Hard Polytheism: Why is it not considered seriously?

[Pleroma]

They’re not all the same: Meet some other hard polytheists

Why is Hard polytheism not considered seriously nowadays by pagans? Many are soft polytheists and majority of them are pagan atheists.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I'm a hard polytheist, both in thinking the gods are actual distinct beings, and in believing in the pantheons of other nations- that they are actual distinct beings.

 

[Pleroma]

I'm a hard polytheist, both in thinking the gods are actual distinct beings, and in believing in the pantheons of other nations- that they are actual distinct beings.

How can you rationalize this belief in a time when phenomena which were once attributed to gods is replaced by natural explanations from science?

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

How can you rationalize this belief in a time when phenomena which were once attributed to gods is replaced by natural explanations from science?

Simple- I don't attribute things in nature to my gods. I believe my gods are the embodiments of nature in another realm. Pleroma, that goes without saying that many polytheists both ancient and now didn't think of the gods that way. Ancient pagans were some of the first to have science.

 

[Riverwolf]

How can you rationalize this belief in a time when phenomena which were once attributed to gods is replaced by natural explanations from science?

Are we so sure that they were actually attributed to the Gods? At least in the ways that are often conceived of?

 

[Jainarayan]

How can you rationalize this belief in a time when phenomena which were once attributed to gods is replaced by natural explanations from science?

Maybe it's the gods behind it all. Maybe they are creating and controlling these things that are explained by science. It might be their little game. After all, do Hindus not say Krishna has his leela?

 

[Riverwolf]

I think hard polytheism isn't taken seriously, because it's still generally regarded through the lens that the Church painted it with: primitive, savage superstition held by barbarians who are our intellectual and cultural inferiors.

 

[illykitty]

Some people have trouble taking seriously things they don't understand.

I've read so many blog posts, watched a lot of videos and read the point of view of many on these forums, and some others... And I still can't grasp it. I feel it's not something you can understand intellectually. It's probably very hard to understand unless you experience it, and before someone says it, you also understand these experiences to be gods.

I still don't know what it means when people say a certain god or goddess is with them... I honestly have no idea how one knows which god is with them either... I'm still waiting for my ah-ha moment.

 

[The Hammer]

How can you rationalize this belief in a time when phenomena which were once attributed to gods is replaced by natural explanations from science?

It's pretty easy, honestly. These natural aspects of reality aren't explained, through the Gods, but the other way around. The Gods, and their personalities/aspects are explained to us through nature.

 

[The Hammer]

Some people have trouble taking seriously things they don't understand.

I've read so many blog posts, watched a lot of videos and read the point of view of many on these forums, and some others... And I still can't grasp it. I feel it's not something you can understand intellectually. It's probably very hard to understand unless you experience it, and before someone says it, you also understand these experiences to be gods.

I still don't know what it means when people say a certain god or goddess is with them... I honestly have no idea how one knows which god is with them either... I'm still waiting for my ah-ha moment.

The ah-ha moment definitely makes a difference. Because you are right, it isn't necessarily "intellectual", but emotional.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Isn't Hinduism polytheist? Well some of them are, as some believe all of the gods and goddesses are part of one deity while others believe they are all separate. I thought it would be taken seriously. Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion after all.

 

[Storm]

They’re not all the same: Meet some other hard polytheists

Why is Hard polytheism not considered seriously nowadays by pagans? Many are soft polytheists and majority of them are pagan atheists.

1) That doesn't mean it's not considered seriously.

2) I don't know where you are, but imx, atheists in pagan circles are few and far between, and most of them don't identify as pagan, only appreciate the spiritual vernacular.

 

[Storm]

Isn't Hinduism polytheist? Well some of them are, as some believe all of the gods and goddesses are part of one deity while others believe they are all separate. I thought it would be taken seriously. Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion after all.

I'm no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, all Hindu traditions believe that everything emanates from Brahman, so that would rule out hard polytheism completely.

 

[Pleroma]

The correct view supported by the Hindu scriptures is the theory of Microcosm and Macrocosm. The truth that gods exist both with in us and outside of us. The later Hindu traditions were too idealistic and gave too much importance to seek only the Microcosm view with in themselves rather than going on an ascent to heaven to meet the gods and the Godhead in order to know also the Macrocosm view. During ancient times both the Microcosm and the Macrocosm was equally studied and was sought after to fully understand the Cosmos and our place in it. Hard Polytheism is a fringe opinion in Hinduism now.

Macrocosm and Microcosm

 

[Aupmanyav]

Isn't Hinduism polytheist? Well some of them are, as some believe all of the gods and goddesses are part of one deity while others believe they are all separate. I thought it would be taken seriously.

Hard polytheism is the majority opinion in Hinduism. The intellectuals reduce it to one God, but they are by far out-numbered.

Given below is an incomplete list of deities as Wikipedia itself admits:
List of Hindu deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Storm]

Hard polytheism is the majority opinion in Hinduism. The intellectuals reduce it to one God, but they are by far out-numbered.

Given below is an incomplete list of deities as Wikipedia itself admits:
List of Hindu deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of deities is not itself evidence of hard polytheism being favored over soft. Do you have a source for that?

It seems a bit unseemly to be havinng this discussion in this DIR, though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It seems a bit unseemly to be havinng this discussion in this DIR, though.

How come? Hindus are pagans just like the Greek, Romans, Nords and Celts were, perhaps the only ones who survived and prospered.

One God, nah. Go to any Hindu temple and see.

 

[Riverwolf]

How come? Hindus are pagans just like the Greek, Romans, Nords and Celts were, perhaps the only ones who survived and prospered.

Wait, what about Shinto or Chinese Folk Religion?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, those too, but how strong they are now in their countries?

 

[Storm]

How come? Hindus are pagans just like the Greek, Romans, Nords and Celts were, perhaps the only ones who survived and prospered.

One God, nah. Go to any Hindu temple and see.

Well, that's a rather controversial definition of the umbrella term, and arguably cultural appropriation. For myself, I've always preferred to avoid that particular sticky wicket by keeping to the stricter meaning.

More relevant, because when I left, there seemed to be an unspoken agreement about that, so the Hindu members didn't really come here to talk about their faith.

I did notice a new, syncretic member (forgive me but I can't recall your handle), but the upshot is that I feel like it's no different than if people were explaining Judaism in the Christian DIR.

If things have changed and there's a lot of cross posting, that's different. But I haven't noticed it.