Talk:Wiccan views of divinity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Starting splitting process

I have copied this page from the relevant section of the main Wicca article, without deleting that section as yet. I will now set about the task of editing that section down drastically, so that it retains the sense contained here but is cut down to 25% or less of the word length. Kim dent brown 09:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Split is Expand?

First of all, I assume (as for what's written in my books) everything said in this article is true. Secondly, I think this page ought to be enlarged in order to add information on Deity from a wiccan point of view. However, I didn't find anything knew, I perhaphs understand this is a recent new page. Well, I should be adding a section in this page named : Deity and Man. Feel free to add references since I can't tonight be checking my books, and as for wicca, everything is of self experience. Now, I will be writign what I know, so feel free to remove whatever isn't right. But I shall search for references later. FenixEden 02:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello FenixEden, many thanks for your contributions. It's always good to have collaborators in writing these articles! I did wonder if the sections you added have come in the right place: one of the new pages split off from the original Wicca article is on Wiccan morality, and it struck me that all the material on threefold return, the Rede etc is already covered there? Also as you say above, there are references needed for everything we write and 'personal experience' comes close to 'original research' which is frowned on in Wikipedia - so there may need to be some re-writing of your kind contribution. Kim Dent-Brown 07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead HQ... I don't care, I tend to do original research, I know. But... It is hard to find sources of research on "wiccan views"since the whole article is about a point of view , it is also hard not to become partial. So whoever wants to edit this text, remove it all if you want. I guess that common sense is needed in this article. FenixEden 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Man and deity section

Somehow I missed this being inserted, which it was on 8 May [1]. If I'd seen it at the time I'd have reverted it immediately as unencyclopaedic, speculative and lacking sources. Would anyone object if we simpy removed all this and went back to the version which preceded it? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has objected, I have removed this section. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Point Of View and Morality

NVOP is not really as difficult as the authors of this article seem to be making it. Indeed it is true that morality deals with beliefs. However we can define wiccan beliefs from a neutral stance. Someone wrote in this discussion page "the whole article is about a point of view". Yes, it is a description of a belief system. If we are to describe any religion we will describe their points of views within that religion. Therefore this article should mainly look at the common element that exhibits throughout most Wiccan Morality. And if differences are found, the moral issues dealing with differences can also be included. The problem is when we place our own perceptions as to what religious credences and belief systems are, rather than exploring the real beliefs of the religion, and/or without gaining verifiable sources. Another factor contributing to an article such as this would be that there are many different belief systems even within the context of Wiccan Morality. Therefore, as I said earlier, as editor, you must look into the most common elements of such a belief system and set aside your own presuppositions. In fact this is what NPOV really means to do, is to describe the topic with as accurate as possible information that is verifiable, not necessarily true (though I'd rather search for verifiable truth) without inferring your own expectations,judgements and personal beliefs and convictions. 69.245.172.44 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC) --- see this for information about beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Removing Unsourced Commentary

I removed the following section. It was not sourced, hard to follow, un-encyclopedic in tone, and appeared to be original research at best.

Psychology of the relationship

In this active relationship, it is way impartial to say : You should act for good 
in order to be loved by the gods for they will and probably should be "marketing" 
happiness with you. In such a way, it is a power synergy that is the relationship. 
It is also impartial to say, whoever you choose as a god (and in most occidental 
countries, everybody's free to do so), you should expect to choose a happiness 
marketer, be it the Christian God, or the Wiccan Goddess. 
In such a perspective first, Wiccans are generally liberals to the faith of other 
religious folks, and second that : choosing a new god/ess results in a different 
life bound with a new paradigm or point of view.

It is clear that from the Wiccan movement, anybody can retract, but it is unclear 
actually if a wiccan, can truly forget the god/ess he claimed as his / her. And will 
"it" forget him? That is also unclear. Of course, we tend to think that forgetting the 
thoughtform makes the magic go away ; but as memory stays, we can not forget what 
was that magical life we had before, for those whose it was magical.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Goddess traditionally seen as having three aspects?

It is asserted in a couple of places in the article that the Wiccan Goddess is traditionally seen as a triple goddess with the three aspects of Maiden, Mother and Crone. I'm wondering whether anyone has evidence to support that, or is it just an assumption based on modern (post-Gardner) literature? Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Baphomet Vs. Cernunnos

Cernunnos, I have read from neoPagan author Konstantinos (Llewellyn publishing house) is one male representation of deity most associated with. Not Baphomet. I personally have only seen reliable Baphomet reference to Satanism, but not Neo/Paganism. Please update the article, and picture. 76.170.113.192 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 2008-09-27 T23:26 Z-7

I haven't been that impressed with Konstantinos, and Llewellyn seem willing to publish any old rubbish, as long as they can make a quick buck out of it. But it is true that many Wiccans (particularly Eclectics) would choose some other image than Levi's Baphomet to represent the God. An image such as the horned god from the Gundesdrup cauldron might be more appropriate here. Not that I really like the idea of whitewashing over the "dark", fearsome side of the horned god, and I'm sure I've seen the Baphomet image associated with Wicca in more than one publication. And I'm sure this connection has been floating around for a long time. Idries Shah, a close acquaintance of Gerald Gardner's, wrote at some length about the Eastern origins of the witches' horned God, who had a candle between his horns and was clearly the same as Levi's Baphomet. He wrote about this first under the (probable) pseudonym Arkon Daraul, and then under his own name in The Sufis. Ronald Hutton mentions the influence of the Baphomet figure on conceptions of the Horned God in Triumph of the Moon, however he adds in just as much misinformation and opinion as Shah probably does... Probably better to go to someone more dependable, like Doreen Valiente or Francis King, if they have any info.

Certainly this image is not exclusive to Satanism, any more than Levi was a Satanist. I know from my own experience that plenty of Wiccans view this figure as representing their Horned God. Fuzzypeg★ 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll grant you that come do use Baphomet as their deity, but it seems hardly the common choice. Cernunnos is mentioned far more often and the imagery found throughout the Wiccan world from British Traditionalists to ecclectics is far more akin to Cernunnos or The Green Man than Baphomet. I guess I'd say to me it's akin to saying "Many christians hold non-trinitarian views" on a Christian divinity article. It's true, but not representative of the bulk of christians. The same goes with Baphomet. I won't deny his influence on the community, but I'd question his use as a primary representative of the male deity in the faith. If there are no objections, I propose we switch it out. I'll add a new section so it's more visible before making the change. aremisasling (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The similarities between Cernunnos and Baphomet are minute and almost completely negligible (with the exception of them being iconographically depicted as horned entities), so it's basically a false equivalency to conflate Cernunnos with Baphomet and vice versa. Incidentally, if one is interested in learning about the Cernunnos of the Gundestraup cauldron, there's an excellent video, which happens to be subdivided into a few other videos forming a small series, by Pagan author Ceisiwr Serith, called "Cernunnos: Looking Every Which Way"; he draws extensively from contemporary archeological sources. JulianusInvictus (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)(talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wiccan views of divinity" to "Wiccan theology" ?

Hey all, I was just thinking, wouldn't "Wiccan theology" be a better term for this section? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to change Baphomet image to Cernunnos

Per the discussion above it seems to me that Cernunnos is a more appropriate image to use instead of Baphomet. It's not that Baphomet doesn't hold a place in the history of Wiccan male deity, or that he isn't important in the modern practice. But Baphomet seems to be used far less often than others, even Pan. I'd suggest use of a Cernunnos image even moreso on the grounds of it's widespread usage in the pagan community than on the controversiality of the Baphomet image. aremisasling (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Triple Goddess traditional?

The Book of Shadows (as published in its various pirated versions) contains no mention of any triple goddess. Gerald Gardner's books uniformly describe the goddess as a singular "tribal goddess" or a singular Great Goddess (possibly known by numerous names in different cultures). The only exceptions are four passing references to historical divinities in The Meaning of Witchcraft: he mentions the three nurses of Zeus as possibly being related to the Matres, whom he describes as the Celtic "triple moon goddess" (p. 76); he mentions a Great Mother whom the Gauls worshipped in triple form as Virgin, Bride and Hag (p. 80); he quotes an historic invocation to Hecate in which the words "triple Hecate" appear (though he does not comment on this; p. 89); and he equates the Three Queens who bore away Arthur to Avalon with "the Triple Goddess in her Moon-boat" (p. 134).

To my understanding, it was the Farrars who popularised Graves' triple-goddess as part of Wicca, just as it was them who introduced to Wicca Graves' concept of the battling Gods of the two halves of the year. Their views were eagerly taken up by Eclectic Wiccans, among whom the Triple Goddess may well be the most popular conception of feminine divinity, but in traditional (lineaged) Wicca, I believe this is far less common. Fuzzypeg★ 01:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Great Mother" = Maia?

A recent edit[2] by Tom.Reding specifically directed the phrase "Great Mother" to Maia. I don't think the general Wiccan conception of Herself is nearly that specific (and if it were, I question whether it would be to Her rather than, say, Gaia). I have heard some say that the "Goddess of the Witches" is not any of the Classical pantheons but a Matron deity specific to Wiccans. I have refrained from removing the link as a courtesy, but I do want a citation for this, please. I'll add the request to the page, obviously.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree, Septegram. A link to Mother goddess feels more appropriate but of course ideally we'd want a citation for that too... I'll see if there's anything in Gerald Gardner's writing that would serve. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd endorse that, Kim. I'd go check my Gardners, but I'm at work and they're at home. I'll see if I have time to look sometime soon. Studying for work eats up most of my reading time of late. Grrr...

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I went to my Gardner and found a quote on p.26 of my edition of The Meaning of Witchcraft about the witches' worship of "...the Great Mother, who is also the Eternal Virgin and the Primordial Enchantress...". Then I came to this article again and found that exact page is already cited in this very paragraph! Gardner makes the point that the Goddess (described impersonally in this way) takes many forms - he mentions Diana, Isis, Cerridwen, Venus - but never, as far as I can see, Maia. But even when a named Goddess is mentioned, she is given as an example (almost an outcropping) of the Goddess manifesting Herself at a particular place and time. So if we link to anywhere from the text, I think it should be to Triple Goddess (Neopaganism), leaving the Gardner citation as the source for this. I'll change the text on the article now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)