Mixing Pantheons: What's the big problem?

[SphinYote]

Mixing pantheons. It's something that has come up on the board with frequency. People seem to have issues with it, somehow it's a big no no.

My question is why?

Historically, all pantheons are mixed. There is NO SUCH THING as a greek pantheon. Look at tghe history of most of the deities and you'll find they came from elsewhere. Cybele--was originally (as far as we can make out) anatolian.

What about the Roman pantheon--changed the name of the greek ones, added a few of the local deities, voila. Roman Pantheon.

Egyptian pantheon: Nearly all were originally local dieties subsumed into a larger political religion.

And if Hermes Trismegistus isn't the archetype of a mixed pantheon, I don't know what is. Greco-Egyptian deity mix with judeo-christian ideology thrown all together. Hmmm. Hermes Trismegistus: Spiritual partymixtus. (Please don't throw things at me, as I do not mean this disrespectfully. If the gods exist, I truly would hope they have a sense of humor, otherwise we're all screwed...:) )

People migrate, take their deities with them, introduce them to cultures they come into contact with, who then decide whether or not to integrate said deities into their own ideology--either because they LIKE the deity, or because they need to integrate some THREAT to their ideological structure.

Historically, such integration has taken more time than it does today, that I'll grant, but people definitely crossed so-called pantheons throughout history. Christan Saints and local deities could both act as intermediaries to the divine for the same person.

Today it happens more swiftly. People have a lot thrown at them and I do at least at an intellectual level understand the desire to work within a system, but frankly, does that happen anywhere within modern life anymore? People are so bent on their individuality, that the self supersedes our very cultural system when we can get away with it (there is good and bad to this, but nonetheless, it is a widespread phenomena).

But the mixing has always existed at some level. There has to be a beginning, a point of contact, and right now a lot of things are coming together. We don't know what's going to come from that mix, but I certainly see nothing out of the ordinary or wrong with it. Its always happened, so why such a problem now?

Yote

[Sabriel MoonStar]

You know I tried so hard to stick to the Greek pantheon. I love the Greek pantheon, I really connect with it. I connect with the Deities easily given that I have blood ties to the region. I love the language, the art, the poetry, the whole package.

But you know life never leave anything uncomplicated. ;) Ganesh decided he wanted to be in my life, and when a God comes calling it is very hard to ignore that call!

So I work with the Greek pantheon and one wandering Hindu God. But now that I have accepted His presence in my life I have discovered many Hindu practices that have been a delightful addition to my spirituality. (I am currently picking up meditating with a mala and mantras.)

And I discovered that now that I have found an Indian restaurant that makes the food to order and will accommodate my inability to eat anything spicy that Indian food is very tasty. :)

I don't think people set out to mix and match pantheons. I think it just sort of happens, like in my situation. I don't think people should deny their spirituality just so they can fit some rigid mold. I have come to the conclusion that a few people being put off by my spirituality is not a very good reason to make myself uncomfortable. I chose my path because I chose to follow my heart, wherever it leads me.

[LostSheep]

Christan Saints and local deities could both act as intermediaries to the divine for the same person.
That's a good point; that's why I think that even Christianity and pre-christian beliefs aren't completely incompatible. Some saints (Brigid, for instance) are probably the same as the gods/goddesses of the earlier religions under a different flag.

[Meadhbh]

Let me the one to step in here and say I don't think its a good ideal. It strikes me has to well, new age for lack of a better word. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to offend any one but the whole pick different gods seems like away to oonly focus on those gods who y0u are comfortable with and ignore those who may have something to teach but your not comfortable with and so look over in your quest to find only those dieties you like. It seems to me it limits your personal growth.

[SphinYote]

Let me the one to step in here and say I don't think its a good ideal. It strikes me has to well, new age for lack of a better word. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to offend any one but the whole pick different gods seems like away to oonly focus on those gods who y0u are comfortable with and ignore those who may have something to teach but your not comfortable with and so look over in your quest to find only those dieties you like. It seems to me it limits your personal growth.

Perhaps, but information about the pantheons is so sugarcoated these days anyway, that you really have to dig to do any kind of personal growth in terms of actually learning about a deity or a pantheon.

I'm not sure its a matter of sticking with a pantheon, or learning deeply about the deities. Dig deep enough and you're going to find uncomfortable things about every deity. You can stick with a panthon and never dig beyond the sweet little book you have on that pantheon, and its all fluff and rainbows. You can choose what you want to believe abot a given deity as well, too, claim that the piece of information you don't like came later, was propaganda against that deity, claim it was part o a barbaric past that no longer applies, what have you.

A lot of pagan sources, when they mention Cybele at all, tend to mention her as a goddess of caves and prophecies, possibly mention her dionysian connections, but tend to gloss quickly over the part about male followers sometimes castrating themselves in her honor, if they mention it at all. Frankly I'm not comfortable with that aspect of her, and I do tend to want to ascribe cultural aspects to that which have nothing actually to do with her. That's not to say that I don't acknowledge that it is a kind of ultimate sacifice, and the followers did it voluntarily. I'm just saying that unless people actually research beyond their comfort zone they aren't GOING to know about that, regardles of whether or not they mix pantheons.

Yote

[skilly-nilly]

Let me the one to step in here and say I don't think its a good ideal. It strikes me has to well, new age for lack of a better word. Don't get me wrong I don't mean to offend any one but the whole pick different gods seems like away to oonly focus on those gods who y0u are comfortable with and ignore those who may have something to teach but your not comfortable with and so look over in your quest to find only those dieties you like. It seems to me it limits your personal growth.

I agree.

I also think that the Gods 'look' different when They are at home, what we see (I believe) is coloured by the person communicating and the culture they are representing. So the culture is a part of what the God is to us; we can never be free from our own perceptual reality.

Those cultures that assimilated other Gods in the past did so because they were exposed to other people whose Gods they were. For example, Gaulish Celts had different beliefs and practices than the Irish, Welsh, and Scots because Romans came to their country, not because they read about Zeus in a book and thought He was 'cool'.

So I believe that I can mix some Norse into my personal practices because the Norse and the Irish had historical cultural exposure, but I think that Pele isn't a reasonable choice as a 'mix-in' because the culture that my primary pantheon comes from couldn't possibly have known Her.

JMO, YMMV.

[aluokaloo]

but almost all i've ever heard from most people here is that Gods choose us not the other way aeroundm, even from those people who believing that mixing and matching is wrong. so for those who believe that Gods choose you while advocating sticking to 1 pantheon, are contradicting themselves completely. so if you believe (you as in general) believe that the Gods choose us, who are you (again you as in general) to say it's wrong if someone worships Pele, Kali, and Cernunnos. Those Gods chose that person.

[Sabriel MoonStar]

but almost all i've ever heard from most people here is that Gods choose us not the other way aeroundm, even from those people who believing that mixing and matching is wrong. so for those who believe that Gods choose you while advocating sticking to 1 pantheon, are contradicting themselves completely. so if you believe (you as in general) believe that the Gods choose us, who are you (again you as in general) to say it's wrong if someone worships Pele, Kali, and Cernunnos. Those Gods chose that person.

QFT

The Gods don't seem to want it that way in my experience. They call who They will call, regardless of who we would like to worship.

Personally I thought it would be nifty to when Artemis called to have a Greek God to follow as well (I prefer balance, and could defiantly feel a masculine influence in my life.) I really fancied following Artemis and Apollo. Apollo would have been much easier to follow then Ganesh. I know more about Apollo, given that I have been reading the Greek myths since grade school.

It seemed that the powers that be had other plans. And in the scheme of things I'm growing and learning a whole lot more then if I had ignored the call and worshiped whomever I wanted to, without divine prodding. Perhaps the Gods wanted me to learn new things?

[SphinYote]

... For example, Gaulish Celts had different beliefs and practices than the Irish, Welsh, and Scots because Romans came to their country


.but I think that Pele isn't a reasonable choice as a 'mix-in' because the culture that my primary pantheon comes from couldn't possibly have known Her.

You've just contradicted yourself. Gaulish celts could not possibly have known about Roman deities until the Romans came there. By your definition, at the point of contact, they should never have adopted Roman deities, because they did not know them before.

Well, we have infinite points of cultural contact today. While several hundred years ago the Norse obviously didn't know Pele, worshippers today can and do.

Of course, back to the Roman thing--um, to cite Zeus as an example, a deity is often adopted as part of a pantheon because they have a certain desired strenght that the people wish to also partake of (assuming worship of that deity was not imposed on them as part of an invading group's political ideology). So yes, actually "coolness" is one of several fundamental factors, even if the terminology would be different.

Yote

[Brigid Rowan]

QFT

The Gods don't seem to want it that way in my experience. They call who They will call, regardless of who we would like to worship.

Personally I thought it would be nifty to when Artemis called to have a Greek God to follow as well (I prefer balance, and could defiantly feel a masculine influence in my life.) I really fancied following Artemis and Apollo. Apollo would have been much easier to follow then Ganesh. I know more about Apollo, given that I have been reading the Greek myths since grade school.




I got your Apollo..lol..I was called by my Irish side, the God and Goddess..and then one day, in comes Apollo, Zeus, and Athena and Ceres. Go figure. I think Apollo is with me as much or more than any other, Go figure...Irish girl meets Apollo, and it works.

My theory? Gods all have their own personalities..maybe some 'mesh' with each other better than you'd think, and like working together. I dont know. Maybe some really clash. Maybe its just like people, that way. I think Apollo has a introspective, warm side...very much reminds me of the Mothering side of the Irish Goddess in that way, nurturing and friendly. Ceres and Cernunnos are quiet, but laugh easily..Athena is a thinker, decisive and fast...I just think in my case, they get along.

[Fiamma]

Mixing pantheons. It's something that has come up on the board with frequency. People seem to have issues with it, somehow it's a big no no.

My question is why?

it really depends....are you talking about people who worship deities of different cultures (or not) or mixing it up in ritual Two different things.

If the former, all I can say is that I'm ok with it, it's just not my thing. The Hellenics got a stronghold on me. I've had interests in other pantheons and cultures- mostly Roman (no, they're not just Greek with new names. Much of what is frequently thought of as "Roman mythology" is Greek mythology with the Latin counterpart names inserted.), Gaulish, Iberian and Saami (Finnish) but those interests have all turned out to be strictly academic, not spiritual.


For me on the other hand, it's been made very clear (for reasons I can't for the life of me figure out) that I'm not particularly welcome in rituals involving Brigid....for some reason, it seems she doesn't like me. One of my grove leaders knows of another Apollo devotee who also has anti-Brigid issues, though for her it comes from Apollo not from Brigid.

As for mixing pantheons in ritual...well, I'm not 100% against it, but I'm much more against it than for it. Though, it depends on a few factors. If you're talking about a personal ritual where you're familiar with the deities in question enough to be reasonably certain or better that you're not going to have problems, well then have at it. However if you're NOT familiar with the deities...well, I've given the example before, I'll give it again...I had a roommate about two years ago who viewed her slapdash ritual style as a point of pride (She referred to herself as the High Priestess of the Pull It Out Your A** tradition) and one day she decided she wanted her group to come over for a fall equinox ritual in honor of Hathor...and Quetzalcoatl. When I asked her if she knew anything about Quetzalcoatl, her response was "Aztec Serpent god. Digs chocolate. It's gonna be cool, right?"

It was about that point that I told her to go learn something about Quetzalcoatl and if she still wanted to do the ritual, by no means would I consent to that one taking place in my house.

Also for mixing pantheons in group ritual...eh, maybe. MAYBE. If you know that all present are familiar enough with both deities to be reasonably sure that thigns aren't going to go horribly awry....go ahead. But if you don't know...I think it's best to err on the side of caution because sometimes it can be different for different people. To give you an example...

I know someone who in the past has worked very closely with Apollo as well as Brigid, and has done personal rituals involving both at the same time with no problem...works for her.

On the other hand, it's been made very clear to me, that I am not welcome in rituals involving Brigid. For reasons unknown to me, she no me likey. One of my grove leaders also knows of another devotee of Apollo who has anti-Brigid issues, though in her case, the issues seem to come from Apollo, instead of from Brigid as they do with me. If either of us were to try and take part in a ritual involving Brigid and Apollo...well, that probably isn't a good idea....


So, I'm not entirely against it if you're familiar with who you're working with. I think it's a lot easier to mix things up when you're talking about overlapping cultures...Greco-Roman, Romano-Celtic etc but would strongly advise against tossing say Huehueteotl, Sedna and Chango all in together unless you've worked closely with all of them in the past (and even then...tread lightly...very lightly.)


Historically, all pantheons are mixed. There is NO SUCH THING as a greek pantheon. Look at tghe history of most of the deities and you'll find they came from elsewhere. Cybele--was originally (as far as we can make out) anatolian.

I know this is just an example that you're given..but who ever said that Kybele was Greek? The closest I've ever seen to that was her being equated to Rhea. That Kybele is Greek is a prety common misconception.

[Heart of All]

My understanding of the issue about mixing pantheons is pretty similar to Fiamma's. I think it's only natural for many people to be interested in dieties from several cultures: I mean, modern Western culture i such a mix-match of cultures, and so many of us are cultural mutts in terms of ancestry. So it doesn't make sense that everyone would be called to one pantheon and one only.

But mixing it up in ritual is a little different. I think it's like how in high school, it would be possible for a person to be a cheerleader, but have one friend who's a rebellious artsy type, and maybe another friend who's a nerd. But just because that cheerleader can be friends with all of those people in different settings doesn't mean it wouldn't get dicey if she brought them all over for tea.

[Chaos Hawk]

I think people take issue with it for the same reason christians, muslems and jews take issue with it when you tell them they worship the same god. It comes down to interpertaion I think. Each pantheon has it's own spin on things. If you feel strongly connected to a specific view it's possible you could resent someone telling you that it's just like something else. I hope that made some sense - it did in my head anyway.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I tend to think that it is possible to join different Gods / Goddess to an extent. But that joining in ritual and belief is also driven by an understanding of them in the content of thier cultural influence.

For instance I recognize both the Goddess Artemis and Bast. Yet I also recognize that Artemis is a lunar goddess while Bast is a solar goddess. In that capacity I tend to call upon Bast during the solar hours and call upon Artemis during the lunar hours.

This is not to say that I don't speak to them in opposition ie Bast during lunar periods or Artemis during solar periods. Yet, In that recognization I really never would think of calling Bast to a ritual I perform under the moon and would not call Artemis to a ritual I perform under the sun.

I find the distinction of seperating them keeps the balance for me. Yes when the rotation hits the in-between or Liminal (Dusk / Dawn) times I recognize them both for both are present at those times.

I also find I hold both closely for they both have come to me. When visitng Greece thier is no doubt that Artemis made her self known to me. As I walked the ancient road ways of Corfu and Rhodes her spirit walked with me in the night. In the harbor aboard ship her spirit shone upon the waves and filled the moon and my inner spirit.

While we anchored off Africa and moved about the coastal area Bast filled my days. Looking into the sun the shape of a cat would appear like a mirage. Sand storms rushing out to sea from the desert would appear with images of felines to me. That sandy raspy touch of a cats toungue on my skin as I awoke each morning.

Each the important one as I walked in thier ancient kingdom. Yet each holding a rotational balance when we left the area. The sense of the cat about me all day that faded as the night darkness crept across the sky. The heat and glare of day giving way to the coolness and softness of night.

But to take and try to join them together at the same time I think is folly. I think the same folly applies when one tries to join multiple cultural groups.

That different gods / goddess may call us is important. Yet I think we do a great disservice to them to try and lump them together. Gods / Goddess that hold similar influences might work together for you recognize thier similarity yet respect thier uniquness.

Yet some just never seem to fit together. I call upon Sekor at times (another solar god) yet no other god seems to fit with him. I may honor Sekor and Bast together for they both represent something I took from Egypt and Africa, yet I would never honor another with Sekor.

I hope this makes sense for to me it does but to another it may be a ramble of words.

[Philosophia]

What about the Roman pantheon--changed the name of the greek ones, added a few of the local deities, voila. Roman Pantheon.

Its a lot more complicated then that and it wasn't simply "stealing" the Greek mythology and placed it with their own. But I get what your saying.

Many of the cultures within the ancient world intermingled with each other and the religions are the same.

One thing I will say in respect to working with deities; RESEARCH! RESEARCH! RESEARCH! Always research the deities who have chosen you because you never know what you'll step in.

[Sethserpenthus]

Personally I don't usually mix pantheons, although generally I'm only working with one God or Goddess at a time so it really never even comes to that. Most of the time I just don't see a "reason" for it if that makes sense.

[Brightshores]

I've had similar experiences as others in this thread.. A couple of years ago, I was thrilled that Brigid came into my life, and She's still incredibly important to me and my spirituality. However- about a year ago, Aphrodite started taking an interest in me. I didn't think much of it at first, and didn't really realize what was even going on. Then - basically, She started whacking me over the head until I paid attention. (She's not exactly subtle, LOL.)

It was in no way a matter of "picking and choosing" deities. Let me tell you, although I've had a long-standing and passionate interest in Greek culture and mythology, Aphrodite was the last deity I would have expected to speak to a fairly straightlaced Virgo like me. :lol: However - I've learned so much from Her that I never expected, and I'm really grateful that She is here with me.

Their communication styles are VERY different, and I do try to honor both equally and separately. However- I've never gotten the feeling that either is jealous of the other or is angry at my actions. Basically - my opinion is that if a Deity speaks to me, you're damn right I'm going to listen. I think that as long as eclecticism is done carefully and respectfully, in a learned manner, it can open up one's spirituality in unbelievable ways.

[skilly-nilly]

You've just contradicted yourself. Gaulish celts could not possibly have known about Roman deities until the Romans came there. By your definition, at the point of contact, they should never have adopted Roman deities, because they did not know them before.


Those cultures that assimilated other Gods in the past did so because they were exposed to other people whose Gods they were. For example, Gaulish Celts had different beliefs and practices than the Irish, Welsh, and Scots because Romans came to their country, not because they read about Zeus in a book and thought He was 'cool'.

It seems to me that my point and yours are not contradictory.

If you lived next door to a Roman family, played with their children, ate their family dinners with them, etc you would understand and assimilate their culture. So the Gauls, who lived with Romans, had somewhat more 'Roman' religious practices than the further-flung Celts who had less or no Roman contact. Even though those outer cultures knew who the Romans were--less contact resulted in less syncretism.

Sooooooooo, the person living next door has a better understanding of Zeus and will more likely contact Him or be contacted by Him and recognise Him than the person who is using the god-checker on the internet.



Well, we have infinite points of cultural contact today. While several hundred years ago the Norse obviously didn't know Pele, worshippers today can and do.
Yote

Your belief system and mine are likely different, but I believe that the Gods live in Their pantheons and that their pantheons are a reflection of the culture that They first contacted. As well, I believe that cultural bias skews the images that we perceive as 'gods', placing the Gods and Their pantheon firmly into a culture.

I don't think 'culture ' is the same as 'exposure', either. That would be the difference between learning a language from a book and being able to read the comics in that language and get the jokes.


but almost all i've ever heard from most people here is that Gods choose us not the other way aeroundm, even from those people who believing that mixing and matching is wrong. so for those who believe that Gods choose you while advocating sticking to 1 pantheon, are contradicting themselves completely. so if you believe (you as in general) believe that the Gods choose us, who are you (again you as in general) to say it's wrong if someone worships Pele, Kali, and Cernunnos. Those Gods chose that person.

That's a good point.
On the one hand, if you believed as I do, then the way to contact a God (or be chosen by Hir) would be to learn the culture you wish to communicate in and to show respect and the desire to communicate in the traditional ways. Then Somebody, attracted by the 'proper' devotionals and impressed by the respectful effort, might communicate.

On the other hand, Unnamed Gods surely contact (or choose) people, without regard for the culture the communicant is in. The God of the Traffic Lights on Hunt Club Road (familiarly 'Long Yellow') isn't part of the Irish pantheon, but we have a relationship. Heart of Moon makes this point particularly well.

On the gripping hand, like Sabriel MoonStar found, once a different God/dess contacts you the way to further that relationship is to learn more about that new God's culture, as she did. In this multi-cultural world it's up to us to learn more, not just pick and choose what we like.

[Teresa]

I believe that Pantheons have some deities that can be related to a deity of another Pantheon. I have seen the Orisha be synched with Catholic Saints who have the same characteristics and traits or "personalities". They have similar likes and dislikes as well. I am posting some information below as an example to show how they can be corresponded.


St. Sebastian is one of the Catholic Saints that corresponds to Ochossi in Brazil. His name is spelled either Ochossi, or Oshossi or Oxossi, but pronounced the same. Ochossi is the Rio area of Brazil is identified with St. Sebastian.

In Bahia, he is more identified with St. George. In Cuba, he is identified with St. Norbert. Since Ochossi is the Orisha of the hunt, he naturally uses a bow and arrow in his endeavors. Since the image of St. Sebastian represents a martyr with arrows in his body, the ancestors naturally associated this saint with Ochossi.

As we have previously mentioned, you don't have to have anything to do with Catholic Saints to correctly practice Orisha worship. We just include this information to give a historical perspective. Although it must be said that we have seen some "spiritual" workings with Santa Barbara and other Catholic Saints that would make a believer out of anyone. Perhaps these religions became a little closer due to the practice of using Catholic Saints to represent the Orishas.


Cernunnos was the Gaulic diety associated with the Hunt. He was often pictured with the horns of a stag. His priests even today wear masks with deer antlers mounted on top. There is a very direct connection here with Ochossi. Ochossi was the Hunter Orisha and he used a bow and arrow to hunt with since there instruments have always been the most effective hunting tools in primitive societies.

Naturally, deer were hunted in Africa just as they were all over the world. One of the main elements that composes the "fundamento" or secret implements of Ochossi is a set of deer antlers. Of course, ceremonies and special rituals are done to them to imbibe them with Ochossi's power. In primitive hunting societies, the hunt was everything. These societies were not farmers and their livlihood depended on the success of their hunters. Naturally, ceremonies were done to propitiate the God of the Hunt, for the good of all the community.


Read this too:
http://www.geocities.com/beargomke/Oxossi.html My point is things may vary just a bit due to the difference of traditions but basically the deities are very similar.


JMO, YMMV

[~Elise~]

okay--mixing and matching willy-nilly from pantheons is NOT the same thing as being called by a God from a different one than you work with.

McWicca is seemingly treating the gods as a smorgesbord... no study, no NOTHING... just let's call on Pele...oh, let's call Kali too. (This is not againt the majority of Wicca by any means--just those new agey types who are all love light and bubbles-mixed with fairy dust) THAT practice is wrong in MY opinion.

Working with one pantheon and then having another come knocking is a horse of a completely different color. Most people that happens to are aware, are cognizant of the ramifications and also do their homework.

(this has happened to me, more than once... the Norse are knocking on my door- first Freyja and then Odin a couple of years later) But they are honored in different rituals than the gods of my pantheon. and never at the same time. (except when lighting candles on all the altars and giving gifts-not skipping anyone then... don't want pissed off jealous gods in my household LOL)

Elise

[aluokaloo]

okay--mixing and matching willy-nilly from pantheons is NOT the same thing as being called by a God from a different one than you work with.

McWicca is seemingly treating the gods as a smorgesbord... no study, no NOTHING... just let's call on Pele...oh, let's call Kali too. (This is not againt the majority of Wicca by any means--just those new agey types who are all love light and bubbles-mixed with fairy dust) THAT practice is wrong in MY opinion.

Working with one pantheon and then having another come knocking is a horse of a completely different color. Most people that happens to are aware, are cognizant of the ramifications and also do their homework.

(this has happened to me, more than once... the Norse are knocking on my door- first Freyja and then Odin a couple of years later) But they are honored in different rituals than the gods of my pantheon. and never at the same time. (except when lighting candles on all the altars and giving gifts-not skipping anyone then... don't want pissed off jealous gods in my household LOL)

Elise

i wasn't talking about accesorizing elise, i'm simply saying that everyone follows their own path is all, and having po'd deities in or out of your home reaaaallllly sucks!_whistle_

[Shanti]

Following your own heart, even if it appears wrong to another, is the best way to go for your own personal spiritual growth.

Its people who write the rules, not spirit or deity.

Follow your heart, its true without the paper.

[SphinYote]

Its a lot more complicated then that and it wasn't simply "stealing" the Greek mythology and placed it with their own. But I get what your saying.

Thanks. And yes, I was oversimplifying to make a point (And posting here when I should have been doing my job at work, so trying to get my thoughts down quickly..._whistle_ ).


One thing I will say in respect to working with deities; RESEARCH! RESEARCH! RESEARCH! Always research the deities who have chosen you because you never know what you'll step in.

YES! This is my thought on the matter in a nutshell. Thank you.

Yote

[SphinYote]

I know this is just an example that you're given..but who ever said that Kybele was Greek? The closest I've ever seen to that was her being equated to Rhea. That Kybele is Greek is a prety common misconception.

Historically when she became known in Greece, some of the myths have her as a caretaker of the young Dionysius.

In more contemporary mix-ups she's been conflated with various of the Sybils, notably the Cumaean Sybil (I BELIEVE the was the one who was "blessed" with immortality by Apollo, who then changed it into a curse when she rejected him still....).

There was one more scholarly book I came across that did reiterate that as being a conflation that happened in ancient history as well, given linguistic shifts, but its hard to say.

And your friend scares me as well....while I don't see the problem with mixing, per se, I agree that at LEAST a little research should be done, especially in terms of ritual. I stated on another thread that I'm agnostic, though my own practice is based on a certain amount of guarded faith in spite of that, but that said, if the deities do exist, then at least have the respect to get to know them before calling them to you....to do otherwise does seem rather less than clever to me.

Yote

[David19]

For myself, while I don't have a problem with it if it's done respectfully, I think it would take a lot of research to make sure the gods would be compatiable (and there's only so much myths and research can tell you as gods aren't cardboard cutouts, they do change, they are living beings, just on another plane of existence).

For example, if someone wanted to mix the Aztec gods with the Kemetic ones, they'd have a problem - the Aztec gods expect blood offerings, the Kemetic ones do not want blood and it is an offence to them (that's why in Kemeticism, I think a woman on her period is not allowed near her altar or the Kemetic gods). Also, the gods may not get along with each other, like, to use the Aztec gods again, from what I've read, they don't get along with each other at the best of times, let alone with gods of another pantheon, or calling on a Roman god like Jupiter and the Jewish god YHWH isn't likely to go down too well (the Romans destroyed YHWH's temple and rededicated it to Jupiter and persecuted YHWH's people, the Jews), the Sumerain gods don't like to be called in with other deities at all (Inanna might, I'm not sure, though).

I'd agree with what Fiamma and Skilly Nilly said and Elise.

Here's a great article by an Aztec recon on why Aztec deities should not be mixed with other deities (and some of it, IMO, can stand for gods of other pantheons too).

Why the Aztec religion should not be mixed with Wicca/Eclecticism (http://amoxtli.org/cuezali/wicca.html).

[David19]

It seems to me that my point and yours are not contradictory.

If you lived next door to a Roman family, played with their children, ate their family dinners with them, etc you would understand and assimilate their culture. So the Gauls, who lived with Romans, had somewhat more 'Roman' religious practices than the further-flung Celts who had less or no Roman contact. Even though those outer cultures knew who the Romans were--less contact resulted in less syncretism.

Sooooooooo, the person living next door has a better understanding of Zeus and will more likely contact Him or be contacted by Him and recognise Him than the person who is using the god-checker on the internet.



Your belief system and mine are likely different, but I believe that the Gods live in Their pantheons and that their pantheons are a reflection of the culture that They first contacted. As well, I believe that cultural bias skews the images that we perceive as 'gods', placing the Gods and Their pantheon firmly into a culture.

I don't think 'culture ' is the same as 'exposure', either. That would be the difference between learning a language from a book and being able to read the comics in that language and get the jokes.



That's a good point.
On the one hand, if you believed as I do, then the way to contact a God (or be chosen by Hir) would be to learn the culture you wish to communicate in and to show respect and the desire to communicate in the traditional ways. Then Somebody, attracted by the 'proper' devotionals and impressed by the respectful effort, might communicate.

On the other hand, Unnamed Gods surely contact (or choose) people, without regard for the culture the communicant is in. The God of the Traffic Lights on Hunt Club Road (familiarly 'Long Yellow') isn't part of the Irish pantheon, but we have a relationship. Heart of Moon makes this point particularly well.

On the gripping hand, like Sabriel MoonStar found, once a different God/dess
contacts you the way to further that relationship is to learn more about that new God's culture, as she did. In this multi-cultural world it's up to us to learn more, not just pick and choose what we like.

I agree with you, especially about the Unamed Gods (I have a kind of relationship with a god of traffic lights near me, it's the same as the relationship I have my god, as in I don't really worship him/her, but we do have a relationship).

[Sabriel MoonStar]

Personally, I strictly honor the traditional Gods of Ireland. They are the ones who called to me, they are my kin, and they know me best.

I don't mind mixing pantheons when deities are honored in their cultural contexts. Ritual is a different matter, however. Calling various deities from differen cultures in the same ritual may cause conflict or hostility as some deities are not likely to cooperate with others due to past histories, and it is extremely difficult or otherwise impractical to attempt to honor said deities in their separate cultural contexts in one ritual. We have to mindful that the Gods can be jealous and spiteful.

I don't see this as always being the case. I am sure it happens with some Deity pairings, but I don't think it would happen with them all. I have had no compatibility issues with Ganesh and Artemis so far, in fact I'd say they seem to be working together. When I last called on them for help, I saw many signs that both were helping me. (ie. The store that had the required item had a few Ganesh items out front and the required item had a stag on it) They don't seem to mind being prayed to or receiving offerings at the same time, though I make sure everyone gets their fair share. Their shrine is a small wooden shelving unit with a shelf for each (and a shelf for my wish pot and makenai neko).

Then again my relationship with them is much more informal then my relationship with the Lord and Lady and their shrine is separate from my main altar. I haven't done a formal ritual with Them yet. They seem to be more of the type of deities that deal with everyday problems and worries. My interaction with them is much more on the fly.

So while the Lord and Lady have made it very clear that the altar is for Their use only I haven't gotten this feeling from Artemis and Ganesh, although regularly doing personal work with only two deities may decrease the chances for conflict. I do tend to keep work I do with Gods I call on for other reasons (like when I call on Hestia for help with my path as a home maker) separate. I guess I tend to separate by need and relationship rather then by pantheon. It does make shrine and altar upkeep much easier.

YMMV, this just happens to work for me and my situation. I think it all depends on the personality of the Deities you are working with. I am sure if I was working with two very warlike territorial Deities from cultures that were constantly at war I would have more issues.

[Greybird]

1. Some peopless had their own gods. Some nations had long-standing issues with neighboring peoples. Picking two gods from two peoples that had an enmity between them can be a bad idea.

2. Some gods have religions built around them, including specific holidays, taboos, requirements, virtues, and lifestyles. Taking them and sticking them in another religion isn't the best way to show respect. You're saying, "I know you've stated how you want to be worshipped, but I prefer to do it my way. Thanks! Call me - we'll do lunch!"

Note that #1 and #2 can be avoided through research. Now, on the the counter point:

#3. Cultures, religions, and gods have never been static. They have evolved, changed, and been interchanged between cultures. One culture taking on part of another's religious practices is neither unethical nor modern. It is, quite simply, the way societies since the beginning of time have evolved.

Two caveats and one nod. I'd say the answer is pretty clear: There's no right answer. It depends on the deities in question, it depends on the culture, it depends on how far you're willing to bend to meet the deities' needs. You certainly wouldn't want to pair a deity that demanded that wine be consumed during rituals with one who forbade her followers alcohol, and you most certainly wouldn't want to resolve that issue by deciding "Forget the deities wishes, I'll do it my way."

[Sequoia]

I think there's a difference between picking favourites from a list and being called by different entities.

Playing salad bar with the different gods seems kind of disrespectful to them. Having different gods decide to tug on you at the same time is another thing entirely.

So I suppose it depends upon the circumstance.

[Tanya]

I love the question originally posed here.

for starters, which of us can claim one line of cultural descent?

For me, cultural context is very important... but my ancestors are from three continents and 6 countries... which panteon should I follow?

so... to be real, I'm mostly European, so i follows a generally European pantheon... but am i fussy about names? NO! The forces that we aline ourselves with are beyond name... Cernnunos, Pan, the Horned God, Arthur, Robin Hood.... Gia, Demeter, Vivian, Rhiannon, Epona, Andarta.... are they not all the God and Goddess with a thousand faces... does not a God and Goddess with a thousand faces not also reasonably have a thousand names?
screw it.


I worship the Lady and the Lord in all their seasons of life and death.. I don't care what they are called..

[Crysiira]

The only god I have ever felt compelled to honor is Brigid, and even then, I'm not sure of my own beliefs. I don't know how I feel about the existence of "gods" in the strict definition of the word; I like to use the more freely defined "spirits" and even "archetypes." I honor Brigid in everything that she represents, and I look up to her as a personality type to emulate. That is as far as my belief goes, so far, and I don't believe I've been punished for my non-belief either. Nor have I really felt called to any other archetype in the Irish Pantheon.

However, I enjoy researching gods and goddesses from ALL pantheons, and I mean all. I have notebooks stacked on notebooks of research that I've done. Why do I do it? I don't know, as I don't feel called to follow any or even believe in any beyond my vague "spirits" and "archetypes" point of view. Therefore, my answer to the question posed is very unsure and very forgiving. I think people can really do whatever they want.... but like most others here, I strongly believe that RESEARCH is the key. I do think my belief in research is the strongest spiritual belief I have. lol.

[David19]

1. Some peopless had their own gods. Some nations had long-standing issues with neighboring peoples. Picking two gods from two peoples that had an enmity between them can be a bad idea.

2. Some gods have religions built around them, including specific holidays, taboos, requirements, virtues, and lifestyles. Taking them and sticking them in another religion isn't the best way to show respect. You're saying, "I know you've stated how you want to be worshipped, but I prefer to do it my way. Thanks! Call me - we'll do lunch!"

Note that #1 and #2 can be avoided through research. Now, on the the counter point:

#3. Cultures, religions, and gods have never been static. They have evolved, changed, and been interchanged between cultures. One culture taking on part of another's religious practices is neither unethical nor modern. It is, quite simply, the way societies since the beginning of time have evolved.

Two caveats and one nod. I'd say the answer is pretty clear: There's no right answer. It depends on the deities in question, it depends on the culture, it depends on how far you're willing to bend to meet the deities' needs. You certainly wouldn't want to pair a deity that demanded that wine be consumed during rituals with one who forbade her followers alcohol, and you most certainly wouldn't want to resolve that issue by deciding "Forget the deities wishes, I'll do it my way."

I agree with you.

[Theres]

... Note that #1 and #2 can be avoided through research. Now, on the the counter point:

#3. Cultures, religions, and gods have never been static. They have evolved, changed, and been interchanged between cultures. One culture taking on part of another's religious practices is neither unethical nor modern. It is, quite simply, the way societies since the beginning of time have evolved.
maybe.

however it could be also argued that all of these interchanges and evolutions throughout history (ancient and modern) were the will of the gods involved and not just the whims of the related peoples. and if that is the case then what we are really talking about is hubris, no?

[childofbast]

I'm just saying that unless people actually research beyond their comfort zone they aren't GOING to know about that, regardles of whether or not they mix pantheons.

Yote

People *should* research outside of their comfort zone or they risk ignorance and blindness. Too many Pagans stop at the New Age section and never actually start buying history or even mythology books. They rely on a poorly researched grab bag of convenient fact and romantic BS. I'm not saying that I'm anywhere near knowing all there is not know about my Gods or my path... but I hate it when people spread information that is wrong about a culture or God. Just my opinion.

[childofbast]

1. Some peopless had their own gods. Some nations had long-standing issues with neighboring peoples. Picking two gods from two peoples that had an enmity between them can be a bad idea.

2. Some gods have religions built around them, including specific holidays, taboos, requirements, virtues, and lifestyles. Taking them and sticking them in another religion isn't the best way to show respect. You're saying, "I know you've stated how you want to be worshipped, but I prefer to do it my way. Thanks! Call me - we'll do lunch!"

Note that #1 and #2 can be avoided through research. Now, on the the counter point:

#3. Cultures, religions, and gods have never been static. They have evolved, changed, and been interchanged between cultures. One culture taking on part of another's religious practices is neither unethical nor modern. It is, quite simply, the way societies since the beginning of time have evolved.

Two caveats and one nod. I'd say the answer is pretty clear: There's no right answer. It depends on the deities in question, it depends on the culture, it depends on how far you're willing to bend to meet the deities' needs. You certainly wouldn't want to pair a deity that demanded that wine be consumed during rituals with one who forbade her followers alcohol, and you most certainly wouldn't want to resolve that issue by deciding "Forget the deities wishes, I'll do it my way."


That's a pretty interesting and well-thought out answer... I like it.

Personally, I agree with a few others who have posted here. I don't mix pantheons in ritual, but I am devoted to Irish Gods as well as Bast... It's just what happened. I keep them separate for the most part, and they have their own altars. They seem to like it better that way.

Like others, my big emphasis is on research and forming a relationship to the Gods. Research shows respect and you just become a better person overall for having learned something, I think. Once you do research, you have a better basis for your relationship with a God. Maybe he or she will tell you something a bit different, but you have that lore to look at, think about, and help you decide. I can understand if it starts to feel like a God is really smacking you over the head about something. I've had that happen too. ;) But it's way too easy to fall back on the infamous "If it feels good, do it" mantra when that one little "nudge" might have only been wishful thinking or such.

My point - read more. Read history. Read mythology. Study the language if only in snatches. You may find something interesting if only from the gender of a noun in a particular culture that could shed a whole new light on a God.

[Mathew1978]

The only god I have ever felt compelled to honor is Brigid, and even then, I'm not sure of my own beliefs. I don't know how I feel about the existence of "gods" in the strict definition of the word; I like to use the more freely defined "spirits" and even "archetypes." .

As far as comments in the thread, these probably come closest to the ball park of what I have experienced in my life, thus far. Not exactly the same, but I can certainly go along with the notion of a more "vague" indentification of very REAL entities,beings,dieties, what have you. (Though I do in fact indentify a great deal with some very particular deities. More on that in a moment.)

In answer to the question of why mixing seems such a big "no-no" to so many, I would not presume to know the thoughts of others. If I may humbly speculate, I would say a great deal of it would have to do with issues already covered...the potential for insult between pantheons of conflicting, or historically warring cultures.

People also touched on the well intentioned, and understandable desire to avoid, as some have called it "McPaganism". The whole take a God from here, and a Goddess from there, I imagine might offend some people, because it may indicate, in their minds, the possibility that there own pantheons are not as distinct or unique as they prefer to view them as.

A certain honor, I would gather, is taken from the notion of researching the particular constructs of a given historical pantheon, and adhereing one's practices to same. A certain comfort comes from this notion. One knows where to go to be blessed in child birth, a harvest, or when traveling. Even the "bad" is consistent when one sticks, vehemently, to one pantheon to the exclusion of others. There may be a sub-conscious comfort in this, as well as room for friction growth. A blue print for how to proceed, specifically. Like the Catholic Church. (But with far different rules, naturally.)

To mix pantheons, therefore, may make a person's chosen pantheon seem a little less legitimate. (To some.) They may not even know that is one of the reasons, but I feel, humbly, it is possible.

As for me personally, I do not share that concern. But I respect the notion of it, and would not presume to preach anything else to adherents of same.

But, for the sake of sharing what I personally have experienced...

I have said in earlier posts I feel that in the divine world, the individual and the universal can exist, without conflict, at the same time. Emanism, I think one article called it. (Though I always seem to lose the exact word when I try to recall it.) I therefore think that a divine being can have very individual, unique personality as it acts as lord over any given life concept, (fire, water, wine), while at the same time coming from a Source.

A friend of mine used the analogy of the old 80's cartoon show...Voltron. Many different distinct robots, that could also be one big robot being working in tandem. This is how I am starting to see Divinity. (Though the act of seeking the truth is a life long one..as beliefs evolve within my heart.)

The point in this as relates to the discussion at hand is this...to be aware of, and respectful to the divine...as in to have faith in it's existence, and its power to help us in our daily lives, will, in its own right, tend to lead my soul to the right place. Sometimes it is still painful, or inconvenient, but that, as many have said, is also part of spirituality. But I pray to one aspect of the divine, feelingthat, on some level, communing with divinity, of any type, is what opens my soul.

Ergo, praying to Hermes when friends travel helps me focus upon that very particular essence of the divine, without being overtly distracted by other aspects of the divine that may cloud the issue, or the specific intent of my prayer. Hermes certainly is his own entity, and I venture to say he would challenge anyone who thought otherwise, myself included. But being of divine nature, I have no problm accepting he can be part of something else, something universal, at the same time.

Even part of another pantheon. Not as Hermes by name perhaps, but as part of the Divine nature. So, one can, when led by one's heart, get comfort where it seems to be most effective...from a named God of a certain pantheon, or from the "vague, spiritual archetypes"...the not quite specific, but still very real presences that guide me.

Now, the research thing, I certainly agree with, even on top of what I have just said. For if one tries to focus one's energies on a certain aspect of the divine...even if, in my world view, they are all somehow connected, the signal, as it were is likley to be unclear...if one is pointing one's antenna at the wrong radio station. So, knowing what one manifestation of the divine was known for, would certainly be helpful in increasing one's focus on a certain task.

The analogy I use is a skyscraper. 500 people, inside and outside of that building, all standing in different places, could describe in perfect detail what the building looked like from where they are. No view would be all encompassing...as the place is too huge for 100% of it to be seen by one set of eyes. But nonetheless, each account would be of the same building, and wouldbe correct. The divine, in my journey, has been similar to this experience. (With no offense at all to those who have stiffer boundaries for themselves...as perhaps they are called to have them.)

On a final note, I consider one of Apollo's Maxims of Delphi..."Consider the time." Volumes could be written on what to make of the Maxims, but for me, it stands as a reliable signpost when trying to make sense of the ancient names and aspects of the divine in a modern context.

[Fiamma]

I love the question originally posed here.

for starters, which of us can claim one line of cultural descent?

For me, cultural context is very important... but my ancestors are from three continents and 6 countries... which panteon should I follow?

so... to be real, I'm mostly European, so i follows a generally European pantheon... but am i fussy about names? NO! The forces that we aline ourselves with are beyond name... Cernnunos, Pan, the Horned God, Arthur, Robin Hood.... Gia, Demeter, Vivian, Rhiannon, Epona, Andarta.... are they not all the God and Goddess with a thousand faces... does not a God and Goddess with a thousand faces not also reasonably have a thousand names?
screw it.


I worship the Lady and the Lord in all their seasons of life and death.. I don't care what they are called..


This may be very easy to say if you believe in and worship a single god and single goddess and only believe in the Many as different names and faces of the same entity.


I am a hard polytheist therefore the gods are NOT just different names for one entity. I believe that it's insulting to say that they are and greatly ignores what each one truly is. Apollo is not the same entity as Huizilpochtli. Airmid is not the same entity as Hina.

I am also of mixed European descent. Specifically, Sicilian, English, Polish and Lithuanian. Interestingly enough, the only line that I have more than a cursory curiosity about is the one that is closest related to the gods which I worship- a large chunk of Sicily was an ancient Greek stronghold at one time. And to be clear, I do not worship the Greek deities out of ancestral loyalty. I was worshiping them for some time before I found that many of them were worshiped on Sicily..Apollo being one of the big ones, and the Etruscans who were also on the island had a similar god, Apulu.

[elfmage]

I personally don't like the idea of mixing pantheons, for two primary reasons:

1) It tends to be associated with people who call on certain Deities purely for their own gain - there is no devotion or worship on their part, and they are simply trying to 'use' that God/Goddess as part of some spell formula. I have big issues with people with that attitude, and yes, I have found it to be more prevalent in people who mix pantheons, simply because they refuse to put in the effort and research that Deity beyond what they should call on them for in terms of spellwork.

2) Whilst I agree that we cannot ever escape our own personal/individual context and perspective, I think there is an element of laziness and arrogance involved when some people mix pantheons. That is, they don't bother to research the cultural context, historical aspects of worship, etc., for that Deity, instead favouring a shallow approach to the entire issue - this relates back to my first point.

Just my observations and opinions (and apologies if this was incoherent, I'm tired and ill).

[elfmage]

I am a hard polytheist therefore the gods are NOT just different names for one entity. I believe that it's insulting to say that they are and greatly ignores what each one truly is. Apollo is not the same entity as Huizilpochtli. Airmid is not the same entity as Hina.


ETA: I really like your point here. Soft polytheism (Especially the bloody dogmatic form thereof) is another increasing trend bound up with my previous point.

[thought_on_a_wind]

Being Eclectic, I don't see the problem either, though from different means.


The walker of the road may seem just the least bit tired of the same dead ends until they realize that those dead ends aren't the END of the world, and can be circumvented by one means or other, some are different roads less traveled altogether.

[David19]

maybe.

however it could be also argued that all of these interchanges and evolutions throughout history (ancient and modern) were the will of the gods involved and not just the whims of the related peoples. and if that is the case then what we are really talking about is hubris, no?

Good point.

[~Elise~]

Being Eclectic, I don't see the problem either, though from different means.

There in is the problem we hard polythesists have with eclectics


The walker of the road may seem just the least bit tired of the same dead ends until they realize that those dead ends aren't the END of the world, and can be circumvented by one means or other, some are different roads less traveled altogether.

BUT, most eclectics don't do the research to lay down a new road to circumvent that dead end... they just take something from somewhere else.

Accessorizing with different deities is the height of disrespect and contempt, IMO.

Think of it this way.... would you want some random person coming up to you asking you to do something major for them when you've never met them, you have NO idea who they are and you probably won't ever see them again???

That's what accessorizers do... Ask something of a God/dess that they've never taken the time to acknowledge or ever honor, to learn anything about. And they wonder why things don't get done and their spells don't work.

This is just MY opinion and I know others don't feel that way.

Elise

[Mathew1978]

I respectfully take a bit of exception to the last fewposts.

The last few posts would seem to indicate that eclectics are almost, de facto guilty of "accessorizing". That by being eclectic, they are unable to truly get to know dieties, orunderstand who they are, and what they represent.

I have all the respect in the world for a hard polytheistic perspective, even though I do not shareit. But to claim that simply because opne is eclectic that they are unable to truly dedicate themselves to understanding any deitieis a bit arrogant, in my view.

As I have said, there are some legitimate concerns for some about just spinning a wheel at random, and picking a diety of the moment without thinking too hard about it. But it smacks a tad of unfairness to say eclectics cannot, and have not researched who it is they follow/worship/honor, from whichever pantheon they choose.

[~Elise~]

I respectfully take a bit of exception to the last fewposts.

The last few posts would seem to indicate that eclectics are almost, de facto guilty of "accessorizing". That by being eclectic, they are unable to truly get to know dieties, orunderstand who they are, and what they represent.

I have all the respect in the world for a hard polytheistic perspective, even though I do not shareit. But to claim that simply because opne is eclectic that they are unable to truly dedicate themselves to understanding any deitieis a bit arrogant, in my view.

As I have said, there are some legitimate concerns for some about just spinning a wheel at random, and picking a diety of the moment without thinking too hard about it. But it smacks a tad of unfairness to say eclectics cannot, and have not researched who it is they follow/worship/honor, from whichever pantheon they choose.

I'm sure you don't--but there are LOTS who do. (unfortunately there is that generalization thing)

Elise

[whitewater]

i'm ok with mixing pantheons except in the same ritual. i mean, i may be, for example, a follower of both Isis and Brighid, but i wouldn't call them both into the same circle, because the energy would be really chaotic.

[Twinkle]

As a Hellenic Recon and hard polytheist, I'm not about mixing pantheons. That being said, I have no issue with eclecticism and mixing pantheons as long as it's done correctly, shifting paradigms within the correct cultural context...and adjust worship to correspond to each pantheon.

IMO it cannot be done unless thorough cultural and historical research is done on the pantheons being pulled from.

I have met only one eclectic pagan in my travels on the web that has ever done this.

Everyone else I've met just pulls the god/goddess because "they like them" or "they will work best for this particular ritual". There is no respect, no research, no piety.

And THAT is what I have issues with.

[Brightshores]

I just have to agree with Matthew here. As an eclectic and a hard polytheist - I just have to chime in and say that some of us do do our research. Not all of us are "accessorizers." I'm sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant - and no disrespect is intended - but I do feel the need to defend my beliefs, and those of other eclectic practicioners like myself.

As a solitary practicioner - I can only offer my own perspective. Perhaps my perspective is skewed as I do not have much contact with other pagans, except thr0ugh this website. I am a historian by education, training, and professional experience, and I know how to conduct research. I know how to distinguish a useful, valuable source from unreliable Internet garbage, and I know that primary sources, when they exist, are far more useful than secondary sources. I know the importance of an accurate translation, and the greater usefulness of being able to read the original. I am familiar with Latin and some Greek (along with smatterings of other languages), and have walked the ancient sites of Greece and the British Isles. Yet I am an eclectic Pagan, and feel no need to apologize for being so.

I certainly wouldn't dream of calling on some random God or Goddess to do me a big favor. Personally, I'd never try "working" (and I hate that expression) with a deity just because I picked him or her out of some Mythological Encyclopedia to fit whatever I was trying to do. I can't imagine anyone who would do that sort of thing, and certainly share the contempt for those practices expressed by many of you in this thread. I also can't imagine that I am the only eclectic Pagan who feels this way.

I have a great deal of respect for recons. However, I would respecfully ask that in return, others would not assume that those of us who follow an eclectic path do so in a disrespectful or casual manner.

[Philosophia]

I just have to agree with Matthew here. As an eclectic and a hard polytheist - I just have to chime in and say that some of us do do our research. Not all of us are "accessorizers." I'm sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant - and no disrespect is intended - but I do feel the need to defend my beliefs, and those of other eclectic practicioners like myself.

As a solitary practicioner - I can only offer my own perspective. Perhaps my perspective is skewed as I do not have much contact with other pagans, except thr0ugh this website. I am a historian by education, training, and professional experience, and I know how to conduct research. I know how to distinguish a useful, valuable source from unreliable Internet garbage, and I know that primary sources, when they exist, are far more useful than secondary sources. I know the importance of an accurate translation, and the greater usefulness of being able to read the original. I am familiar with Latin and some Greek (along with smatterings of other languages), and have walked the ancient sites of Greece and the British Isles. Yet I am an eclectic Pagan, and feel no need to apologize for being so.

I certainly wouldn't dream of calling on some random God or Goddess to do me a big favor. Personally, I'd never try "working" (and I hate that expression) with a deity just because I picked him or her out of some Mythological Encyclopedia to fit whatever I was trying to do. I can't imagine anyone who would do that sort of thing, and certainly share the contempt for those practices expressed by many of you in this thread. I also can't imagine that I am the only eclectic Pagan who feels this way.

I have a great deal of respect for recons. However, I would respecfully ask that in return, others would not assume that those of us who follow an eclectic path do so in a disrespectful or casual manner.

_handclapp

Well said! I am also an eclectic and I study and research every single deity that I worship (yes, worship, not work with).

[Twinkle]

OK. I'll buy that...but the key is shifting paradigms and practice to fit in the correct cultural and historical context.

This means you don't call the quarters by invoking Hera, Poseidon, Hephaestus and Zeus...and say you're worshiping the Greek Pantheon.

You don't blot with Dionysus and Odin.

And you certainly don't perform ritual or love spells with Aphrodite and Venus and tell me that you're eclectic.

[Ælfred]

Mixing pantheons. It's something that has come up on the board with frequency. People seem to have issues with it, somehow it's a big no no.

I suppose you're right that most pantheons were mixed. The ancients probably weren't as bothered as we are by eclecticism. Foreign gods and goddesses were often adapted into a pantheon when cultures came in contact through trade or conquest.

I sometimes wonder if sticking to one pantheon is natural though. Our ancestors revered the deities they knew about and often wouldn't have hesitated to adopt a foreign god. Today we have access to knowledge of gods and goddesses from around the world, but would rather stick to a pantheon of a particular time and place: Classical Greece, Viking Age Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon England, etc.

On the other hand I couldn't see worshipping Freyja alongside a Japanese or Aztec deity. That would just seem to weird to me.

I suppose Wicca has eliminated the problem by saying all gods are aspects of The Lord, all goddesses are aspects of The Lady.

[Theres]

I suppose Wicca has eliminated the problem by saying all gods are aspects of The Lord, all goddesses are aspects of The Lady.
or perpetuated it.

[Tullip Troll]

I think some things mix well and others not. I think too much mixing is the same as watering something down too much.

[Fiamma]

I suppose Wicca has eliminated the problem by saying all gods are aspects of The Lord, all goddesses are aspects of The Lady.

Ye gads, I hope not...I'm not ashamed to say I hold a bit of a loathing for this idea.

[Sethserpenthus]

Ye gads, I hope not...I'm not ashamed to say I hold a bit of a loathing for this idea.

I have a loathing for a particular way that idea is used... one could in theory say that all Gods are aspects of the Lord and all Goddesses the Lady, but that doesn't mean one can just abandon all rational thought when it comes to dealing with the Gods and Goddesses. If you really, really believe that all Gods are One God and/or all Goddesses are One Goddess, then there is no point on calling them by the names of individual Gods or Goddesses anyway, is there? If you're just calling them a name for the sake of having a name to call them, then you're reaching into some irreverent territory in my opinion. Unless you are going by a soft polytheist view in that the Gods and Goddesses, although aspects of One God and One Goddess, are still individuals with individual duties and tastes... and if this is the case, you need to use discretion to make sure you aren't offending them by mixing them in a thoroughly inappropriate manner.

[Sethserpenthus]

It wasn't so much eclecticism as it was syncretism.

Personally the only discernible difference I see between the syncretism of old and the eclecticism of new is that today there is somewhat of an idealism in purity of pantheon and practice. Well, that and there is the issue of such open information on the subject that people can worship two deities from complete opposite sides of the world...

I don't see this as a modern problem unless it leads to irreverence, which in some cases it has been.

[Fiamma]

I meant that I actually have a particular loathing for the idea that "all gods are aspects of The God and all goddesses are aspects of The Goddess"...I'm a hard polytheist, and find it insulting and dismissive of the gods...but you've expanded on that a bit- I know that not all soft polytheists do this, but calling on a particular name, just to have a name...or "using" them- just picking a name from a list because "this is the aspect of the goddess that deals with..."


I have a loathing for a particular way that idea is used... one could in theory say that all Gods are aspects of the Lord and all Goddesses the Lady, but that doesn't mean one can just abandon all rational thought when it comes to dealing with the Gods and Goddesses. If you really, really believe that all Gods are One God and/or all Goddesses are One Goddess, then there is no point on calling them by the names of individual Gods or Goddesses anyway, is there? If you're just calling them a name for the sake of having a name to call them, then you're reaching into some irreverent territory in my opinion. Unless you are going by a soft polytheist view in that the Gods and Goddesses, although aspects of One God and One Goddess, are still individuals with individual duties and tastes... and if this is the case, you need to use discretion to make sure you aren't offending them by mixing them in a thoroughly inappropriate manner.

[Sethserpenthus]

I meant that I actually have a particular loathing for the idea that "all gods are aspects of The God and all goddesses are aspects of The Goddess"...I'm a hard polytheist, and find it insulting and dismissive of the gods...but you've expanded on that a bit- I know that not all soft polytheists do this, but calling on a particular name, just to have a name...or "using" them- just picking a name from a list because "this is the aspect of the goddess that deals with..."

Yeah, I hate that, it's like making the Gods into some sort of ingredients list. They are not spell ingredients and it is insulting to use them as such, no matter what your belief of what exactly they are. I guess I don't particularly have a problem with solf polytheism as a complete concept (I am also a hard polytheist by the way), but the Gods would not be treated as individuals in antiquity were there not some real reason for doing so, and in that respect it just doesn't matter whether "hard" or "soft" or "neither" is the correct option here.

[Sharpchick]

I think if we are sincerely seeking enlightenment and truth when we ask, we are given whatever is appropriate for us at the time, regardless of whether the gift or aspect of divinity comes from a particular pantheon.

There is just no way I would ignore the appearance of a deity from a pantheon I had no previous connection to - that would be a "heads-up" to me, and at a minumum, I would begin some study and probably also meditation.

[aluokaloo]

research is important, besides i have always felt that learning about deities through their myths, and the cultures they are attatched to is half the fun of getting to know them, now there are some people that truly just use them for whatever their needs are that is disrespectful but so is saying that anyone who has a mixed pantheon is doing just that, is also disrespectful. but what is the real issue here? is it tossing deities in the proverbial pot for any need/want that the practitioner demands? or is that people believe that anyone who worships a mixed pantheon is disrespectful and should only stick with one pantheon or else they arenot real worshippers? I'm honestly just curious

[Twinkle]

Personally the only discernible difference I see between the syncretism of old and the eclecticism of new is that today there is somewhat of an idealism in purity of pantheon and practice. Well, that and there is the issue of such open information on the subject that people can worship two deities from complete opposite sides of the world...

I don't see this as a modern problem unless it leads to irreverence, which in some cases it has been.

There is actualy a very large difference between the two. Syncretism happens gradually, within a culture, and over a very long period of time. It fuses together different beliefs and gods...taking away the conflicts.

Eclecticism does not. Being eclectic leaves the conflicts in culture in place with no attempt to reconcile them..which is why is absolutely important, when eclectic, to worship each god within each pantheon in the correct cultural and historical way. To do otherwise would be impious and disrespectful.

[sari0009]

There is actualy a very large difference between the two. Syncretism happens gradually, within a culture, and over a very long period of time. It fuses together different beliefs and gods...taking away the conflicts.

Eclecticism does not. Being eclectic leaves the conflicts in culture in place with no attempt to reconcile them..which is why is absolutely important, when eclectic, to worship each god within each pantheon in the correct cultural and historical way. To do otherwise would be impious and disrespectful.

Mmmm, but eclectics may often lead syncretic movements or influence them greatly and sometimes even found new religions.

Eclecticism comes from Greek eklektikos, "choosing the best," and many famous and not so famous figures were or are eclectic and trained in traditions, sometimes multiple. Eclecticism vs. tradition or syncreticism? The division is not the rule.

Correct pantheon, cultural, and historical everything? Impious and disrespectful? Conflicts are never totally ameliorated. Conflict, while it can get over the top, is actually a positive part of common ground, or it can be worked that way.

It’s my understanding that definitions, views, Gods and even Pantheons change and weave their influences in and out of many cultures (borrowing and cross- influencing has been going on since people have mingled and mixed (https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html)) and times to the point that historical and cultural contexts are more fluid than they are constants. Aphrodite or a variety of dark earth Goddesses, such as Kali, where altered over time. Aphrodite was repainted to reflect the cultural developments and sexism of the times over the course of ancient times. Dark Earth Goddesses, for example, dealt with cycles of destruction and creation but were later ball and chained to heavily negative associations and roles.

I have the views of paths, history, divine and deity (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3276230&postcount=40) that I have due to a life influenced and immersed in different scientific, cultural, religious, and artistic views and practices as well as a deep appreciation of history and my own studies in computer programming. I grew up traveling, often visiting historical places and was surrounded by immigrant families that spoke different languages and held different beliefs (my mother was a language teacher; my father was into computer programming languages, math and science).

I consider definitions, views, the divine, Gods, and Pantheons tweak-able not due to ignorance and disrespect but out of awe, joy, playfulness, and appreciation. I prefer intelligence and history fluid and am comfortable with but give credit to origins and cultures and recognize what makes systems work and the work that goes into that...then or now.

Mixing pantheons often works but it's not a job for lazy intellectuals or people who are uncomfortable with it for a variety of reasons, which aren't all bad or wrong. The important thing is that people develop or work with a system and work it.

[Twinkle]

Eclectics lead syncretized movements? No. If they create a new religion they have not syncretized it. They have created a new religion based off what they liked from what they pulled from.

I'm aware of what eclecticism means. Are you aware of what syncretism means? Apparently not. It derives from modern Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) syncretismus, drawing on Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) συνκρητισμός (synkretismos), meaning "a union of communities". The key word being union...not choosing from the best. Syncretism means that the conflicts are actually ameliorated. Look it up.

If you are eclectic, you make no attempt to reconcile the conflicts. Giving credit where credit is due has nothing to do with worship. As I said...syncretization occurred culturally, and gradually. The Greeks were actually very careful with how they syncretized the different gods into worship.

Eclecticism means that one must shift their paradigm and practice to fit the correct cultural context. It means that picking and choosing your gods and worshiping the way you see fit is not Eclecticism. What that is is a hodgepodge of crap.

My only point is that one needs to be intellectually honest. Hiding under the blanket term of Eclecticism when that's not what you're practicing is dishonest.

If you want to cross pantheons and worship in a way that is ultimately disrespectful and impious...go for it. But do not call yourself something you are not.

[Amythyst]

I do what I do...I've mixed gods and goddesses simply because I feel drawn to this one or that one-- sometimes several at the same time-- I don't know for sure what drew me, but if Divinity speaks and everything works, why question it.

So far I haven't been struck by any lightening bolts and the world hasn't stopped spinning.

Listen to your own inner voice...

[sari0009]

Eclectics lead syncretized movements? No. If they create a new religion they have not syncretized it. They have created a new religion based off what they liked from what they pulled from.

I'm aware of what eclecticism means. Are you aware of what syncretism means? Apparently not. It derives from modern Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) syncretismus, drawing on Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) συνκρητισμός (synkretismos), meaning "a union of communities". The key word being union...not choosing from the best. Syncretism means that the conflicts are actually ameliorated. Look it up.

If you are eclectic, you make no attempt to reconcile the conflicts. Giving credit where credit is due has nothing to do with worship. As I said...syncretization occurred culturally, and gradually. The Greeks were actually very careful with how they syncretized the different gods into worship.

Eclecticism means that one must shift their paradigm and practice to fit the correct cultural context. It means that picking and choosing your gods and worshiping the way you see fit is not Eclecticism. What that is is a hodgepodge of crap.

My only point is that one needs to be intellectually honest. Hiding under the blanket term of Eclecticism when that's not what you're practicing is dishonest.

If you want to cross pantheons and worship in a way that is ultimately disrespectful and impious...go for it. But do not call yourself something you are not.

If people have a broader, deeper, and/or different understanding of definitions, pantheons, or what have you, it doesn't automatically mean they are ignorant or wrong. I know what the terms mean and also know that it's not an either / or (also known as a false dilemma fallacy) between union of communities or choosing the best. One can create a union of communities by choosing the best, among other means. That can exist too.

Union does not mean total lack of conflict. Conflict always exists. I know this from experience and because I already looked things up and did so from many angles over the years. Harmony and discord are inseparable just as creation and destruction are. There are no marriages or communities totally devoid of all conflict even if conflict has been ameliorated -- people know how to pick their battles and priorities.

If I am eclectic, I make no attempt to reconcile conflicts you say? Giving credit can reconcile conflicts (with some people). Giving credit where credit is due is a part of my path and I don't worship Gods, by the way. You'd know that if you bothered to read the link I gave you in order to better understand where I'm coming from (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3276230#post3276230). Syncretization can occur culturally, and gradually, but it sometimes occurs more quickly during events or lifetimes of notice.

Eclecticism means that one must shift their paradigm and practice to fit the correct cultural context? Not necessary (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3276230#post3276230).

You say "...that picking and choosing your gods and worshiping the way you see fit is not Eclecticism. What that is is a hodgepodge of crap." Well, just because you say it doesn't mean it's so. I've studied systems from simple to complex through a variety of fields, paths, and practices from religious to languages linguistic and computer programming to systems of abuse and systems of empowerment and more. I know how to create, tweak, maintain, and manipulate systems and I know the importance of definitions and things "platform independent" as well as those that are not. Not everyone is going to create a hodgepodge of crap.

You assume one hides (incredibly particular and negative associations) under the blanket term of Eclecticism and that this is dishonest, disrespectful, and impious? Your assumptions are not the rule and the baggage of assumptions and associations piled on definitions are not the definitions.

[Philosophia]

If you are eclectic, you make no attempt to reconcile the conflicts. Giving credit where credit is due has nothing to do with worship. As I said...syncretization occurred culturally, and gradually. The Greeks were actually very careful with how they syncretized the different gods into worship.

As an eclectic, I do make attempts to reconcile the differences. I am tired of reading people putting down eclectics because we don't worship or practice the same way others do. For example, Roman religion did not make a complete unionism with the cultures they overtook. They submerged, and conquered those religions to a degree that the deities involved were changed and modified to suit what the Roman's needed.


Eclecticism means that one must shift their paradigm and practice to fit the correct cultural context. It means that picking and choosing your gods and worshiping the way you see fit is not Eclecticism. What that is is a hodgepodge of crap.

That is not a truth or a true definition, that is only your opinion.

[Brightshores]

As an eclectic, I do make attempts to reconcile the differences. I am tired of reading people putting down eclectics because we don't worship or practice the same way others do. For example, Roman religion did not make a complete unionism with the cultures they overtook. They submerged, and conquered those religions to a degree that the deities involved were changed and modified to suit what the Roman's needed.



That is not a truth or a true definition, that is only your opinion.

:fpraise: :fpraise: :fpraise:

What she said.

With all due respect, I don't ask anyone else to justify their practices to me. Why others feel that they have some kind of fundamentalist right to demand that eclectics justify their practices to other parts of the pagan community, is beyond me.

[Twinkle]

The Romans view of the gods was that all gods were Roman. They assimilated the culture and the gods and syncretized them into the Roman Religion. Religio Romana, to be specific.

This is the definition of eclecticism...found in the dictionary. Apparently it's not just my opinion.
Noun1.eclecticism - making decisions on the basis of what seems best instead of following some single doctrine or style

[Twinkle]

I never asked anyone to validate anything. I've asked you to be intellectually honest.

Worship any way you want. I don't care. What I do care about is people pulling gods from pantheons they know nothing about, doing ritual or spellwork with them, worshiping without knowing the correct cultural and historical context of the god, and calling that Eclecticism. It's intellectually dishonest, and inherent laziness.

That's not what Eclecticism is.

[Philosophia]

The Romans view of the gods was that all gods were Roman. They assimilated the culture and the gods and syncretized them into the Roman Religion. Religio Romana, to be specific.

Like I said before, they submerged, and conquered those religions to a degree that the deities involved were changed and modified to suit what the Roman's needed.


This is the definition of eclecticism...found in the dictionary. Apparently it's not just my opinion.
Noun1.eclecticism - making decisions on the basis of what seems best instead of following some single doctrine or style

That proves my point, not yours. Nowhere in that definition does this fit: "Eclecticism means that one must shift their paradigm and practice to fit the correct cultural context". So its still an opinion, not a true definition.

But there are other definitions:
Eclecticism: The practice of selecting or borrowing from earlier styles and combining the borrowed elements. (http://www.ackland.org/tours/classes/glossary.html)
Or:
Eclecticism is a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclecticism)

[Philosophia]

I never asked anyone to validate anything. I've asked you to be intellectually honest.

Worship any way you want. I don't care. What I do care about is people pulling gods from pantheons they know nothing about, doing ritual or spellwork with them, worshiping without knowing the correct cultural and historical context of the god, and calling that Eclecticism. It's intellectually dishonest, and inherent laziness.

That's not what Eclecticism is.

_handclapp I agree with you.

[Twinkle]

My point about the Romans is that they syncretized other cultures and religions. They are not an example of Eclecticism.

I got this from the link you provided:

It can be inelegant, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking, but it is common in many fields of study. For example, most psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists) accept parts of behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism), but do not attempt to use the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior.

Above is an example of a shift in paradigm. It shows that when one is eclectic, one must change the way they think about a certain subject when using different schools of thought.

The same goes with Eclecticism in regard to religion. When one is worshiping a Greek god, one must think like the ancient Greeks did...this is distinctly different when one is worshiping a Roman god.

Therefore, to be a true eclectic, one must shift their paradigm when dealing with two different gods from two different pantheons...this would then effect worship. One would have to shift their worship to match the shift in paradigm.

[Philosophia]

I got this from the link you provided:

It can be inelegant, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of consistency in their thinking, but it is common in many fields of study. For example, most psychologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologists) accept parts of behaviorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism), but do not attempt to use the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior.

Above is an example of a shift in paradigm. It shows that when one is eclectic, one must change the way they think about a certain subject when using different schools of thought.

Thats not what I got from that example. In that bit, the psychologists accepted various parts of a theory (not the whole), it didn't change the way they think.


The same goes with Eclecticism in regard to religion. When one is worshiping a Greek god, one must think like the ancient Greeks did...this is distinctly different when one is worshiping a Roman god.

I agree to an extent. I don't believe one must think like the ancient Greeks because, to me (and this is only my opinion), this can limit ones growth if stuck in one frame of mind. In reverence to the deity involved and from my experience, I believe in blending both historical and modern worshiping practices. This doesn't mean I worship in a manner I consider disrespectful (i.e. putting two deities together that are fundamentally wrong) but I do believe that a certain amount of flexibility can be applied (for example, I worship both Minerva and Seshat. Both are different (and I wouldn't think of putting them in the same ritual) but I do put them close to one another in terms of altars (that and plus room constraints) and in similar rituals).


Therefore, to be a true eclectic, one must shift their paradigm when dealing with two different gods from two different pantheons...this would then effect worship. One would have to shift their worship to match the shift in paradigm.

Not necessarily. Like I said before, a certain amount of flexibility is needed to blend both historical and modern worshiping practices. I don't like to divide these views because, to me, both need to accepted. However, finding that balance between historical and modern viewpoints is difficult.

[~Elise~]

But, Philosophia--not all who call themselves Eclectic take the time to research and learn that you and some others have posted in this thread do. They use being Eclectic as an excuse/reason for their actions.
We all have run across 'accessorizers' in our time... and those are the ones that we ALL would like to eliminate, but in reality, we'll never eridicate. It's like that line from Buffy where Willow says something about anyone who has access to a spice rack and henna calling themselves a Dark Sister.
THAT is the mixing and matching that we'd to see gone. I honestly think we're all on the same page.

Elise

[Sethserpenthus]

There is actualy a very large difference between the two. Syncretism happens gradually, within a culture, and over a very long period of time. It fuses together different beliefs and gods...taking away the conflicts.

Eclecticism does not. Being eclectic leaves the conflicts in culture in place with no attempt to reconcile them..which is why is absolutely important, when eclectic, to worship each god within each pantheon in the correct cultural and historical way. To do otherwise would be impious and disrespectful.

Forgive me for saying, but I've read this explanation dozens of times and I still don't get what the huge and disastrous different difference is except that people now (and by that I mean the more anti-eclectic set) have a more openly idealized vision of what worship of the Gods means and how it should be done. I will mention that I agree with worshiping Gods in a culturally significant manner and am in actual worship mostly Reconstructionist, but on the other hand, even for example Roman syncretism appears to have stripped a great deal of the cultural context away from the Gods and practices that were brought into Roman religion. I know you say that Romans are not an example of eclecticism, but again I see no giant difference. Religions change, the way Gods are worshiped changes, that's been the way it's been for as long as religion has existed. That doesn't always make it right, but it doesn't make it automatically wrong or even horribly different either.

[sari0009]

Mixing pantheons. It's something that has come up on the board with frequency. People seem to have issues with it, somehow it's a big no no.

My question is why?

Historically, all pantheons are mixed. There is NO SUCH THING as a greek pantheon. Look at tghe history of most of the deities and you'll find they came from elsewhere. Cybele--was originally (as far as we can make out) anatolian.

What about the Roman pantheon--changed the name of the greek ones, added a few of the local deities, voila. Roman Pantheon.

Egyptian pantheon: Nearly all were originally local dieties subsumed into a larger political religion.

And if Hermes Trismegistus isn't the archetype of a mixed pantheon, I don't know what is. Greco-Egyptian deity mix with judeo-christian ideology thrown all together. Hmmm. Hermes Trismegistus: Spiritual partymixtus. (Please don't throw things at me, as I do not mean this disrespectfully. If the gods exist, I truly would hope they have a sense of humor, otherwise we're all screwed...:) )

People migrate, take their deities with them, introduce them to cultures they come into contact with, who then decide whether or not to integrate said deities into their own ideology--either because they LIKE the deity, or because they need to integrate some THREAT to their ideological structure.

Historically, such integration has taken more time than it does today, that I'll grant, but people definitely crossed so-called pantheons throughout history. Christan Saints and local deities could both act as intermediaries to the divine for the same person.

Today it happens more swiftly. People have a lot thrown at them and I do at least at an intellectual level understand the desire to work within a system, but frankly, does that happen anywhere within modern life anymore? People are so bent on their individuality, that the self supersedes our very cultural system when we can get away with it (there is good and bad to this, but nonetheless, it is a widespread phenomena).

But the mixing has always existed at some level. There has to be a beginning, a point of contact, and right now a lot of things are coming together. We don't know what's going to come from that mix, but I certainly see nothing out of the ordinary or wrong with it. Its always happened, so why such a problem now?

Yote

For some, the freeze frame view is best for their needs, and they have their favorites. They may even know history pretty well in some respects. For some well read history lovers, a zoetrope or more complex view exists. They see how Gods change over time, are borrowed, are influenced by others, and so on. There are differences in how people view and define the divine and Gods too. That and more.

Yes, there are some (fluffbunnies, as many like to call them) who pick and choose and haven't even bothered to know the Pantheons and Gods.

It's also true that people who often accuse others of not resourcefully checking out the Gods, Pantheons, and history often don't check out individuals before they give them a few slight or not so slight slams as if they too must be fluffbunnies too because someone's on the warpath against ignorance. Once, it's oversight. If it's a pattern, the person is invested in power and control struggles.

[skilly-nilly]

I've been thinking about this and following the thread, and I had a different thought.

Using The Morrigan as an example, since She is a Goddess Who appeals to many eclectic-type practitioners:

It seems to ma that many people associate themselves with a Flash God/dess as if Ze is a free-standing monument.
As in, "I saw crows---The Morrigan is contacting me. She's a Fierce Battle Goddess."

But myself as a polytheistic, kind of reconstructionist, one-pantheon and culture person; I think that if one was interested in The Morrigan that it would only make sense to then also learn about The Dagda, and Cú Chulainn and then about Badb, Macha, and Nemain, and why not Eriu and, Banha and Fodla.......
And read ' The Second Battle of Mag Tuired' , the 'Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel' and other folklore.

So then you wouldn't be taking Her out of Her culture at all.

I think all this debate here is about how one defines 'eclectic'.

[sari0009]

I've been thinking about this and following the thread, and I had a different thought.

Using The Morrigan as an example, since She is a Goddess Who appeals to many eclectic-type practitioners:

It seems to ma that many people associate themselves with a Flash God/dess as if Ze is a free-standing monument.
As in, "I saw crows---The Morrigan is contacting me. She's a Fierce Battle Goddess."

But myself as a polytheistic, kind of reconstructionist, one-pantheon and culture person; I think that if one was interested in The Morrigan that it would only make sense to then also learn about The Dagda, and Cú Chulainn and then about Badb, Macha, and Nemain, and why not Eriu and, Banha and Fodla.......
And read ' The Second Battle of Mag Tuired' , the 'Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel' and other folklore.

So then you wouldn't be taking Her out of Her culture at all.

I think all this debate here is about how one defines 'eclectic'.

Perhaps many mistake 'taking the best' with not knowing the rest or with discarding it. Yes, it makes sense to know whole pantheons and to read about them. Deepens and broadens the experience.

However, if I meet people from other cultures and religion, I don't forget or loose mine. Why would the Gods? I think they can work with others pluralistically just as people can. Maybe even better. Ha ha. Well, maybe not allll of them because they can clash too.

[Sethserpenthus]

And Eclectics are intolerant and impose their religion on others? Or perhaps you were referring to the fact that I mention the Romans stripped context from other practices. Personally I'd see Roman syncretism as a way to try being culturally tolerant, but they really did change a lot of things that changed the context of those things, which seems to be the main problem people have with Eclectics.

My entire point is not that the two are perfect carbon copies of each other, but that people are put down for using the Roman way to justify modern Eclecticism with no real reason for putting those people down, and I still have yet to hear a real explanation of why the comparison doesn't stand. Instead people just keep repeating "there is a difference between Eclecticism and Syncretism," and I simply have yet to understand where this big difference is that makes ancient Syncretism somehow better than modern Eclecticism.

[Sethserpenthus]

I'm not a Roman Pagan nor do I know much about Roman religion or history, but from what I know they really didn't change the cultural context that much. Their conquered people adopted more Roman customs than the Romans did of their conquered people, again I point out the Gauls.
But you really can't adapt or change things without changing the cultural context... in the case of the Romans, as we are using them as the primary example here, it seems that most people (or at least the people we have records from) didn't have some huge problem with it. And yes, they did come up with explanations as to why things were being changed, but so do a lot of modern Eclectics (actually, most of the ones I've met)... whether one chooses to agree with those explanations is up to them.


I don't understand how it still cannot be clear to you. It has been explained explicitly and eloquently numerous times in this thread.
I'm sorry, I think I'm actually being the one who is not clear enough as to what I am talking about here, I admit this subject gets me heated and I can't always portray what I'm thinking into words, but here it goes again: What I really wish to portray isn't that there aren't differences, but that in the practical sense in which we are speaking they aren't as big as people are making them out to be and that those differences do not make comparisons between ancient syncretism and modern eclecticism invalid. This is not about the definition of words, but how one interprets and worships the Gods. I agree with much of what is said about Eclecticism in regards to blatantly taking the Gods out of context without any thought, but that still does not change the fact that people have always done similar things, whether it's on a large scale such as a cultural phenomenon or on a personal level. So my base question is this: Why are the Romans such a horribly awful example to everybody? This is the part that I don't get, whenever they're brought up it turns into some debate over the difference between syncretism and eclecticism, and the only really relevant differences I can ever see are the time and the scale.

[David19]

Perhaps this article on syncretism and eclecticism and what the differences are by Sannion would help people:

http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/syncretism.htm, it's main focus is one syncretism and eclecticism in Hellenismos, but I think it's a cool article that makes good points that can fit into any religion.

[Philosophia]

While it does have points, the biggest flaw the article has is this:


Now, eclecticism is a different creature altogether. Eclecticism in my experience (and I readily accept that a self-identified eclectic may have an altogether different experience and understanding of things) is characterized by its casual and haphazard approach. It is almost as if they are children running through a toy store, wowed by all the pretty, shiny things they see. Each one seems to him the best ever made, and he absolutely must have it - until he comes across the next new toy, and the old one is discarded and completely forgotten. The eclectic rarely spends the time necessary to understand the deeper meaning of things or how they work. At best he has only a casual and superficial knowledge of things - and at worst it is nothing but a fetishizing of names, as if by plastering a label on something you will imbue it with all of the supposed qualities of that name

As an eclectic (and as many have pointed out), this is not eclecticism at all.

[sari0009]

While it does have points, the biggest flaw the article has is this:


Now, eclecticism is a different creature altogether. Eclecticism in my experience (and I readily accept that a self-identified eclectic may have an altogether different experience and understanding of things) is characterized by its casual and haphazard approach. It is almost as if they are children running through a toy store, wowed by all the pretty, shiny things they see. Each one seems to him the best ever made, and he absolutely must have it - until he comes across the next new toy, and the old one is discarded and completely forgotten. The eclectic rarely spends the time necessary to understand the deeper meaning of things or how they work. At best he has only a casual and superficial knowledge of things - and at worst it is nothing but a fetishizing of names, as if by plastering a label on something you will imbue it with all of the supposed qualities of that name

As an eclectic (and as many have pointed out), this is not eclecticism at all.

That is is a prime example of mistaking baggage dumped on the definition for the definition itself. It doesn't mean that some don't practice eclecticism in such a haphazard way. Some do. Still cannot mistake the baggage for the definition though because other eclectics do their path justice and then some.

[Sethserpenthus]

Perhaps this article on syncretism and eclecticism and what the differences are by Sannion would help people:

http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/syncretism.htm, it's main focus is one syncretism and eclecticism in Hellenismos, but I think it's a cool article that makes good points that can fit into any religion.

I must say I really, really like that article, but there are a few things about it that I think are relevant to this discussion.

First, if we are going by what actual self-identified Eclectics do, I rarely think most of them would actually see themselves as haphazardly putting a bunch of stuff together and that's where the offense coming from Eclectics to such talk about how shallow they are comes from. Yes, that attitude exists, and yes, it can suck, but I refuse to define all self-identified Eclectics as being like a bunch of kids looking for the coolest toys. Perhaps they are considered Syncretists if this is not the case. But I'm arguing the actual practices here, not the words used to describe them and so readily used to nullify or support arguments about those practices.

The point is, people seem to be assuming that an Eclectic will automatically be spiritually shallow and fickle with the practices they choose to incorporate into their larger spiritual lifestyle whereas a Reconstructionist/Traditionalist/or in this case Syncretist will have put a great deal of thought into absolutely everything that they do. But that isn't always the case in either respect... there are Reconstructionists out there that aren't exactly spiritually deep and who simply go through the actions, and there are Eclectics who really do put a lot of deep thought into what they do and why they do it. In either case, I don't exactly have a litmus test to carry around to test whether or not somebody is truly devoted, so I choose to just take what they say at face value in that respect. Perhaps Sannion would consider their ways syncretism. But if that's the case, we really have no argument, do we?

And then of course there is the fact that the main point of this thread (from the start, I mean) is not really about Eclecticism and what makes one Eclectic as much as it is about mixing pantheons... the argument is that mixing of pantheons is a natural thing that has happened for pretty much forever. And all semantics aside, if it was good enough for the ancients, why isn't it good enough for us when it does no real harm to anybody else? I mean, I don't mix pantheons, but I can't imagine it making a difference in my own religious experience if other people do. If something looks weird to me, I simply think it's silly and move on with my life rather than berate them for insulting my God... because my God is a God, He doesn't need my defense, not when it comes to people who really do believe themselves devoted to Him. Perhaps when people smear Him and just as a symbol of my own devotion... but smearing my God isn't an exclusively Eclectic thing to do.


That is is a prime example of mistaking baggage dumped on the definition for the definition itself. It doesn't mean that some don't practice eclecticism in such a haphazard way. Some do. Still cannot mistake the baggage for the definition though because other eclectics do their path justice and then some.I think this is actually the same point as mine but put more concisely... darn my wordy writing

[thought_on_a_wind]

There in is the problem we hard polythesists have with eclectics



BUT, most eclectics don't do the research to lay down a new road to circumvent that dead end... they just take something from somewhere else.

Accessorizing with different deities is the height of disrespect and contempt, IMO.

Think of it this way.... would you want some random person coming up to you asking you to do something major for them when you've never met them, you have NO idea who they are and you probably won't ever see them again???

That's what accessorizers do... Ask something of a God/dess that they've never taken the time to acknowledge or ever honor, to learn anything about. And they wonder why things don't get done and their spells don't work.

This is just MY opinion and I know others don't feel that way.

Elise

I'm sorry Elise, I'm not certain that you know just what being eclectic is for certain. For starters it is a broad definition encompassing many different types of beliefs.

As far as deities go, what do they matter anyway? By that I mean... why try to categorize the infinite? I do not claim a deity of a given name, aside from that, it seems that the more someone labels the rest of the universe, the less mystique there is in it. I left the Christian church as a kid because of the actions of other men under the name of a God. I neglect to follow the main paths because of the inherent corruption that is brought to the table by the "hard core" types. You are good, or you're nothing... that's a bunch of BS from my stand point, and with that it could be likened to any of the Judeo faiths. There is an old adage that is often neglected that being "live and let live". And I find it quite an offense (in general) that these simple words cannot be followed.

Every one is different, that being said, there is no way to say that the God's/Goddesses that are invoked are going to be the same thing as any other person's. Why? Different connections to divinity sparked from personal/past life experiences. To narrow ones view too much is to forget to take into account that simple rule. Inversely, widening ones view too much makes one forget about the self. That being said, I'd prefer to go by what my spirit/guides tell me than to go into ceremony. The beings I do worship don't have any name. None. I like it that way because there is more purity in a deity that is more a feeling than a name because, as I said before in more of less words,to me it is more sacred that way.

Names give a category to something, and when you do that, you all of a sudden have something written on paper, and does that truly help things out in the end (look at the history of the world dating back to prehistoric times)? Or did you just create a new deity that is different from the original?

I doubt that anything I say would sway you (nor would I want it to), however, when I feel I'm being attacked, I need to defend myself in some way or form. As far as that short line I dropped off in the end, it was just a poem, that's it. Was not meant to be a part of any kind of "deeper" statement. Why did I even entangle myself in this whole thread from the get go? I dunno, I just did... I felt there might be a reason to.

As far as the "order" of life, which (i don't believe) was addressed earlier in the open, but has all the relevance in the world to this kind of debate. Chaos is the order of life. If chaos = order of life, then, order of life - man made classifications= the true essence of things. Why? I already answered that somewhere up there in this lengthy late reply. That is MY opinion.

Thought

[lil'BuddhistWitch]

this sounds like one huge arguement....:gagged: _whistle_

[thought_on_a_wind]

it really is

[Theres]

i've followed this thread with some vague interest.
what i've seen is much emphasis put on the definition of such terms as 'eclectisism' and 'syncretism', but not much discussion on the actual usage of these terms.

let me first continue by re-posting an old saw by Dion Fortune...


No student will ever make any progress in spiritual development who flits from system to system; first using some New Thought affirmations, then some Yoga breathing exercises and meditation postures, and following these by an attempt at the mystical methods of prayer. Each of these systems has its value, but that value can only be realised if the system is carried out in its entirety. They are the callisthenics of consciousness, and aim at gradually developing the powers of the mind. The value does not lie in the prescribed exercises as ends in themselves, but in the powers that will be developed if they are persevered with. If we intend to take our occult studies seriously and make of them anything more than desultory light reading, we must choose our system and carry it out faithfully until we arrive, if not at its ultimate goal, at any rate at definite practical results and a permanent enhancement of consciousness. After this has been achieved we may, not without advantage, experiment with the methods that have been developed upon other Paths, and build up an eclectic technique and philosophy therefrom; but the student who sets out to be an eclectic before he has made himself an expert will never be anything more than a dabbler."

~ Dion Fortune (The Mystical Qaballah)
(emphasis mine)

so, with this in mind i have to say that true 'eclectisim' is not the real demon here, but rather those lazy individuals who will claim eclectisim as a legitimate path when all they really want is to avoid doing any real study into their subject. and i have to admit that, to me anyway, this is the greater majority of those who claim this title... those who wish to embrace their personal pet theories to the exclusion of all legitimate research.
let's face it, claiming "eclectic" really does give one an easy medium in which to fake it.

but Brightshores and others have made the legitimate point that eclectisism per se is not the real culprit, and it certainly holds true that many recons are quite anal in their summary dismissal of the eclectic path.
however, i think a little leeway must be given to the recon pov, as there are SO many who claim the title under false pretences... most self-proclaimed eclectics are full of shit, preferring to take the easy path as opposed to doing the real work of exploring a path... any path.

so rather than just drawing semantic battle-lines, perhaps the real challenge here is to define (and thereby separate) the true eclectic from the lazy git who doesn't really care and just wants to play 'witch' (which unfortunately, in my experience, is the vast majority).

[Fiamma]

Perhaps this article on syncretism and eclecticism and what the differences are by Sannion would help people:

http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/syncretism.htm, it's main focus is one syncretism and eclecticism in Hellenismos, but I think it's a cool article that makes good points that can fit into any religion.


Sannion rocks.

[~Elise~]

I'm sorry Elise, I'm not certain that you know just what being eclectic is for certain. For starters it is a broad definition encompassing many different types of beliefs.


...major snippage...

As far as the "order" of life, which (i don't believe) was addressed earlier in the open, but has all the relevance in the world to this kind of debate. Chaos is the order of life. If chaos = order of life, then, order of life - man made classifications= the true essence of things. Why? I already answered that somewhere up there in this lengthy late reply. That is MY opinion.

Thought

I know EXACTLY what an eclectic is in defination--but very rarely find it in action. (I know that there are many on this board, and in this thread, who represent what it SHOULD be--but there are also those who aren't)

I don't feel that giving something a name limits it. I, too, in the beginnings of my Path to who I am now, honored a Nameless Goddess. I now have a name for Her, and having met Her and seen through Her eyes this awesome Universe, know that giving Her a name doesn't limit Her.

While I feel chaos is important to the process of the Universe-I don't think it is the order of life... so there we will differ. Hakim Bey has some interesting thoughts on this--but I find those aren't my views, overall, on the Universe.

Elise

[Twinkle]

As a Recon...I do have a specific definition of what a "true" Eclectic is...I've stated it a few times in this thread. That being said...I would like to point out that I have no issues with Eclecticism. We do not choose which Gods call to us.

I just want lazy people to quit hiding under the term. It ruins it for all those Eclectics that worship with piety and respect.

Just saying.

[Hunger]

I have never encountered this problem of mixing pantheons, my God is a composite deity to begin with, a deity that is one God with many names in many pantheons, sometimes seen as divided into several different gods within a specific pantheon. So "mixing" gods has never been a sticking point with me. However to truly understand
God you must understand in total the setting in which it is viewed, so I seek to fully understand every face of God, no matter the pantheon, often spending seasons and years on each respective face.

It is the same in my approach to the methods of coming into contact with God. Many cultures have used many different methods to commune with my God, so I learn these until I have mastered them, one at a time. Then I bring the different methods into concert with one another. It isn't a situation of flitting, but rather systematically training in each method until mastery is achieved. It is long, and hard, but since when has a divine mandate ever been easy to fulfill?

[Twinkle]

Well...you seem to be a soft polytheist...which is a different mindset from a hard polytheist.

In the end how we view deity is pretty much a personal choice.

[~Elise~]

I just want lazy people to quit hiding under the term. It ruins it for all those Eclectics that worship with piety and respect.

Just saying.

QFT

[Sharpchick]

Just curious. . .for those who know the definition of eclectic, do you also define pagan for everyone else?

[Twinkle]

Ha! I would define a pagan as anyone not worshiping the Abrahamic god. It's as close as we're going to get to a decent definition.

Anything else I can help you with?:smileroll

[Brigid Rowan]

Well...here is MY issue, and Im very willing to hear peoples thoughts on it all:

I dont know WHAT I am. I have had contact, very definite contact, with diety from 2 different groups. Im very new, so I dont consider any path as MINE yet, I just have not felt called to a specific path yet. I have no idea, using "proper" terminology, what that makes me.

I dont think Im lazy....(I hope not, anyway). I didnt go out -looking- to be pagan, it called me, and in a "hey, you, we are here, pay attention" kind of way. Ive read and read and read more on it all. Holidays, dieties, points of view of various paths, magic, kabballah, mysticism, tarot...Im trying very hard to learn. But nothing has popped up and been "My Path" yet. Maybe I dont have a pre-made path, maybe Im solitary and weird. I dont know yet.

Right now, I think I am an eclectic-gatherer...taking and gleaning stuff that seems to resonate, in the hopes of one day distilling it and coming up with something I can name...but maybe that wont happen. No one but my Dieties know.

[Twinkle]

I don't think you have to have a path. Sometimes you stumble upon one (like I did) and sometimes you don't.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Seeker...and I also don't think there's anything wrong with admitting it. I'd rather have you say what you are then claim to be something that you are not.

Enjoy the journey.

[~Elise~]

Just curious. . .for those who know the definition of eclectic, do you also define pagan for everyone else?

yup

[thought_on_a_wind]

:( The fact that there is a true definition of a word that cannot be found in a dictionary, and the fact that most obviously have no idea what that real life definition is (most seem to acquaint eclecticism with "slackers" and "irresponsible children"... yet I have seen more irresponsibility in people that know better and choose to ignore common sense[not talking "eclectics" here], than I ever have an inherently ignorant, or lazy person [ at least they truly don't know the damage they inflict by waving fingers at people who are different])...
I am sorry that I cannot find myself going about making myself a blind slave to a history that has been extremely barbaric before "Christendom" and afterwards... call me lazy if you will, call my beliefs dilluted, or idiotic, cut my rank, kick me out, stone me to death because I don't worship every solictice, never participate in a circle, or trust other peoples opinions... these are not new terms to this person... however, I am WELL along my path, and I have realized different things than others, does that incur that I am younger than most?
I hope others don't believe that... no, I'm not talking of something as trivial as birth cycles here... I'm talking AGE... As I bring this up, I also have to leave the disclaimer that I do not feel that I am advanced in age, however, I know that I've visited other lives... had relapses shrinks couldn't classify as schizophrenia (shrinks never classified me as schizophrenic... even though they tried), or repressed memories, never done drugs, and have a sense of curiosity that does more positive things than kill a cat.... long and the short of it, and the reason I embrace the "Road/River"... Is because I like to accept that other people have different roads to travel, thus different lessons to obtain, that being the case, it does offend me a little when others try to reddress me, or make me out as an infant... I've seen many a horrendous attrocity in this life, and witnessed many a divine moment spawned by the chaos that is this existence; let alone all the other lives that I've lived, died, or seen my family die before my eyes, due to the belief, or non-belief of a god of a specific name.
It gets under my skin, and if that is the goal sent forth by the accusers, to talk other people down as children, then those parties are no better than the Catholic church present day, or in the days of the Inquisition. If not that goal, then I appologize; however, I do grow tired of other people holding thier ideals above others... Have I done it? Yes, although I try to avoid such things, either way, being an animal of paradox, I cannot say that I have not done it (of course, who really isn't paradoxical?) however, one cannot blame one "social caste" for all the aches and woes that are faced by the masses of Paganism... there are wreckless people of all faiths, denominations and creeds who do nothing but the bare minimum that is required to get along, that is how zealots are spawned... don't believe me? Go introvert for a tad and just listen to the noise around you.

[Theres]

great, now that the entire thread has been
expanded out beyond readability it'll probably die.

ah well, i can't imagine what more there is
to be said on the topic anyway, but i certainly
won't be reading anymore now.

[Agaliha]

great, now that the entire thread has been
expanded out beyond readability it'll probably die.
ah well, i can't imagine what more there is
to be said on the topic anyway, but i certainly
won't be reading anymore now.

I think I know why :2G:
I'll get an Admin to look into it!
Don't worry.

[~Belladonna~]

Well here's my 2p worth. Some people are saying you shouldn't mix Pantheons, for whatever reason, but lets just throw a spanner in the works for a second... what if different Deities from different Pantheons call you??? What then? You just ignore that certain Deity? I know when the Gods and Goddesses come calling I always reply.

Afterall, more often than not, it's the Gods and Goddesses who pick us to work with. Who am I to say no to them!

Just a though :)

Enlightenment

[~Elise~]

that's been covered at the beginning of this thread.

[Sharpchick]

Enlightenment, I guess that means it won't be discussed again.

I must have missed that rule. . . only one post per thought, please.:smash:

[Lunacie]

Well here's my 2p worth. Some people are saying you shouldn't mix Pantheons, for whatever reason, but lets just throw a spanner in the works for a second... what if different Deities from different Pantheons call you??? What then? You just ignore that certain Deity? I know when the Gods and Goddesses come calling I always reply.

Afterall, more often than not, it's the Gods and Goddesses who pick us to work with. Who am I to say no to them!

Just a though :)

Enlightenment


that's been covered at the beginning of this thread.

Sometimes you need to go back to the beginning, especially when there has been quite a bit of thread-wander.

I was reading something from Mike Nichols last night where he compared mixing pantheons to setting up a library using Early American bookshelves, an antique Edwardian writing desk, Victorian chairs, modern chrome and glass lighting fixtures. Sure, you have all the elements of a library, but nothing fits aesthetically, according to Mike.

I think he's close to describing the mixing of pantheons in Eclectic Paganism/Wicca, and it works to describe mixing some pantheons. But other pantheons mix about as well as having a refrigerator, a bathtub, a chest of drawers, and a velvet sofa in the same room. These are all good things to have in a home, but they each have their own place and don't really mix well together.

Certainly you may worship more than one god/dess from entirely different pantheons, but not "in the same room". One night you may honor a dark Hindi goddess, and the next morning rise and honor an Egyptian sun god, just not at the same time.


As far as what others do or call themselves... well, others can do really stupid stuff in their worship and it doesn't affect the way I worship or my own relationship with the gods in any way. It doesn't "ruin" anything for me.

[~Belladonna~]

Enlightenment, I guess that means it won't be discussed again.

I must have missed that rule. . . only one post per thought, please.:smash:

:gagged::T

[~Belladonna~]

Sometimes you need to go back to the beginning, especially when there has been quite a bit of thread-wander.

I was reading something from Mike Nichols last night where he compared mixing pantheons to setting up a library using Early American bookshelves, an antique Edwardian writing desk, Victorian chairs, modern chrome and glass lighting fixtures. Sure, you have all the elements of a library, but nothing fits aesthetically, according to Mike.

I think he's close to describing the mixing of pantheons in Eclectic Paganism/Wicca, and it works to describe mixing some pantheons. But other pantheons mix about as well as having a refrigerator, a bathtub, a chest of drawers, and a velvet sofa in the same room. These are all good things to have in a home, but they each have their own place and don't really mix well together.

Certainly you may worship more than one god/dess from entirely different pantheons, but not "in the same room". One night you may honor a dark Hindi goddess, and the next morning rise and honor an Egyptian sun god, just not at the same time.


As far as what others do or call themselves... well, others can do really stupid stuff in their worship and it doesn't affect the way I worship or my own relationship with the gods in any way. It doesn't "ruin" anything for me.

I understand, though I'm still on a dial-up connection and to flick through so many pages takes sooooooooooooooooo long, hence why I jummped the que lol.

I totally agree re not worshiping different Pantheon Gods/Goddesses in the same room in one ritual or spell casting or whatever, but to mix on different days/workings is fine, IMO.

Good Points btw :)

[~Elise~]

Enlightenment, I guess that means it won't be discussed again.

I must have missed that rule. . . only one post per thought, please.:smash:

No, that doesn't mean that... but her EXACT question was covered in the beginning of the thread. If the thread had been read...

Please don't put words in my mouth... I have enough trouble with the ones that are there already!!! :spinnysmi_whistle_

There are times reading the whole thing is redundant, and I realize she said she's on dialup--even reading the first couple of pages would have covered that.

But the Search function is our friend and I wish more people would use it...that is in NO WAY directed at any one person in particular... just an overall observation.

Elise

[ravenmyst]

perhaps I am a backwards person, but this is my method, I love research, I love absorbing all the info I can find, I dont do ritual in any formal sense and for the longest time considered god/goddess in more intelectual ways, till one chose to reach me, I dont"work with her" persay, She enlightens me, pushes me, smacks my hand when I fail to get it. I honor her how she indicated she likes, I had to delve into my research to recognize her. I do not deal with the whole pantheon, although I respect them. I have a similar but less constant relationship with another from an unrelated pantheon who requested my attention. there has not been a conflict, although that may be due to my not beseeching them, rather me providing actions they request, usually for my own good in the end, though the paths are rocky. and I try to honor a buddhist life philosophy as it gives me peace. so i labelled me an eclectic as I fit no where, but I never picked and chose, but honor those who choose me. so in the original question I feel I can relate and dont see a problem with a mix, but do see issue with just claiming deities willynilly, with no knowledge, proper intent, etc..

[The Amityville Ghost]

I've stated earlier that my primary deity, the only one that I religiously worship, is Melek Ta'us. But I have also had some strong experiences with Lilith, Inanna and Anubis. I continue to work with them from time to time, but more on a "just friends" basis.

I believe that all the gods and goddesses of humankind are really just different masks worn by the archangels of Yezidi theology. I believe that these archangels are above and beyond all human cultural constructs, and that they belong to all people and all cultures. They also find ways of manifesting themselves under different names. As an example, I believe the archangel that answers to the name "Inanna" also answers to the names "Ashtoreth," "Astarte," "Asherah" and "Astaroth." I suppose this makes me a bit of a soft polytheist, which will no doubt bother some of the people who read this post. But this is not inconsistent with Yezidi theology, considering that some Yezidis identify Melek Ta'us with Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism and the angel Michael in Christianity.

So in light of this, I think it's perfectly acceptable if someone is, for instance, simultaneously drawn to the archangel of love, fertility and war in a Sumerian context (e.g., Inanna), and to the archangel of travel, communication, and alchemy in a Roman context (e.g., Mercury). We must each follow our own paths to Truth with wisdom and intellectual honesty.

[~Elise~]

I love Melek Ta'us. He has his own altar complete with some peacock feathers, a peacock stone, peacock statue, you get the idea... And I have an awesome pic of him on the wall behind the altar.

In fact, my cat is named, sort of, after Him. My cat is solid black--so his name is Melek Noir.

Elise

[The Amityville Ghost]

I love Melek Ta'us. He has his own altar complete with some peacock feathers, a peacock stone, peacock statue, you get the idea... And I have an awesome pic of him on the wall behind the altar.

In fact, my cat is named, sort of, after Him. My cat is solid black--so his name is Melek Noir.

Elise

That's awesome! I'm glad to hear the Peacock King has another admirer on this board. :)

[FaeSpirit39]

WOW! Many People, Many Thoughts ... LOTS to read.

Personally, I can't make a call on it yet. While I grew up LOVING all things Greek and as well as Egyptian later on, I have started to learn more about all the pantheons and I appreciate them all. However in the last few years, more of the Hindu influences have shown themselves to me as I learned more thru an old friend who grew up in the middle east and India. While I love Celtic lore as well, it's presence has started to make more known to me as Istart learning more about my specific path. What is my path, I have no clue, but with what I do know I have been sent on a journey with the Green Path, as I have always been a nature nut, lover of all animals and have very strong empathic abilities.

I am not sure where exactly I am going but the more I read about certain things in Green Witchcraft and it's lore as well as Elemantals and the land of Faery, the more I am feeling connected. I still have a ways to go and I know the Goddess and God are with me always, but they haven't necessairly shown themselves in a particular aspect yet.

Who knows, I may end up with an aspect from two very different pantheons. No matter what, I will accept them in whatever form They choose to come to me in.