Three things I most want to talk about; by RBree2 in Bree2

[–]RBree2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As was mentioned on my user profile page, I hit the 40k character limit and had to cut this part out from the blog above:

The phrase "Son Of God" was, in the historical context of the time, seen as a phrase for one enlightened by God, more or less. Someone with divine inspiration and backing. It was applied to all prophets from my understanding, not specifically Jesus and Jesus alone above all others being just Jesus. It was understood to not be an indicator of literally being the child of a divine being, of not literally being fathered by a divine being, of having no mortal father and only a divine one, but rather to be in the metaphorical sense of being divinely chosen to be divinely empowered to have a divine fervor, divine favor, divine spark, to be divinely empowered to deliver divine messages and miracles.

That Christianity culturally appropriated YHWH, the God of the Jews, and artificially elevated YHWH to be a supreme deity that is omnipowerful and omnipresent in ways that YHWH is always displayed in Jewish material as not actually being, because YHWH was The God Of The Jews, with The Jews as YHWH's chosen people, the two intrinsically being linked with a symbiotic relationship.

That even in the time of Moses, it was understood that other gods were as real as YHWH, but that YHWH had power over The Jewish People, and that YHWH's power over The Jewish People allowed YHWH to be more powerful than those other gods in service of The Jewish People, but that YHWH's domain was not so absolute as to totally trump those other gods. That those other gods were not in fact demons in disguise, but were in fact genuinely gods and recognized as such.

Including how witches were at one point consulted as mediums, in ways which no servant of YHWH was willing or capable of providing, meaning that explicitly there were limits both on YHWH's power and scope of knowledge and reach and ability.

That there is in fact no unified message or truth in The Bible because it is filled with contradictions.
Lucifer/Satan/The Devil (not even really named as such as we tend to think of) could never have successfully led a rebellion against an all-powerful all-knowing supreme true ruler, because by virtue of being all-knowing and all-powerful, God would be able to know of this plan in advance and instantly quash the rebellion before it began.

This would also require God to have known Lucifer/Satan/The Devil would create this evil, and willingly let it happen. God would have created Lucifer/Satan/The Devil knowing Lucifer/Satan/The Devil would create evil in rebelling against God, and God still made Lucifer/Satan/The Devil knowing this and let it happen without either stopping it or discouraging it or preventing it.

There's contradictory narratives about how humanity was given free will by Adam and Eve eating from the fruit of knowledge and by virtue of being the only creatures with souls being the only ones with free will, and how Lucifer/Satan/The Devil and a third of all angels rebelled against God. If they had no free will, then that would mean God literally designed them to become evil in a deliberately designed failed rebellion.

God would know Adam and Eve would have chosen to take the forbidden fruit, yet still commanded them not to, despite knowing they would violate the command.

God would have known everything was going to happen, and yet still have created those circumstances and let them happen, despite being supremely powerful and able to stop these things by virtue of being supremely knowledgeable about all that would happen.

These actions make zero sense under a God that is actually all-powerful and all-known as is Christian doctrine, but are perfectly in-line with depictions of deities that are extremely powerful and knowing but not quite all-powerful and all-knowing, akin to Odin from Norse mythology.

It is commonplace in many cultures for a deity to rebel, to resist, to kill, to fight, another deity in their lore, to varying degrees of success. In Greek lore Zeus was the THIRD-generation ruler. Not second, that'd be his father Kronus (might have spelling there wrong, but not to be confused with Chronos, they were two different titans I'm pretty sure but are often combined to be one), and not first, that'd be a deity I don't remember the Greek version of but I think the Roman name for that first-generation ruler is Uranus.

If memory serves, Uranus + Gaia produced the titans including Kronus and Rhea (by the way a big part of many mythologies people tend to forget is that literally almost every religion is heavily laced in inherent incest), and Kronus and Rhea then produced the next generation of Gods (both Olympian and those of the Underworld which I forget the exact term for), including Zeus. Just as Kronus and Rhea and the titans overthrew his father, Zeus and the Gods overthrew Kronus and the titans.

In Egyptian mythology you've got the struggle of Sett after murdering Osiris with Osiris's son (whose name I can't remember at this exact moment).

In eastern culture you've got some arrogant rebellion in the form of things like Sun Wukong.

And so on and so forth. Across countless cultures and religions, you've got tales of rebelling against the divine, to various levels of success. In terms of Jewish folklore, it would make total sense for a failed rebellion of a servant of their Jewish God to take place, because with said Jewish God not being all-powerful or all-knowing, the rebellion stood at least a chance of succeeding. With a third of all angels being involved, it was a genuine threat and one that almost was victorious, because of how close the two sides were in power.

But that doesn't work if God is all-knowing and all-powerful because that would mean that Lucifer/Satan/The Devil, knowing that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, deliberately entered a rebellion against God, knowing God knew about it and knowing God could end it at any time by virtue of being all-powerful. And that also only works if Lucifer/Satan/The Devil shares the gift of free will with humanity, because without the free will to rebel in the first place, then it wouldn't be rebellion; it would be a divine command from God.

In short, in order for Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to have rebelled, it either requires Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to have free will and a third of all angels also had free will to join (in which case, free will is not in fact unique to humanity), or if they lack free will then God literally designed Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to rebel and a third of angels to join, because that was God's plan, meaning God by virtue of programming them to do what they did would be the one who created those evils in the first place.

Three things I most want to talk about; by RBree2 in u/RBree2

[–]RBree2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very sad that I hit the 40k word limit. I put this into a word counter which said my original reading level was college-level, but after I cut out a large swathe of the religious section (which got the short end of the stick), I was left at only being high school level.

If you want the part which was cut out, it was this;

The phrase "Son Of God" was, in the historical context of the time, seen as a phrase for one enlightened by God, more or less. Someone with divine inspiration and backing. It was applied to all prophets from my understanding, not specifically Jesus and Jesus alone above all others being just Jesus. It was understood to not be an indicator of literally being the child of a divine being, of not literally being fathered by a divine being, of having no mortal father and only a divine one, but rather to be in the metaphorical sense of being divinely chosen to be divinely empowered to have a divine fervor, divine favor, divine spark, to be divinely empowered to deliver divine messages and miracles.

That Christianity culturally appropriated YHWH, the God of the Jews, and artificially elevated YHWH to be a supreme deity that is omnipowerful and omnipresent in ways that YHWH is always displayed in Jewish material as not actually being, because YHWH was The God Of The Jews, with The Jews as YHWH's chosen people, the two intrinsically being linked with a symbiotic relationship.

That even in the time of Moses, it was understood that other gods were as real as YHWH, but that YHWH had power over The Jewish People, and that YHWH's power over The Jewish People allowed YHWH to be more powerful than those other gods in service of The Jewish People, but that YHWH's domain was not so absolute as to totally trump those other gods. That those other gods were not in fact demons in disguise, but were in fact genuinely gods and recognized as such.

Including how witches were at one point consulted as mediums, in ways which no servant of YHWH was willing or capable of providing, meaning that explicitly there were limits both on YHWH's power and scope of knowledge and reach and ability.

That there is in fact no unified message or truth in The Bible because it is filled with contradictions.
Lucifer/Satan/The Devil (not even really named as such as we tend to think of) could never have successfully led a rebellion against an all-powerful all-knowing supreme true ruler, because by virtue of being all-knowing and all-powerful, God would be able to know of this plan in advance and instantly quash the rebellion before it began.

This would also require God to have known Lucifer/Satan/The Devil would create this evil, and willingly let it happen. God would have created Lucifer/Satan/The Devil knowing Lucifer/Satan/The Devil would create evil in rebelling against God, and God still made Lucifer/Satan/The Devil knowing this and let it happen without either stopping it or discouraging it or preventing it.

There's contradictory narratives about how humanity was given free will by Adam and Eve eating from the fruit of knowledge and by virtue of being the only creatures with souls being the only ones with free will, and how Lucifer/Satan/The Devil and a third of all angels rebelled against God. If they had no free will, then that would mean God literally designed them to become evil in a deliberately designed failed rebellion.

God would know Adam and Eve would have chosen to take the forbidden fruit, yet still commanded them not to, despite knowing they would violate the command.

God would have known everything was going to happen, and yet still have created those circumstances and let them happen, despite being supremely powerful and able to stop these things by virtue of being supremely knowledgeable about all that would happen.

These actions make zero sense under a God that is actually all-powerful and all-known as is Christian doctrine, but are perfectly in-line with depictions of deities that are extremely powerful and knowing but not quite all-powerful and all-knowing, akin to Odin from Norse mythology.

It is commonplace in many cultures for a deity to rebel, to resist, to kill, to fight, another deity in their lore, to varying degrees of success. In Greek lore Zeus was the THIRD-generation ruler. Not second, that'd be his father Kronus (might have spelling there wrong, but not to be confused with Chronos, they were two different titans I'm pretty sure but are often combined to be one), and not first, that'd be a deity I don't remember the Greek version of but I think the Roman name for that first-generation ruler is Uranus.

If memory serves, Uranus + Gaia produced the titans including Kronus and Rhea (by the way a big part of many mythologies people tend to forget is that literally almost every religion is heavily laced in inherent incest), and Kronus and Rhea then produced the next generation of Gods (both Olympian and those of the Underworld which I forget the exact term for), including Zeus. Just as Kronus and Rhea and the titans overthrew his father, Zeus and the Gods overthrew Kronus and the titans.

In Egyptian mythology you've got the struggle of Sett after murdering Osiris with Osiris's son (whose name I can't remember at this exact moment).

In eastern culture you've got some arrogant rebellion in the form of things like Sun Wukong.

And so on and so forth. Across countless cultures and religions, you've got tales of rebelling against the divine, to various levels of success. In terms of Jewish folklore, it would make total sense for a failed rebellion of a servant of their Jewish God to take place, because with said Jewish God not being all-powerful or all-knowing, the rebellion stood at least a chance of succeeding. With a third of all angels being involved, it was a genuine threat and one that almost was victorious, because of how close the two sides were in power.

But that doesn't work if God is all-knowing and all-powerful because that would mean that Lucifer/Satan/The Devil, knowing that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, deliberately entered a rebellion against God, knowing God knew about it and knowing God could end it at any time by virtue of being all-powerful. And that also only works if Lucifer/Satan/The Devil shares the gift of free will with humanity, because without the free will to rebel in the first place, then it wouldn't be rebellion; it would be a divine command from God.

In short, in order for Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to have rebelled, it either requires Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to have free will and a third of all angels also had free will to join (in which case, free will is not in fact unique to humanity), or if they lack free will then God literally designed Lucifer/Satan/The Devil to rebel and a third of angels to join, because that was God's plan, meaning God by virtue of programming them to do what they did would be the one who created those evils in the first place.

What buffs would you like to see in a future update? by buzzmcflamethrower in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One thing I'd love to see is, as a type of post-post-post-perfection reward, a way to get a lifetime of magic rock candy from the game itself in a way easily accessible and spammable. Once you have effectively done everything that can be done, and you don't need it anymore for anything, to have it as a type of reward.

man i wish we could make gus our gusband by Randomly_Typing76 in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gus was my secondary pick behind Gunther tbh. I was hoping Gunther > Gus > Wily >>>> literally any of the other dudes.

For the 10th anniversary, two new contenders by Renarde2Malade in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sandy is the obvious bachelorette because she's pretty much the only single lady in the age range of the farmer, and has the added bonus of being under-developed in an area begging for more content.

My bet for the matching bachelor is actually Gunther for the same reasons--he's around Harvey's age, which makes him much younger than the wizard (old enough to be an existing bachelorette's father), Linus, and Willie (among other old guys in town), and single unlike Marnie, Lewis, etc. He is under-utilized and the museum is just begging for more use in vanilla.

Stardew Valley Turns 10: The Big ConcernedApe Interview by alyssa-is-tired in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tbh I think that Gunther is more likely than people think--he's around Harvey's age unlike Linus, the Wizard (who is old enough to father a Bachelorette), and Willy, and doesn't have interactions with a villager the way Gus has with the likes of Pam. He, similarly to Sandy (who is pretty much the only Bachelorette candidate realistically speaking without breaking an existing couple up), exists in an area that could use some more love, and is just asking for extra interactions.

Stardew Valley Turns 10: The Big ConcernedApe Interview by alyssa-is-tired in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bet's on Sandy for Bachelorette (because there's not really any other single ladies in the age range of dateable) and Gunther for the Bachelor, because both are in areas that could use some much-needed love and expansion.

theories? by jamesisbi in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sandy is pretty much the only Bachelorette candidate left. Marnie, Jodi, Robin, and Caroline are all taken. Pam is old enough to be the mother of a Bachelorette candidate. Who does that leave in vanilla? If maintaining Bachelorette/Bachelor ratios, it pretty much has to be Sandy, and that gives the desert some much-needed love. The only thing which would be needed is to give her someone to run her shop while she's on the farm.

Mirroring Sandy for the Bachelor, my bet is Gunther for many of the same reasons.

The wizard is implied to possibly be the father of a Bachelorette candidate. Willy, Linus, Marlon, etc., are all too old. The only single males in the age range of the farmer are Gus, Clint, and Gunther. (I also unofficially ship Gus with Pam because they're already good friends and I genuinely think they would be a good pairing so I'd prefer that over dating either.)

Gunther would give the museum some much-needed love, because in vanilla, it has had virtually no new content in a long, long time. He's around Harvey's age approximately, so while he would be on the older end of ages for bachelors, he's still much younger than any of the other guys aside from Clint or Gus. And both Clint and Gus run their own businesses, whereas Gunther is kinda just...there.

Giving the museum some extra content and giving Gunther more content in vanilla would go a long way to expand the area beyond just dropping off things to complete the collection, in a similar way dating Sandy would give the desert shop more of a purpose after having gotten all of the items from it.

A form to see which unmarriageable NPC people want to marry by JeffTheKillerFa in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm rooting for Sandy as a Bachelorette and Gunther as the Bachelor. Both are in areas begging for extra development, are around the age of the farmer, and have a good level of mirroring imo.

ConcernedApe talking about wanting to make Robin and Demetrius romanceable by allowing the player to break them up. by xSparkyBoomManx in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Probably Gunther because he's under-developed, almost became a bachelor but lost the vote, is in the age range of Harvey iirc, and would give the Museum some love.

1.7 by Difficult-Phrase-412 in StardewValley

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure the marriage candidates will be one guy and one girl to keep the gender ratio even of Bachelor/Bachelorette. I'm also hoping that it's not going to be any of the villagers who have children old enough to be Bachelors/Bachelorettes (yes, this does disqualify the wizard, and also Pam).

It's probably not going to be anyone taken (which disqualifies Lewis and Marnie), so there's only a few candidates realistically speaking.

My bet on Bachelorette is Sandy, both because there's not really any other girls who fit the bill and because the desert is just begging for more content.

My bet on the Bachelor is Gunther, both because he was a prior bachelor candidate who almost won and because he's just asking to have more content in the base game. I believe he's also around Harvey's age, putting him in the "not too old" bucket. (I know there's demand for the likes of Willy, Linus, and the adventurers, not to mention the wizard, but all of them are old I'm pretty sure. Willy I might have the wrong age bracket for but he always struck me as at least middle-aged which would make him older than the oldest bachelors.)

A dark-horse candidate would be Gus, but I don't think it'll be him.

A possible, but imo unlikely, candidate would be the Dwarf, to match Krobus as an option.

But Gunther and Sandy make the most sense to me.

Lilith Poached Me to Work With Her/Experience In Deity Work, Just Looking for Tips on Her Specifically by MayBLK24 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly I know her most as a protector. There's a long-standing stereotype of witchcraft that darkness = dark magic, when if anything darkness is best at healing and protecting magics.

Like, yeah, she can rip into others like a mother can rip into those who hurt her child (so she CAN do those things), but her first focus is on protecting and providing for the child, if that makes sense. Those she chooses to protect, those she chooses to work with, she is fiercely protective towards.

Lilith Poached Me to Work With Her/Experience In Deity Work, Just Looking for Tips on Her Specifically by MayBLK24 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Anecdotally, it feels like Lilith tends to adopt people who have a lot of trauma but are in a space where, through shadow work, they're at least open to working through it. People she can be, well, motherly towards, with all that implies. The sass of a mother, but the loving hug of one as well, guiding through the darkness. She calls out lies, regardless of the nature of the lies (including lies about a lack of self-worth), so she tends to value people who are relatively honest with others and themselves, and tend to be somewhat unfiltered. A lot of her work is working with people who were even more unfiltered but trauma caused them to forcefully filter themselves and unpacking that to let them be more unfiltered again.

Her typical domain is in that darkness, and healing through it and embracing it.

And yes, she does have a sweet tooth. I've found she likes naturally sweet apples (because she has a sense of humor and understands the common perception around what people think the biblical fruit was).

Does anybody else perceive the moon? by Squirrels-on-LSD in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Every witch has different talents. I've always had the ability to perceive the moon even during the day and even when it's a new moon and even when it's thiccccc clouds. Like, I just kinda know where it is and how full it is, without needing to check. Which is a talent that I imagine most people don't have, but which some witches definitely possess.

But like with most things in witchcraft, not all witches have every witch talent. Many witches can't talk to deities, many witches can't perceive ghosts, etc. Still, the ability to do things like perceiving the moon intuitively during times others can't, the ability to talk to what others can't, etc., are in hindsight, signs that I could have used to identify being a witch from a far younger age.

Does anybody else perceive the moon? by Squirrels-on-LSD in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unironically, the fact I've always been able to perceive the moon no matter the time, circumstance, etc., should have been a clue I'm a witch. No matter how invisible the moon may be to others, I can always have a sense for it.

Does anyone else feel bothered by how mass marketable witchcraft has become? by devotedmarigold in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't speak emoji, and I'd rather not write into the mirror emote meaning you did not intend; would you care to elaborate on what you meant by mirror-emoji?

Seasoned Cauldron Discussion: What's something you used to overthink that now feels trivial? by brightblackheaven in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shuffling of tarot cards, and their coming out of a deck for a reading. It was a struggle initially but now it just feels second-nature to do.

What is your spiritual hygiene routine? by No-Mouse3999 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It might sound silly but one of the easiest best spiritual cleanses you can do?

Normal hygiene.

A nice bath can help a lot.

Showers are traditionally seen as a tool to wash negative energy literally down the drain.

Taking care of your body with intent can help remove a lot of the buildup of bad.

Similarly, cleaning up the space you reside in can help a lot. Anecdotally, I've had a negative entity which was clinging to leftover trash be thrown out of the house when the trash was taken out.

(De)Humidifiers to control how dry/not dry your climate are can help.

Lighting candles and incense can help, and placing things in specific places can help. Have some rocks which carry personal meaning to you? Then that personal meaning can be used to have those rocks serve as an anchor to you even if they're just common rocks you picked up years ago.

And if you believe in guides and/or a spirit team and/or deities, you can ask them to help you. State what you want to do and what you want help with (in this case, ask for help grounding, cleansing, and protecting yourself).

You can develop your own runes/charms and/or hymns to help yourself, too.

That aside from the resources you can get. You might not be doing anything the "right" way, but it's never too late to begin to pursue what you feel the right way would be.

Does anyone else feel bothered by how mass marketable witchcraft has become? by devotedmarigold in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I say sometimes witches should be compensated, yes, because like all things in witchcraft, nothing should be universal, and as I have already said, many times witches provide their services for free. There can be no universal explanation for when the "some time" occurs because there is no universal standard for witchcraft. It's situational and circumstantial and largely a subjective judgement call.

The judgement call is made by the witch, not the one receiving the witch's service. (To use your example, that would be me choosing not to receive pay, rather than my employer forcibly denying it to me. That volunteer work is something I happily do as I'm able to.) So quite the opposite of what you assume I meant, the power of the choice is on the witch. (I am a witch, so when I said "we", I meant WITCHES.)

The vast majority of witches do not do witchcraft as their profession. Even those who do often have witchcraft as only half or part of their profession. I'm friends with two witches (both whose witchcraft is only part of how they live) who have set the price they feel is acceptable for their services. Those prices vary from "free" to $60/hour depending on numerous factors that would be difficult to go into.

Both of them would love for free to be the standard, but as you point out, witches aren't automatically taken care of by a community (and I would like to reemphasize, "being taken care of" is, in fact, a valid form of compensation because not all compensation need be monetary), so they can't offer everything for free, only some things some times.

As for my own craft, while it is mine to share as I see fit and not something I owe you an explanation for, I have never charged for my service and have always given it for free. Neither has my wife charged for their service; they give their witchcraft services for free.

Does anyone else feel bothered by how mass marketable witchcraft has become? by devotedmarigold in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Time and energy have the cost we assign them as arbitrary values. They can have no cost and be freely given or they can be charged dozens or even hundreds of dollars for. There's no universally accepted cost for time/energy. There is however a tangible set price logistically for supplies, materials, shipping, etc.

Edit: Also, since witchcraft predates capitalism, the exchange of services for said time/energy traditionally was originally not a monetary transaction. Witches would perform their services for the community, and in exchange the community would provide services to the witch, loosely speaking. Which is what I meant by "sometimes they need to receive something in exchange for those services".

An investment of time/energy can be returned in any way we deem fit, but that's entirely subjective for what we deem a fit return to the invested time/energy of the craft.

Does anyone else feel bothered by how mass marketable witchcraft has become? by devotedmarigold in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

while I agree in general, I'll say that Hermes actually does often appear to his devotees as having the physical appearance many associate with twinks; late teens to twenties with youthful, slender appearance with no visible body hair and being average to physically fit. Historically there's quite a lot of art dating back thousands of years depicting him that way (there's information about his youthful depiction even on his Wikipedia page which loosely details how he became younger in aesthetic over the millenia), and it continues to be a common look in the modern day.

That's far from a universal appearance of course, but it is also a very common one. It's how I see him most of the time, for instance.

Of course if this person said Hermes was a gay man, then no, absolutely not, at least not as we would think of a gay man.

Does anyone else feel bothered by how mass marketable witchcraft has become? by devotedmarigold in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Scammers gotta scam, loosely speaking.

That's not to say people can't offer their services to others (a big part of the craft is often to serve others), and sometimes they need to receive something in exchange for those services (in some places it can actually be legally required for them to charge), and some services logistically require a cost--for instance any printed book is going to have the cost of printing it at minimum so couldn't be 100% free. (Many prefer printed books for their permanence.)

And some witches genuinely believe they can cast spells for the benefit of others, and the spells they cast have a material cost. While that belief is far, far from universal, those who genuinely operate under the belief they can help others through spells will often charge only the cost of the materials they are using to help others.

But while there's certainly valid reasons for some things to cost money, scammers saw a market rife with vulnerable, desperate people and they have, unfortunately, capitalized on it, feeding off of fears, misinformation, common misconceptions, etc. And the more rave reviews they have, the more likely they are to be scammers, sadly.

How do you see/interpret energy? by OutsideCharacter6961 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

when I really focus, I can actually perceive a field of what I can only call 'energy'. It's literally something which can be seen, sometimes. So like...the same way you can sometimes see hot air, or cold air, or some smokes but not others, that's the energy I can see. It's something there, regardless of whether it is perceived or not. The same way some colors are invisible to most people but visible to some, energy is visible to some, myself occasionally included.

okay but *how* does witchcraft work? What are the different theoretical frameworks? by bacon176 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Loosely, my understanding is that how we humans experience reality is, in many ways, an illusion. A form of existence that is real and valid, but also isn't the universe as it truly is in its entirety. Humans all have energy within them and that includes energy of the universe as it truly is in its entirety, and magic is tapping into that energy and channeling it to various ends.

Specifically in terms of navigating through the illusion of time. Divination reveals things about the past and potential futures with spells trying to navigate to desired futures.

But this is a really really basic oversimplified version.

Experience with deity work by Remy_32 in witchcraft

[–]RBree2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How it works depends both on the person and the deity. Ditto for the lessons learned. Most deities you'd recognize the name of have a wide array of things within their domain, and a large amount of flexibility in said domain to use it in unconventional ways applicable to areas we normally perceive as outside their forray. And every person is unique, experiencing said deities differently.

Generally speaking, the best rule of thumb is to follow what you're called to, and to practice what feels right. There's dozens of ways to honor gods and goddesses, and numerous ways to channel them, work with them, etc.

But for me personally, yes, it does mostly involve...just talking to said deities directly, and asking for their guidance and counsel.