Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
While I don’t personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.
Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An “authentic Wiccan” dosen’t need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.
Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
Not really? We don’t have distinct points of creation for many faiths. With Wicca it can be set in a specific time and place. You aren’t going to find Wiccans from 100 years ago.
Wicca is a blend of multiple different religious ideologies that existed in Europe at some point in the past. If you took someone from modern day Colchester in 200ce they might recognize parts of their ancestral faiths but parts will be from other tribes and peoples. Hence Wicca doesn’t have an “authentic” set of beliefs as much as an intentionally created one. That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a fait h.
That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a faith.
I would disagree with this on a couple levels.
First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.
And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.
I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.
“genuinely” herein lies the key. Interesting to pick Jedi as an example because I think we can agree that people who out that on a census or whatever typically have their tongue firmly in cheek. Wicca probably sits somewhere on a spectrum between that and the major religions. You’d be mad naive to assume that everyone holds beliefs exactly as stated. My papi was a priest and we’re pretty sure never believed in god. L Ron Hubbard himself was for sure was grifting FFS. Add to that and most religions can’t even agree what authentic means for their community and LOL
Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I’m glad you caught it.
But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of “genuine” belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.
We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.
While I don’t personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.
Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An “authentic Wiccan” dosen’t need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.
Not really? We don’t have distinct points of creation for many faiths. With Wicca it can be set in a specific time and place. You aren’t going to find Wiccans from 100 years ago.
Wicca is a blend of multiple different religious ideologies that existed in Europe at some point in the past. If you took someone from modern day Colchester in 200ce they might recognize parts of their ancestral faiths but parts will be from other tribes and peoples. Hence Wicca doesn’t have an “authentic” set of beliefs as much as an intentionally created one. That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a fait h.
I would disagree with this on a couple levels.
First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.
And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.
I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.
“genuinely” herein lies the key. Interesting to pick Jedi as an example because I think we can agree that people who out that on a census or whatever typically have their tongue firmly in cheek. Wicca probably sits somewhere on a spectrum between that and the major religions. You’d be mad naive to assume that everyone holds beliefs exactly as stated. My papi was a priest and we’re pretty sure never believed in god. L Ron Hubbard himself was for sure was grifting FFS. Add to that and most religions can’t even agree what authentic means for their community and LOL
Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I’m glad you caught it.
But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of “genuine” belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.
We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.