The God and Goddess

[jittertat]

I don't understand the "patron/matron deity" part of worship.

I understand that there is a God and Goddess. God has horns and was made by Goddess. Goddess danced the world into creation. She saw God and made him her partner. God and Goddess have sex. God impregnates Goddess with God as a maiden. Goddess in her maiden identity is pregnant. Goddess ages and at her mother age, is pregnant with God. God dies. Goddess gives birth to God as the Crone. Goddess then turns back to maiden, who has sex with God, and the cycle begins again.

Goddess has three forms, maiden, mother and crone, and God is born of Goddess, has sex with Goddess and impregnates Goddess with himself again. That is generally the belief in Wicca.

So, why do people use names in ritual that have no relevance to these cocneptions of God and Goddess? For example, I've heard people use Isis and Osiris. Isis doesn't have three forms, and Osiris isn't horned. When Osiris has sex with Isis, she gives birth to Horus, not Osiris. So why do people use concepts like these when practicing Wicca when it's supposed to be about God and Goddess? Do I have to worship like this? I'm much more happy worshiping with the Two under the guise of "Goddess and God". One of the main things that drew me to Wicca was the duality, and God's connection with nature as a horned being. I'm confused as to why people say they are Wiccan and worship "God and Goddess", but go off saying that God is Pan, Cernunnos, Osiris, etc, and Goddess is Isis, Nepthys, Hecate, Artemis, Diana, Arianhod, Aradia, etc. Can someone please clarify?

[Traumwandlerin]

Maybe because they aren't practicing Wicca. Or because they want to talk about a special aspect of the Gods (like the maiden aspect) and it's easier for them to call this aspect under a name rather than call her Maiden.

[JuniperBerry]

The Goddess Triad isn't actually a part of Wicca. Gardner never mentioned her in his book of shadows nor was she invoked in any of his rituals, though he did give a slight mention of it in Witchcraft Today. It was Dorren Valiente, inspired by Graves' The White Goddess ( good read btw), who started to use the Triad Goddess theology in her own coven once she became a Gardnerian High Priestess. It has since become one of the basic tenets of contemporary Wicca. (I was going to do a post on this but my elemental one was a bust. )

Wiccans are usually soft polytheists, meaning they believe in one goddess and one god of which there are many different names and manifestations of. Usually when one has a patron deity, it is the aspect of the One God/dess they resonate with more and not a separate entity.

[shadowx]

What you said regarding the god and goddess is not true. There is no such thing as god, nor any such thing as goddess. They are imaginary creatures created by those who require a parental figure in order to feel appreciated or worthy.

*SOME* people believe they exist, but not all. And they do not.

However what you have mentioned *IS* the main belief of wicca (which i despise), the reason some people use other names is because these names are those of other imaginary gods and goddesses from history like Thor etc.. often from greek and egyptian mythology.

Wiccans MUST believe in one god and one goddess like you described, many of them however dont understand their own "religion" and think they can believe in these other gods and goddesses and still be wiccan, this is not the case as Traumwandlerin said.

Wicca is not everything, you need to learn that in order to progress.

[JuniperBerry]

What you said regarding the god and goddess is not true. There is no such thing as god, nor any such thing as goddess. They are imaginary creatures created by those who require a parental figure in order to feel appreciated or worthy.

That's definitely a post-Christian mindset, and generally why most people rebel against the idea of gods. And there is a big problem with neo-pagans being unable to readjust their worldview away from Christianity and adjust to a pre-christian way of thought. Most neo-paganism or atheistic paganism is a direct reflection of the Western culture of god, and I have found that most- if not all- are still Christians beneath everything even if they wear a neo-pagan or atheist mask. It's hard tho, to understand the concept of pre-modern deity, so I get that. And I agree that most people have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Even in western science there's a dispute between science and God, and no idea inbetween. Since God could not have possibly have existed in this way then there is no god. Sure, no Abrahamic God, ok. But what of the thousand other ideas of deity out there? Has science even disproved the theory that there is intelligent life in space? Aren't they actually looking for proof of life, and haven't they recently discovered that there is species who don't require the same building blocks of DNA to exist? Our understanding of the universe is so elementary, so much less than elementary, that the idea that there isn't an intelligent system out there based on what we know seems ridiculous. Add to that the fact that we knwo more about the Universe then we do about our own brains, I don't know how one can say that there aren't a million possibilites. The shutting down of these possibilities, just because, with so little knowledge, is actually against the spirit of science. Everytime science turns around there's a new event that dispels previous notions of the laws of nature and physics. And yet we can say, without batting an eye, that there are no gods?

*Sigh* Anyway...

Historically, gods were not parental figures nor did one seek out a sense of being worthy. There's a huge difference in saying one is descended from gods, then in saying "daddy, are you proud of me?" Worshippers of Odin, for example, didn't trust him in the least. There's instances of warriors going to the hewe with battle armour so that they could fight Odin after death because he screwed them over. There's evidence of shattered idols and temples when a god has displeased a people, and the people let that be known. They would refuse to worship the gods if they felt the gods were being fickle or dishonorable- completely different then prostrating yourself on the ground and begging to be worthy. There was also a dynamic of give and take. One didn't hope to be good and then found worthy of one's blessings but rather they would give a gift for a gift. "Let us win in this battle and we'll sacrifice the enemies in your name and give you their blood."

The word 'god' itself doesn't even mean some white-bearded guy in the sky sitting on some throne. It's PIE for "that which is invoked" and was neutral. As a 'magician', who feels he can manipulate energy, I think you would agree that invoking is quite possible, and that the ability to invoke or manipulate to one's own advantage is similar to the intent behind praying, or that the intent to sacrifice (PIE "to put, or do") is also a method of invoking an energy to use advantageously. Even Aesir, the name of the gods in Ger. mythology is rooted in PIE ansu "spirit", which itself comes from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow", evolving to meane to breathe, all the way into animus/ that which moves us.

God before Christianity never meant a full-bodied person in our image. The Teutons never believed that Thor was an actual red-headed being that lived up in Asgard. Evidence shows ritual accounts of idols becoming heavier once the spirit of a god entered it, and then that god would be carried into worship. If a god had a body, then why would it have to enter something? It was understood that god was "that which is invoked", that which "blows", or a "spirit". Myths were used to educate children on basic principles of their culture and earth science, and to intellectually stimulate the minds of adults as they pondered over philosophical questions. Never to insinuate that the Gods were actually human-like.

Whats interesting is that Odin is rooted as meaning to "blow, inspire, spiritually arouse", as does spirit, and that energy is rooted in 'en' "near, at in, on, within" and 'ergon' "work", which is also the root of 'orgy' a form of ritual worship and also in the same family as 'urge', "to compel". So when we say we believe in energy, we mean we believe in the force of expression. Thor, who you believe is imaginary and just energy, would then be a force of expression at work that you wish to compel. Thor, whom I believe to be a god, is then that which is invoked ("called upon, implored".) Is there really much of a difference?

[Asch]

[quote="j]So, why do people use names in ritual that have no relevance to these cocneptions of God and Goddess?[/quote]

As I understand it some practitioners will feel closer to a particular deity and they see all male deities as aspects of the god and all female deities as aspects of the goddess, therefore depending upon their goals, traditions, and methods they may call upon Isis or Freyr or Thor or Ra as they see fit or as feels right for them. Each of us is walking our own path if the use of these specific deities bothers you or feels wrong then by all means only call upon the God and Goddess in the forms you feel are correct.