It's getting complicated, Gods and Goddesses

[JulieDownUnder]

Greetings All!

I've only been studying Paganism/Wicca for a little over a year now but I know of nothing that limits the number of Deities you can connect with in some way. It has been suggested we keep our personal pantheon of deities within a single cultural or spiritual tradition. This makes some sense to me but I'm not sure why yet. I lean towards the idea of seeing individual deities as facets of The God and The Goddess, and themselves as facets of a single Deity.  The individual cultural pantheons are these facets viewed through that cultural lens.

An assumption I've lived by for many many years is that The Deity's wish to see us journeying spiritually is greater than our own wish to journey. So whatever steps we take, including the deities we connect with, will bring us guidance and answers for our journey. We can never be more enthusiastic about meeting our deities than our deities are about meeting us. That assumption has never failed me, at least in the context of my own journey.

Don't worry too much about labels - and as has been mentioned - look into your heart and follow her desire. Let other people worry about the labeling.

Many blessings Kaleesie.

Blessed Be,

JulieDownUnder.

[malewitch42]

You are right it is rare and most of us would just as soon avoid those deities but I did come across a few in my research to learn the identity of my goddess and feared she might be one of those ... but thankfully she is not

[Abracadabra]

This (I think) is not the way of Wicca. (or is there some small print that I'm not seeing?)
And if it isn't, is there a name for what I'm feeling? Is this a different religion? Or a religion at all?
I am a witch. And I follow the Rede, but is there some rule as to how many Gods and Goddesses you can have?
I feel very confused about this.
Does this just make me a witch with Wiccan tendencies? Or just an abnormal Wiccan?

From my perspective when people speak about "Wicca" it can often become quite controversial simply because many people tend to use the term "Wicca" to mean different things.  I personally take a quite abstract and relaxed view of the term.  Many websites and books I have read that claim to address "Wicca" suggest that there are many different ways of viewing the spiritual essence of reality, all of which are deemed to be acceptable as "Wicca".   In other words, some view the God and Goddess as personified deities not all that much different from Zeus and Leto, or perhaps even Yehweh (the Hebrew God of Abraham).    Those are viewed as actual personified beings to which no other 'gods' shall be placed before them.

However, it's my understand that many people view "Wicca" to be far more abstract and psychic.  They allow for pantheistic views, panentheistic views, even taosistic views, or even animism.  In other words many people (myself included) do not demand that "Wicca" be a religion based on personified godheads like the Greek or Hebrew mythologies.   But instead we view it as something far more mystical.   More closely aligned with the views of the Eastern Mystics.

I'm definitely in this latter group for sure.    My idea is that there exists a single "Spirit" if you want to call it that.   I don't think of this "Spirit" as necessarily being a personified individual.   You might call it the "Holy Spirit" or the "Great Spirit", or whatever you like.  It's the mystical spiritual essence of reality.   

The Goddess and God of Wicca, (in my view) are then merely psychic manifestation of the Yin and Yang aspects of the spiritual essence of life.  They are "real" in the sense that they are psychic manifestations of this spiritual essence.  However they are not carved in stone as idol images.   They are just representations of a deeper spiritual essence.

With that understood, I have no problem having many different "Goddess" and "God" psychic images that I consider to be valid facets of the "Great Spirit".

In my paradigm I  have quite a few Goddesses.   Artemis , Hecate, and Cerridwen and represent the Maiden, Mother and Crone in my Circle rituals.  However I also recognize Gaia as a Goddess.  In fact, I associate these Goddesses as follows:

Gaia - Earth - North
Cerridwen - Air - East
Hecate - Fire - South
Artemis - Water - West

This is just my own personal paradigm.  It's unique to me I'm pretty sure.  I've chose these Goddesses because they have called to me personally.

So I clearly have four Goddesses in my paradigm and they are tied directly to my circle rituals and the four quarters as described above.

I also imagine other Goddesses that may "visit" at any time.   But the above is the mainstay of my paradigm.  These are the Goddess that I've chosen to be my main mentors.  Or perhaps I should say that they have chosen me?  I certainly felt called to these particular Goddess forms.   And I wouldn't hesitate to include any others that I might feel called by.

In terms of Gods, I guess I really only have one in my paradigm that would be Cernnunos.  But again that doesn't make him "THE GOD", by far. 

In fact, I actually view the "Great spirit" or "Holy Spirit" as being the actual 'god' so-to-speak.  I refer to this Great Spirit as AUM (pronounced OM).  To me it's not a male figure, or a female figure.  It's a totally abstract mystical consciousness that has no material form.  That, to me, is the true essence of "God".  No personified form at all.

In fact, I view AUM as being the great "I AM" and that is the very same I am that I am.   In short I bring into Wicca from the Eastern Mysticism the notion of "Tat t'vam asi" (you are that).   You are the consciousness of this universe, or at least an inseparable facet of it.

So I have no problem with having many psychic forms of the Goddess and God.

Just my thoughts for whatever they are worth.

[Theflyingsorcerer]

Abracadabra, I suspect you're going to get some fairly indignant arguments from some of the more Traditional Wiccans on this forum, who feel that the term "Wicca" refers only to coven-based, initiatory traditions that are able to show direct descent from either Gerald Gardner or Alex Sanders. Others of us feel that "Wicca" is more inclusive, referring to Pagan religion with Southern or Western European roots, leaving Witchcraft to mean what it says it is - a magical Craft. There have been several fairly heated discussions of this very subject on this forum; I hope your post doesn't trigger another one!!

Personally I can't fault your reasoning; it sounds pretty close to my own ideas on the subject, and I suspect you've thought long and hard about it all. Some might criticise you for incorporating elements of Eastern Mysticism, but it seems to me that ultimately, if you trace them back far enough, all Mystical traditions, East and West, derive from a common source.

We each go with what works for us - which might not work for someone else, but that's all right. Our Gods and Goddesses, unlike some I could name. are not jealous, and are probably broader-minded than some of their followers. And they have a quirky sense of humour, I find.

Blessed Be,

Theflyingsorcerer.

[Kaleesie]

Abracadabra, I suspect you're going to get some fairly indignant arguments from some of the more Traditional Wiccans on this forum, who feel that the term "Wicca" refers only to coven-based, initiatory traditions that are able to show direct descent from either Gerald Gardner or Alex Sanders. Others of us feel that "Wicca" is more inclusive, referring to Pagan religion with Southern or Western European roots, leaving Witchcraft to mean what it says it is - a magical Craft. There have been several fairly heated discussions of this very subject on this forum; I hope your post doesn't trigger another one!!

Personally I can't fault your reasoning; it sounds pretty close to my own ideas on the subject, and I suspect you've thought long and hard about it all. Some might criticise you for incorporating elements of Eastern Mysticism, but it seems to me that ultimately, if you trace them back far enough, all Mystical traditions, East and West, derive from a common source.

We each go with what works for us - which might not work for someone else, but that's all right. Our Gods and Goddesses, unlike some I could name. are not jealous, and are probably broader-minded than some of their followers. And they have a quirky sense of humour, I find.

Blessed Be,

Theflyingsorcerer.

I believe you are correct, F. Sorcerer, and I also believe everyone has their own path to make it work, whatever debate she may or may not get into, this is her style and I will not condem her for it. All of us are unique and is this is how she feels, ... All paths, remember?

Blessed Be
Kaleesie

[Abracadabra]

Abracadabra, I suspect you're going to get some fairly indignant arguments from some of the more Traditional Wiccans on this forum, who feel that the term "Wicca" refers only to coven-based, initiatory traditions that are able to show direct descent from either Gerald Gardner or Alex Sanders. Others of us feel that "Wicca" is more inclusive, referring to Pagan religion with Southern or Western European roots, leaving Witchcraft to mean what it says it is - a magical Craft. There have been several fairly heated discussions of this very subject on this forum; I hope your post doesn't trigger another one!!

Personally I can't fault your reasoning; it sounds pretty close to my own ideas on the subject, and I suspect you've thought long and hard about it all. Some might criticise you for incorporating elements of Eastern Mysticism, but it seems to me that ultimately, if you trace them back far enough, all Mystical traditions, East and West, derive from a common source.

We each go with what works for us - which might not work for someone else, but that's all right. Our Gods and Goddesses, unlike some I could name. are not jealous, and are probably broader-minded than some of their followers. And they have a quirky sense of humour, I find.

Blessed Be,

Theflyingsorcerer.

Thank you Sorcerer,

It certainly not my intent to get into any heated debates over a term.   I wouldn't argue with anyone's personal use of the term.  In fact, I would even concede with the traditionalists, that the term "Wicca" originated with Gardner, and therefore they have a legitimate technical point.

However, at the same time I would point out that the "reality on the ground" is quite different.  In other words, whilst there may be a good technical argument to limit the term "Wicca" to only Gardnerian traditions the reality of the situation is that the term is being used far more abstractly by people all over the world.  On Internet web sites, and in many books published on "Wicca". 

Does that make the loose abstract use of this term "right"?  Maybe, maybe not.  That would be were the controversy comes in.

But the reality of the real world is that the term is being used loosely and abstractly all over the world.  And the concept of "Solitary Wicca" is growing very rapidly.   Arguing about it isn't going to change that fact.

I would also add that Scott Cunningham's book "Wicca for the solitary practitioner" is probably the single most-often pointed-to book for beginners who are interested in "Wicca".  Yet clearly Scott Cunningham himself renounces the need for coven-based initiation and focuses precisely on the "Solitary Practitioner" as the title of the book suggests.

So I would think that anyone who wants to argue for a strict Gardnerian approach to "Wicca" as being the only true "Wicca", is going to have their work cut out for them because they are going to necessarily be faced with a world filled with "Solitary Wiccans" who have been given a green light by people like Scott Cunningham, and many others.

In short, if they have a beef with the concept of "Solitary Wicca", their beef isn't with me.  It's basically with a huge movement that is constantly growing daily.

The genie is out of the bottle.  Trying to force the genie back into the bottle at this point is going to be a seriously futile pursuit I would think.

If I were to get into such an argument with someone I would simply confess that I'm a "Cunningham Wiccan" instead of a "Gardnerian Wiccan" and hopefully we could just leave it at that. 

If they have a beef after that, their beef would be with Cunningham, not with me.