Comments | nonfluffypagans: The Goddess VS. One Goddess

moonmorgan in nonfluffypagans

The Goddess VS. One Goddess

Feb 27, 2007 15:28

First of all, I am an Eclectic Wiccan who believes that there is an entity that is nameless and genderless which I call The All. However since most humans, me included, find it hard to identify with a genderless being, I tend to use The Goddess and The God. These are just two aspects of the All. To me, the individual deities (like Kali, Cerridwen, ( Read more... )

ppl here r meen, universalism, monotheistic pagans, reality, pantheism, general purpose whining, polytheism, kids today eh?, deity, god, more pagany than thou, monism, syncretism, more than 75 comments, all pagans are nice, goddess

Comments 187

moon_ferret February 27 2007, 20:49:25 UTC

This is a non related comment, and it is still welcome.

NEXT!

chaos_current February 27 2007, 20:57:36 UTC

My friend Penny says I do not look like a BAD BOY. She says I look MISCHEVIOUS. That made me look a little sad, and I have been considering attempting to grow a goatee to counter this, since she said I cannot shave my head.

*nod*

moon_ferret February 27 2007, 20:59:01 UTC

Why shouldn't you shave your head? Or is this just a Decree from Penny?

(The comment has been removed)

Thread 26

hyperform February 27 2007, 21:04:33 UTC

um, that sounds like just about every eclectic wiccan i've met. with a bit more monotheistic bent. i think also a lot of books at the bookstore will probably tend to agree with you, too.

makhsihed February 27 2007, 21:08:48 UTC

Agreed. Especially the books with the crescent moon on the spine.

mordantcarnival February 27 2007, 21:11:52 UTC

And women with big 80s hair/blokes got up in dressing-gowns on the back.

catsnstuff February 27 2007, 21:18:38 UTC

Yes, what's with that 80s hair? I've often wondered - it's so off-putting.

Thread 12

mordantcarnival February 27 2007, 21:04:52 UTC

Tell me, friend: have you arrived at this model of Divinity (One God, one Goddess, both aspects of The All, with all other Gods and Goddesses as aspects of your God/Goddess/All) through personal spiritual experience? Is this how you experience the Divine yourself? Or, in the abscence of any such personal experience, have you settled on it just because you think it's quite a nice idea?

If the former, why do you care what other people think of your personal spiritual path, which is just as valid and holy to you as theirs are to them? Why do you need external approval to validate what is sacred and holy?

If the latter, why should we who experience our Gods and Goddesses in a direct and personal way, and who experience them as fully individuated, care what you think?

revia February 27 2007, 21:40:15 UTC

This is my feeling as well.

I don't interact with individual named deities. When I have either meditated or been involved in a ritual that focused on a "deity with a name", I have felt uncomfortable and unfocused. A couple of years ago, I started referring to the God and Goddess of "many names and none at all", I felt a rightness and could concentrate more in ritual. It started as an experiment, but I soon started incorporating it in all my practices.

Is this fluffy? Maybe. Do I give a shit? Not really. I came to this place after years of practice and many years of trying to find a patron God or Goddess. I now view it in a more anthrolpological fashion. What I believe that I am worshipping is the Deity that existed before language. Or I may be slightly cracked.

mordantcarnival February 27 2007, 23:10:57 UTC

Nah, totally not fluffy. You are where you are because that is the road your personal experience has taken you down. Mine has taken me somewhere entirely else, but that, as they say, is just me.

(The comment has been removed)

Thread 9

makhsihed February 27 2007, 21:05:12 UTC

. . . umm.

I hate to be rude, but - this really sounds like you're whining to nonfluffypagans about people calling you fluffy, and you want validation from us? The tone of the post sounds awfully close to "People are so MEEEEAN! No one is being FAIR! Aren't I in the right? Tell me people are just mean, nonfluffypagans!"

I don't know how long you've been a member, but - this group doesn't exactly do the validation thing, by my experience . . .

moon_ferret February 27 2007, 21:17:16 UTC

Random Repeat Icon Love.

lastwaykeeper February 27 2007, 21:19:25 UTC

this group doesn't exactly do the validation thing, by my experience . . .

Except the fact that bunnies taste good with catsup. Especially if they're fluffy.

kawaiicatty February 28 2007, 05:34:20 UTC

Well said! :D

Thread 18

chaos_current February 27 2007, 21:11:07 UTC

To be fair -- some people do know that their gods are individual entities. From an outside perspective, we could argue that they don't "truly know, they only believe." But from their perspective -- they know. So, someone skipping up and spurting out the standard neo-pagan mantra of "All Gods are one God, all Goddesses are one Goddess!" can not only get annoying, but it can get insulting after a while. Especially depending on context.

So -- no, you're not alone in the belief. But you probably need to get over the surprise of being told you're wrong. Even if you don't "claim to be right," saying "I believe X," will open you up for people to say, "Well, that's wrong." It's the way things are.

dolmena March 1 2007, 19:20:43 UTC

About that first paragraph-- well, my sister "knows" we're all going to Hell, in the sense that you are using that word. And I suppose you know that a Ceremonial Magician is the source of that "standard neo-pagan mantra?"

As for your second paragraph, yeah. State a belief, and someone will eventually tell you it's wrong.

Myself, I often toy with the idea of deities as being aspects of One. After all, the idea is strongly implied by some of Gerald Gardner's writings, and by the versions of the Charge of the Goddess that are out and about. But on the other hand, in private ritual or when making an offering, I call any Deity I am calling by His or Her name (I actually am not familiar with any hermaphroditic deities)-- and in my home, I do not usually call my husband "Man," or "My Husband;" I call him by his name.

chaos_current March 1 2007, 20:03:37 UTC

>About that first paragraph-- well, my sister "knows" we're all going to Hell, in the sense that you are using that word.

Correct.

>And I suppose you know that a Ceremonial Magician is the source of that "standard neo-pagan mantra?"By a Ceremonial magician being the source -- do you mean Dion Fortune? I'm not sure why you're asking me that -- because Dion Fortune wouldn't be described as a neo-pagan? Or if you're referring to someone other than Dion Fortune -- lemme know who. I don't particularly think she's the "source" for the concept (it's a pretty old concept) -- for making it popular among neo-pagans, yes. But certainly not the source of it ( ... )

dolmena March 8 2007, 02:59:09 UTC

Dion Fortune is the source I know for the way the concept is quoted usually, and I think the source for the concept in Neo-Paganism. I think I was just making the point that the concept didn't originate with Neo-Pagans. You're absolutely right that there are older sources for the concept-- the syncretic Goddess idea comes through in Apulaeus's (spelling not certain, can't find my copy right now) The Golden Ass.

That last part, you can take as more to the OP-- but I think the reason I mentioned it is that I sometimes toy with an idea that is similar to the "one god, one goddess, one initiator" idea. It's sort of like thinking that I Am Woman, though-- it feels metaphorical.

Thread 5