'True Source'/Creator

[Darkhawk]

My question is: do we see this idea - that the 'creator' is the 'true source' and is what should be worshiped - in ancient Paganisms?  Do we see it it modern day Paganisms?  I've never read anything remotely close to that viewpoint except from Christian writers, so I'm interested if we see that approach in ancient or modern Paganism?  (I guess you could say we do since this friend identifies as Pagan...)

 
I've never personally seen the use in a transcendent deity.  If there is a distant "true source" that is differentiated from the herenow it has chosen to make itself irrelevant in practical terms.

[Maps]

Many Trad Wiccans will tell you that, if one just wants the religion part, and doesn't want to join the priestly order (i.e., Wicca), the word for that is Pagan - I find this to be not-very-useful, and rather offensive, most of the time, because there are so many pagan religions that have no relationship at all to Wicca that are erased or subsumed by it, but it seems relevant here.

Jumping in for just a moment to say THIS.

THIS THIS THIS.

When people say labels and categories are useless, I bristle-- they're useless to the dominant culture, sure, but then all the smaller subsets and groups wind up as nameless casualties in the process.

Anyways, sorry for the tangent.

[SunflowerP]

I have tried really hard not to use the term fluffy bunny, but (the Gods are testing me) I've thought that about him and the people 'defending' him. And I agree with the point I bolded.  I use trad Wicca and neoWicca to differentiate between them.

You could go with "wilful ignorance" (which is pretty much what "fluffy bunny" means here on TC) - it's still prone to being taken as "OMG, I've been insulted!!" but at least has the advantage of being precisely descriptive rather than simply pejorative.

And I would think it was his being respectful and knowledgeable about trad Wiccans...except when I pointed out that (some) people might not even consider him Wiccan because he was never initiated, his response was, 'Initiation is just a way of keeping people from speaking to God and controlling them.'

Aha.  In that case, "Pagan in practice, Wiccan in faith," probably means, "My stuff is totally exactly like Trad Wicca, I'm sure it is, but those FMPPH* Trad Wiccans refused to acknowledge me!"

*Fascist Meanie Poo-Poo Head.

Sunflower

[SkySamuelle]

This may be a little complicated, so please bear with me.

I was having a 'discussion' on FB in response to one of my friend's posts.  Basically, he was musing on whether Wiccans worship the 'creator' or the 'creation'.  He declared that worshiping the 'creation' is a deviation from the 'true source' - the creator. He also talked a bit about being 'Pagan in practice' but 'Wiccan in faith', which (from what I understand) doesn't really make sense...because (again, from what I understand, please someone correct me if I am getting this wrong) Wicca is orthopraxic - it's something you do.  That's why people in a Wiccan coven can have different beliefs about the nature of the gods but still work in the same coven.  (The orthopraxy vs orthodoxy is more a minor questions. I've read pretty much everywhere that most Paganisms are about practice, not belief.)

My question is: do we see this idea - that the 'creator' is the 'true source' and is what should be worshiped - in ancient Paganisms?  Do we see it it modern day Paganisms?  I've never read anything remotely close to that viewpoint except from Christian writers, so I'm interested if we see that approach in ancient or modern Paganism?  (I guess you could say we do since this friend identifies as Pagan...)

 
Personally, I am not even sure I believe in 'Creation' per se as much I believe the universe is a play of action and consequence -hence a manifestation of gods rathen that their deliberate handywork.

Also, as pagan gods are both immanent and trascendent in the material world, they are both the creation and the creator, if we have to put it in those terms.