Author Topic: The 'godphone' concept (Read 6494 times)

Sophia C · « **on:** March 18, 2014, 04:13:52 am »

Where did the godphone concept come from? Why is it becoming so prevalent, in eclectic Wiccan-influenced Paganism especially? I keep seeing people saying "I don't have a godphone" or "I want to develop my godphone". I find it absolutely fascinating from a sociological and theological standpoint, as I've not encountered anything similar to this concept in other religions or spiritual paths. My personal opinion is that it's a useless metaphor, because hearing or experiencing deities is probably a skill that can be developed. But whether not it can, the metaphor seems very limiting, to me, in that there seems to be a mythos emerging that is leading to a kind of priesthood/laity split, between those who believe they can never communicate with the gods, and those who communicate with the gods and are thus being represented as having a 'direct line' to them.

Make any sense?

Aelfcynn · « **Reply #1 on:** March 18, 2014, 05:01:29 am »

Quote from: Naomi J;142810

Where did the godphone concept come from? Why is it becoming so prevalent, in eclectic Wiccan-influenced Paganism especially? I keep seeing people saying "I don't have a godphone" or "I want to develop my godphone". I find it absolutely fascinating from a sociological and theological standpoint, as I've not encountered anything similar to this concept in other religions or spiritual paths. My personal opinion is that it's a useless metaphor, because hearing or experiencing deities is probably a skill that can be developed. But whether not it can, the metaphor seems very limiting, to me, in that there seems to be a mythos emerging that is leading to a kind of priesthood/laity split, between those who believe they can never communicate with the gods, and those who communicate with the gods and are thus being represented as having a 'direct line' to them.

Make any sense?

I too would like to know more background information on the 'godphone' thing, as I've only ever seen contrasting snippets like 'I'm always on the godphone it can be so annoying' and 'I have no godphone am I doing it wrong?'. And these are from Tumblr, the only active pagan arena I've been in for a while. I blogged about it a couple of weeks ago, but it was a bit reactive and I lost any specific ideas I had about 'godphones'. It was a personal post, really.

I'm not sure if it leads to a priesthood/laity split but looking at some posts like the latter, some people interested in developing communications with deities are concerned that there's only one way to do it 'properly'.

Yei · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2014, 05:40:55 am »

Quote from: Naomi J;142810

Where did the godphone concept come from? Why is it becoming so prevalent, in eclectic Wiccan-influenced Paganism especially? I keep seeing people saying "I don't have a godphone" or "I want to develop my godphone". I find it absolutely fascinating from a sociological and theological standpoint, as I've not encountered anything similar to this concept in other religions or spiritual paths. My personal opinion is that it's a useless metaphor, because hearing or experiencing deities is probably a skill that can be developed. But whether not it can, the metaphor seems very limiting, to me, in that there seems to be a mythos emerging that is leading to a kind of priesthood/laity split, between those who believe they can never communicate with the gods, and those who communicate with the gods and are thus being represented as having a 'direct line' to them.

Make any sense?

What exactly is it that annoys you?

Is it the characterisation of a divine connection as a compartmentalised episode (like a phone call) creating an inappropriate metaphor?
Is it the idea that a connection with the gods is an either you have it or you don't situation?
Is it that such a divide has with it an innate claim to authority that may not actually be earned?
Or is it simply that phones exist for convenience, and thus the term godphone implies that the gods contacted in a way that is convenient for the worshipper, rather than the god?

Or some combination of the above?

Sophia C · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2014, 06:03:19 am »

Quote from: Rob;142816

What exactly is it that annoys you?

Is it the characterisation of a divine connection as a compartmentalised episode (like a phone call) creating an inappropriate metaphor?
Is it the idea that a connection with the gods is an either you have it or you don't situation?
Is it that such a divide has with it an innate claim to authority that may not actually be earned?
Or is it simply that phones exist for convenience, and thus the term godphone implies that the gods contacted in a way that is convenient for the worshipper, rather than the god?

Or some combination of the above?

It doesn't annoy me.

On a sociological level, as I said, I find it fascinating. I'm interested in where it has come from, as I don't see it in other spiritualities (although of course I may have missed it elsewhere).

On a personal level, I find it a confusing metaphor, as I don't think it's accurate. But I'm really more interested in where it came from, and why so many people find it a helpful metaphor.

Of the scenarios you described, the second is closest to how I feel personally - that the dichotomy of "I can contact the gods"/"I can't contact the gods" is being presented as fact, when it's probably much more complex than that. I think that could be limiting for people who don't currently hear *specific* gods. (I, for example, cannot hear some gods at all, and hear other gods all the time.)

Yei · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2014, 08:48:58 am »

Quote from: Naomi J;142817

It doesn't annoy me.

On a sociological level, as I said, I find it fascinating. I'm interested in where it has come from, as I don't see it in other spiritualities (although of course I may have missed it elsewhere).

I see. I must have misunderstood.

I guess the reason for the phone comparison is simply because phones are now used to communicate long distance. It sort of makes sense.

Quote

On a personal level, I find it a confusing metaphor, as I don't think it's accurate. But I'm really more interested in where it came from, and why so many people find it a helpful metaphor.

Of the scenarios you described, the second is closest to how I feel personally - that the dichotomy of "I can contact the gods"/"I can't contact the gods" is being presented as fact, when it's probably much more complex than that. I think that could be limiting for people who don't currently hear *specific* gods. (I, for example, cannot hear some gods at all, and hear other gods all the time.)

Well it does miss indirect communication through signs or altered states of conciousness. So I'd have to agree.

Siren · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2014, 10:14:41 am »

Quote from: Rob;142837

Well it does miss indirect communication through signs or altered states of conciousness. So I'd have to agree.

Signs have been a big thing for me. It's of course easy to have confirmation bias leak into interpreting signs, but I've found them really useful. One of my favorite examples was that I was meditating once and (silently) asking a deity a yes or no question. At the time it was nice out and I had the windows open, and there were some workmen next door, and suddenly right after I asked the question one of the workmen yelled "YES!" I think I cracked up laughing, IIRC, and it also turned out to be the correct answer based on everything that came after.

Darkhawk · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2014, 07:11:35 pm »

Quote from: Naomi J;142810

Where did the godphone concept come from?

I seem to recall having seen someone comment that it was sort of an in-joke among friends in a particular subcommunity where everyone knew what they were talking about, and then it escaped onto the internet.

Quote

Why is it becoming so prevalent, in eclectic Wiccan-influenced Paganism especially?

Honestly, I guess "tumblr".

Allaya · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2014, 10:07:44 pm »

Quote from: Darkhawk;142888

I seem to recall having seen someone comment that it was sort of an in-joke among friends in a particular subcommunity where everyone knew what they were talking about, and then it escaped onto the internet.

This is correct. It started out as a pejorative term when it was coined and, like these things tend to do, started to shed the derogatory aspect and escaped into the wild. I have no idea where all I picked up the info on this, but I delved into it out of curiosity a year or two ago and, since the term amuses me, the provenance has stuck in my head.

SunflowerP · « **Reply #8 on:** March 19, 2014, 12:44:58 am »

Quote from: Allaya;142908

It started out as a pejorative term when it was coined and, like these things tend to do, started to shed the derogatory aspect and escaped into the wild.

That fits my own - very vague - recollections of when I was first hearing it. Well, vague in terms of having no idea just what subcommunity it started with; I'm pretty certain it was one or another set of 'we mistrust all mysticism on principle' reconnish types.

It annoys me quite a lot, mainly because it's descriptively crappy (it reminds me of the ludicrous characterizations some anti-theists use, of what religion is - in both cases, the intent behind the coinage is not descriptive, it's pejorative, to make the phenomenon look as silly and mockery-worthy as possible). I disliked it as a disparaging term a few years back; I don't like it any better in the non-derogatory usage because I am So. Bloody. Tired. of trying to explain, 'It's really not anything like that.'

I agree completely with Naomi that it's not a useful metaphor. Years ago, here on TC, the phrase we used to use was 'direct interaction with deity/ies' - I very strongly prefer that, but I don't often see it any more; I might be the last person still using it (and possibly I should do so more often, to see if I can get it to catch on again).

Sunflower

quarks · « **Reply #9 on:** March 19, 2014, 01:22:53 am »

Quote from: SunflowerP;142917

I disliked it as a disparaging term a few years back; I don't like it any better in the non-derogatory usage because I am So. Bloody. Tired. of trying to explain, 'It's really not anything like that.'

I didn't realize that it started as an insult, nor did I realize that it's not accurate (not having those kind of experiences myself). That is good to know. "Direct contact with Deities" does make sense. I'll use the more applicable phrase in the future.

Sage · « **Reply #10 on:** March 19, 2014, 03:51:29 pm »

Quote from: SunflowerP;142917

That fits my own - very vague - recollections of when I was first hearing it. Well, vague in terms of having no idea just what subcommunity it started with; I'm pretty certain it was one or another set of 'we mistrust all mysticism on principle' reconnish types.

It annoys me quite a lot, mainly because it's descriptively crappy (it reminds me of the ludicrous characterizations some anti-theists use, of what religion is - in both cases, the intent behind the coinage is not descriptive, it's pejorative, to make the phenomenon look as silly and mockery-worthy as possible). I disliked it as a disparaging term a few years back; I don't like it any better in the non-derogatory usage because I am So. Bloody. Tired. of trying to explain, 'It's really not anything like that.'

I agree completely with Naomi that it's not a useful metaphor. Years ago, here on TC, the phrase we used to use was 'direct interaction with deity/ies' - I very strongly prefer that, but I don't often see it any more; I might be the last person still using it (and possibly I should do so more often, to see if I can get it to catch on again).

Sunflower

I much prefer that term to "godphone." There is something... wrong with "godphone" as a term and I don't know how to parse it. There's almost something ableist about it, only I'm not sure that's the right -ism to use.

Yei · « **Reply #11 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:20:20 pm »

Quote from: Sage;142995

I much prefer that term to "godphone." There is something... wrong with "godphone" as a term and I don't know how to parse it. There's almost something ableist about it, only I'm not sure that's the right -ism to use.

Is it something to do with the fact that a phone is an incredibly rude thing? It basically imposes itself on someone and then demands to be answered by using loud noises with no respect to what ever one was already doing. Think about it.

Sage · « **Reply #12 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:27:58 pm »

Quote from: Rob;143018

Is it something to do with the fact that a phone is an incredibly rude thing? It basically imposes itself on someone and then demands to be answered by using loud noises with no respect to what ever one was already doing. Think about it.

No, not from the gods' end at least. (Though... what you're mentioning brings up a lot of deities and consent issues I've been pondering about for a long long while.)

How I've seen the godphone used in conversation is simplifying divine interaction to the point you are either able to do it or you aren't. Either you have this one experience communing with the divine or you get none whatsoever. And of course, all the half-hearted disclaimers in the world don't change the fact that this idea (simplified as it is) means that some people are able to 'hear' the gods and some people are not, and the people who can are automatically privileged with language of having a "working" godphone. I mean whatever the god-bothered actually think and feel, I keep seeing conversations couched in terms of "oh my god-phone doesn't work" (implying something is broken) and trying to find ways to 'fix' it because who doesn't want a working godphone, right?

I really think I'm doing a piss poor job explaining this, but it's been bothering me for a long time.

Jenett · « **Reply #13 on:** March 19, 2014, 06:43:34 pm »

Quote from: Sage;143026

How I've seen the godphone used in conversation is simplifying divine interaction to the point you are either able to do it or you aren't. Either you have this one experience communing with the divine or you get none whatsoever. And of course, all the half-hearted disclaimers in the world don't change the fact that this idea (simplified as it is) means that some people are able to 'hear' the gods and some people are not, and the people who can are automatically privileged with language of having a "working" godphone. I mean whatever the god-bothered actually think and feel, I keep seeing conversations couched in terms of "oh my god-phone doesn't work" (implying something is broken) and trying to find ways to 'fix' it because who doesn't want a working godphone, right?

I find it a problematic term for two reasons: first, that I almost never get *words* from deity, except a couple of times when I've done a fairly full Draw Down. So it's, y'know, inaccurate.

(Ok, so it's a bit more like how I actually *use* my phone, which is lots and lots of text and very occasional bits of voice conversation. But that's not really helpful in a general term.)

I tend to prefer (though there are ways it's also problematic) the open head/closed head model, because it implies there are *tendencies* for people, and things they may be more or less inclined to, but that both have some strengths and weaknesses (and both have things one can do to develop skills in the other direction.)

Someone who is open headed has to work less hard, generally, to get deity or other entity communication, but on the other hand, they have to work harder to keep good boundaries/manage the relationships therein/etc. Someone who is more close-headed has an easier time with boundaries (and probably sleeps better at night!) but is not going to have hot and cold running mystical experiences with entities all the time.

But people can also learn skills to manage being open headed (how to have and enforce relevant boundaries/limits/discern what's going on) or being close headed (ritual and other techniques to help establish direct connection or have meaningful experiences, and so on.) And it's much less 'this is a thing you can't control' and much more 'people have tendencies, but you can do stuff with them' which is, really, much more consistent with other skills and abilities and preferences we have about learning and interacting with the world.

veggiewolf · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2014, 08:40:43 pm »

Quote from: Sage;143026

No, not from the gods' end at least. (Though... what you're mentioning brings up a lot of deities and consent issues I've been pondering about for a long long while.)

How I've seen the godphone used in conversation is simplifying divine interaction to the point you are either able to do it or you aren't. Either you have this one experience communing with the divine or you get none whatsoever. And of course, all the half-hearted disclaimers in the world don't change the fact that this idea (simplified as it is) means that some people are able to 'hear' the gods and some people are not, and the people who can are automatically privileged with language of having a "working" godphone. I mean whatever the god-bothered actually think and feel, I keep seeing conversations couched in terms of "oh my god-phone doesn't work" (implying something is broken) and trying to find ways to 'fix' it because who doesn't want a working godphone, right?

I really think I'm doing a piss poor job explaining this, but it's been bothering me for a long time.

This is what bugs me about it, too. I prefer 'direct deity interaction'; it pretty much does what it says on the tin, and is a pretty accurate description.

The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

News:

Recent Posts

Author Topic: The 'godphone' concept (Read 6494 times)

Sophia C

The 'godphone' concept

Aelfcynn

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Yei

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Sophia C

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Yei

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Siren

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Darkhawk

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Allaya

Re: The 'godphone' concept

SunflowerP

Re: The 'godphone' concept

quarks

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Sage

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Yei

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Sage

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Jenett

Re: The 'godphone' concept

veggiewolf

Re: The 'godphone' concept

Related Topics

Who's Online

Please Donate!

Shop & Support TC

In Memoriam

Cauldron Staff