itself. Theism is not Idealism. If you still think that it is please elaborate.

The very fact that it "suggests" that the universe was created, signifies that it had to have been "created" by something that can choose to create, something that can think and act based upon those thoughts. That is what we call a conscious being. The point I'm trying to get at, is the conviction that something must have created the universe, that the "creation" is not a product of the dynamic movement of matter organized in a way devoid of will, thought, or Ideas, but on the contrary, the former is a product of creation.

[eric922]

Pretty much any religion on a personal level is harmless though, it's the institutions tied to capitalism that fuck us up. Sure, deism is harmless now but if they ever got big and organized, they'd be as bad as rest of them. They're the Andorra of religions, only because they're small and irrelevant doesn't change their very nature.

also Buddhism is reactionary as fuck, don't let the Richard Gere and the "eastern religions are so, spiritual, man" types get you there

On a purely personal level I disagree with this statement. I have studied Buddhism for several years and practiced it for several months. I haven't found anything reactionary about it, everything has been beneficial.

[eric922]

I wasn't responding to you in particular, just the general tenor of the thread. But I really don't think the distinction you make between what some Christians do and what is "part of Christianity" (or Wicca, for that matter) is very meaningful unless we adopt an essentialist understanding of religion. That is, unless we believe that there is some essence to a religion independent of what actual communities of religious people do. I don't see any reason for us to posit such a thing.

Sorry, if I'm misunderstanding you, but don't you think there must be a link between a religion's teachings and the actions of that community. If the religion's holy book teaches that women are inferior doesn't it stand to reason that patriarchy will be more strongly supported among that group than a religion that is teaches feminism, the equality of the sexes, and an overall opposition to patriarchy? Perhaps I am taking an essentialist view here, I don't know.

[Rafiq]

On a purely personal level I disagree with this statement. I have studied Buddhism for several years and practiced it for several months. I haven't found anything reactionary about it, everything has been beneficial.

It isn't surprising you haven't found anything reactionary about it, because on a conscious level, it really isn't. But the very pressuposions behind Buddhism, the very constrain in which Buddhism operates is extremely reactionary.

[Ostrinski]

Deism is long dead

[Comrade #138672]

I'm still new, so forgive me if I say something stupid, but what's so wrong about idealism? I know it's associated with upper class thinking, but aren't Marxists in some sense idealists as well? I know that idealism can set us back sometimes and make us do nothing because we expect that destiny will take care of everything, but is it always that bad? Just wondering.

[The Jay]

The very fact that it "suggests" that the universe was created, signifies that it had to have been "created" by something that can choose to create, something that can think and act based upon those thoughts. That is what we call a conscious being. The point I'm trying to get at, is the conviction that something must have created the universe, that the "creation" is not a product of the dynamic movement of matter organized in a way devoid of will, thought, or Ideas, but on the contrary, the former is a product of creation.


What you seem to be saying is that if someone believes that the Universe was created through magic then that person is an Idealist. Again, which Idealism do you mean here? It is not the Idealism described in Marx's The German Ideology. That is something completely different. I would not consider the belief to be Theism or Deism to be Idealism in the first place.

[Rafiq]

What you seem to be saying is that if someone believes that the Universe was created through magic then that person is an Idealist. Again, which Idealism do you mean here? It is not the Idealism described in Marx's The German Ideology. That is something completely different. I would not consider the belief to be Theism or Deism to be Idealism in the first place.

No, no, no, this has nothing to do with magic. Say a person holds the ridiculous conviction that a concious being created the universe as an expression of his will devoid of any "magic", it would still be Idealist. This is indeed the Idealism Marx was referring to, and it's this same Idealism which is furthermore utilized by several different thinkers in their analysis of human social relations. For one, Marx and Engels go into detail regarding the fact that consciousness is a product of material movement, not the other way around. They were very explicit about that. The point of materialism is to say that consciousness and "life" is a product of no consciousness and no life, that the material universe exists devoid of will and thought.

[Welshy]

It isn't surprising you haven't found anything reactionary about it, because on a conscious level, it really isn't. But the very pressuposions behind Buddhism, the very constrain in which Buddhism operates is extremely reactionary.

Well buddhism, no matter how much I like it on an individual level, as it has existed as a social force has been pretty reactionary and ironically militarist (in Sri Lanka), but I'm not sure what you are referring to by the presuppositions and the very constraint way in which it operates.

[The Jay]

No, no, no, this has nothing to do with magic. Say a person holds the ridiculous conviction that a concious being created the universe as an expression of his will devoid of any "magic", it would still be Idealist. This is indeed the Idealism Marx was referring to, and it's this same Idealism which is furthermore utilized by several different thinkers in their analysis of human social relations. For one, Marx and Engels go into detail regarding the fact that consciousness is a product of material movement, not the other way around. They were very explicit about that. The point of materialism is to say that consciousness and "life" is a product of no consciousness and no life, that the material universe exists devoid of will and thought.

I don't think that you're understanding what I'm saying, but I understand what you are. I'll bring this to the other thread.

[Rafiq]

Well buddhism, no matter how much I like it on an individual level, as it has existed as a social force has been pretty reactionary and ironically militarist (in Sri Lanka), but I'm not sure what you are referring to by the presuppositions and the very constraint way in which it operates.

The Buddhist conception of morality, for one, is extremely reactionary. About this natural "balance" which cannot be "disrupted".

[eric922]

The Buddhist conception of morality, for one, is extremely reactionary. About this natural "balance" which cannot be "disrupted".
Buddhism doesn't really talk about a natural balance. In fact the very fact that you say it cannot be disrupted makes it a very un-Buddhist concept since that would imply it is permanent and nothing is in permanent in Buddhism. The only balance I can think of in Buddhism is the Middle Way, but that is about avoiding the two extremes of aestheticism and extreme hedonism, which were the two extremes Buddha tried.



Now, Taoism talks a lot about the balance of nature, the yin/yang being the main symbol of that unchanging balance. Taoism in fact means something like "way of nature." Indeed, achieving that balance is pretty much the goal of Taoism. Perhaps you have the two confused, I don't know, but your last sentence about a natural balance that cannot be disrupted sounds much more like Taoism than any form of Buddhism I've heard of. That being said I really don't know enough about Taoism to comment on it either way aside from the division between it's religious and philosophical half, something which it shares with Buddhism.

[Rational Radical]

I think deism is very harmless,you can't justify oppression or illegitimate power structures on the basis of a God giving man reason to govern himself. I could care less what your religion is as long as it's kept between you and your God and you're politcally cognizant. You don't need a religion to be dogmatic,close-minded and irrational, you can find many stubborn people who can't think outside of their political ideology/doctrine.

[Zostrianos]

I don't think it is correct to say it is "full" of Neo-Nazis. From everything I've read they are a small, but disgusting minority that the wider Pagan community condemns.


They're a very small portion of the Neopagan community, but unfortunately they make a lot of noise. Most neonazis today are actually Christians (in Russia the Orthodox church is one of the main supporters of the Neonazi movement there). In Croatia, Neonazis are mainly conservative Catholics inspired by the Ustashe movement. In Greece, the racist Golden Dawn draws a lot of support from the Orthodox church:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23221
And of course in the US there's the infamous racist fundamentalist churches, like the Church of the Creator.




Like I said I used to feel kind of the same way until I read Drawing Down the Moon. The author noted that most Wiccans do freely admit they aren't being completely accurate to ancient Paganism, but they can't because so much has been lost. They are trying to recreate the spirit of the ancient faiths. Some of them have done extremely meticulous research. She mentioned one group centered around the Egyptian Pantheon that make it
require their prospective members to read a various books on Egyptian history and religion because they want to be as accurate as possible.
Honesty, I'm not sure the mishmash charge is all that accurate. As I said above they are trying to be faithful to the spirit of ancient paganism, if not the form. Besides, even if they are "mishmashing. "Mishmash" is kind faithful to paganism itself. Ancient peoples combined their gods all the time. The Greek Gods became the Roman Gods, who later identified with the Egyptian Gods, etc.


There are 2 main branches of Neopaganism: Wiccan and reconstructionist.

Wicca is based on the work of Gerald Gardner (1884-1964) who was initiated into a Celtic coven claiming to be the descendants of an ancient witch cult. Gardner summarized its teachings into his Book of Shadows (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm)). It's mainly centered around western occultism, medieval magic, and Aleister Crowley's teachings, and has relatively little actual Pagan content aside from numerous deities that are named, chiefly Celtic and Nordic. Most Neopagans belong to the Wiccan branch, and use Gardner's rituals, typically adding or modifying parts of them to conform to their own beliefs, or using specific pantheons.

The reconstructionist branch is very different, and aims to reinstate Pagan traditions as close to how they were originally practiced. It's more recent, but much more genuine. The most famous one is Nova Roma (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/rites_and_rituals.html), which revolves around Roman Paganism. There are more and more reconstructionist groups popping up nowadays.

[eric922]

They're a very small portion of the Neopagan community, but unfortunately they make a lot of noise. Most neonazis today are actually Christians (in Russia the Orthodox church is one of the main supporters of the Neonazi movement there). In Croatia, Neonazis are mainly conservative Catholics inspired by the Ustashe movement. In Greece, the racist Golden Dawn draws a lot of support from the Orthodox church:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23221
And of course in the US there's the infamous racist fundamentalist churches, like the Church of the Creator.




There are 2 main branches of Neopaganism: Wiccan and reconstructionist.

Wicca is based on the work of Gerald Gardner (1884-1964) who was initiated into a Celtic coven claiming to be the descendants of an ancient witch cult. Gardner summarized its teachings into his Book of Shadows (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm)). It's mainly centered around western occultism, medieval magic, and Aleister Crowley's teachings, and has relatively little actual Pagan content aside from numerous deities that are named, chiefly Celtic and Nordic. Most Neopagans belong to the Wiccan branch, and use Gardner's rituals, typically adding or modifying parts of them to conform to their own beliefs, or using specific pantheons.

The reconstructionist branch is very different, and aims to reinstate Pagan traditions as close to how they were originally practiced. It's more recent, but much more genuine. The most famous one is Nova Roma (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/rites_and_rituals.html), which revolves around Roman Paganism. There are more and more reconstructionist groups popping up nowadays.

Yeah I've heard a bit about the link between Gardner and Crowley. I'm slowly working my way through Crowley, I find him fascinating, but deep and very hard to get through. I've heard Gardner was actually inducted into the Order Temple Orientenis by Crowley himself and was left in charge of the British Chapter. However, Gardner was attracted to paganism and thus combined the two into Wicca. This is influence is fairly easy to say. The Wiccan rede "if it harm none do what you will" is a paraphrase of Crowley's famous "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law."

That being said I'm not sure how strong Gardner's influence is outside of Gardenian Wicca itself. There are several branches of Wicca, some of which are very different from Gardner's kind.

Overall, I'm not sure I agree 100% with your view that Reconstructionism is more genuine. It is more accurate, yes, certainly, but I think the vast majority of Wiccans are genuine in their beliefs. Perhaps we are merely debating semantics at this point though.

[Zostrianos]

Yeah I've heard a bit about the link between Gardner and Crowley. I'm slowly working my way through Crowley, I find him fascinating, but deep and very hard to get through. I've heard Gardner was actually inducted into the Order Temple Orientenis by Crowley himself and was left in charge of the British Chapter. However, Gardner was attracted to paganism and thus combined the two into Wicca. This is influence is fairly easy to say. The Wiccan rede "if it harm none do what you will" is a paraphrase of Crowley's famous "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law."


Yeah, I think it was Crowley who initiated him. A lot of original Wiccan practices from his Book of Shadows are essentially watered down versions of stuff from Crowley's A.A. order and the OTO. A good example is Crowley's Gnostic Mass, parts of which were later used by Gardner. Aaron Leitch has a great article on the subject:
http://kheph777.tripod.com/art_wicca-thelema.html

The third degree initiation ceremony in Gardnerian Wicca (which features the Great Rite) is derived almost completely from the Gnostic Mass. They share many specific points in common; such as the enthronement of the priestess upon the altar, and the Consecration of Cakes and Wine. They even share one invocation word for word (as pointed out on page 52, footnote 1, of "The Witches' Bible"). This invocation can be found in Crowley's "Magick in Theory and Practice", Liber VX, section III: "The Ceremony of the Opening of the Veil". Interestingly, this invocation in the Wiccan Great Rite involves the removal of a white veil from the body of the priestess, who lays in the center of the circle. The invocation (in both Gnostic Mass and Great Rite) is spoken by the priest:
"O Circle of Stars,
Whereof our father is by the younger brother,
Marvel beyond imagination , soul of infinite space,
Before whom time is ashamed, the mind bewildered, and the understanding dark,
Not unto Thee may we attain unless Thine Image be Love.
Therefore by seed and root, and stem and bud,
And leaf and flower and fruit do we invoke thee,
O Queen of Space, O Jewel of Light,
Continuous one of the heavens;
Let it be ever thus
That men speak not of Thee as One, but as None;
And let them not speak of Thee at all, since Thou art continuous." Further, the recitation "...by seed and root, and stem and bud, and leaf and flower and fruit..." is a very well known Wiccan invocation (used in the Opening Ceremony); although to my knowledge its origin from Crowley's writings has always been unknown or ignored.



That being said I'm not sure how strong Gardner's influence is outside of Gardenian Wicca itself. There are several branches of Wicca, some of which are very different from Gardner's kind.
Overall, I'm not sure I agree 100% with your view that Reconstructionism is more genuine. It is more accurate, yes, certainly, but I think the vast majority of Wiccans are genuine in their beliefs. Perhaps we are merely debating semantics at this point though.

I'm not too familiar with the other branches, but I seem to remember that they were derived from Gardner (I'm not too sure though). And by genuine, I meant mainly from a historical point of view

[eric922]

[QUOTE]Yeah, I think it was Crowley who initiated him. A lot of original Wiccan practices from his Book of Shadows are essentially watered down versions of stuff from Crowley's A.A. order and the OTO. A good example is Crowley's Gnostic Mass, parts of which were later used by Gardner. Aaron Leitch has a great article on the subject:
http://kheph777.tripod.com/art_wicca-thelema.html

Yeah I kind of feel like Gardner wanted to make Thelema more accessible to a wider number of people so he watered it down some and combined it with European paganism. Whether Gardner was actually involved in some kind of pagan group beforehand I really don't know. Honestly, though I don't really think it a major problem if it came from Crowley or not, it's followers are genuine I think and in some ways it has developed it's own identity.



I'm not too familiar with the other branches, but I seem to remember that they were derived from Gardner (I'm not too sure though). And by genuine, I meant mainly from a historical point of view

There are several branches of Wicca. The most faithful to Gardner is Gardenain Wicca, of course, and Alexandraian Wicca. My favorite group though is Reclaiming simply because of the fact that they are anarchists in their political outlook. Drawing Down the Moon is probably the best book to read about the various groups within Wicca the neo-Pagan Reconstructionist movement as a whole, if you're interested.

[Zostrianos]

There are several branches of Wicca. The most faithful to Gardner is Gardenain Wicca, of course, and Alexandraian Wicca. My favorite group though is Reclaiming simply because of the fact that they are anarchists in their political outlook. Drawing Down the Moon is probably the best book to read about the various groups within Wicca the neo-Pagan Reconstructionist movement as a whole, if you're interested.

Yeah, I've been meaning to read Drawing down the Moon for a while now, but never got around to it. I'm more attracted to reconstructionism and classical Paganism myself.



Yeah I kind of feel like Gardner wanted to make Thelema more accessible to a wider number of people so he watered it down some and combined it with European paganism. Whether Gardner was actually involved in some kind of pagan group beforehand I really don't know. Honestly, though I don't really think it a major problem if it came from Crowley or not, it's followers are genuine I think and in some ways it has developed it's own identity.


The cool thing about Wicca is the way it's designed, it can easily accommodate different pantheons and subsystems into itself like no other religious system I know. Unfortunately, that's also led to its deterioration in modern times, as it becomes more and more diluted with New Agey fluff, and made to cater to the masses.

[eric922]

[QUOTE]Yeah, I've been meaning to read Drawing down the Moon for a while now, but never got around to it. I'm more attracted to reconstructionism and classical Paganism myself.

Drawing Down the Moon has an entire section dedicated to Reconstructionism. I really liked the chapter on the Egyptian Reconstructionist movement.


The cool thing about Wicca is the way it's designed, it can easily accommodate different pantheons and subsystems into itself like no other religious system I know. Unfortunately, that's also led to its deterioration in modern times, as it becomes more and more diluted with New Agey fluff, and made to cater to the masses.

Yeah it is very flexible, in some ways it reminds me of Buddhism in this regard. Of course, Buddhism itself is in danger of being diluted by fluffy New Age stuff. I think if you find an actual coven with some kind of lineage to it a person could probably avoid the New Ageism of Wicca. Honestly, though I am more interested in Crowley's OTO than Wicca, but OTO temples are much harder to find than Wiccan groups.

[Zostrianos]

There's a small OTO lodge in my city but I don't know much about it. The OTO was actually not founded by Crowley, but merely taken over by him. From what I know of it, it's mainly a Masonic type fraternity with occult symbolism, and no personal practices. Thelema in its full practical aspects is only taught in the A.A., an order that was created by Crowley, and unlike the OTO, is mainly focused on personal development through ritual, meditation, etc.

[eric922]

There's a small OTO lodge in my city but I don't know much about it. The OTO was actually not founded by Crowley, but merely taken over by him. From what I know of it, it's mainly a Masonic type fraternity with occult symbolism, and no personal practices. Thelema in its full practical aspects is only taught in the A.A., an order that was created by Crowley, and unlike the OTO, is mainly focused on personal development through ritual, meditation, etc.
Ahh A.A. would be the one I'm interested in then. I've always heard his order called the OTO, so I didn't know there were two. I'll have to look A.A. up.

[Zostrianos]

Ahh A.A. would be the one I'm interested in then. I've always heard his order called the OTO, so I didn't know there were two. I'll have to look A.A. up.

All of the A.A. material has been published (aside from the initiations). Most of it you can find online here:
http://hermetic.com/crowley/
A great book to start off with if you're interested is Gems from the Equinox