|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:06 pm
so,i'm a bit confused on the concept of patrons..alittle enlightenment here? redface
i think i know who my patron is,but i'm like,not completely sure.
like,i have a huge obsession with sailor moon,and that lead to an obsession with the moon,which lead to my favorite goddess being selene. like,i have had a thing for selene for years,but i don't really know if all this was her way of like,choosing me,or something? or maybe it's just...i don't know! i feel really close to selene and everything,i'm not sure though if it means she is my patron,or if i even have one..?
help?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:26 pm
From what I understand, the patron chooses you.
She might just be your favorite goddess. Which is okay too.
Not everyone has a patron. ._. Like me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:21 pm
kage no neko From what I understand, the patron chooses you. She might just be your favorite goddess. Which is okay too. Not everyone has a patron. ._. Like me. I think this is good advice. There are lots of gods and goddesses I like, but that doesn't make them my patrons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:57 am
I really dislike the idea that everyone -needs- or -must find- a patron. I like the idea that people -choose- their patron(s) even less.
Do you really need a patron deity?
I say No. Some people just aren't the right kind to take up that sort of service.
Unfortunetely, modern neo-paganism has a lot of emphasis on personal patron deities, the same as there is pressure for people to know their 'totem'. A lot of that crap comes from new-age thinking that's trickled down and into a lot of different paths: it's all about Self, it's all about someone's inner journey, it's all about ME. They expect their patrons will nurture, coddle, protect, shield, and uplift them, somehow. It's all talk of empowerment and sunshine and glitter and elfen farts.
But patron deities are not at all a 'ME' thing. It's about 'THEM'. You become Their child, Their servant, Their priesthood, and in some cases Their lover. They call you to Their service - something that can be difficult, frustrating, exhausting, and ultimately rewarding, if one understands fully what's being asked. They will let you fail. They might sometimes leave you in the dark. They will kick your a**. They will expect you to look after yourself. Life is pain - and anyone who'll tell you otherwise is selling you something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:06 am
Morg speaks aright. You don't need a patron. If a god seeks that service from you, fine, but if you're not pulled into that then don't worry about it. It's not a requirement.
I am close to Oðinn but he is not my patron nor my fulltrui.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:01 am
ahh,thanks guys.
i like asking questions over here more than googling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:12 am
Never heared of patrons or anything before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:38 am
dramallama Sanguina Cruenta Morg speaks aright. You don't need a patron. If a god seeks that service from you, fine, but if you're not pulled into that then don't worry about it. It's not a requirement. I am close to Oðinn but he is not my patron nor my fulltrui. Yeah; I think it's definitely about the draw you feel to a certain deity, which is probably them tying a little cosmic string to your finger and pulling on it. It might happen, but then it might not. It's not required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distinct Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:42 am
Morgandria A lot of that crap comes from new-age thinking that's trickled down and into a lot of different paths: it's all about Self, it's all about someone's inner journey, it's all about ME. They expect their patrons will nurture, coddle, protect, shield, and uplift them, somehow. It's all talk of empowerment and sunshine and glitter and elfen farts. I blame the 80's and that whole yuppie attitude. They are the ones who started the whole trend of ME first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:58 pm
Dianda Panda Never heared of patrons or anything before. I think the Romans were into it- kind of like Patron Saints and something got mistranslated along the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:48 pm
With some of the s**t I've read, it almost makes it out to be that with having a patron, you have a personal servant of a god who's there to please you. And I think that sets people up to get hurt when they find out otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:55 am
Esiris Dianda Panda Never heared of patrons or anything before. I think the Romans were into it- kind of like Patron Saints and something got mistranslated along the way. Ooh, like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:27 am
Esiris Dianda Panda Never heared of patrons or anything before. I think the Romans were into it- kind of like Patron Saints and something got mistranslated along the way. Well, certainly locations in the Greco-Roman world had patrons - city-states or towns or even just geography that was said to be under the patronage of particular deities. Individual Romans, however, didn't really believe in the concept of having personal patron deities. The Romans in general believed that the Gods were unknowable - numen, faceless, sexless, present in locations and objects - and were often propiated as that. It's why you had deities for the household like the Lares and Penates. Certain gods may have favoured or smiled upon certain people, and people had their favorites to worship - but that's not the same as having a patron, really. It gets confusing, in that the true Roman gods were all numina, but they also acquired the Greek gods and added them into the mix. It was a sign of culture and sophistication to have Hellenized deities, but at the same time they were sort of 'tacked-on'. Trivia: numen is the origin of the modern english word numinous, which indicates the presence or power of a deity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:56 am
Morgandria Well, certainly locations in the Greco-Roman world had patrons - city-states or towns or even just geography that was said to be under the patronage of particular deities. Individual Romans, however, didn't really believe in the concept of having personal patron deities. The Romans in general believed that the Gods were unknowable - numen, faceless, sexless, present in locations and objects - and were often propiated as that. It's why you had deities for the household like the Lares and Penates. Certain gods may have favoured or smiled upon certain people, and people had their favorites to worship - but that's not the same as having a patron, really. It gets confusing, in that the true Roman gods were all numina, but they also acquired the Greek gods and added them into the mix. It was a sign of culture and sophistication to have Hellenized deities, but at the same time they were sort of 'tacked-on'. Trivia: numen is the origin of the modern english word numinous, which indicates the presence or power of a deity. I thought some jobs had patrons too- and that might be where the misunderstanding came from. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:11 pm
You mean like Hephaestos, patron of workmen, or similar? And Hermes, god of thieves.
The other things about Greek and Roman deities is that in the lore, they had "favourites". Odysseus, favourite of Athena. So the god took an active interest in them. Usually they had another god that really disliked them, though, and that god who liked them tended to be related to them. I'm unsure how, if at all, this translated into real life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
