|
|
| Author |
Message |
insanity
|
|
local
| 
Mar 24 15:46 UTC 1995 |
Do we have somone local who's been ordained as a wiccan reverand?
Or a local church?
|
| 83 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 1 of 83:
|
Mar 24 16:13 UTC 1995 |
Local to Ann Arbor? I know of a UU who's Wiccan, but he's ordained through
the UUs, and a Druid who has marry/bury license in Michigan.
I'm sure there are some Wiccans around.
I assume you're looking for one... my wife and I are both ordained Wiccan
ministers (local to LAnsing, but in AA at least once, sometimes up to
thrice, a week).
|
selena
|
|
response 2 of 83:
|
Mar 24 16:26 UTC 1995 |
Why, what are you looking for? There are a few in the Detroit area,
too.
|
kami
|
|
response 3 of 83:
|
Mar 24 18:16 UTC 1995 |
I know one who lives in Canton but is in AA a fair bit. What's up?
|
insanity
|
|
response 4 of 83:
|
Mar 28 14:02 UTC 1995 |
Thank you. Selena- I'm looking for a local Rev. because mine leaves in
massachutes and it's a little far away. My reasons are personal I hope you
understand. Do you know these people well? thank you brighn I'll kepp you in
mind, but I don't want to impose on your time. :) If you have some free time
and your in town on a monday, or teusday night/afternoon, please let me know.
Assuming you'd like to hear what I want. thank you all for your time.
|
selena
|
|
response 5 of 83:
|
Mar 28 16:18 UTC 1995 |
Well, there are several, but, unless I know roughly what you need,
I don't know who to recommend.
|
sera
|
|
response 6 of 83:
|
Mar 29 15:28 UTC 1995 |
Well selena basicallly what I want is to talk to someone who is extremely
dedicated to this religion. I want their objective point of view.
Which means I want someone who is tolerant of all religions, and all
people. Which it seems is hard to come by these days. Does that help
you understand? Sorry for the id change...I'm avoiding someones chat.
|
kami
|
|
response 7 of 83:
|
Mar 29 16:35 UTC 1995 |
Sera, you can find a LOT of people herabouts who are "extremely dedicated
to this religion". Finding anyone in the world who is without religious
intolerance could be a challenge, sadly. Any particular tradtion you're
aiming for, or range of attitudes?
|
insanity
|
|
response 8 of 83:
|
Mar 31 16:15 UTC 1995 |
I guess I don't understand the point of religious intolerance...sigh.
I am wiccan...so I aim for wiccan. Specifically I believe in life's balance.
Wicca is to me a religion in which all things are balanced, accepted, and
loved for who and what they are.
Does that help?
|
morgayn
|
|
response 9 of 83:
|
Mar 31 16:34 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm. I have found that in order for things to have balance, at times they
must also be unbalanced. Without the lack of balance, how can one know whether
or not they are balanced.
Most religions claim they accept and love everyone for who and what they
are, but I have found that as a general rule, this is not so. For, like
people, faiths tend to have a set of 'rules'. This is what makes them what
they are and it is these 'rules' which differentiate the different faiths.
So, what you are saying is that Wicca wurkt fer u, right? *sorry about the
joke*. Wicca is your choice because you tend to agree with the 'rules'. Now,
it seems you have narrowed yourself down to a faith, have you any idea which
path along that faith you would like to go? There are several different types
of Wicca.
I can honestly say that I have not yet chosen which Wiccan path to tread...
I hope I have added something to this conversation...
|
mneme
|
|
response 10 of 83:
|
Mar 31 19:19 UTC 1995 |
I'm not at all sure that all faiths have rules of some sort, as such. Of the
five types, holy other(like judeo-christian) have rulesgiven from on-high,
Cosmic Order(Like Judaism and Confucianism) have rules implicit in the
universe (or at least, they belive the rules are implicit), and one other type
(including many of the native north american tribes) have rules which all
things folow by nature. However, the two toher types, The Mystic Way (Zen
Buddhism), and Rutual (like neopaginsm, Judaism, and amerindian religions)
(there's more to the name htan Ritual, but my brain is fogged), don't require
rules at all, just an "ultimate" to interact with, and even if there are rules,
one can practice the religion without keeping the rules (unlike, say, Judaism).
What I'd say you need to have ompatibility with a religion is some
feeling for the ultimate (whichever it is), and liking or at least not utter
repugnant for the practices. For myself, for instance, the rules I live by
are rational ones, not religious; I'm attracted to several forms of paganism
primarily because of the practices (and I suppose there are some ultimates i
there to, but if there's asingle one, I'm unsure as to its nature).
|
anne
|
|
response 11 of 83:
|
Mar 31 19:40 UTC 1995 |
question- are there rules that have to be followed in order to get in
contact or to interact with the 'ultimate'?
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 83:
|
Mar 31 20:46 UTC 1995 |
All religions fall into one of five categories? Is that a rule? :)
|
morgayn
|
|
response 13 of 83:
|
Mar 31 21:51 UTC 1995 |
I believe that you have misunderstood my statement. There was a reason for
putting the word rule in quotes. There are certain guidelines you are
encouraged to follow for most religions. In Roman Catholicism, there are the
Ten Commandments. In Wiccan, there is the Wiccan Reede and certain other oaths.
A basic 'guideline' you are asked to follow is the 'An' it harm none'.
There must be a certain level of agreement between the individual and the
guidelines and of course, the 'ultimate' before a marriage of mind, soul and
faith can take place. I agree with you, mneme. But I think it is important for
people to agree with their religion as a whole, not just in part.
I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion on the statement I made
earlier that "In order to have balance, you must first have unbalance...".
Has anyone any different thoughts on this? I had a very intriguing conversation
about it the other day and I am wondering if there is anyone else who wishes to
toss in their $1.50. *wink*
|
val
|
|
response 14 of 83:
|
Mar 31 22:56 UTC 1995 |
To get back to the original topic, Figment says he is an ordained
minister if you would like to talk to him. <as he reads over my shoulder
:) >
|
mneme
|
|
response 15 of 83:
|
Apr 1 09:41 UTC 1995 |
(btw; these ideas are not my own, though interpetation and garbelling is mine)
Re: #11 -- The Ultimate isn't a fixed thing; it's the ultimate goal (concious
or not) of a religion, and allways embodies some kind of overriding
transformation (whether the memory of such, or the actual thing) and depends
on the religion. In Holy other religion, it is a cosmically greater being
who gives aus laws and protects us;; the transformation is a post-death one,
or is the remembered transformations of the saints and proffets, or is the
coming of the Messiah, or whatever.
On the other hand, in Mystic religion, the Ultimate is a state of mind;
there are no hard and fast rules towards reaching it,only a well tread path.
Re: 12 -- Nope. It's an observation. I didn't say there weren't any rules
just tah they weren't essential for the religion.
But in any case, all religions fall into one or more catagories; note that
Judaism appeaars thrice.
re#13 I'm unsure of wheter I misunderstood you or not; prehaps it's just that
you keep chosing examples that stand outside my statements, preaps not. I'd
say that if the tao (way, path) of a religion includes things that contradict
or aren't in tune with waht you believe, the religion probably isn't for you.
These things may or may not be rules; Zen Bhudism doesn't really have rules.
Wicca has rules, but thay are adjunct to the religion, not central to it. The
heart of the religion is in the ritual; at least to most, the goddess is not
a Holy Other, nor the God.
As far as the balance-unbalance thing goes, it's somewhat of a truism. We are
all born in riotous imbalance; if we becomre more balanced, we can recognize
it by waht came before. On the other hand, somehting created in balance would
not have personal experience to define imbalance, but might percieve it in the
outside world. One theother tentacle, prehaps something created in balance
would recognize all the unnoticed balance existing in the world. As far as
needing to becomre less blalanced in order to become mroe so, I do not belive
this to be the case, but learning to recognise imbalance is necessary.
.s
|
insanity
|
|
response 16 of 83:
|
Apr 3 14:46 UTC 1995 |
my this got complicated...unbalanced is part of the balance. the balance
in which i believe is made up of all things good/evil, normal/abnormal.
you can't really take out any part because they are all dependant on each
other. I am abnormal in my approach to wicca...i don't see anything in it
as 'rules'. wicca accepts...you can not always do the right thing, you
will not always do the wrong thing. As for the three fold rule...that is
more a statement of fact. You can not hurt another without hurting yourself.
It is more of a caution. It reminds you that pain, evil, good are all parts
of ourselves, and we owe it to ourselves to think before we act.
As for organization of wiccans to follow one set religion, that would rob
from wicca it's most loving chacteristic, acceptance. Wicca accepts differnt
ideas. It allows for creativity, and lets us learn from one another.
But if you see these things in wicca they are there, and that is very exciting.
|
morgayn
|
|
response 17 of 83:
|
Apr 3 18:22 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm...mneme, you are not catching what I mean by 'rules' but that's alright.
I've tried to explain it twice and it's not getting through. That's alright...
:)
As for imbalance/balance...I think it necessary to have pain, because
without pain, joy means nothing to us. Through pain, we receive strength. Sure
we get strength through joy as well, but pain brings us strength of heart and
of will...As for evil, I think everyone is a little evil. No one is perfect.
Part of finding one's balance is finding where that evil belongs. Finding how
much of that evil is good to hold onto and how much of it should be sent off.
|
kami
|
|
response 18 of 83:
|
Apr 3 18:36 UTC 1995 |
"evil" is such a loaded word. I wonder how many different things we mean
by it: something inherently, unmitigatedly and always "bad"? Excess?
Ugliness? Imbalance? Malice? Is it in the intent, the reaction, or
the action/thing itself? How do we recognize "evil", or is that a factor
of training? Can the nature of evil change? Or the definition? Or the
perception? Does there have to be a strict, dualistic, good-evil
dichotomy or can they be found on a continuum? Or might it be situational?
Or subjective? MIght one person's "good" be another's "evil"? can they
be reconciled?
Enough questions to keep everyone going?
|
brighn
|
|
response 19 of 83:
|
Apr 3 19:27 UTC 1995 |
I know what I mean by it when I use it seriously.
Which is why I don't use it seriously, because what I mean when it
is used seriously doesn't exist.
Isn't that evil of me?
|
val
|
|
response 20 of 83:
|
Apr 3 20:19 UTC 1995 |
I have a hard time with the concept of "balance"
|
mneme
|
|
response 21 of 83:
|
Apr 4 00:30 UTC 1995 |
I don't have a hard time wit h the concept of balence, but I do occasionally
have problems with some definitions of it.
As far as the rules debate, I am completely unsure of whether I am
misenterpreting or not, as neither of us is defining our terms.
So, what is your definition of rule in this context?
.s
|
kami
|
|
response 22 of 83:
|
Apr 4 01:02 UTC 1995 |
what is the difficulty with the concept of "balance"? Can you pin point it?
|
selena
|
|
response 23 of 83:
|
Apr 4 04:20 UTC 1995 |
I dislike the normal-abnormal balance concept.. who's saying?
|
kami
|
|
response 24 of 83:
|
Apr 4 04:24 UTC 1995 |
functional/disfunctional?
helpful (or neutral)/harmful?
tending toward order/tending toward chaos?
|