Deities | First Church of Druwayu

FOUR PRIMARY DEITIES | SACRED GEOMETRY

THE ONE AND THREE

Our theological concept is rather simple and polytheistic, though not in the same sense of what one may generally find among other belief systems. The explanation is also very simple in the very meaning of the term ONE AND THREE which is also rooted directly in a correct representation of sacred geometry and our cosmological concepts of the Drikeyu. Our most fundamental view is there is Only One God, and yet in unity with him, there are also three separate and distinct, as well as consubstantial, coequal and cooperative Goddesses who are his female counterparts. This means counting himself there is a total of four distinct beings and persons in this concept of Divine Unity.

WHAT WE DO NOT CLAIM

Unlike others, we don't attempt to forcefully combine diverse and distinct pantheons into a singular, confused amalgamation of concepts. Instead, we highlight how cultures that interacted shared similar concepts, even though their approaches differed.

1. Distinction and Respect for Pantheons

Avoiding Amalgamation:

Unlike other systems, we do not forcefully combine diverse and distinct pantheons into a singular, incoherent amalgamation of concepts. However, we do find parallel concepts when it comes to the Highest Ones (The One and Three).
Our focus is to highlight how cultures, through interaction, shared similar ideas, even while maintaining unique approaches, not an attempt to try and hybridized different mythologies, much less claim all deities are simply projections of some nebulous abstraction of nature and the universe.

No Singular Construct:

We reject the notion that all deities are merely different forms, expressions, or manifestations of a single, nebulous entity.
The One and the Three are acknowledged as remote and beyond direct, personalized relationships, existing outside the realm of direct human connection.

2. Recognition Without Erasure

Acknowledging Diversity:

We neither deny nor condemn the various deities imagined or conceptualized by different cultures, including the concept of deified ancestors.
Recognition of these entities is not suppressed or erased, as it is not the focus of our perspective.

Respecting Others’ Beliefs:

By refusing to impose the One or the Three as mere extensions of other deities, we respect the unique identities and traditions of these figures.
Even when this respect is not reciprocated, we maintain our stance as a gesture of goodwill within reason and also avoid trying to adopt the personages of dead cultures for which we have no true experience with or deeper understanding of.

3. Response to Condemnation

Handling Criticism:

Condemnation of our beliefs is regarded as a reflection of critics’ own insecurities or a failure to recognize their narrow perspectives.
Such criticism is dismissed as childish and counterproductive, affirming our commitment to mutual respect and intellectual maturity.

HISTORY OF THIS FOUNDATION CONCEPT

1. Early Beginnings (1987-1990)

Initial Exploration:

In 1987, at the age of 14, I began delving into subjects of personal interest that were not offered in public school, such as mythology, folklore, ancient archaeological sites, etymology, linguistics, and concordances. I also was already well aware that a lot of the etymology would have to be traced through predominately Arian Christian and Roman Catholic sources as I wished to know more about God in namesake and origin.

Library Research:

Spending time in the local public library, I took extensive notes, made cross-references, and sketched observations.
Patterns began to emerge from my studies, patterns that were often obscured or mentioned only briefly in texts.

Foundational Insight:

By 1990, these patterns had formed the basic foundation of what would later become a more developed framework of concepts.

2. Initial Challenges (1990-1997)

Youth and Reception:

As a 17-year-old, I examined many works in philosophy, theology, geometry, and linguistics, though I was not taken seriously by peers or those in my community, which was largely composed of Christians and atheists.

Abandonment of Work:

Feeling discouraged, I set aside the research ("put it on the shelf") after turning 18.
Much of the original notes, artwork and references I used were destroyed in the Willamette Valley Flood (Oregon) in February 1996.
Unfortunately, that loss also included a lot of really rare books I had collected over time from old Estate sales, closing rare bookstores, and some that were given to me as gifts, including but not limited to really old bibles.

3. Resuming the Journey (1997-2009)

Rediscovery:

In 1997, I returned to my research with renewed focus, although he chose to keep much of it private.

Deeper Exploration:

Over the next decade, I engaged in more profound and serious study, navigating personal challenges while continuing to expand upon his earlier work.

Artistic Expression:

By 2009, some individuals began to show interest in my subject matter often expressed indirectly through some of my artwork, which visually represented the concepts he had been developing.
I often gave this artwork away freely because it was just how I was.

4. Online Sharing and Evolution (2010-2015)

Digital Outreach:

From 2010 to 2013, I began sharing the majority of my findings on various online platforms, including websites and virtual worlds.
These platforms eventually shut down, taking some of the shared concepts with them.

Naming the Religion:

In 2014, the name Druwayu was chosen to represent the theological framework and associated concept, though with a more direct moral and ethical foundation of complete honesty, even if the truth was and is unpleasant.

Open Recognition:

By 2015, I introduced Druwayu as the official name of the religion and has continued to uphold its theology publicly ever since.

5. Current Standing

Legacy of Research:

What began as an interest in patterns and obscure references has grown into a cohesive theological framework.

Core Principle:

The journey reflects the importance of perseverance, curiosity, and sharing knowledge despite challenges, skepticism, and setbacks.

WHAT WE MEAN BY GOD

Many times, this question is posed by individuals who, rather than showing genuine interest, use it as a tactic to invalidate beliefs by focusing on diversity. However, the original purpose of such a question was not to challenge or dismiss, but rather to seek clarification about how the concept of God is understood and defined by the person being asked. It is not exclusively a question asked by atheists, as it applies broadly to conversations about differing perspectives.

The simple fact is that we mean God based on the origin of the noun which is also based within the adjective, and therefore the original cultural and linguistic sources of the name therein. On the other hand, we also mean God in the more general concept of the ultimate intelligent and eternal source of everything known and unknown that is in himself beyond what most have been conditioned falsely to believe God to be. Also, as previously expressed, we acknowledge his triad of consorts that are each called a Goddess as a result of modern linguistic evolution.

THE REAL ORIGIN OF THE NAME GOD:

The first known source of the noun God is found in the Codex Argenteus as Guþ ("Silver Book"), an illuminated manuscript containing part of the 4th-century translation of the Christian Bible into the Gothic language, believed to have been composed under the supervision of an Arian Bishop named Wulfila who also constructed the Gothic alphabet, written sometime around 520 CE (6th century CE) for Ostragoths, also spelled Guðan, Goþ, Godan, Gothan, and several more variants; meaning Good One. The '-an' suffix for "one" is all that was removed later as the noun developed to present, and prior to the historic "Gothic War" of 535-554 CE. Many sources tend to ignore the actual meaning and seek to associate it with all sorts of other nonsense. We can see a few different way's its spelled even in this text as:

Matthew 6:24 (folio 5r): ni maguts twans fraujans skalkinon: unte jabai ains hatith, anþar frijoþ; aiþþau ains ufhauseiþ, anþar faurawaurþiþ. ni maguts guþ skalkinon jah mammonin.Here, "God" is guþ.
- Direct translation: "Not you are able two lords to serve, because if one hates, the other loves; or one holds in esteem, the other despises. Not you are able God to serve and wealth."
- Common Adaptation: "You cannot serve two masters: for either you will hate one and love the other; or you will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Luke 1:47 (folio 147r): jah swaiwalt saiwala meina in guda nasjand fram. Here, "God" is guda .
- Direct translation:"And moves soul my in God saving from."
- Common Adaptation: "And my soul rejoices in God my Savior."

The first translates by each word individually as:

ni – not
maguts – you (plural) are able
twans – two
fraujans – lords
skalkinon – to serve
unte – because
jabai – if
ains – one
hatith – hates
anþar – the other
frijoþ – loves
aiþþau – or
ufhauseiþ – holds in esteem
faurawaurþiþ – despises
guþ – God
jah – and
mammonin – wealth/money

The second translates by each word individually as:

jah – and
swaiwalt – moves
saiwala – soul
meina – my
in – in
guda – God
nasjand – saving
fram – from

He is and was the main deity common to many diverse clans and tribes such as the Winnili (later Lombards), Saxons, Heruls, Gepids, Bulgars, Thuringians and Ostrogoths to name just a few. It was mainly here we see through these Arians, as in those who followed the concepts of Arianism, named after named for Arius, a prominent teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, and more or less rejected the whole Trinitarian concept.

However, most will only cite such sources as a Catholic monk later made a saint named Bede and proclaimed the Father of English History from the 7th century CE. In his work called the Origo Gentis Langobardorum (Latin for "Origin of the Gentile Lombards"), he wrote his own offering of a founding myth of the Longobard people and the naming of them by Godan which itself is an admission of the Pre-Christian source of the name. Being Catholic his presentations would naturally be opposed to Arianism despite both draw from the same sources. He is often cited as the first to write the Bible in Old English. However, the same never cites the previous.

Here are the details for the two key texts:

Origo Gentis Langobardorum (anonymous/unknown author)
- Date: 7th century CE (Estimated between 672–688 CE)
- Original Latin Text: Tunc Ambri et Assi, hoc est duces Wandalorum, rogaverunt Godan, ut daret eis super Winniles victoriam. Respondit Godan dicens: "Quos sol surgente antea videro, ipsis dabo victoriam."
- Direct Translation: "Then Ambri and Assi, who are the leaders of the Vandals, asked Godan that he might give them victory over the Winnili. Godan answered, saying: 'Whom the sun, rising before, I will see, to them I will give victory.'"
Historia Langobardorum by Paul the Deacon
- Date: Written between 787–796 CE
- Original Latin Text: Ambri et Assi, duces Wandalorum, rogaverunt Godan ut daret eis victoriam super Winniles. Respondit Godan dicens: "Quos sol surgente antea videro, ipsis dabo victoriam."
- Direct Translation: "Ambri and Assi, leaders of the Vandals, asked Godan that he might give them victory over the Winnili. Godan answered, saying: 'Whom the sun, rising before, I will see, to them I will give victory.'"

The first translates by each word individually as:

Tunc – Then
Ambri et Assi – Ambri and Assi
hoc est – this is
duces – leaders
Wandalorum – of the Vandals
rogaverunt – asked
Godan – Godan
ut – that
daret – he might give
eis – to them
super – over
Winniles – the Winnili
victoriam – victory
Respondit – He answered
Godan – Godan
dicens – saying:
"Quos – "Whom
sol – the sun
surgente – rising
antea – before
videro – I will see
ipsis – to them
dabo – I will give
victoriam." – victory."

The second translates by each word individually as:

Ambri et Assi – Ambri and Assi
duces – leaders
Wandalorum – of the Vandals
rogaverunt – asked
Godan – Godan
ut – that
daret – he might give
eis – to them
victoriam – victory
super – over
Winniles – the Winnili
Respondit – He answered
Godan – Godan
dicens – saying:
Quos – Whom
sol – the sun
surgente – rising
antea – before
videro – I will see
ipsis – to them
dabo – I will give
victoriam – victory

We see here there is admission (though suppressed and various methods are used to mislead and redirect readers to something else) that indeed Godan was the source of the noun reduced over time as the supreme being worshipped by the Germanic tribes, but seldom mentions he was also often associated with three wives. If these wives are ever mentioned, its often vague, or only one is mentioned, and the archeology relating to this is often set aside and claimed to be unrelated. Over time, Godan, with various spellings that included Guðan, Goþinn, Godan, Gothan and more was shortened to God, which was later adopted by Germanic-speaking Christians as their term for the divine, replacing the Latin Deus and preserving the original context.

What shall be shown here will prove this point, the context, the meaning, the history and etymology of the word “God” reflective of the often ignored and actively suppressed. This will include the more specific aspects of core concepts that were preserved directly or indirectly showing the factual and extensive cultural, linguistic, and philosophical influences, as well as specifics that shapes the essential foundations and structure of Druwayu overall. How such became and is often linked to other cultures and civilizations will also be demonstrated along with presentation of the distinct etymology involved so there is no confusion as is often applied elsewhere without clarifying these distinctions.

GOD AS A GENERIC NOUN OR PREFIX:

The basis of the etymology is as follows: The English word god is an adjective also used as a verb and noun, which itself is derived from the cognates in other Germanic languages that include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).

GOD AS AN ADJECTIVE OR SUFFIX:

As a clear proof of this one only has to examine the fact that the English word good comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), gott/gutt (Old and Middle German).

In both of these examples we see it is clearly the same word, from the same origin, from the same language groups, with the same basic meaning, and with the historical documents in question, we see this repeated as well. It occurs not only in the Codex Argenteus, the Heliand, and The Andreas: a legend of St. Andrew to name a few historical documents.

Historical errors based on assumptions from the 1800s

William D. Whitney, in 1897 is often cited as being the first proposed that 'god' and 'good' are not related and was simply accepted at face value despite all the evidence to the contrary and still the basis behind much of false information and fictional etymology one will find pertaining to this subject. On the other hand, we find others who were also prone to various assumptions that clearly ignored the previous evidence and additional evidence I have provided. These include:

Jacob Grimm (Deutsche Grammatik, 1819): Grimm used comparative linguistics, analyzing Gothic (guþ, gōþs), Old English (god, gōd), and other Germanic forms. He traced guþ to gudą (PIE ǵʰutós, "invoked") and gōþs to gōdaz (PIE ǵʰedʰ-, "suit"). His method was evidence-based, using texts like the Codex Argenteus.
Karl Brugmann (1889): Brugmann’s suggestion that guþ relates to Sanskrit ghorás ("horrible") is speculative but grounded in Indo-European comparative linguistics. He rejected a "good" connotation, aligning with the consensus that gudą and gōdaz are distinct.
William D. Whitney, (1897): He is often cited as being the first proposed that 'god' and 'good' are not related which we can see from the previous isn't accurate, however, he like the previous two based their claims on assumptions, not facts and was simply accepted at face value despite all the evidence to the contrary.

These three primary sources are still imposed as authoritative despite many examples where god as a noun is the same as god as an adjective for which the following evidence dismantles further the previous imposed assumptions based on nothing more than speculations that are still perpetuated falsely to this day.

Evergood: from a’er from æfr “ever” + god “good.”
Gospel: from god “good.” + spel “story/news" originally Godspel,
Godhus: from god “good.” + hus “house.”Also used as a term for a shrine or memorial that is dedicated to the divine or considered holy.
Godwill: from god “good.” + wil “will.”
Godspeed: from god “good.” + sped “speed.”
Godwin: from god “good.” + win “win/gain.”
Godfather: from god “good.” + fodor “father.”
Godmother: from god “good.” + modor “mother.”
Godhead: from god “good.” + hed “head.”
Godhood: from god “good.” + hod “hood.”
Godlove/Gottlieb: from god “good.” + leib/lib/lief/liev/lif/liv/lef = “love/beloved.” Akin to life/leaf/live/leaves.
Godstow: from god/got + stow “stout/strong.” Figuratively stow is used for stand/enduring as well.
Godfred: from got (god) + fried (frid) “freed." More or less holding the sense of God sets free. Fried (frid) “freed" is also used figuratively for peace and sanctuary.

EXAMPLES OF USAGE

Godspeed - May good fortune and success be with you.
Godkin - A close relative or family member, viewed as good and beloved.
Godless - Not good, lacking goodness, unethical or immoral.
Godward - Moving or directed towards goodness.
Godric - A 'good ruler' with the favor or blessing of goodness.
Godsend - A sudden or unexpected benefit, perceived as being a gift of goodness.
Godhead - The essence or nature of goodness.
Godparent - A person who takes on the responsibility of guiding a child in goodness.
Godspell - Good news or message, synonymous with the term gospel.
Godbound - Dedicated or committed to goodness.
Godchild - A child who is guided and nurtured in goodness.
Godhouse - A place of worship or sanctuary, dedicated to goodness.
Godling - A minor figure or being endowed with goodness.
Godman - A person characterized by saintliness and moral integrity.
Godrood - A sacred or revered cross, symbolizing goodness.
Godwottery - An ornate or sentimental style in gardening, embodying an appreciation for the goodness of nature.
Godspire - A church spire or tower, reaching towards God.
Godmonth - A sacred or significant month, celebrated for its association with goodness.
Godstone - A sacred stone, revered for its connection to goodness.
Godstow - An old English term for a place of religious retreat or sanctuary, dedicated to the pursuit of goodness.
Godwardly - Acting in a manner directed towards goodness.
Godyear - A year marked by prosperity and good fortune.
Godcroft - An old term for a small, enclosed field used for burials, implying a 'good croft'.
Godsteading - An old term for a homestead or place of residence, which could also refer to a sacred burial site.
Godmote - An old term referring to a divine council or assembly, often associated with sacred sites, including burial grounds.
Godyard - An ancient term for a graveyard, implying a 'good yard'.
Godacre - A historical term for a piece of land set aside for burials, implying a 'good acre'.
Godmound - An ancient term for a burial mound that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good place of rest.'
Godground - Refers to a burial ground or cemetery that is considered sacred or blessed, implying a 'good ground.'
Godrest - The state of rest or peace granted by goodness, often referring to the final resting place of the deceased.

HISTORICAL GENDER BASED VARIATIONS

There are those that will still try to deny the gender based specific words and titles and names and adjectives out of personal delusions, yet just because such reject reality does not make reality go away. As such, the following clarifies these gender specific words many get wrong all the time while others intentionally perpetuate such words in neutral forms by which they do not actually apply. We must not allow ourselves to submit to such nonsense.

MASCULINE = MALE GENDER/SEX

These Masculine words are indicative of male gender/sex, as the word gender is akin to the words generate, generation, genetics, and gene all related to concepts of procreation and biology whereas the term sex is used also in the sense of the gender role in reproduction and physics.

MASCULINE SINGULAR

Godan = God
Götten = God
Gudan = God
Gudhan = God
Gothen = God
Goðan = God

MASCULINE PLURAL

Godannen = Gods
Göttennen = Gods
Gudanner = Gods
Gudhannor= Gods
Gothener = Gods
Goðanir = Gods

FEMININE = FEMALE GENDER/SEX

These Feminine words are indicative of female gender/sex, as the word gender is akin to the words generate, generation, genetics, and gene all related to concepts of procreation and biology whereas the term sex is used also in the sense of the gender role in reproduction and physics.

FEMININE SINGULAR

Godin = Goddess
Göttin = Goddess
Gudinne = Goddess
Gudinna = Goddess
Gudinde = Goddess
Gyðia = Goddess

FEMININE PLURAL

Godinnen = Goddesses
Göttinnen = Goddesses
Gudinner = Goddesses
Gudinnor= Goddesses
Gudinder = Goddesses
Gyðiur = Goddesses

CROSS LINGUSTIC MASCULINE AND FEMININE FORMS:

It must be noted that it was not till the 1500s that the majority of these kinds of cross-cultural linguistic comparisons were being made mostly to equate everything to Latin, and when the feminine forms of the reduced name Godan to Godd and then God was being developed as early as the 4th century from surviving written records, such as Godd-es using the masculine prefix, applying it neutrally as an adjective while ignoring the meaning, and combining it with a Latin feminine suffix -es combined as godd-es and refined as goddess. The previous examples were and are simply examples of native linguistic variations rooted largely in Scandinavian dialects.

God: Latin and Greek Deu and Theo, Hebrew and Aramaic El/Al
Gods: Latin and Greek Diosi and Theoi, Hebrew and Aramaic Elim/Alu
Goddess: Latin and Greek Dea and Thea, Hebrew and Aramaic Elat/Alat
Goddesses: Latin and Greek Deae and Theae, Hebrew and Aramaic Elatim/Alatu

A COMMON FALSE ETYMOLOGY:

There are noted kinships with these name variations in association with three related Germanic tribes: those known as Geats, Goths and the Gutar. When confronted with these facts, others have attempted to claim (and still due despite it is a widely known academic fact to be false) that the noun God and Gad are the same. It's already been proven where the noun and adjective of God stems from. Gad, also spelled Gat is from Semitic sources and means "portion" and figuratively "luck." It occurs as a generic term and a name with no negative connotations as many foolish people proclaim, such as in Gaddi and Gatti (Gad is pronounced like 'dad' and gatti is usually pronounced g-at-tee). The false claims are made mostly by those who have no actual comprehension of basic linguistics.

ANCIENT AND MODERN COMPARISONS:

Now, while it is generally assumed this has no historical context or reflection anywhere else, that is actually false. In fact, there are several examples from the ancient world found in modern times where the following comparisons were made though the mythological foundations varied or were different. For most, it was clear such lore were considered simply different stories expressing different ideas and opinions without conflicting with a sense the same deities were being represented among these cultures that had a much older and longer interaction with one another than once claimed. Take it or leave it, these examples are factual.

The God 'An/Anu' (cognizant with One), and the Three Goddesses Nammu, Kia and Uras (Middle East).
The God Al, and the Three Goddesses Astarte, Asherat, and Anath (Middle East).
The God is Kronos, and the three Goddesses Dione, Aphrodite, and Rhea (Philo of Byblos).
Theos/Deus/Zeus Moiragetes, and the three Goddesses (Moirae) Klotho, Lakhesis, and Atropos (Greek).
Jupiter Dux Parcae, and the three Goddesses (Parcae) Nona, Decuma and Morta (Roman).
The God Shai, and three Goddesses Meskhenet, Renenutet, and Shepset (Egyptian).
The God Ptah, and three Goddesses Sekhmet, Bastet and Wadjet (Egyptian).
The God Brahma, and three Goddesses Savitri, Sarasvati, and Gayatri (India).
The God Vishnu, and three Goddesses Lakshmi, Bhumi and Ganga (india).
The God Shiva, and the three Goddesses Parvati, Durga and Kali (India).
The God Rod, and the three Goddesses Rozhanitzy, Narucznica, Udelnica (Slavic).
Godan, and the three Goddesses Friya, Rinda, and Iurda (Scandinavian).
The Mimir and the three Norns generally named Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld (Icelandic).

CORE DETAILS

Now that the actual meaning of the words has been clarified, we will be using the more basic concept of One God and Three Goddesses in the general sense of One Male Deity and Three Female Deities above and beyond all others within the Druan perspective. We have no concern who acknowledges or agrees with this as outside conclusions have no relevance beyond mere opinions and presumptions.

ASSOCIATED ATTRIBUTES:

The next thing to consider is shared attributes and abilities. Like so many other things they are not properly clarified as to the actual sense of their base concepts and how they are in fat interconnected and mutually complimentary when placed in proper perspectives. Some of these words will likely be unfamiliar to most so there is clarification of the meaning and he association. In this case it is not that people are stupid in this regard as much as most are no longer taught about these concepts properly which is unfortunate.

PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES:

Omnibenevolence (All good, as in good at everything)
Omnicompetence (All capable, as in order to do anything and everything)
Omnipotence (All power, meaning the center and source of all other powers)
Omnipresence (All Present, meaning everywhere present)
Omniscience (All knowing, meaning having all knowledge of the actual and potential)
Eternity (Time without end)
Infinite (Without Limits).

SECONDARY ATTRIBUTES:

Aseity (Self Existence, meaning source and continuation of existence is from within self)
Immutable (Unchanged, unchanging and unchangeable)
Impassible (No experience of any suffering, pleasure or pain of or like others)
Immortal (Not subject to and free from death)
Impeccable (Does not act contrary to one’s own will or nature)
Incomprehensible (Not able to be fully known or understood)
Incorporeal (Does not have a base material body, but does not mean lacking a body)
Immovable (Not able to be moved or removed).
Incomparable (Cannot be compared or likened to anything or anyone else).
Infallible (Not able to be or proven wrong or false, and the essence of impersonal truth)
Ineffable (Beyond the he capacity of symbol or language to fully describe or express).

SYMBOLIC ASSOCIATIONS

GOD’S THREE ASPECTS

Over this same period of coming up with ways in which to draw from these native concepts of God and the three Goddesses as well, the specific terms or concepts were likewise developed as part of this processes of creating corresponding terms related to these various ideas that actually were to some degree rather similar and so were applied as such within those same contexts. For Latin trained theologians the term Divinity was applied as Godhead or Godhood. The identity or person of God was applied as shown already to that of Deus that was originally Deu, and his expressed Divine Power was applied as God’s Spirit.

GODHEAD: Also known as Godhood, it represents all of Divine attributes, abilities and nature that makes God to be God. This aspect is not in itself a separate part or entity unto itself. Theologically it is this aspect is linked with Deism that tends to focus mostly on this impersonal, remote and incomprehensible and unknowable nature of God himself. It sometimes refers to God the person but only vaguely.
GOD: The person, mind, soul, self, identity and being of God himself that is personal and entirely male. This means he as a personal being, though not knowable in the sense of his mind or thoughts, desires or will, is purely male because he is not a union of opposites but rather the absence of them. Theologically this aspect is linked with Theism most directly. It may acknowledge his other aspects but only in part.
GOD’S SPIRIT: This is sometimes metaphorically referred to as the life-giving breath of God as the word spirit means wind, breathe and air. And like a breath he projects it out as an expression of his power and presence and life-giving essence but can also withdraw it as inhaling to withdraw his life-giving essence, power and presence. This is used metaphorically that when he exhales, he creates and gives life, but when he inhales, he destroys and ends life.

CONSIDERATIONS

Theologically this aspect is linked with Pantheism that God is present in and expressed though all things and is the essence of all things. While it vaguely references God himself in his personhood, it focuses more on how through his common essence of God is imminent and transcendent and can be sensed and experienced in and through everything, though some places and things are considered as having a higher or less concentration of this power and presence than others.
It also tends to carry a sense that there is no need to try and represent him because he is already represented by all that was, is or will ever be. It also is often used to present the sense that even if all the forms and expressions of him and therefore existence as we perceive it were suddenly to cease to exist and return by to this essence.

GOD’S THREE WIVES

The following examples are used for clarification of concept and context and are not to be considered as synonymous with any particular sets of mythologies or blurring of them, though for some ancient philosophers, similar considerations were very much part of their own contemplations and expressions. As to those who proclaim God does not have or does not need wives, two simple rebuttals exist for that. The same will claim with God all things are possible.

So, to deny the possibility of his three wives as realities not only denies all things are possible with God statement is to also deny known historical examples where the contrary is true. The second is to assume a lack of need means a lack of reality which is definitively nonsensical.

We can offer a simple third rejection of such a conclusion; they are putting themselves in place of God and decreeing what God can or cannot do or what God does or does not have, or what God can or cannot have which is more or less proclaiming themselves to be and know the mind of God himself which by their own decrees is at the very least slanderous and deceitful.

CREATIVE ASPECTS: AS THE THREE GRACES

We can liken the three Goddesses in their coequal creative aspects as in the concept of the three Graces, also called the Charities. In this sense they are associated very frequently with charm, beauty, nature, creativity, goodwill, festivity, rewards, compassion, mercy, desire, potency, friendships, marriages, and fertility. They can also sometimes be associated with diverse arts and crafts as well as commerce. But in this role, they are also weavers in the acts of creating. More often than not, these are the aspects that tend to be over focused on by most, often to the disregard of the other two which are just as important to recognize.

MAINTAINING ASPECTS: AS THE THREE FATES

We can liken the three Goddesses in their coequal maintaining aspects the three Fates or Establishing Ones, though they are also named as Apportioning Ones or Sharers. The more accurate sense in English is the Three Sisters that maintain and regulating the harmonies of things in accordance with God’s own laws. In this sense they are associated very frequently with harmony, order, focus, logic, reason, purpose, necessity, knowledge, wisdom, understanding, judgment, and root causes, as well as to a factor teaching and learning. This makes them often expressed as being inexplicable and more mysterious because they also radiate this from God himself.

DESTRUCTIVE ASPECTS: AS THE THREE FURIES

We can liken the Three Goddesses in their coequal destructive aspects as like unto the concept of the three Furies. In this sense they are associated very frequently with retribution, consequences, chaos, destruction, vengeance, jealousy, torment, punishment, pain, suffering, warfare, violence, plagues, and also fulfillment of responsibility, retribution and consequences. One can say metaphorically this is their aspect along with God when the gloves come off and things it’s about to hit the fan. However, to assume this aligns with evil or being all dark would be a grave mistake and trying to delve into this too deeply will only be overwhelming and self-destructive because this destructiveness is based in reciprocal justice.

One important thing to note is many times each of the three Goddesses are given figurative names, just like God is given such names and spoke of from time to time in veiled way, in both Greek and Hebrew. It's a known fact that unfortunately those who wish to push out the clear polytheism even from their own texts choose to ignore and further obscure which is itself simple theological and cultural dishonesty. Nonetheless, the main ones are provided:

From Greek feminine nouns (all three happening to be associated with speech) Note that Greek is written here from left to right rather than right to left in native form.

Γνῶσις: Gnosis. Knowledge
Σοφός: Sophia. Wisdom
Σύνεσις: Sunesis. Understanding.

From Hebrew feminine nouns (all three also happening to be associated with speech) Note that Hebrew is written right to left rather than left to right in native form.

דֵּעָה Deah. Knowledge
חָכְמָה Chokmah. Wisdom
בִּינָה Binah. Understanding

Some claim or use the excuse that this is only a reflection of "King Solomon's sin" of embracing foreign deities into the worship of the main deity of his kingdom because of the influence of all his "foreign" wives and concubines. Others try and identify them as a single female counterpart in three modes of action or try and identify two as one and the same such as Asherah/Asherat was revered as Athirat and set the other off to the side.

LINKING NAMES WITH MONTHS OF THE YEAR

The following are based more on Scandinavian rooted language sources and based on meaning and not a particular mythology to be the main guide behind the associations with the particular months and related seasons. This should not, therefore, be considered some sort of attempted "reconstruction" of any one particular source or attempted "reconciliation" of conflicting myths and folklore.

THE THREE SUB-NAMES OF GODAN

WINTER/DECEMBER: WULDER (WIELDER) Associated Winter Storms and with festivity and sharing of resources and gestures of peace and friendship.
SPRING/APRIL: SADAN (SEEDER). Associated Light and Life, with young male animals beginning to fight for dominance and to attract mates of the opposite sex.
SUMMER/AUGUST: GRIM (GRIME) Associated with hunting and harvesting and the selection of animals to be slaughtered for food resources.

THE THREE AS THE THREE SISTER GODDESSES

WEVA (WEAVER), SPINNA (SPINNER) AND KUTA (CUTTER): All three associated with crafting tools, clothes, and mending such as tents used for temporary shelters, making of nets to capture fish and other animals, as well as measuring the conditions of life for all things. They are various known as the Wayward Sisters, the Wyrd Sisters and the Nornir/Norns to name but a few. The following will be the associated sub-names and will show how they connect with the sub-names of Godan.

FOR GODDESS 1: WEVA (THE WEAVER)

JANUARY: LITA (LIGHTS). Consort of Sadan.
MAY: BLOMA (BLOOMS). Consort of Grim.
SEPTEMBER: GIFA (GIVER). Consort of Wulder.

FOR GODDESS 2: SPINNA (THE SPINNER)

FEBRUARY: FULLA (FULLNESS). Consort of Sadan.
JUNE: GRANI (GRAIN/GREENS). Consort of Grim.
OCTOBER: HELIA (HEALER). Consort of Wulder.

FOR GODDESS 3: KUTTA (THE CUTTER)

MARCH: BRYD (BRIDE). Consort of Sadan.
JULY: RUNA (RED). Consort of Grim.
NOVEMBER: SKADI (SHADY). Consort of Wulder.

WHAT SACRED GEOMETRY IS

Sacred Geometry, as a word, comes from the combination of Sacred from Latin sacrare meaning Set Apart + Geometry meaning Earth Measure; from Greek gemetria and Latin geometria combining gē/geo "land" + metria "measuring. Old English used holi "holy" + Old English used eorðcræft "earth-craft." It all began as civilizations were beginning to measure the seasons to improve upon hunting, then the domestication of animals once hunted which inspired the development of agriculture, and from then on, the establishment of villages, towns, cities, states and nations as plots of land were measured out to establish claimed plots of land and private properties.

ACTUAL HISTORY/ORIGINS

Sacred Geometry, the exploration of geometric shapes and patterns imbued with spiritual or symbolic meaning, predates both the Pythagoreans (6th century BCE) and monotheistic traditions. Across pre-monotheistic cultures, geometry was intuitively integrated into art, architecture, and rituals as a reflection of cosmic order, nature, and the divine. Below are key sources of Sacred Geometry from oldest to youngest, prior to Pythagorean formalization:

1. Prehistoric Art and Symbolism (c. 40,000–10,000 BCE +)

Early humans during the Upper Paleolithic left behind cave art and various carvings throughout much of Europe, such as that in Lascaux, France, featuring grids, zigzags, and concentric circles. These suggest an innate fascination with order and form, though not yet formalized as Sacred Geometry (as far as is known from what remains, which does not discount a certain form of Sacred Geometry since there is no evidence to date of any kind of written record, much less surviving languages).

2. Neolithic and Megalithic Cultures (c. 10,000–2000 BCE)

Megalithic structures like those in Göbekli Tepe (9500 BCE to at least 8000 BCE) and like Stonehenge (3100–2000 BCE, Britain) and such as those found in the areas of showcase circular layouts aligned with solstices, reflecting an early use of radial symmetry to connect earthly and celestial realms.
Spiral motifs, such as those carved at Newgrange (c. 3200 BCE, Ireland), symbolize life or cosmic energy, indicating geometry’s sacred role in these animistic societies.

3. Chinese Pre-Dynastic Traditions (c. 5000–2000 BCE)

Before the Shang Dynasty, early Chinese cultures crafted jade Bi discs—circular with square centers—representing heaven and earth through geometric duality.
Prehistoric roots of the I Ching, tied to shamanic practices, used binary patterns (later yin-yang), suggesting an emergent geometric worldview.

4. Mesopotamian Civilization (c. 4500–1900 BCE)

Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians built ziggurats with proportional designs aligned to celestial events, embodying cosmic harmony.
Their art, including cylinder seals with spiraling or Flower of Life-like patterns, and their base-60 system (influencing the 360-degree circle), reveal a practical and symbolic use of geometry.

5. Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BCE)

Cities like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa featured grid-based urban planning and precise proportions, hinting at geometry as a tool for order and perhaps spirituality.
Seals with swastikas, mandalas, and interlocking designs point to symbolic geometry tied to concepts like time or eternity.

6. Ancient Egypt (c. 3100–30 BCE)

Egyptian pyramids, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza (c. 2630 BCE), incorporate the golden ratio, pi, and cardinal alignments, showcasing advanced geometric knowledge.
Symbols like the vesica piscis and ankh, alongside temples built with sacred proportions, link geometry to their polytheistic cosmology and deities like Thoth.

Pre-Pythagorean Significance

These pre-monotheistic societies didn’t codify geometry into theorems but expressed it through intuitive and symbolic means, seeing shapes—circles, spirals, triangles—as reflections of natural forces or the divine. The Pythagoreans later systematized these ideas with numerical precision, but the foundations of Sacred Geometry trace back to these ancient, diverse origins.

In short, it was all derived from observations in nature which inspired the symbolism, and all based on the concept of a dot, line and circle. All of this also gave use the foundations of all mathematics. As such the symbolism was derived directly from observations of nature and simple realizations of underlining laws or rules of nature all things are bound to and by. These realizations also brought to the forefront a realization of the theological and philosophical qualities of these early sciences which we, more or less, use as our own creation story and how this expresses the concepts of the One God and Three Goddesses expressed in and through everything.

How it Contributes to Modern Sciences

Frankly speaking, Sacred Geometry has had a profound influence in several areas of modern sciences by bridging ancient mathematical principles with contemporary understanding of the universe. Fire example, Sacred Geometry introduced concepts like the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence, which are fundamental in understanding patterns in nature. These principles are applied in fields such as biology, physics, and architecture to study symmetry, growth patterns, and structural integrity. The study of geometric shapes in nature, such as the spiral of a nautilus shell or the hexagonal structure of honeycombs, has inspired bio-mimicry in engineering and design. These patterns reveal underlying mathematical laws governing natural phenomena.

In physics, geometric principles help model the universe's structure, such as the arrangement of atoms and molecules. The Platonic solids, derived from Sacred Geometry, are used to understand molecular shapes and crystal structures. Sacred Geometry fosters a connection between science and spirituality, encouraging holistic approaches to understanding the universe. It bridges disciplines like mathematics, art, and philosophy, enriching scientific inquiry. It has influenced the design of iconic structures, from ancient temples to modern buildings. The use of geometric proportions ensures harmony and balance, as seen in the Great Pyramid of Giza and Gothic cathedrals. Its timeless principles continue to inspire innovation and exploration across diverse scientific fields.

Sacred Geometry plays a foundational role in Druwayu, as it is deeply integrated into its principles and symbolism. Druwayu emphasizes the use of Sacred Geometry to represent universal truths, balance, and interconnectedness of the non-physical and the physical and as an expression of relationships to better comprehend how the concept of the One God and Three Goddesses relate to reality itself regardless of if one considers them actual beings or merely symbolic. However, in Druwayu, they are personal beings, but beyond all and impersonal towards everything else. Here are some specific applications and examples:

The Seal of the One and Three:

Druwayu incorporates the "Seal of the One and Three," a symbol based on Sacred Geometry. This seal reflects the union of the One God and Three Goddesses. It also linked to the understanding of cosmic patterns and energy flows. The religion uses geometric symbols to explore the vibrational matrix of the universe, drawing parallels to ancient traditions that view geometry as a bridge between the physical and spiritual realm.

Sacred Geometry has Rules; Four to be Specific

Sacred Geometry serves as a profound framework for understanding the foundational rules that govern the universe's patterns and forms. Rooted in both physical and metaphysical insights, these rules—Infinity, Individuality, Male Straight Lines, and Female Curved Lines—define the symbolic and energetic relationships embedded in all creations. Each rule reflects distinct aspects of existence, from the incomprehensible vastness of infinity to the intimate expression of individuality, and the dynamic interplay between masculine and feminine forces. These principles, expressed through geometric shapes and numbers, offer a timeless lens for interpreting the balance, harmony, and interconnectedness of life itself. The following will clarify these matters further and can be considered in a sense, Druwayu's creation story.

Rule One: Infinity (0)

Infinity and eternity are concepts beyond full human comprehension and cannot be properly represented by any image or object. To symbolize this, a simple circumference or outer circle is used—not as a literal representation, but as a way to retain patterns within and isolate designs.

Rule Two: Individuality (1)

The faculty of mind and the self cannot be seen, only expressed. A central dot, point, or sphere represents Personality, Individuality, and Personhood, encompassing aspects such as Mind, Intellect, Emotion, Desire, Will, Self-Awareness, and Consciousness. It defines all that is knowable and relational within existence.

Rule Three: Male Straight Lines (2)

Straight lines symbolize masculinity, reflecting the rigid, structured nature of the human male form. These lines represent hardness, logic, concreteness, projection, singularity, penetration, and action—the wellspring of life. Their number, two, represents activity or inactivity in the masculine force.

Rule Four: Female Curved Lines (3)

Curved lines symbolize femininity, mirroring the smooth, flexible nature of the human female form. They embody emotion, intuition, abstraction, absorption, multiplication, reception, and passivity—the creative force of existence. Their number, three, represents the flowing, generative essence of feminine force.

Necessity of Abiding by the Rules

The interpretation of geometric lines in Druwayu follows a strict sequence based on Rules 1-4, ensuring clarity and consistency. Deviating from this order can lead to misinterpretations or even deliberate distortions of sacred geometry. Many external sources skip steps, insert assumptions, or ignore foundational principles, resulting in systems that lack coherence and connection to objective reality.

By following these structured steps, Druwayu preserves the integrity of its cosmological framework, ensuring that knowledge is both understandable and applicable.

Stage One: The Formation of God’s Spirit Body

At the beginning, God exists as an indistinguishable totality—an infinite point beyond definition. However, to establish himself, God withdraws from his own infinity into a singular point, marking the beginning of self-definition.

This act creates a void—a space still connected to God’s infinite essence but distinct in its form. From within this void, God projects his power, establishing the parameters of three-dimensional space through three beams or axes, radiating in six opposing directions, thus forming seven points—the foundation of the Seven-Fold Spirit of God.

To complete the process, God connects all end points, forming an octahedron, which becomes his Spirit Body—a manifestation of divine structure. In three-dimensional form, this appears as a hexagon, fulfilling the first three sacred rules of Druwayu’s geometric order.

Stage Two: The Divine Rotation and Separation

Following his initial formation, God rotates the three axes at 180°, causing both ends to complete three distinct rings—the parameters of a perfect circle. This motion reverses his own formation process and sets the stage for divine differentiation.

From this point, God separates the rings from his own center and mind, generating three new centers—each independent, yet coequal. These centers become the foundations for three separate yet unified minds, marking the emergence of the three Goddesses.

God generates them directly from himself, yet he does not birth or sire them through another—meaning they are not his daughters. Instead, their qualities stand in complete opposition to his, but without conflict or contradiction. This divine balance allows masculine energy to transform into three distinct feminine forces, ensuring an unbroken unity between God and the Three.

At this moment, God reconnects with them equally and mutually, having established them from all eternity—a bond existing before all else.

Stage Three: The Transition from Nonphysical to Physical

With God and the Three Goddesses united in Divine Unity, they begin a process of replicating their forms and geometry endlessly. This repetition increases the density of nonphysical power, energy, and encoded mathematics, until it collapses inward, transforming the nonphysical into the physical.

This moment of transformation initiates what is known as the Big Bang, as the encoded cosmic forces and substances rupture and expand outward, filling the primordial void with the rushing waves of creation.

The One and Three Beyond Physical Laws

As nonphysical entities, the One and Three remain unaffected by this upheaval. The laws and dynamics they encoded into the primordial seed of existence take hold, guiding the unfolding reality without limiting them, as they are not bound by the rules they created—they define them, not the other way around.

The Cosmic Reflection of the Divine

Though incomprehensible in totality, the One and Three can be perceived and reflected within all existence by those who seek understanding. As galaxies form, stars ignite, and planetary systems—including our solar system, Earth, and Moon—begin taking shape, the mysteries of life unfold, carrying the essence of the One and Three throughout all reality.

Stage Four: The Separation of Divine Essence from Creation

The One and Three are not condensed into their creation—this distinction is fundamental. Rather than merging with the physical universe, their power and energy remain separate, serving as the primordial essence that fuels the conversion of the nonphysical into the physical.

This conversion is governed by precise energy-momentum relationships in physics, expressed mathematically as E² = (mc²)² + (pc)², which accounts for mass-energy equivalence and the properties of massless energy in motion.

The Process of Cosmic Expansion

At the moment of transformation, massless nonphysical energy becomes physical mass and massless physical energy, triggering the eruption and inflation of the universe. This expansion into the vacuum within infinite fullness follows the encoded mathematical processes established within the primordial seed of existence.

Through this structured process, the principles of the Drikeyu—Laws, Dynamics, and Life Energy—remain fully compatible with the unfolding universal framework, ensuring both continuity and harmony between divine order and cosmic evolution.

From then on the processes of the formation of the Scaffolding associated with "Dark Matter and Dark Energy" of the Universe allows for the formation of clusters of galaxies around super massive black holes and formation of stars, and from the formation and explosion of stars producing the denser materials and gases forms into planets, moons and other cosmic debris all eventually allows for the formation of solar systems like our own and here on this planet the formation of life and eventfully us.

In any case, this is the point of conversion of the non-physical into the physical singularity that starts the process of the creation of the universe in a process of inflation. To note, this does not have to apply to a single universe either.

This is represented as:

Humanity’s Place in Creation

Human beings, like all other living entities, are not the central focus of creation. The One and Three, existing beyond the physical realm, are not bound by human interpretations of purpose, motivations, or desires. Any attempt to claim special insight into their intentions—whether to assert authority, justify superiority, or shape doctrine—lacks truth or certainty and is often a means of self-elevation rather than genuine understanding.

Patterns in History

Throughout history, both ancient and modern, people have repeatedly sought to assert control over belief—sometimes through distortions, assumptions, or forceful claims of divine favor. This occurs regardless of whether individuals embrace the One and Three or reject all notions of the divine.

Unfortunately, humanity has more often lived up to its worst potential rather than its best, allowing division, conflict, and self-interest to dictate actions. Yet, despite these failings, rare individuals and moments of goodness emerge, proving that humanity still possesses the capacity for wisdom, growth, and transformation.

More Widespread than Appreciated

The theme of a single god associated with three wives or goddesses is deeply ingrained in the fabric of human belief systems, yet it has often been suppressed or overlooked. While some cultures have preserved this concept to varying degrees, the most prominent example remains in India, where it continues to play a vital role in the overall cultural and religious framework.

Expanding information of previous cross culture examples

In Hinduism, the concept of a triad of gods, or the Trimurti, plays a central role in understanding the creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe. Each of the Trimurti—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—is accompanied by three goddesses, known as Devis, who embody complementary divine powers. These goddesses further emphasize the interconnectedness of male and female energies in Hindu cosmology. The associations are as follows (be aware these also very from source to source as previous stated about such matters):

The God Brahma and His Three Goddesses:
- Savitri: Representing the power of creation and life, often associated with the act of generating existence.
- Sarasvati: The goddess of knowledge, music, and wisdom, representing the intellectual and artistic dimensions of creation.
- Gayatri: Embodying spiritual enlightenment and the transformative power of prayer, central to the connection between humans and the divine.
The God Vishnu and His Three Goddesses:
- Lakshmi: The goddess of wealth, prosperity, and fortune, symbolizing abundance and well-being.
- Bhumi: A personification of the earth, representing nurturing, stability, and sustenance.
- Ganga: The river goddess, symbolizing purity, cleansing, and the flow of life itself.
The God Shiva and His Three Goddesses:
- Parvati: The goddess of love, fertility, and devotion, representing the nurturing and compassionate aspect of existence.
- Durga: A warrior goddess, embodying strength, protection, and the destruction of evil.
- Kali: The goddess of time, transformation, and ultimate destruction, often seen as the fierce and protective aspect of Shiva’s energy.

Middle Eastern Mythology

The God An/Anu (associated with the concept of "One") and the Three Goddesses:
- Nammu: The primordial goddess of creation.
- Kia: A representation of the earth or earthly forces.
- Uras: Associated with fertility and abundance.
The God Al and the Three Goddesses:
- Astarte: A goddess of love, war, and fertility.
- Asherat: A mother goddess of family, kinship and figure of nurturing.
- Anath: A goddess of love, war and strength.

Greek and Roman Mythology

The God Kronos and the Three Goddesses (as per Philo of Byblos):
- Dione: Associated with femininity and water.
- Aphrodite: Goddess of love, beauty, and desire.
- Rhea: The mother goddess linked to fertility and motherhood.
Theos/Deus/Zeus Moiragetes and the Three Goddesses (Moirae):
- Klotho: The spinner of life's thread.
- Lakhesis: The measurer of destiny.
- Atropos: The inevitable cutter of the thread.
Jupiter Dux Parcae and the Three Goddesses (Parcae):
- Nona: Associated with spinning destiny's thread.
- Decuma: The measurer of life's span.
- Morta: The one who cuts the thread, signifying death.
Deus/Zeus (Roman Jupiter) is accompanied by goddesses such as
- Hera (marriage),
- Athena (wisdom), and
- Aphrodite (love), echoing the interplay of complementary forces.

Egyptian Mythology

The God Shai and the Three Goddesses:
- Meskhenet: Linked to childbirth and fate.
- Renenutet: A goddess of nourishment and harvest.
- Shepset: A fierce protector.
The God Ptah (after whom the name Egypt is derived) and the Three Goddesses:
- Sekhmet: The warrior goddess and bringer of plagues.
- Bastet: Goddess of home, fertility, and protection.
- Wadjet: Protector goddess often depicted as a cobra.

Slavic Mythology

The God Rod and the Three Goddesses:
- Rozhanitzy: Protectors of childbirth and destiny.
- Narucznica: Associated with nurturing forces.
- Udelnica: Symbolizing individual fate.

Scandinavian and Icelandic Mythology

Godan and the Three Goddesses:
- Friya: Goddess of love and beauty.
- Rinda: Representing determination and strength.
- Iurda: Associated with earth and fertility.
Alternatively, Odin, the All-Father, and the three Mothers
- Frigg: Goddess of motherhood and family
- Freyja: Goddess of love and beauty
- Runa: Associated with fate and destiny.
The Mimir and the Three Norns:
- Urd: Representing the past.
- Verdandi: Representing the present.
- Skuld: Representing the future.

A Perspective on Divine Relationships | Originally Omitted

While I might not have originally included this topic, some have suggested its importance in cultivating understanding. What follows is based on rarely discussed factors and is not meant as a justification for anything. Relationships—whether romantic, spiritual, or personal—should never be driven by selfish desires, desperation, jealousy, or fleeting urges. This principle is foundational, not something of my own creation, but rather a recognition of divine relationships as described in ancient expressions.This specifically addresses the sexual orientations of God and the Three Goddesses, aspects that have been increasingly erased from modern narratives. On one hand, these identities have been diminished entirely; stripped of gender and reduced to a singular nebulous non-thing on the other, extreme reinterpretations have blurred their distinctions into an “anything goes” mentality. That is not the context intended here and should not be imposed or implied by anyone.

A Perspective on Divine Relationships | Originally Omitted

Divine Masculinity & Femininity

God has traditionally been understood as purely male, represented as heterosexual, possessing a male spirit body that reflects His inherent nature. In contrast, the Three Goddesses—while distinctly female—have often been described as bisexual, possessing purely female spirit bodies. Their relationship with God is heterosexual, while among themselves, their bond has been described in expressions indicating homosexual interactions—a detail recognized in ancient languages but seldom acknowledged today. However, such things should also never be used as a justification of any personal relationships people choose to engage.

Beyond Procreation: The Purpose of Divine Union

The significance of this sexual differentiation extends beyond procreation. It serves a mental, emotional, and spiritual function, reinforcing bonds of mutual need and shared importance between divine beings. Their distinct identities ensure harmony, balance, and connection, providing an essential structure that strengthens the meaning behind their roles.By acknowledging these elements, we gain insight into the interwoven design of relationships as depicted in ancient thought—a system of complementary distinctions, purposeful connection, and spiritual significance.

Necessity of Clear Distinctions in Biological Reality

Let us examine these facts and why obscuring such distinctions is both unnecessary and illogical. The very nature of the One and Three, through their relationships, transcends the three defined orientations—heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual; not through ambiguity, but through the natural complementarity of their connections, we can see when such things are necessary and specific to species, and not something that changes simply because one "doesn't like or agree with realities beyond their subjective feelings and ignorant assumptions."

True Sacred Geometry echoes this principle, reflecting biological and metaphysical order, even when its patterns are not immediately obvious. Attempts to blur, blend, or erase these fundamental constructs are misguided, as reality still affirms that only two primary genders—male and female—exist as the basic biological foundation.

Clarifying Complex Biological Variations

While the existence of biological variations does not negate foundational sex distinctions, it is important to differentiate these variations without distorting the natural binary of male or female:

🔹Type H (Hermaphrodite) – An organism with dual gender traits externally that can engage sexually with another of its kind. In species that appear to “switch genders,” the reality is one dormant gender remains present, classifying them as hermaphrodites.

🔹Type A (Androgyne) – Retains both gender traits internally but does not require a mate to reproduce, instead relying on spontaneous self-replication and generally a more effeminate or feminine tendency.

🔹Type T (Transsexual) – A rare biological anomaly in certain species, displaying physical traits that mimic the opposite sex, but remaining genetically consistent with its original sex. Some animals may exhibit temporary or permanent adaptations, yet their chromosomal structure remains unchanged, such as Sequential Hermaphrodites, Gynandromorphs, and species with temperature-dependent sex determination.

🔹Type N (Neuter) – Neither male nor female; completely genderless or sexless, unable to procreate, replicating only through segmentation, division, or remaining entirely non-reproductive. This is often observed in such things as bacteria and viruses.

Defending the Integrity of Biological Distinctions

Reducing all species and biological classifications into an interchangeable, indistinct mass is not progress—it is a rejection of scientific reality. Nature operates through defined structures, with clear distinctions that serve essential functions. Efforts to dissolve these boundaries in favor of ideological narratives are not reflections of complexity, but manifestations of deliberate confusion. Preserving biological truths is crucial to maintaining order, integrity, and scientific accuracy, ensuring reality is understood as it exists, not as it is imposed by ideology.

Why These Classifications Are Not Natural to Humans and Higher Beings

Humans are sexually dimorphic, meaning they possess two distinct, biologically determined sexes—male and female—with defined reproductive roles. Unlike certain species that exhibit alternative reproductive or sexual adaptations, human beings do not naturally fall into the following classifications:

Type H (Hermaphrodite) – While some organisms are true hermaphrodites, human hermaphroditism does not exist in the same functional form. Conditions such as intersex variations may present atypical traits, but individuals are still genetically male or female—there is no natural ability for humans to switch between sexes or functionally reproduce as both.
Type A (Androgyne) – Human biology does not support spontaneous self-replication—every human must undergo sexual reproduction between male and female. Effeminate or masculine tendencies in individuals do not equate to a biological third sex or reproductive mechanism.
Type T (Transsexual) – Unlike species such as clownfish (sequential hermaphrodites) or gynandromorphic insects, humans cannot biologically change sex. Medical modifications may alter appearance, but chromosomal identity (XX or XY) remains fixed from conception. Adaptations seen in other species are not naturally applicable to human biology.
Type N (Neuter) – While certain species—such as bacteria, viruses, and some simple organisms—replicate without sexual reproduction, humans are fundamentally dependent on male-female reproduction. The absence of sex in non-human species is tied to specific environmental or evolutionary adaptations, not human biological function.

Human Sex Distinctions Are Fundamental

Attempts to blend, erase, or redefine these biological truths in humans are rooted in ideological distortion rather than scientific accuracy. Humans do not switch sexes, self-replicate, or exist outside the male-female reproductive model. Recognizing this is essential for maintaining a clear, factual understanding of human biology.

The Corruption of Divine Distinctions

Throughout history, monism and monotheism have shaped perspectives on the divine structure, each originally distinct in definition and function. Yet, as philosophical reinterpretations—particularly through pantheism and esoteric mysticism—took hold, they imposed gender fluidity upon deity, diverging from the structured male-female distinctions seen in early traditions.

How Monism Was Distorted

Monism, which emphasizes oneness and unity, has frequently been misused to collapse duality, rather than recognize the complementary nature of opposing forces. By portraying all existence as an indistinct whole, certain strains of mysticism blur gender differentiation, redefining divinity as neither male nor female, both male and female, or as an interchangeable blend of both.

This perspective contradicts ancient depictions of divine figures, where sex distinctions were purposeful, intentional, and reflective of cosmic balance. In early traditions, the roles of God and the Three Goddesses remained clearly defined. Yet pantheistic distortions forced an abstract, fluid interpretation, eliminating essential differences under the guise of higher enlightenment.

Monotheistic Reinterpretations Under Pantheistic Influence

Similarly, monotheism, which traditionally upheld a singular male deity, was later manipulated to impose an androgynous or dual-gendered identity onto God. This transformation was not an organic shift within monotheistic thought but an ideological infusion by movements seeking to redefine deity as all-encompassing, rather than a distinct masculine identity.

By doing so, these movements eliminated the structured male-female dynamic, undermining the biological, metaphysical, and spiritual balance upon which early divine archetypes were founded. The erosion of sex-based reality in divine interpretation led to philosophical relativism, promoting moral permissiveness under the guise of “transcendence.”

The Fallacy of the “Genderless or Dual-Gendered Deity”

This reinterpretation serves a larger ideological function—justifying all manners of perversion and reinforcing an “anything goes” mentality that seeks to eliminate moral accountability and biological truth. By blurring opposites that were meant to remain distinct, pantheistic philosophy attempts to forcefully reconcile irreconcilable realities, leading to:

A rejection of biological and moral distinctions – If deity is all things, including contradictions, no truth remains absolute, allowing for deviation without consequence.
The eradication of divine order – Traditional theology upheld clear, structured roles, but when deity becomes all-encompassing, natural balance is eliminated, resulting in chaos.
Philosophical relativism – When truth is made subjective, any ideology can be re-framed as divine expression, regardless of contradictions, perversions, or distortions.

Cultures that embrace and push such narratives always crumble from internal rot

1. Ardhanarishvara (Hinduism) – The Blending of Masculine and Feminine

Ardhanarishvara, meaning “Lord Who Is Half Woman,” is a Hindu deity depicted as half male (Shiva) and half female (Parvati) in a single body. This representation is often cited as evidence of gender transcendence, yet its original meaning emphasized the complementary nature of masculine and feminine forces, not their erasure.

2. Ishtar (Mesopotamian Mythology) – Gender Fluidity in Ancient Deities

Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess of love, war, and fertility, was described as possessing both masculine and feminine traits. Ancient texts reference her ability to change a man’s gender, and her priests were known to practice transvestitism. This has been used to justify modern gender ideology, despite the fact that Ishtar’s fluidity was symbolic rather than biological.

3. Hapi (Egyptian Mythology) – Intersex Representation

Hapi, the Egyptian god of fertility and the Nile, was depicted with both male and female attributes, including pendulous breasts and a ceremonial beard. While this has been interpreted as evidence of gender fluidity, Hapi’s form was meant to represent fertility and abundance, not a rejection of sex distinctions.

4. Hermaphroditus (Greek Mythology) – The Fusion of Male and Female

Hermaphroditus, the offspring of Hermes and Aphrodite, was originally male but later merged with the nymph Salmacis, resulting in an intersex form. This myth has been misused to justify modern gender fluidity, despite the fact that Hermaphroditus was not originally conceived as a dual-gendered deity.

5. Tiresias (Greek Mythology) – Forced Gender Transformation

Tiresias, a prophet in Greek mythology, was transformed into a woman after striking two mating snakes. After living as a female for years, he was later returned to male form. This myth has been reinterpreted to support gender fluidity, yet Tiresias’s transformation was a divine punishment, not a natural biological occurrence.

The Consequences of These Reinterpretations

These examples illustrate how pantheistic and mystical traditions have been reframed to support modern ideological narratives. By blurring divine distinctions, these reinterpretations attempt to:

Erase biological sex as a fundamental reality
Justify moral relativism and ideological permissiveness
Force the reconciliation of irreconcilable truths

Recognizing these distortions is essential to preserving the original structure of divine archetypes, ensuring that truth remains distinct, structured, and absolute.

Cultures That Embrace and Push These Gender Distortions Always Crumble from Internal Rot

Throughout history, civilizations that have rejected biological realities, blurred gender distinctions, and forced ideological reinterpretations have suffered internal decay, social instability, and eventual collapse. When societies embrace philosophies that dissolve structured truths, they erode their foundations, leading to confusion, moral decline, and societal fragmentation. Here are notable examples of civilizations and societies that embraced gender distortions, mystical reinterpretations, and ideological excess, only to fall from internal weakness:

1. The Roman Empire – Hedonism and Social Corruption

In its later years, Rome became obsessed with excess, normalizing sexual ambiguity, hedonism, and moral permissiveness. The rise of emperors like Elagabalus, who openly defied gender norms and engaged in bizarre sexual practices, symbolized Rome’s descent into self-indulgence over discipline. As traditional masculine virtues of strength and governance eroded, Rome weakened militarily, economically, and socially, leading to its eventual collapse in 476 AD. The same thing was observed among the Etruscans noted for predicting their own extinction.

2. Ancient Greece – The Breakdown of Traditional Roles

Classical Greece upheld structured gender roles, yet later periods—particularly in Hellenistic Greece—saw effeminate male behaviors, homosexual glorification, and gender experimentation among the elite. As philosophical movements like Sophism and Epicureanism encouraged moral relativism, Greek culture lost its strength and discipline, leading to its subjugation under Rome.

3. Weimar Germany – Social Degeneration and National Collapse

In the 1920s, Weimar Germany became infamous for gender experimentation, extreme sexual liberalism, and mystic reinterpretations of identity. Berlin was a hub of gender fluidity, cabaret culture, and social excess, stripping the nation of cohesion and purpose. This era of moral collapse created an atmosphere ripe for extremism, ultimately leading to the fall of Weimar democracy and the rise of totalitarianism in the 1930s.

4. Babylon – Excess, Confusion, and Destruction

Babylon, known for its polytheistic gender-fluid deities, encouraged gender ambiguity in religious and social life. This blurred societal roles and weakened social cohesion, fostering internal decay. Eventually, Babylon fell to external forces, as its culture had become too fractured and indulgent to maintain a strong, unified defense.

5. Communist Revolutions – Erasing Biological Distinctions to Control Thought

Ideological movements like Marxism and Maoism attempted to eliminate gender distinctions, claiming that sex and identity were mere constructs to be shaped for ideological control. In Soviet Russia and Communist China, gender neutrality was pushed aggressively, yet it led to societal detachment, mass confusion, and a breakdown in family structures. The eventual collapse of these regimes was due in part to the failure to maintain social cohesion—a direct consequence of denying natural distinctions between men and women.

The Pattern of Collapse

Every culture that has embraced gender distortion, rejected biological truths, and dissolved structured identities has followed the same pattern:

Social instability – The removal of gender roles and traditional structures causes mass confusion.
Moral decay – A permissive “anything goes” ideology leads to hedonism, corruption, and excess.
Loss of identity – With no clear societal purpose, internal weakness spreads, infanticide increases, overall health declines.
Collapse – Whether through economic, political, or external invasion, these cultures fall from within before being overtaken.

Conclusion: Upholding Truth Is Critical to Survival

History repeats itself—societies that erase truth and embrace ideological perversions always succumb to internal rot and external conquest. Recognizing biological reality and preserving structured societal roles are essential to cultural longevity and stability.

Sacred Geometry and the Misrepresentation of Divine Unity

These alterations stem from misrepresentations of sacred geometry, occult reinterpretations, and esoteric philosophies that seek to merge opposites never meant to be conflated. By re-framing deity as an undefined amalgamation, natural distinctions are obscured, weakening the inherent structural balance male and female once represented within divine archetypes.

The true function of sacred geometry reflects intentional order—not chaos disguised as unity. Reality is structured through defined relationships, and attempts to collapse opposites into neutrality only serve to erode distinctions critical to biological, spiritual, and cosmic harmony rather than blurred lines and rigid self destructive balance."

Restoring Clarity to Divine Distinctions

Recognizing these imposed distortions is essential in understanding the original division between masculine and feminine forces within divinity. Instead of yielding to ideological abstractions that serve modern agendas, truth lies in honoring the structured origins of deity, where male and female existed in defined relationships, not as an indistinct fusion.

Note: There are several other characters lines up with three consorts within the Icelandic source stories, though as one who actually has read through, researched and compared the content of such things like the various Eddas, there is no actual uniformity as is often falsely portrayed, and has a lot of clear barrowings by 13th and14th century authors from Greek and Roman Latin source materials instead.

Throughout history, triadic forms have fascinated cultures as symbols of balance, unity, and cosmic order. While many interpretations acknowledge their presence across spiritual and philosophical systems, few directly connect them to observable patterns in nature. Instead, references tend to rely on assumptions, fragmented citations, or abstract footnotes, failing to clearly define the role of Sacred Geometry in shaping these ideas.

When nature-based evidence is provided, it is often misaligned with unrelated concepts or overshadowed by theories detached from true geometric foundations. Many sources struggle to fully recognize or accept the deeper mathematical and structural parallels that Sacred Geometry reveals. Druwayu, however, firmly establishes these connections, ensuring a coherent and structured approach to understanding geometry as a reflection of universal truths rather than speculative symbolism.

Sacred Geometry as the Divine Blueprint

The formation of Sacred Geometry is not merely symbolic—it is the mathematical and structural foundation upon which creation unfolds. The One and Three express themselves through:

Sacred Geometry serves as the mathematical and symbolic foundation through which the Drikeyu—the Three Keys of Druwayu—are encoded into creation. These principles are not arbitrary constructs, but emerge directly from the structure of reality, guiding the laws, dynamics, and life force in all things.

Creation as a Reflection, not a Container

The laws of nature, physics, and existence do not define the One and Three—they are expressions of their will. They exist outside the confines of the physical and metaphysical, yet their presence can be perceived through creation:

Mathematical Precision – The divine blueprint ensures that universal patterns, from fractals to celestial orbits, retain harmony and consistency. This expresses and is an expression of the Worloga.
Energies & Forces – The laws governing motion, time, space, and causality are a direct encoding of their presence. This expresses and is an expression of the Wyrda and the Wihas.
Life’s Dynamic Evolution – Every living system operates within their predefined principles, ensuring continual growth and interconnectedness. This is an expression of all three keys in as the directive principles, shaping forces and external essence that comes from the One, is channeled through the Three, and realized as all existence, known and unknown.

Thus, Sacred Geometry is the signature of the One and Three, woven into the fabric of creation—not as a limitation, but as an unfolding expression of their divine essence. The Drikeyu manifests within the very fabric of reality through Sacred Geometry, ensuring that existence is structured, dynamic, and living. Through this geometric encoding, the One and Three shape creation, not as passive figures within the universe, but as its defining force, ensuring that laws, transformation, and life energy follow an eternal, harmonious order.

A good example of how one side of this will be presented as irredeemably "bad" will only have the same sources see something like this example and use this instead as some sort of claim of proof of the true "evidence of divinity" expressed through their own particular redirected set of assumptions and beliefs.

As this shows, we have the connection of the forms of the hexagon, converted to a hexagonal cube, which we can break apart into 6 faces, but also unfold unto a cross form, while also using the same to change the angles of view to create the structured form of an octahedron.

As shown previously, all of these are once again able to be linked directly with the forms of the pentagon, pentacles, demonstrate such things as the golden spiral and rectangles, back to the form of irregular triangles and angular basic pyramid form. No one ever realizes Pyramid is a compound of Latin pyra from Ancient Greek πυρά (purá), from πῦρ (pûr, “fire”) + Mid as a short form of English Middle.

The basis of all this comes from the conceptual key arguments and examples where geometry has been used to suggest the existence of a divine order, without claiming these as definitive proofs—since that’s a matter of belief—but as historical and conceptual perspectives. Be aware that when God is stated in this, it also includes the three Goddesses within Druwayu.

1. The Order and Harmony of Geometric Forms

Argument: The precision and universality of geometric shapes—like circles, triangles, and polyhedra—suggest a rational, intentional structure to the universe, pointing to a purposeful design by a conscious mind (God).
Example: The circle, with its perfect symmetry and constant radius, has been revered across cultures as a symbol of eternity and divinity. Ancient thinkers like Pythagoras saw its infinite yet bounded nature as a reflection of a perfect, unchanging creator. The ratio of its circumference to diameter (π, pi) is an irrational constant appearing everywhere in nature, from planetary orbits to wave patterns, hinting at a deeper, unchanging lawgiver.
Historical Context: Plato, in his Timaeus, linked geometric solids (the Platonic solids—tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron) to the elements and the cosmos, arguing their elegance and symmetry reflected a divine craftsman’s work.

2. The Golden Ratio and Divine Proportion

Argument: The golden ratio (approximately 1.618), a geometric proportion found in nature, art, and architecture, is so pervasive and aesthetically pleasing that it suggests a deliberate design by a higher intelligence.
Example: The spiral of a nautilus shell, the arrangement of seeds in a sunflower, and the proportions of the human body often approximate the golden ratio. Medieval scholars like Fibonacci (who didn’t discover it but popularized its sequence) and later thinkers like Luca Pacioli (in De Divina Proportione, 1509) argued this ratio’s recurrence in creation points to a divine architect embedding beauty and order into reality.
Theological Spin: The golden ratio’s presence in sacred structures—like the Parthenon or Gothic cathedrals—was seen as humans mirroring a cosmic blueprint set by God.

3. The Platonic Solids and Cosmic Design

Argument: The five Platonic solids, being the only regular polyhedra possible in three-dimensional space, represent a finite perfection that mirrors a divine mind’s limitation and intention in structuring the universe.
Example: Johannes Kepler, in his Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596), proposed that the orbits of the planets were nested within these solids (e.g., octahedron inside icosahedron), suggesting God used geometry to order the solar system. Though his model was later disproven, the concept still remains that geometric harmony is linked to divine intent.
Philosophical Link: The uniqueness of these shapes—each face identical, each vertex uniform—implies a simplicity and completeness that theologians like Augustine associated with God’s unity and omnipotence.

4. The Infinite and the Finite in Geometry

Argument: Geometry’s ability to describe both the infinite (e.g., lines extending forever) and the finite (e.g., a bounded square) parallels theological notions of God as both transcendent (beyond comprehension) and immanent (present in creation).
Example: Euclid’s geometry, with axioms like “parallel lines never meet,” holds universally yet emerges from simple postulates, suggesting an eternal truth undergirding reality. Medieval scholars like Thomas Aquinas saw such eternal truths as reflections of God’s mind, arguing in his Summa Theologica that order and intelligibility of the world (including geometry) point to a purposeful cause.
Mystical Angle: The infinite divisibility of a line segment (Zeno’s paradoxes) or the boundless nature of a fractal echoes divine infinity, a concept mystic like Nicholas of Cusa tied to God’s incomprehensible nature.

5. Sacred Geometry in Nature and Architecture

Argument: Patterns in nature and their replication in human-made sacred spaces suggest a universal language of geometry that originates from a divine source.
Example: The hexagonal cells of a beehive, the radial symmetry of a snowflake, or the spiral of a galaxy exhibit geometric precision. These patterns inspired sacred architecture—like the circular domes of mosques or the triangular stability of pyramids—seen as humans aligning with a divine template.
Cultural Evidence: In the Gothic cathedrals use of arches and vaults was designed to lift the soul toward heaven, using geometry as a bridge to the divine. In other cases, intricate geometric tiling (e.g., tessellations) avoids anthropomorphic but reflects God’s infinite nature.

They hinge on the idea that geometry’s elegance, universality, and utility—whether in the spiral of DNA or the orbit of planets—imply a purposeful intelligence rather than random chance. Critics (e.g., materialists) might counter that these patterns emerge from natural laws without needing a deity, but proponents (like Kepler or Newton, who saw God in mathematics) argue the laws themselves suggest a lawgiver, as do many physicists. In addition, a purely materialistic view of existence has long since been demonstrated to be incompatible.

Below are examples where modern physics contradict the purely materialistic worldview and where they show where the paradigm stumbles, especially when the core foundations are bridged theologically, philosophically and mathematically within various sciences.

1. Quantum Indeterminacy and the Observer Effect

Phenomenon: In quantum mechanics, particles exist in a superposition of states (e.g., both a wave and a particle) until measured. The act of observation collapses this superposition into a definite state (e.g., Schrödinger’s wavefunction collapse).
Example: The double-slit experiment: When electrons pass through slits unobserved, they create an interference pattern (wave-like behavior). When observed, they act as particles, forming two bands. This shift depends on measurement, not just physical interaction.
Challenge to Materialism: A strict materialist view assumes reality is fully objective and independent of observation. Yet, here, the observer’s role—whether human consciousness or a detector—seems to influence physical outcomes. This doesn’t align with a universe of purely deterministic matter; it suggests reality might be participatory or relational, hinting at something beyond mere physicality. Physicists like John Wheeler proposed the “participatory universe,” where observation co-creates reality, clashing with materialism’s passive, external stance.

2. Nonlocality and Entanglement

Phenomenon: Quantum entanglement shows that two particles, once linked, can instantaneously affect each other’s states, regardless of distance—faster than light, defying classical causality (Bell’s Theorem, experimentally confirmed by Aspect’s 1982 tests).
Example: If two entangled electrons are separated by light-years and one’s spin is measured (say, “up”), the other’s spin instantly becomes “down,” with no apparent signal traveling between them.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism relies on locality—interactions mediated by physical forces over space and time. Entanglement suggests a deeper, non-physical connection, often described as “spooky” (Einstein’s term). This doesn’t fit a universe of isolated material objects; it implies a holistic or interconnected reality, which some interpret as pointing to a unifying principle beyond matter (e.g., David Bohm’s “implicate order”).

3. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

Phenomenon: Cosmology reveals that physical constants (e.g., gravitational constant, electromagnetic force) are precisely calibrated to allow life. Tiny deviations would make stars, planets, or chemistry impossible.
Example: The cosmological constant (governing universe expansion) is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^120. If slightly larger, the universe would’ve expanded too fast for galaxies; if smaller, it’d collapse.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism often assumes the universe’s properties are random or inevitable outcomes of physical laws. Fine-tuning suggests either extraordinary coincidence (hard to swallow statistically) or intentional design, which materialism rejects. Alternatives like the multiverse (infinite universes with varying constants) remain untestable, leaving the question open—why this universe? Physicists like Paul Davies note this strains materialist explanations, hinting at purpose or a non-material origin.

Many will not even recognize such things that are right before their very eyes, and some will literally talk themselves into willful ignorance about such matters, especially when the things of the scientific also align with the things of the spiritual, theological, and philosophical.

As a case in point, this has 6 Primary Cosmological Constants. While there are indeed even more, these are the main ones that are better known to show clearly that the purely materialistic view of existence as being something occurring by pure chance or dumb luck is nonsensical.

They are represented here within this geometric design by the specific symbols of associations often described as being the Fine-Tuning observable within the expressions and measurements of the mathematical expressions of natural laws that are eternally expressed everywhere. It's known to be real and simply cannot be accounted for by dumb luck or mere chance.

These are the 6 dimensionless physical constants broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for the allowance of the emergence of physical biological life and emergence of intelligences. These concepts present the same basic perspective of intelligent agency and causes within information theories as an essential foundational reality expressed through everything.

N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 10 to the 36. If it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force. If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after Inflation (the Big Bag) commenced though it’s also possible substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.
Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial cosmic expansion rate, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.
Lambda (Λ), describes the ratio of the density of so called ‘dark energy’ to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10 to the 122. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent.
D, the number of spatial dimensions in space-time, is 3; specifically, width, length and depth, often expressed as three planes along their own X, Y and Z axes vital to motion.

The design incorporates the primary Platonic Solids, which are intrinsically linked to elemental forces and principles. Specifically, it highlights five key solids. The accompanying chart illustrates how these correspond to five fundamental elemental concepts, with the central point often viewed less as an elemental force and more as a connection to the concept of the mind.

Given the remarkably precise nature of these numerical qualities, many physicists argue that the likelihood of such exact measurements arising by chance, dumb luck or randomly alone is exceedingly low, to the point of being ridiculous to make such a claim and does not hold up to proper and precise scrutiny.

4. The Nature of Time in Relativity and Quantum Gravity

Phenomenon: Einstein’s relativity shows time isn’t absolute but relative to observers, while quantum gravity efforts (e.g., loop quantum gravity) suggest time might emerge from deeper, non-temporal structures.
Example: In special relativity, simultaneity breaks down—event A might precede B for one observer but follow it for another. In quantum cosmology, models like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation describe a “timeless” state where time isn’t fundamental.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism assumes a linear, objective flow of time in a physical universe. If time is emergent or illusory at a fundamental level, reality’s bedrock isn’t the clockwork progression of matter but something more abstract—possibly a timeless framework or consciousness-dependent process. This aligns poorly with materialism’s concrete, time-bound view.

5. The Hard Problem of Consciousness and Quantum Mind Hypotheses

Phenomenon: Physics intersects with neuroscience in theories like Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction), suggesting consciousness arises from quantum processes in microtubules within brain cells.
Example: Classical physics can’t explain subjective experience (Chalmers’ “hard problem”). Orch-OR posits that quantum collapses in the brain, influenced by non-computable processes, generate consciousness, not just neural firing.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism holds that consciousness is fully reducible to physical brain states. If quantum effects (non-deterministic, possibly tied to a cosmic order) underpin it, consciousness might not be a mere byproduct of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality. This opens the door to non-materialist views, like panpsychism or a mind-matter interplay, which materialism dismisses.

6. The Origin of the Universe and Information

Phenomenon: The Big Bang implies a beginning to matter, energy, space, and time, while information theory (e.g., black hole entropy) suggests information might be more fundamental than matter.
Example: The universe’s initial low-entropy state (highly ordered) is improbable under random material processes. Meanwhile, the holographic principle posits reality as a projection of information encoded on a boundary, not a bulk of matter.
Challenge to Materialism: Materialism struggles with what precedes or causes the Big Bang—pure matter can’t explain its own origin. If information or laws predate physicality, reality’s foundation shifts from tangible stuff to an abstract structure, suggesting a non-material essence (e.g., a “logos” or organizing principle).

Below is a list of notable physicists who have expressed belief in a God or a higher power, along with their stated reasons where available. This draws from historical records, writings, and interviews, reflecting a range of perspectives from theistic to pantheistic beliefs. I’ve focused on physicists whose views are well-documented and tied to their scientific work or philosophical outlook, avoiding speculation where evidence is thin.

1. Isaac Newton (1642–1727)

Belief: Devout but unorthodox Christian (Unitarian, rejecting the Trinity).
Reasons: Newton saw the order and regularity of the universe—exemplified by his laws of motion and gravitation—as evidence of God’s handiwork. He wrote in Principia Mathematica that the “most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” He believed studying nature revealed God’s thoughts, famously saying, “This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all.”
Context: His science and faith were inseparable; he saw physical laws as divine design.

2. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)

Belief: Devout Lutheran Christian.
Reasons: Kepler viewed his discovery of planetary motion laws as uncovering God’s geometric plan. In Harmonices Mundi, he wrote, “Geometry… is coeternal with the divine mind,” suggesting God created the universe with mathematical harmony. He saw his work as a priestly act, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him,” and believed the cosmos reflected divine order and beauty.
Context: His faith drove his persistence, seeing astronomy as worship.

3. Michael Faraday (1791–1867)

Belief: Devout member of the Sandemanian Christian sect.
Reasons: Faraday believed God’s design was evident in nature’s laws, particularly in his work on electromagnetism. He reportedly said, “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God,” linking his discoveries (e.g., electromagnetic induction) to divine creation. His faith emphasized humility before a purposeful universe.
Context: His religious community reinforced his view of science as a way to glorify God.

4. James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)

Belief: Devout Presbyterian Christian.
Reasons: Maxwell, who formulated classical electromagnetism, saw the universe’s laws as evidence of a rational divine mind. He wrote, “I believe… that the scientific men of the present day have as strong a faith in a lawful Creator as those of the past,” suggesting the consistency of physical laws (e.g., Maxwell’s equations) pointed to God’s governance. He viewed science as a means to understand divine order.
Context: His faith shaped his rejection of materialism, seeing purpose in nature.

5. Max Planck (1858–1947)

Belief: Lutheran Christian, with a nuanced view of God.
Reasons: The founder of quantum theory argued that the order of the universe suggested a purposeful intelligence. In a 1937 lecture, Religion and Naturwissenschaft, he said, “Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations.” He saw the statistical regularity of quantum phenomena as hinting at a deeper reality beyond materialism.
Context: He viewed God as a unifying concept for science and faith, not necessarily personal but essential.

6. Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976)

Belief: Lutheran Christian.
Reasons: A pioneer of quantum mechanics (Uncertainty Principle), Heisenberg saw physics as a “divine service.” He wrote, “Physics is reflection on the divine Ideas of Creation,” suggesting humans, made in God’s spiritual image, could grasp these ideas. In a 1973 interview, he said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you,” implying deep study revealed purpose.
Context: His faith reconciled quantum uncertainty with a belief in underlying order.

7. Arthur Eddington (1882–1944)

Belief: Quaker Christian.
Reasons: Known for verifying Einstein’s relativity, Eddington believed the universe’s harmony pointed to a divine mind. In The Nature of the Physical World (1928), he wrote, “The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be… a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” He saw the fine-tuning of physical constants as suggestive of purpose.
Context: His Quaker mysticism tied the cosmos’ elegance to God’s presence.

8. Abdus Salam (1926–1996)

Belief: Ahmadi Muslim.
Reasons: The Nobel laureate for electroweak unification saw his faith as integral to his science. He wrote, “The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah’s created laws of nature,” and viewed his glimpse into God’s design as a “bounty and grace.” He believed the universe’s mathematical structure reflected divine creation.
Context: His work unified forces, reinforcing his view of a purposeful cosmos.

9. John Polkinghorne (1930–2021)

Belief: Anglican Christian (ordained priest).
Reasons: A theoretical physicist turned theologian, Polkinghorne argued the universe’s intelligibility and fine-tuning suggested a purposeful design. In Questions of Truth (2009), he said, “The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality.” He saw quantum theory’s openness as allowing divine action.
Context: His shift from physics to priesthood reflected a synthesis of science and faith.

10. Freeman Dyson (1923–2020)

Belief: Practicing Christian, though agnostic about specifics.
Reasons: Known for quantum electrodynamics, Dyson said, “I am a practicing Christian but not a believing Christian,” emphasizing worship over doctrine. In a 2000 Templeton Prize speech, he suggested, “Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe,” hinting at a purposeful intelligence behind physical laws.
Context: His faith was experiential, seeing science as revealing a mindful cosmos.

11. Arno Penzias (1933–2024)

Belief: Jewish theist.
Reasons: Co-discoverer of cosmic microwave background radiation (evidence for the Big Bang), Penzias said in a 1995 interview, “The Bible talks of purposeful creation… What we actually find is order,” suggesting the universe’s low-entropy origin aligned with divine intent. He saw astrophysics as revealing “a plan of divine creation.”
Context: His Nobel-winning work reinforced his belief in a purposeful beginning.

Observations

Common Themes: Many cite the universe’s order, mathematical beauty, or fine-tuning as evidence of a purposeful intelligence. Some (e.g., Newton, Kepler) saw science as worship, while others (e.g., Planck, Heisenberg) found God at the limits of material explanation.
Variety of Belief: Views range from personal gods (Newton, Salam) to pantheistic or abstract notions (Eddington, Dyson).
Historical Shift: Earlier physicists (Newton, Kepler) faced less secular pressure than modern ones (Polkinghorne, Penzias), yet all tied their faith to their science.

In these sense as the concepts of the Drikeyu are based in the objective and contemplated subjectively, the perceived superiority of Drikeyu depends on individual preferences, beliefs, and values. Some may find its integrated approach appealing, while others may prefer the clarity and focus of more specialized frameworks in their relation to these concepts. Both have their merits and draw backs naturally.

Drikeyu's strength lies in its ability to encompass multiple dimensions of understanding, making it compatible with a wide range of belief systems. This inclusive nature allows it to bridge gaps between different perspectives, promoting harmony and mutual respect. In the end, the best framework for understanding these principles properly in relation to observable and know existence is to comprehend they are based in the things we know and not the things we do not.

More information is simply regarded as an expansion and better understanding of these essential concepts. In that, it's very personal as it is allowed to resonate most deeply with an individual's experiences and values that contribute to their individual worldview. Each perspective offers unique insights and contributions to the broader understanding of existence.

A Personal Choice with Practical Considerations

In Druwayu, crafting a shrine to honor the Divine Unity of the One and Three or to reflect cultural and spiritual traditions is a deeply personal choice. While not mandatory, it can serve as a meaningful expression of dedication and a reminder of Druwayu’s core principles: logic, humor, absurdity, and the four tenets:

Sanctity of Life
Commitment to One Another
Self and Mutual Sufficiency
Custodians of Life

However, Druans must weigh the risks of openly displaying such shrines, as expressing non-mainstream beliefs can invite hostility or persecution. This guide outlines the purpose, construction, and practical considerations for creating a Druwayu shrine, rooted in the teachings of the First Church of Druwayu (FCD) and founder Raymond S. G. Foster.

Purpose of a Druwayu Shrine

A Druwayu shrine is a personal, sacred space designed to:

Honor the Divine Unity: Reflect the polytheistic One and Three (God and three Goddesses), embodying the Drikeyu (science, philosophy, faith).
Reinforce Tradition: Serve as a tangible reminder of Druwayu’s values, fostering connection to its culture.
Express Dedication: Act as a creative outlet for spiritual or personal commitment.

Unlike ancestor shrines, which focus on familial or historical figures, a Druwayu shrine centers on the One and Three, symbolizing their transcendence and the broader Druish worldview. It’s about personal inspiration, not rigid rules.

A shrine can be simple or elaborate, tailored to your preferences.

Below is a suggested structure:

Core Elements

Candles (4): Represent the Divine Unity.
- One larger central candle for the God.
- Three smaller candles for the Goddesses, placed around the central candle.
Incense Burners (2): Positioned on either side of the candles, symbolizing balance and the ethereal nature of the One and Three.
Background Image: A geometric design (e.g., Sacred Geometry’s infinity symbol) reflecting the Divine Unity’s structure.
Back Cloth: A dark or neutral fabric behind the shrine, representing the unknowable qualities of the One and Three.

Optional Additions

Symbolic Objects: Skull-shaped items (life cycle), game dice (chance/absurdity), cards, bones.
Natural Elements: Stones, feathers, shells, herbs, flowers, seeds, salt.
Instruments: Rattles, bells, drums, chimes for ambiance.
Practical Tools: Candle snuffer, incense burner, oil burner, scented oils.
Handmade Items: A wand, book, or staff for personal significance.
Altar Cloth: A base fabric in meaningful colors or patterns.

Safety and Maintenance

Fire Safety: Use caution with open flames. Place candles on stable, non-flammable surfaces and never leave them unattended.
Cleanliness: Keep the shrine tidy. Dust regularly and replace wilted flowers or stale herbs.
Portability: Consider a compact or concealable setup for easy storage if discretion is needed.

Discretion: A Practical Necessity

While a shrine can be a powerful expression of faith, Druans must recognize the risks of displaying it openly:

Hostile Environments: Non-mainstream beliefs may face hostility or ridicule.
Mixed Company: Avoid attracting unwanted attention in settings with antagonistic views.
Cultural Sensitivity: Ensure the shrine is not misinterpreted as occultism or costume play.

Strategies for Discretion

Subtle Design: Use minimalist or ambiguous items that don’t appear overtly religious.
Private Placement: Set up the shrine in a personal space like a bedroom or study.
Temporary Setup: Assemble the shrine for private reflection and dismantle it when not in use.
Symbolic Alternatives: Use everyday objects with Druish meaning (e.g., a stone for stability, a feather for freedom).

Personal Choice, Not Obligation

Creating a shrine is not a requirement in Druwayu—it’s a personal choice driven by your desire to connect with the tradition. Druwayu emphasizes autonomy:

If Inspired: Build a shrine as a creative act of devotion, reflecting the Drikeyu and your unique expression of Druish culture.
If Hesitant: Feel no pressure to construct one. Your faith is valid without physical symbols.

Distinction from Ancestor Shrines

While similar in construction, a Druwayu shrine differs from an ancestor shrine in very basic ways:

Focus: Honors the One and Three, not familial or historical figures.
Symbolism: Represents the Divine Unity and Drikeyu, not personal lineage.
Intent: Reinforces cultural and spiritual identity, rather than memory and connection to the past.

Alignment with Druwayu’s Teachings

A shrine can reflect Druwayu’s core values:

Sanctity of Life: Honors universal truths.
Commitment to One Another: Strengthens Druish identity.
Self and Mutual Sufficiency: Encourages personal creativity and independence of expression and thought.
Custodians of Life: Promotes responsible stewardship.

Practical Tips for Druans

Start Small: Begin with a few items and add as inspiration strikes.
Prioritize Safety: Use battery-powered candles if open flames pose risks.
Stay Discreet: Keep it reasonably subtle. and consider more portable setups in mixed environments.
Reflect Your Values: Choose items that resonate with Druwayu’s motto and tenets.

If creating a poster with something like this works best so as to simply express a sense of a deeper appreciation of the true Sacred Geometry factor, then feel motivated to do so. It does not have to be exactly like this; however, it should follow the same basic themes or process as a visual expression of these foundational concepts. The point is, be creative.

Note: A Druan shrine, like other belief systems and practices, is a personal expression, optional act of devotion, reflecting the Divine Unity of the One and Three and Druwayu’s cultural values. Built with candles, incense, and personal items, it’s a flexible expression of faith. Some Druans must harmonize creativity with discretion, given the risks of persecution in hostile settings and it is not being dishonest to keep such things personal and to oneself.

In Conclusion

The One and Three—God and the Three Goddesses—are not expressions of creation but rather the architects of its fundamental structure. Through Sacred Geometry, they encode existence itself, ensuring that reality reflects their divine order rather than defining them. Regardless of the names assigned by different cultures, the core principles of their presence remain universally embedded in the laws, dynamics, and energy of existence.

One must be extremely careful to guard themselves from many of the various occult distortions behind such things as these, especially when such examples as these demonstrate the connections with such as hexagrams, pentagrams, triangles and the like only to impose some sort of fictitious "diabolical" constructs or delusional concepts of androgyny completely ignoring and breaking the rules and the factual histories of such things to then simply impose their own rewriting of history or inventing history about the past that has no actual attested and incontestable proof of such claims being remotely probable, and more often than not based off inaccurate and incomplete data all together. Such deceptions, are, unfortunately, diverse.