Hubble head

Of course, I have to chime in now. I know little of true wicca or unitarianism or any pagan goddesses. Not my bag. I find them irrational and, unlike the intricate mysteries of science, dead boring.

If you take DC's advice and fill your head with even moderate amounts of real knowledge from things like <a href="http://www.oup-usa.org/readingroom/philosophy.html" target="_blank">http://www.oup-usa.org/readingroom/philosophy.html</A> you'll look back on this phase and laugh.

Then again, if it gives you great pleasure and harms no one, jump on in the deep end.

Valmorian

If reality is created by the person in question, you cannot reasonably deny supernaturalism. Indeed, you cannot make any claim at all as true, because it's not true for everyone.

This is why solopsism is meaningless. It renders anything you say as mere opinion, and therefore not profound or even useful in any way to others.

Valmorian

</strong>

I totally agree. Furthermore, science gives understanding, feel-good nature worship only gives the illusion of understanding.

Heathen Dawn

</strong>

To each his own.

</strong>

That's a link to philosophical articles. Philosophy, as I said in my previous post, bores me stiff. I'd rather not think so much.

[/qb]

I don't know why you call it "the deep end", but thanks for your tolerance. It does give me great pleasure and, to my knowledge, harms none.

Heathen Dawn

In case you haven't got me yet: I'm not interested in gaining understanding; I'm interested only in feeling good. Given a choice between a harsh rational truth and a consoling emotional fiction, I prefer the latter.

Naturalism has all the factual evidence for it; however, as far as emotional appeal is concerned, naturalism is the pits.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Heathen Dawn ]</p>

Valmorian

Well, since emotional appeal is purely subjective, I'm not sure why anyone should care what you think about science from an emotional aspect. Personally, I find that understanding is FAR more emotionally satisfying than gazing at it in ignorance.

*shrug* In any case, since the post wasn't even TO you, I'm not really sure what you're all worked up about.

Heathen Dawn

As for my original question:

"What is Wicca - a nature religion or a mystery religion?"

I think, after a long search, that I've found an answer:

It is both.

It is an experiental, gnostic religion where the mystery of the Goddess and God is experienced through communion with nature. By attuning oneself to nature and by naturally coming to an altered state of consciousness, the Wiccan learns the divine mysteries.

In contrast to such faith-based religions as Christianity and Islam, where knowledge of God is withheld from the common man until he dies (what a great deal!), Wicca stresses knowledge of the Goddess and God here and now, open to everyone who puts great enough an effort.

Eudaimonist

This is my impression as well.

Valmorian

</strong>

How does one differentiate between "learning divine mysteries" and "hallucinating nonsense"?

Demosthenes

Seems like it is at odds with your previous claim of being a secular pagan, the idea of God and Goddness doesn't fit in with a secular viewpoint. You're saying that you find it emotionally fullfilling to commune and initate into nature. I don't understand what you mean by "initating" into nature, how does one go around doing that, one is always part of nature, no matter how artifical our technology may seem, it is still a aprt of the universe and consequently nature too. What people argue about is how they derive asethetic and emotional pleasure from how nature is arranged and presented to them, i.e walking in a beautiful countryside opposite to walking in a city or even such as the central park where people can escape from the busy life of NYC.