Do all wiccans believe....

[David19]

that all gods are one god and all goddesses are one goddess. Since i was just wondering from all the sites that i've read, it seems that way and in all the books. But are there any wiccans who are more like 'hard polytheists' like do any of you see the gods as individual beings with their own thoughts, feelings and that Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, etc are seperate beings.

Thanks :).

[MysticWitch]

Not me. :weirdsmil

[Jenett]

I tend to think they're different beings. In large part, that's because the experiences I've had in ritual (in the group I work with, in public rituals, in rituals I'm a guest at, in personal work), the deities worked with have presented themselves as different individuals.

THe "All gods are one god and all goddeses are one goddess" is also a more complicated statement than it sounds. First, the main person people are quoting when they say that is Dion Fortune, who wasn't Wiccan. (She has some very interesting things to say, but it's important to keep her background/focus in mind.)

The other is that that's not the whole quote, and that in the text it comes from, she sets it up more specifically, and hedges it in some specific ways.

Related, maybe. Shared interests, sure. But just because my brother or sister and I am related, or just because I share interests with other people, doesn't make us the same people, so I figure it's the same with deities.

And, given that that's how I'm being presented with information, I figure I'll run with it. (Especially since it's been so consistent across a range of ritual experiences.)

[Morgandria]

Related, maybe. Shared interests, sure.

That's how my coven approaches it, by and large. I personally am more of a "hard" polytheist, in that I think the gods are distinct and individual.

So...no, not all Wiccans believe "All Gods are One".

[Ben Gruagach]

Wiccans vary on the topic of hard polytheism versus soft polytheism (just like they vary on most topics.) While there are many Wiccans who believe that all gods are one God, all goddess are one Goddess (as Jenett pointed out was so succinctly phrased by Dion Fortune) but there are certainly plenty of Wiccans who are hard polytheists.

Since the Charge of the Goddess has the Goddess Herself stating that She is one goddess known by many people under many different names, it's not really surprising that the soft polytheistic viewpoint is common among Wiccans. Gerald Gardner was a fan of Dion Fortune's work -- he lists her in the bibliography of "The Meaning of Witchcraft." Doreen Valiente, one of Gardner's early (and very influential) high priestesses, also talks a bit about drawing on Dion Fortune's work in her own books about witchcraft.

The idea of deities being manifestations or aspects of a larger deity was not invented by Dion Fortune. It goes back hundreds of years to the cult of Isis as depicted in Lucius Apuleius' "The Golden Ass" (written somewhere between 123 and 170 CE), and is also present in Hinduism which dates back well before the Christian era. In Hinduism one way it is explained is that the Divine (known as Brahman) is so vast and all-encompassing that it is impossible for mere humans to understand or even approach It. So Brahman manifests in limited versions which we humans see as all the different deities -- Shiva, Kali, Durga, Ganesha, etc.

Wicca though has such diversity, even within specific groups such as Gardnerians and Alexandrians, that there isn't really just one concept of deity that is mandated for followers to believe. I'm sure some denominations or sects do specify a particular deity theory, but many do not, and there is definitely not a single one that is universal among Wiccans.

[Erincelt]

The Kemetic divinity plays more-or-less the same game as the Hindu, wherein The One Netjer ("God") manifests as The Many Tem, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Wesir, Heru-wer, Set, Aset, Nebt-het, Heru-sa-Aset, Khepera, Atum, Ra, Ptah, Sekhmet-Hethert, Bast, Yinepu, Djehuty, Ma'at, Montu, Nefertem, Bes, and a few thousand others.

Personally, my take on Wiccan cosmology, as it were, runs something like this: there is a singular and ultimate reality -- call it The One, The Nameless, the Dryghton, whatever -- which is ineffable and unknowable. This Thing (tm) manifests in the Lord & Lady of Wicca, whereby we can know It. Beyond Them are countless major deities (the Netjeru, the Olympians, etc), and beyond that are a limited number of minor/archetypal beings (look up the Lycian Old Ones pantheon sometime for an example). Technically speaking, I'm a monolatrist, which equates me with the soft polytheistic crowd, although I don't literally consider All Gods One God.

[Elderbush]

The tradition I'm in supports the hard polytheist viewpoint which is, as far as we know, all gods are different and exist until proven otherwise. We don't like to get into the "you're really worshipping my god because all of your gods are my god."

I know it is popular (and sounds so good - why fight if we are all worshipping the same god?) but it really is insulting to the people who are completely certain that they are worshipping and have a deep relationship with a particular god, rather than an aspect of someone's uber god.

That was made clear to me when a Christian Scientist told me I was really worshipping her Christian god, I just didn't know it - all gods were her god.

[Pure Ahimsa]

Their is nothing all Wiccans believe in theoretically, the Rede and Creed are not followed by all individuals, and is sometimes more traditional, while their are many who practice many arts of Wicca and call themselves Wiccan but do not believe in the same as any other, because if you call yourself a Wiccan, if you believe it truly, then you are, and their is no heirarchy that can tell you different, besides traditions which have incorporated a heirarchy system, and that shows you that Wicca is diverse.

[Erincelt]

Their is nothing all Wiccans believe in theoretically
I'm sorry, but I actually have to disagree with this. If you don't follow the Rede, you aren't Wiccan. If you don't use the basic Wiccan ritual formula, you aren't Wiccan. If Wicca has any cohesiveness at all, it is in the core beliefs and practices (particularly the practices). Without that, then we have nothing, no matter what pretty word we might like to use for it.

Its like saying someone is Christian even if they don't believe in Christ, just so long as they call themselves Christian.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm sorry, but I actually have to disagree with this. If you don't follow the Rede, you aren't Wiccan.

The Wiccan Rede was not central to Wicca before the 1960s. Sure, it was mentioned in Gardner's book "Witchcraft Today" (where he said witches were inclined to follow the idea promoted by Good King Pausol who said "Do what you like so long as you harm no one") but it wasn't really emphasized as central.

Doreen Valiente gave a speech in 1964 where she introduced the Rede idea with the now-widespread wording: "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what you will." That bit in her speech hit such a chord in the Wiccan community that shortly after it was adopted all over the place. And since then many Wiccan have considered it to be a central part of their philosophy. However, there are also many Wiccans who do not.

This website (http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/) and also this website (http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede.shtml) provide some excellent historical information about the Wiccan Rede.

[RedRaven]

no, not all wiccans believe that ... i certainly dont.

RR

[Kudzu]

As was mentioned before, that's a Dion Fortune view, and she's not Wiccan.

As I understand it, Traditonally, Wicca allows the practitioner to figure out the exact nature of deity for themselves. Much like Judaism, though there is liturgy and myth surrounding deity, the exact nature is up to the individual to describe. I even know a Gardnerian who considers himself Agnostic! Don't ask me how that works!

[WinterTree]

that all gods are one god and all goddesses are one goddess. Since i was just wondering from all the sites that i've read, it seems that way and in all the books. But are there any wiccans who are more like 'hard polytheists' like do any of you see the gods as individual beings with their own thoughts, feelings and that Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, etc are seperate beings.

Thanks :).

I've also been pondering this. I read somewhere that Wicca was originally polytheist but was given a soft-polytheistic over-gloss to make it easier for Christians interested in Wicca to adopt. (I honestly don't know if this is true or not, like I said, I just read it somewhere and it had me curious) Can anyone set me straight with this?

[Ben Gruagach]

I've also been pondering this. I read somewhere that Wicca was originally polytheist but was given a soft-polytheistic over-gloss to make it easier for Christians interested in Wicca to adopt. (I honestly don't know if this is true or not, like I said, I just read it somewhere and it had me curious) Can anyone set me straight with this?

I have a hard time believing that since the Charge of the Goddess has been used in Wicca since Doreen Valiente's time in Gardner's coven back in the 1950s. The Charge of the Goddess is that lovely bit of poetry that starts, "Listen to the words of the Great mother, who was of old also called among men, Artemis, Astarte, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Diana, Arianrhod, Bride, and by many other names."

It sounds an awful lot like "soft polytheism" to me.

[Elderbush]

Ben, I've heard it discussed and argued that Valiente wasn't Wiccan and that neither was the idea of soft poytheism. She is an offshoot, not mainstream Wicca, in the opinion of some people. I think that the solitaries and trads today have to look at the ideas that she introduced (or anyone who was an influence upon Wicca) and decide for themselves.

Ed to add: Doesn't mean you have to throw out the Charge, just interpret it differently. This is early Wicca and the only goddesses mention are the maidens and sacred whores because the crone idea was a later addition to Wicca.

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben, I've heard it discussed and argued that Valiente wasn't Wiccan and that neither was the idea of soft poytheism. She is an offshoot, not mainstream Wicca, in the opinion of some people. I think that the solitaries and trads today have to look at the ideas that she introduced (or anyone who was an influence upon Wicca) and decide for themselves.

Ed to add: Doesn't mean you have to throw out the Charge, just interpret it differently. This is early Wicca and the only goddesses mention are the maidens and sacred whores because the crone idea was a later addition to Wicca.

Valiente was working in Gardner's coven at the time that she did the rewrite of his Book of Shadows and put the Charge of the Goddess into the form that most Wiccans know it today. Valiente was also the high priestess for Gardner's coven for a number of years until she split from him in the late 1950s when Gardner introduced "the old Craft laws" in order to oust Doreen in favour of a new young woman Gardner wanted to take over as the high priestess.

Valiente did go on to work with other witchcraft groups including Robert Cochrane's during the 1960s. However, her impact on Wicca (particularly her rewriting of the Gardnerian Book of Shadows) was definitely done when she worked with Gardner, and with his explicit approval.

The Charge of the Goddess was also a part of Gardner's Wicca before he ever met Doreen Valiente. It's pretty well documented in the historical literature available about Wicca that Gardner had a version of the Charge, complete with the whole "soft polytheistic" thing about the Great Goddess who is known by many names to many people, dating back as far as 1949. (Valiente met Gardner in 1952 or 1953 and was initiated into his coven in 1953.)

Knowing this I think it's fair to say that the "soft polytheistic" idea was in Wicca right from the start with Gardner. Not to suggest that it was mandatory of course, but it was definitely present.

[Elderbush]

Yes, the idea might have been present, but so too was Murray's very bad anthropology upon which it was based. We've recognized that the mythology that Gardner swallowed as history was not accurate although understandable given what he was basing it upon. So to with the Great Goddess, thing. It was based upon the myth that one ever existed.

I'm not saying that soft polythesism hasn't been around a long time. I'm just saying that there is a case to be made for hard polytheism rather than soft.

I also think, given the goddesses that were chosen to be mentioned that this plays into the early male dominance of Wicca and the ah...male fantasy goddess.:)

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not saying that soft polythesism hasn't been around a long time. I'm just saying that there is a case to be made for hard polytheism rather than soft.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what your case is... what exactly are you trying to prove is true?

You told me that you heard "soft polytheism" was a new addition to Wicca. I provided a historical argument that indicated this was not the case.

This thread has been pretty clear in stating that there isn't a mandatory viewpoint for Wiccans (not even for Gardnerian Wiccans) regarding "hard" or "soft" polytheism.

Could you clarify what you were trying to say? I'm just not getting it. (Maybe it's low blood sugar on my part as my suppertime is approaching here...)

[Elderbush]

Half my post just disappered! I'm try to reconstruct. I am not really trying to prove anything. I'm trying to discuss a facinating topic and am delighted we can discuss it and not attract flames or flame each other.:)

Valiente was, in my book, a "newer" addition, meaning she wasn't with Gardner in the beginning. I did not realize (had not thought about it) that Gardner had a Charge first and also that he already had ideas of soft polytheism. He drew heavily from Murray and she was who had the idea of the Great Goddess, right?

I was just trying to point out that the soft polytheism seems to have been based upon Murrays and Frazers and Graves work and has since been discredited. There never was any Great Mother or Great Goddess, so far as anyone can prove, but a whole lot of goddesses worshipped in different cultures. Soft polytheism could have been based upon something now discredited.

That doesn't mean that soft polytheism has to go, just nice to know where it came from and why. I am a hard polytheist and such things interest me plus if I have to argue my side of the question within my tradition, I can use it, unless you can see holes in it?

[Lunacie]

After 16 years of following the Wiccan religion, 16 years since I had my first encounter with a real goddess, I still can't say I know for sure if there is one great divine energy which is viewed in many different ways, or if there are actually a whole host of divine energies running things in a truly chaotic fashion - but that would explain a lot, eh? :lol: My point is that I haven't met any more goddesses since I met the first one all those years ago. I just met a god this last October after searching for a god-connection since I was 13. They sure didn't seem like the same critter to me, but without meeting any more since then I can't say that they aren't the only goddess and god with any certainty. I know meeting the god was quite a suprise, he wasn't anything like I had always imagined.

[Ben Gruagach]

Half my post just disappered! I'm try to reconstruct. I am not really trying to prove anything. I'm trying to discuss a facinating topic and am delighted we can discuss it and not attract flames or flame each other.:)

I wondered if something was missing. Glad you came back to fill in the part that was left out!

Valiente was, in my book, a "newer" addition, meaning she wasn't with Gardner in the beginning. I did not realize (had not thought about it) that Gardner had a Charge first and also that he already had ideas of soft polytheism. He drew heavily from Murray and she was who had the idea of the Great Goddess, right?

I'm afraid I disagree with the statement that Doreen's influence was a "newer addition" to Wicca. It is her rewritten version of Gardner's Book of Shadows that was put into use in the coven in the 1950s, and all the subsequent copies would have derived from it. Since Fred Lamond is the oldest living Wiccan and he was initiated into Gardner's coven when Doreen was the high priestess I somehow doubt that there are many branches of Gardnerian Wicca which predate Doreen.

Perhaps the things in her published books that influenced Wicca are newer as they didn't start coming out until the 1970s -- but her rewriting of the Book of Shadows, and the material she added to it as well, were certainly in Wicca about as far back as we can go. (Do we even know of any of Gardner's high priestesses before Doreen? I'm under the impression that Gardner's working partner, Dafo, who introduced Gardner to Dorothy Clutterbuck's group was the functioning high priestess when Gardner initiated Doreen, but that even at that point she wasn't that active -- and Gardner needed Doreen because he needed a high priestess.)

Murray didn't invent the idea of the Great Goddess, although I don't know if perhaps she was one of the sources that introduced Gardner to the concept. The theosophists (who date back to about 1875) did a lot to promote the idea that all religions were really just variants of a single religion (taking the "soft polytheism" idea even further). And the theatre group that Dorothy Clutterbuck and her associates were involved with when Gardner met them were connected to the theosophists... one of the key members of that theatre group was Mabel Emily Besant Scott, daughter of the leading theosophist Annie Besant. Annie Besant became the co-head of the Theosophical Society after the death of the group's founder, H.P. Blavatsky.

And while you are correct that there has been a lot of scholarly work that disproves the claim that there was a universal Great Goddess cult (which tended to imply that all Pagans were part of) it is a mistake to suggest that therefore the idea of a Great Goddess is a new thing and a mistaken idea. There are indeed various pre-Christian Pagan religions that taught the Great Goddess idea. The cult of Isis is one (as evidenced in Lucius Apuleius' book "The Golden Ass" written between 70 and 120 CE.) The Hindu teachings about Brahman are another. I'm sure there are other examples too.

And if for a moment we believed that Gardner was just passing on an intact pre-Christian religion, it could have been one that taught the idea of a Great Goddess who is known by many names. (That bit from the Charge of the Goddess is curiously similar to a passage from "The Golden Ass" by the way -- Gardner or whoever put together the Charge likely lifted it from there.)

I was just trying to point out that the soft polytheism seems to have been based upon Murrays and Frazers and Graves work and has since been discredited. There never was any Great Mother or Great Goddess, so far as anyone can prove, but a whole lot of goddesses worshipped in different cultures. Soft polytheism could have been based upon something now discredited.

Since soft polytheism did exist in some pre-Christian Pagan religions it's not fair to say that soft polytheism is therefore discredited. (And something being old or new doesn't necessarily have much to do with its worth either. The idea that the world is flat is older than the idea that the world is a sphere -- but which of those two is more accurate?)

That doesn't mean that soft polytheism has to go, just nice to know where it came from and why. I am a hard polytheist and such things interest me plus if I have to argue my side of the question within my tradition, I can use it, unless you can see holes in it?

I don't think we have an understanding yet of where the soft polytheism idea actually came from in Wicca, or when exactly it was introduced. The best info I have is that it goes as far back as 1949 in Gardner's Book of Shadows (back when it was called "Ye Bok of Ye Art Magical" or whatever) which is before he met Doreen. But whether Gardner added it in or got if from someone in Dorothy Clutterbuck's group is another question. And where THEY got it from is an even bigger unknown.

And just for the record -- I'm getting most of my information from published accounts of Wiccan history. The three primary books I recommend people read are Ronald Hutton's "The Triumph of the Moon," Doreen Valiente's "The Rebirth of Witchcraft," and Philip Heselton's "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration." Fred Lamond's "Fifty Years of Wicca" is also very enlightening.

[Elderbush]

Fred Lamond's book is one I've yet to read. Thanks for reminding me.

As for Valiente's status, yes she was an early influence but as you have pointed out she wasn't the earliest influence on Gardner or his creation on it. She was a very big influence however.

I'm not trying to discredit soft polytheism and am aware that the idea was in several religions (just as were all of the ideas within Wicca). Why Gardner chose to add it is what facinates me and there is no answer to that at this time. I just wondered if he did introduce it because he, or those around him, bought the research that was current in his time. He certainly set Wicca up so that it could go both ways which was a good thing.

[WinterTree]

Wow...you guys have just posted a wealth of information! So basically what I am drawing from this is that as far as we know, soft polytheism is definetely not a new concept to Wicca, but that it is still somewhat debatable.

[Elderbush]

I've been reading more and discussing it with some other people I respect and am curious about one thing...or more! Anyway, Gardner seems to have some sort of vague soft polytheism ideas but then he also clearly, I'm told, diferentuates the Christian god and the Christian hell from the all gods are one god thing, doesn't he?

[Ben Gruagach]

I've been reading more and discussing it with some other people I respect and am curious about one thing...or more! Anyway, Gardner seems to have some sort of vague soft polytheism ideas but then he also clearly, I'm told, diferentuates the Christian god and the Christian hell from the all gods are one god thing, doesn't he?

What Gardner was doing was promoting a fledgling religion. Since the dominant religion was Christianity, and Christians were (and still are) in the habit of classifying everything within a Christian framework (i.e. if it's not of God it must be of the Devil), then it isn't really surprising that Gardner would try and make a point of differentiating his religion from Christianity.

I'm not convinced that Gardner really bothered saying that Wicca was supposed to be either soft polytheism or hard polytheism. The topic might not have really come up for discussion. And I'm sure there are other things like that which will come up over time which Gardner and the others in the early days didn't think to discuss or clarify.