Eclectic Use of Other Religion's Deities in Wicca

[Aja-Armani]

Hello, first post and I don't have a lot of time to write but I'll do as much as I can. A lot of points I use in my arguments could have an entire thread to itself, but for now I want to discuss how 'eclectic' Wicca fits in to the main religion.

My view in particular is that it doesn't. Besides the few practices that differ between each classification, the main thing with eclectic types is that there is a push to 'find your God/dess'. I'm not BTW thus first considered myself eclectic by default as I equated 'neo' with eclectic. When first finding my way I found Hecate and Pan to be the most logical choices based off of the characteristics of the God and Goddess defined in Wicca, but try as I might never really trusted them in the same way as I did to the 'general' God and Goddess and eventually realized that trying to jam Hellenistic mythology and practices into my own made no sense.

As one said in another thread, the God/dess are deities in their own right with their own split characteristics and mythology (ala WOTY). Wicca is sometimes described as orthopraxic i.e. related by similar practices, not similar beliefs. But if that were true, why would it bother to have its own mythology at all if it was just a specific way people worship various gods? I do believe that it is indeed orthodox, that the collective religion must believe in some core tenets everyone can agree on, such as who they are worshipping. 'True' Wicca is a duotheistic religion, while adopting particular deities from other pantheons is henotheistic, and switching out deities for whatever specific purpose you are doing the ritual for is a polytheistic view.

In addition, Wicca is not a reconstructionist religion. It doesn't need roots in a more well established religion to be legitimate, nor does it need to apologize for adopting points or practices of other religions as long as it fits into the ideology of our own religion. I do ascribe that how people of other religions can be viewed as just faces of the same solitary God and Goddess, and a rose is still a rose by any other name, but that is how I justify the belief that other religions aren't wrong. Not that they are able to be substituted into my own religion just because they celebrate what I personally find important. If you want to celebrate Pan and Hecate specifically with rituals from Wicca, be a henotheistic Hellenist, not a Wiccan. Same for any other pairing.

To be clear I do want this to be a discussion if you disagree. I'm just laying out my views for you to counter on with your own, or agree with. Or agree with on certain parts and counter others, what have you.

[thalassa]

I think you are trying to make this too black and white. Wicca has never been that straightforward. Wicca *is* henothesitic, AND polytheistic AND duotheistic, AND often pantheistic/panentheistic, AND technically occasionally monotheistic. Additionally, the WoTY mythology is just one set of mythology available--its not literal, its just the mythos that explains the ritual cycle of Wicca.

It depends on the tradition and the coven. Put it this way, the the idea that 1) all gods are emanations or aspects or whatever of *the* god and all goddesses are the same for *the* goddess, that 2) the god and the goddess are twin aspects of a single divinity, which may or may not be pantheistic/panentheistic in nature, and 3) that one can worship individual deities as the god and goddess is not unusual. Some covens or individuals may choose a particular deity personality to worship *as* the God and Goddess, or may worship the God and Goddess in addition to other deities. Alternatively, covens and individuals may worship the God and Goddess (as whatever oath-bound names and personalities they use) as well as other deities, but the God and Goddess are their primary deities for ritual.

None of these variations are incorrect.

[Sean R. R.]

Pretty much like in Satanism:

Some view Satan as plainly Satan, others as Enki, Lucifer, Set, Baphomet, etc. The list goes on and on. Some Satanists are polytheistic, others are monotheistic. Some even atheistic! But that doesn't mean that some of them are wrong...

It's not some, it's ALL of them! All of them are wrong! I AM the only true Satanist with the truest beliefs! TRUUUUTH! *laughs evilly*

*coughs*

Sorry.

But as Thal said, Wicca not being a reconstructionist belief system it's kind of why it is accepted for each individual or coven to have their own sets of Gods.

[Aja-Armani]

You are correct in that I shouldn't have made it so specific on duotheism or my own beliefs and admit to seeing where I worded my thoughts incorrectly. I often overthink mi I should clarify: I do agree with that people can view their divinity in multiple ways, such as general archetypes thus making them technically atheist or agnostic, or as flipped sides of the same coin thus making them monotheistic. Wiccan ideology generally treats the specific qualities of whatever deity they worship as at least quasi-pantheistic and especially in the case of abstract concepts has arguments for panentheism, so that is of no issue. After some deliberation I see how worshipping a main God and Goddess (by any name) within the Wiccan mythology does not necessarily exclude the possibility of other - in my view superfluous - deities with their own mythology to them, in the same way that no one says that another child is superfluous just because their qualities are already filled by other children. Thus henotheism is a possibility. I would still consider the view of polytheism as appealing to different sides of the personality of the same main God/dess as either duo- or monotheistic.

And again after deliberation I can see how true polytheism can come into play with abstract concepts like writing or love which aren't so easily split into a duality, though if the main focus is on the God and Goddess I could argue that as henotheism as well. To be truly polytheistic however I do feel there needs to be some mythos for the extra being to make sense. For instance, not just 'this is the goddess of writing', but why is she the goddess of writing and how does she demonstrate that title.

In addition, a couple of points. 1: Yes, calling your deities a different name doesn't necessarily mean they are a different being. 2: I do not think it possible ideologically to disregard the unique mythology of the WOTY and still be Wiccan. I do not think it necessarily literal either, but nor do I think of it as simply a reason to celebrate certain days over others. We could celebrate the seasons and astronomical movements without bringing religion into the matter, and in fact do for things like birthdays and New Years. The WOTY I am comfortable saying is a hallmark of Wicca that is at least acknowledged in meaning even with atheistic views. 3: My feelings are not from a 'right' or 'wrong' pantheon as I find them all equally valid in that regard.

My issue arises more as a note of proper cultural appropriation than criteria, but criteria must be given to outline proper decorum. While there are a few aspects I'd like to bring up, I'll ask one at a time to keep the conversation focused.

Let's say one 'finds' the deities of Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli not just in name for the Wiccan archetypes but in character. Firstly, while there are certain changes one could reasonably make when working outside of the original religion's boundaries, there comes to certain immutable facts about the characters that are completely out of left field when inserted into Wicca. Would it make sense to adjust their personalities and qualities to mesh with the ideas in Wicca? or to change Wiccan values to suit the context of the other religion? Secondly, if one is to follow Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli, it would be expected out of respect that one would worship them with the material and mannerisms that they prefer, correct? If one is worshipping said deities from another religion in the way of that other religion, does that not relegate the idea Wicca to a general form of worship and presentation rather than a religion in its own right?

[thalassa]

Let's say one 'finds' the deities of Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli not just in name for the Wiccan archetypes but in character. Firstly, while there are certain changes one could reasonably make when working outside of the original religion's boundaries, there comes to certain immutable facts about the characters that are completely out of left field when inserted into Wicca. Would it make sense to adjust their personalities and qualities to mesh with the ideas in Wicca? or to change Wiccan values to suit the context of the other religion? Secondly, if one is to follow Quetzalcoatl and Ichpochtli, it would be expected out of respect that one would worship them with the material and mannerisms that they prefer, correct?

That would depend on the person, their understanding of the gods, and their relationship with the deities in question.

If one is worshipping said deities from another religion in the way of that other religion, does that not relegate the idea Wicca to a general form of worship and presentation rather than a religion in its own right?

IMO, no. "A general form of worship" (and belief) is pretty much what a religion *is*. But Wicca isn't so dogmatic that its can't incorporate other beliefs and practices. Certainly, at some point, one must start to ask "is this still Wicca", but that answer is individual (or coven-based), not institutional...there are dozens of forms of (covened) Wicca, not to mention hundreds of forms of solitary and eclectic Wicca.

[Aja-Armani]

"A general form of worship" (and belief) is pretty much what a religion *is*.

I'm not entirely clear on your definition with the extra "(and belief)", but I take the entire quote to mean as long as the manner of worship and belief are generally similar then the practices can be counted under the same religion - with emphasis on the practices - which I find fault with. I find this to to be mixing up religions in their own right and the collective way we tend to interrelate religions based on their similarities. For instance,the Greek and Roman religion are similar in both belief (regardless of the names of the gods) and general practice, but due to what may or may not be considered minor differences are rarely considered one and the same. Others linked in a similar fashion include the Mezo-American religions, the Abrahamic faiths, and various aboriginal religions. This is not a wrong way of thinking, as it is simply a system of organization. But I do not find this to work on an intrareligious level.

That would depend on the person, their understanding of the gods, and their relationship with the deities in question.

In the example I made I do understand this dismissal, and it was my mistake to make such an example without discussing even more specifications before I had, though I do not accept the dismissal of the idea in general that it just "depends on the person". A person's own religion and how they define it does indeed depend on the person and has no boundaries. If they feel in their heart that there is a god name Quetzalcoatl with the appearance of Anubis and the mythology of Ganesha with the personality of Hera, who am I to say that is not valid nor the truth? I can not refute such a claim. But whether that deity can be classified under any of those individual religions does not depend on the person, and instead on the independent boundaries of those religions. If they do not find a religion which fits their beliefs, it is perfectly acceptable to be classified under a new religion, and in fact is how new religions start.

Certainly, at some point, one must start to ask "is this still Wicca", but that answer is individual (or coven-based), not institutional....there are dozens of forms of (covened) Wicca, not to mention hundreds of forms of solitary and eclectic Wicca.

What this is defining is not a quality of Wicca itself, but the idea of denominations within Wicca, or 'traditions' in terms of this religion, and is precisely why I find the previously explained collective thinking does not work when working within one religion, nor your emphasis on practice to relate them. Two people can worship entirely differently and still be considered a part of the same religion, even the same denomination. Whether one donates food or composes a song, if its done with the same doctrine in mind it matters not how they choose to worship. Religions themselves differ on facts of their doctrine. Denominations however differ in their interpretation of the same facts. Thus, Wicca as a whole does have certain overarching facts within it. I do not find this practice to define all of eclecticism however, which I believe to be defined as non-lineaged Wiccan membership, which is where my initial problem started. Where I find we come at an impasse is on the qualities of duality. It may be possible to insert generally numerous different gods and goddesses into the different roles of the uniquely Wiccan mythology to satisfy all qualities split between the male and female duality, but I find in this view the previous pantheons to include qualities that do not fall in line with their proper side, or non-discriminatory to their side where I feel it should. Thus, if our ideology is different in that regard, the practice of adopting previous gods may count as a further sub-sect within eclecticism itself and needs its own name. Nor would this be new in our religion, like the dispute of whether a wand and athame is a symbol of air or fire, with different names for each tradition that believes differently. To adopt only a few however often falls short of any and all things each side of duality is if not outright opposing it, thus falls short of the definition of Wicca and would be classified as a different religion. And if the qualities of the chosen deity is adapted to fall perfectly in line with the Wiccan duality, how is it any different except in name? This I do not find to be a true representation of that deity. On these grounds do I oppose adopting deities of different religions as Wiccan.

[thalassa]

And if the qualities of the chosen deity is adapted to fall perfectly in line with the Wiccan duality, how is it any different except in name? This I do not find to be a true representation of that deity. On these grounds do I oppose adopting deities of different religions as Wiccan.

Then you do so on a matter of semantics and personal opinion. Which is your perogative. But its not based on *what is actually going on* and your opinion is no more correct that the next guy's. Personally, I seldom find it helpful to define people on the basis of what I think they should be doing, versus on the basis of what they are actually doing.

[Aja-Armani]

No, it is precisely semantics that I oppose in that line. What one calls it does not change the action nor the belief. I repeat: a rose is still a rose by any other name. But to believe something different and call it something that already is defined as believing something else is not correct. And I address where my opinions and faults are in my logic. You do not nor do you entertain other viewpoints. Do correct me on what is "actually going on". I've made points from various angles and it is possible I've missed a point of view, and indeed your words have made me think and find some I did not see before. Lastly, I don't appreciate the shade. I made specifically clear that people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and made no mention of what I think they should be doing instead. My argument in "semantics" is that the practice should have a name to distinguish it from other forms of Wicca, and whether it should be classified as Wicca at all, as I find it fundamentally different. It is the fundamental beliefs which I wish to discuss, not the exact word choice.

[Jembru]

Can you tell us a little bit more about where you learnt this interpretation of wicca? You say yourself that you are not BTW, and while the BTWs I have known of course hold the view that deity is dualistic; Goddess and God, they DO see their gods in many different deities, as do the majority of non traditional wiccans I've known. Just dip into anything compiled by the Farrers and you'll see Goddess and God celebrated in many forms. The Alexandrian coven who's HP/HPS used to run a local moot I attended, did a lot of public activities in honour of Brigantia.

Of course, you are entitled to your own interpretation of wiccan theology, but you must be prepared for others to disagree with you. What you're describing smacks of fundamentalism. The old 'my interpretation of the scriptures is right and everyone else is going to hell..' I've seen this a lot in wiccan circles sadly (in my case it was 'people outside of the British isles have no business adopting our very British faith' bullcrap, or 'lets all point at the poor solitaries who aren't as powerful and awesome as we are'), which is one of the reasons I turned away from Wicca. Too much 'I am more worthy of the Gods' love then thee' or to put another way, 'mummy loves me more'. It's.. it's just not the behaviour of the spiritually sound. As soon as someone starts trying to justify to me why they are a good wiccan, they lose my respect not only as a wiccan, but as a person too. I see too much of my earlier self in such behaviour.

[thalassa]

No, it is precisely semantics that I oppose in that line. What one calls it does not change the action nor the belief. I repeat: a rose is still a rose by any other name. But to believe something different and call it something that already is defined as believing something else is not correct.

Where can I find such a declaration of Wiccan dogma?

And I address where my opinions and faults are in my logic. You do not nor do you entertain other viewpoints. Do correct me on what is "actually going on".

I'm a pragmatist. I'm not concerned with what your opinion, or any other opinion is on the matter of what Wiccans should or should not do or believe. Wicca isn't an orthodoxy. I'm concerned with what people who self-identify as Wiccan actually do with their religion and why. Period.

Sure, some people share your opinion. A few of them are even Wiccan of one tradition or another. Most people don't. Certainly (though I am no longer Wiccan) the (BTW) coven I was initiated into nearly 15 years ago didn't.

I've made points from various angles and it is possible I've missed a point of view, and indeed your words have made me think and find some I did not see before. Lastly, I don't appreciate the shade. I made specifically clear that people have the right to believe in whatever they want, and made no mention of what I think they should be doing instead.

Well, as you seem to heavily imply that you don't think their actions are "Wiccan" you certainly seem to be making an indirect statement on what you think they shouldn't be doing...

My argument in "semantics" is that the practice should have a name to distinguish it from other forms of Wicca, and whether it should be classified as Wicca at all, as I find it fundamentally different. It is the fundamental beliefs which I wish to discuss, not the exact word choice.

Are Mormons Christian? Baptists? The United Church of Christ? Catholics? The Westboro Baptist Church? What about Pentecostals? Divine Science? If 38,000 denominatons of persons that can't agree on the nature of God, the significance Jesus, how to interpret the Bible, etc can all be classified as "Christian", then yes, your "fundamentally different" is semantics. Religions (even Christianity) aren't monolithic. Generally speaking, they don't have black and white definitions or hard boundaries. Religions (even religion itself) can only be defined with polythetic classifications.


If you want to discuss the beliefs of Wicca, fine. But the details by which the "fundamentals" of Wicca are interpreted and what that means for individual practitioners and covens isn't dependent on what those "fundamentals" supposedly are. And with that being said, IMO, there are only 3 (maybe 4) hallmarks of Wiccan belief:

1) Recognition of the Lord and Lady/ God and Goddess as deities of Wicca. Many practitioners take soft-polytheistic but duotheistic view of "all goddesses are facets of the Lady, all gods are facets of the Lord" POV and. Additionally, different traditions and covens have a variety of oath-bound names (and differing personas) for the aspect of the facet or the literal expression of the deity that they recognize.

2) Acknowledgement of the Lord and Lady in their specific roles in terms of the Wheel of the Year, which serves as a Wiccan liturgy and mythos. The traditional view of Them in this role is as the Triple Goddess and the Horned God, that can be expressed in conjunction with (or through) the deities of other pantheons, though this varies in some traditions. (a good traditional example of this can be found in The Witches Bible by the Farrars)

3) A personal ethics that incorporates the Rede and (possibly) the Threefold Law...neither of which is necessarily meant to be understood literally.

maybe 4) A traditional format for worship and ritual

(another view of "Wiccan basics, from the same author as the links in 1 & 3)