Do we have somone local who's been ordained as a wiccan reverand?
Or a local church? 

83 responses total.

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).

        Why, what are you looking for? There are a few in the Detroit area,
        too.

I know one who lives in Canton but is in AA a fair bit.  What's up?

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.

        Well, there are several, but, unless I know roughly what you need,
I don't know who to recommend.

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.

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?

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?

  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...

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).

question- are there rules that have to be followed in order to get in
contact or to interact with the 'ultimate'?

All religions fall into one of five categories?  Is that a rule?  :)

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*

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
  :)  >

(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

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.

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.

"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?

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?

I have a hard time with the concept of "balance"

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

what is the difficulty with the concept of "balance"?  Can you pin point it?

        I dislike the normal-abnormal balance concept.. who's saying?

functional/disfunctional? 
helpful (or neutral)/harmful?
tending toward order/tending toward chaos?

I'd have to agree that the effect of pain may be to strengthen us, but
I'd never purposely go through my life again! It made me what I am but
ugh!  There must be an easier way.  I agree the normal/abnormal just
says majority/minority.  I like Kami's ying/yang!  Order/chaos is 
maybe the best description.  I think most people cringe the most when the
ebb and flow bring you to a good moment. Here comes the difficult times!
Oddly now when I look back on the most painful moments, they tend to be the
most 
most inspiring.

The problem i have with balance, is that there seem to be inherent 
value judements in it.  That is one of the problems i can verbalize 
about it.  Its hard to say, but it is not truely the 'concept' but the 
definitions and social roles put on it.
I can see an order to nature, but not really a balance, because that 
assumes that there are two forces in check with each other, and seems 
to <for me> highlight the fact that there can be only one balance
and it cannot chance.
This is my perception of 'balance' which may not gel with others

        Sounds good to me. That's what was bugging me about it.

Personally I don't see balance as say..a teeter totter balancing in a school
playground. There are things I am, There are things I am not. There are people 
who have nothing in common with me filling in what I lack. There are people who
are direct opposites of me with whom I will never, and can never agree. As for
catagorizing...well yes but that doesn't mean any one catagory is any better t
than another.  To deny catagories is almost impossible, we catagorize
ourselves. Kami, you said it best. As for evil not being real, then neither is
good. There would be no need for the word good if evil things were not also
done to create a differnce in mental grasp of reality. Did I lose everyone with
that last statement?   Anyway, balance is merely what I believe (going back to
what started this) and really the problem with discussing it is that it
encompasses (sp) so much, it is something that is felt, but may never be able
to be fully  explained....smile!

Problems I have with balance:
        It often relies on a baseline, without the concept that he baseleine 
can move.
        The value judgement thing.  Yes, both god and evil need to be in  the 
(that's "good") for good to be defined, however I see only intrinsic value 
in the values embodied in "good", not its definition with trespect to evil.  I 
would be perfectly happy to have a world whre good was not defined because 
everything was good, or where evil only existed as an idea.  On the other hand,
I quite like the balance-as-complementy-opposites ideal which is embodied in
the ying-yang.  sex-apropriate sex, earth/water, night/day, dark/light are all
reasonable, non-perjoritive versions of balance (as is law/chaos, that last
also embodying the idea that in  a thing is the essence of its opposite.

A world where everything was good...nice ...but not our reality. As for a 
baseline, I tried to explain I don't see one with my obviously inadiquate (sp
teeter totter story. Maybe my view of balance is best described as a 3-D
globe.  Smile!

mneme- SEX-APPROPRIATE SEX?? How dare you??

Ooooo Mneme.  I'd have to completely disagree with the term 
"Sex-appropriate sec" as well.  I think I know where you're going
but I must say opposites are not only defined by biology.  You're
stereotyping men as aggressive and women as passive.  BIG mistake.
I think my wife would have a few choice words for that kind of 
philosophy.  As long as we're on this thread of the Tao, you can't
put balance into words.  "The true Tao cannot be spoken", as Lao 
Tzu said.  I think he meant that life can't really be figured out on
paper or in words.  If you have an attraction to the same sex then
that *is* sex-appropriate!
I'm assuming that you didn't mean what you said the way it sounded.

I think the point he was making was to avoid the whole sterotype of 
man/woman, or woman/woman, or man/man.  My perception of the statement
was of the balance between your sex and the appropriate <fill in the blank>
sex of an "opposite"
The balance of "opposites" is one thing i also have a problem with.
I throws the universe into sharp polarities instead of 
the contiunum that it is.

I agree with Val on this one- that's the way I saw it too.

Phaedrus and Selena: I think you are coloring what I said with what you 
expected me to say; if I had wanted to say male-female, I would damn well have
said it, rather than beating around the bush.  Val and Anne interpreted me
properly on that.
        Val: I'm unsure of wheter you were disagreeing with me or agreeing,
as I decried the "opposites" aproach, and instead proposed a "complements"
one, while you discribed my sex/apropreate(for the subject) sex complement
as an "oppostie," then decried opposites.

        Josh- maybe the point being that it's still a bad choice, 'cause
it does nothing to take into account people who find BOTH sexes
acceptable.. Balance of opposites doesn't apply!

Hmmm....
*Morgayn watches the lightening flare around her...*
   I think that there is a scale, if you will... This scale is weighted on
both sides with 'opposites'... At times, these opposites outweight each other
and the balance of the scale is thrown off to such a degree that the scale tips
and one end is weighted all the way to the floor... This is 'out of balance'.
Now, when the opposites do not weigh exactly the same,  they are still balanced
because one is not completely out-weighing the other and thus they are
'complimentary'. It is this series of compliments and imbalances which make
each person up as a whole because each person's scale is set on a different
floor of a different room with different opposites weighing each other out.
   I can see both sides of the 'sex-opposite' scandal...However, I think that
people tend to compliment and balance each other. You choose your friends
because they have qualities you admire. You don't hang with people you don't
like. Most often, these qualities are things you yourself do notpossess....
   In this manner, it is my opinion that we seek not only to 'compliment', but
   also to balance. I see complimenting as a form of balance....
And I need to quit typing now because I keep getting a chat and it is messing
up and my train of thought derailed....

What happened is that a read the statement the way i thought it was 
intended mneme, then threw my two cents worth in :)

        I still don't see the Balance of opposites as being this
ALL-encompassing thing, and I think the polarization of views can be
highly destructive.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss