-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hard Polytheism: Why is it not considered seriously?
- Thread starter Pleroma
- Start date
In other words, a given theology is not taken seriously because people can't be bothered to do actual, serious work to understand it correctly and they then proceed to reject a strawperson. On that, I would heartily agree.
Goblin
Sorcerer
No I mean its very easy to not prove or even buy that there are not only one empirical tyrant but twelve.
Not to mention, my elementalist friend the reality of the Gods is so esoteric and anamistic.
I think hard polytheism, probably evolved in ancient times just as fundies have in our own times.
Literal interpretations of symbolic or metaphorical stories
Not to mention, my elementalist friend the reality of the Gods is so esoteric and anamistic.
I think hard polytheism, probably evolved in ancient times just as fundies have in our own times.
Literal interpretations of symbolic or metaphorical stories
Sees
Dragonslayer
The one aspect being true doesn't necessarily kill off all or any others. Three aspects to what Gods are, or what a specific God is, doesn't cancel out a hidden or ineffable fourth. The extremely complex can add to, rather than replace, the simple. In Germanic stories sometimes Odin is Odin, sometimes Odin is "Conscious-Intelligence" itself...sometimes just a direction marker. I agree with some fellow old dog Ásatrú guys who say the most solid aspect of Gods is that they are Mysteries. Mind-constructs can't contain or nail down such. Everything we can say is more descriptive than definitive, by many magnitudes. Nullification can be really heavy-footing it.
Seeing polytheistic Gods as multiple copies of Abrahamic type God is just so foreign all together. Maybe not so much 5,000 years ago.
I think I have to ask what hard polytheism means to you now, because I'm getting the impression you're taking its meaning differently than I am. It sounds like you're equating hard polytheism with mythological literalism. I do not find this to be the case. I'm a true ("hard") polytheist, but hardly a mythological literalist. I find mythological literalism to be an infantile, erroneous manner of interpreting the world's mythologies, whether we're talking polytheisms or monotheisms.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Having taken the trouble to collate the reliable surveys, I find that, roughly speaking,
60% of the world follow a secondary religion, occasionally polytheist
30% follow a primary or ethnic religion, usually polytheist
10% are unbelievers or not sure
To dismiss the millions who believe in the gods as literalists or to compare them with fundies is colossal arrogance. Of course, they do say that atheists those who cannot conceive that the universe could contain anything superior to themselves!
60% of the world follow a secondary religion, occasionally polytheist
30% follow a primary or ethnic religion, usually polytheist
10% are unbelievers or not sure
To dismiss the millions who believe in the gods as literalists or to compare them with fundies is colossal arrogance. Of course, they do say that atheists those who cannot conceive that the universe could contain anything superior to themselves!
Last edited:
Goblin
Sorcerer
fundies are literalists. why would it be wrong to assume that the same type of people found today were found back then.
fundies believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
pagan literalists believe in a literal interpretation of myths.
just cause they are pagan doesnt excuse blind faith, no more than it does for christians.
one believes Jesus lives in the sky & sits on some throne(depending on the denomination)
and a literalist pagan would believe the sun rises and sets because apollo is pulling it with his chariot.
i am pagan and i find such interpretations insulting.
fundies believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
pagan literalists believe in a literal interpretation of myths.
just cause they are pagan doesnt excuse blind faith, no more than it does for christians.
one believes Jesus lives in the sky & sits on some throne(depending on the denomination)
and a literalist pagan would believe the sun rises and sets because apollo is pulling it with his chariot.
i am pagan and i find such interpretations insulting.
Broadly speaking, true polytheism affirms the existence of multiple gods, and these gods - as distinct individuals - are granted specific focus, attention, or worship. Basically, there is none of this "god X is really just a facet of Y" going on, or "god X is the same as god Y in this other culture because they share patronage of attribute Z."
Goblin
Sorcerer
i understand. but even in ancient times, the gods were all thought to spring from primordial chaos(greek)
or from the combination of hot and cold(norse).
shinto insists of such pluralism but they are all made out of the one KI(energy)
if the gods are truly completely separate than how do they even exist. unless energy is not even considered a God at all.
i would be interested in hearing a bit more explanation
or from the combination of hot and cold(norse).
shinto insists of such pluralism but they are all made out of the one KI(energy)
if the gods are truly completely separate than how do they even exist. unless energy is not even considered a God at all.
i would be interested in hearing a bit more explanation
Let me put things this way. You sprung forth from your mother's womb, and are the product of her egg and your father's sperm. Are you a mere facet of your mother and father? Are you the same as them? Or are you a distinct individual?
Having an origin doesn't preclude distinctiveness and individuation.
I've noticed that the question of "how many gods are there" often gets conflated with the question of "what is the underlying substance to which reality can be reduced to." They're related questions, but they're not the same. You can affirm the existence of multiple gods but be a substance monist, which is what this sounds like to me. There are some more eloquent words written about that by someone other than myself:
Polytheistic Monism: A Guest Post by Christopher Scott Thompson (Part One)
True polytheism doesn't posit "truly completely separate." That's rubbish; nothing in reality is like that. It posits things exist as individuals. Individuals can and do have relationships with other individuals. I am fond of calling reality the Weave: it is an interconnected tapestry full of many, many threads. The threads are all individuals, and they also have relationships and connections to everything else.
Goblin
Sorcerer
I do not deny the individuality of the spirits. But I see them as aspects of one energy
I conceive of the gods as children of a pantheistic goddess. They are individual elements of one Nature.
I wrote a thread recently on this.
Is this soft or hard polytheism?
Until you dawned light on it I just thought hard meant literal
I conceive of the gods as children of a pantheistic goddess. They are individual elements of one Nature.
I wrote a thread recently on this.
Is this soft or hard polytheism?
Until you dawned light on it I just thought hard meant literal
Because small minds find it difficult to conceive of it. Our culture is so brainwashed by the lies and distortions of the monotheistic paradigm that it's hard to shake the embedded programming.
Sees
Dragonslayer
When people are constantly chugging down duality and absolutes, anything that doesn't fit tastes funny. Like thinking you are about to drink sweet tea but it's a soda...or vice versa. It's just very odd until your brain acclimates and acknowledges. Then you can really taste it.
I can relate. I'm trying to deprogram myself from monotheism. Intellectually, polytheism makes all the sense in the world and at heart, I'm a polytheist and an animist (I've always believed in nature spirits and beings like that), but it's a whole new world and takes a lot of adjusting. Especially when you're going it alone and am in tough life circumstances.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Gods and Goddesses do not require to be proved. Has anybody proved even one at any time? So it does not matter whether they are twelve or twelve hundred. .. Yes, and we (Hindus) still delight in it.
360 village deities come to pay obeisance to Lord Raghunath in Kulu on Dussehra day:
This is an insult to paganism and I do not think you are one. If Apollo did not pull it with his chariot or Uccaishrava did not carry Mithra to his resting place, the day would not have set.
Last edited:
Goblin
Sorcerer
Gods and Goddesses do not require to be proved. Has anybody proved even one at any time? So it does not matter whether they are twelve or twelve hundred. .. Yes, and we (Hindus) still delight in it.
360 village deities come to pay obeisance Lord Raghunath in Kulu on Dussehra day:
This is an insult to paganism and I do not think you are one. If Apollo did not pull it with his chariot or Uccaishrava did not carry Mithra to his resting place, the day would not have set.
Goblin
Sorcerer
Very classy atheist hindu, judging what a pagan is.
NeoPaganism is a collection of religions. Many pagans beleive in a anamistic interpretations of gods.
Personally I find such literalist interpretations to be damaging to human minds whether it is of a Christian Hindu or even pagan flavor.
If you like literalism so much then you must really believe the Ganges comes from Shiva hair.
NeoPaganism is a collection of religions. Many pagans beleive in a anamistic interpretations of gods.
Personally I find such literalist interpretations to be damaging to human minds whether it is of a Christian Hindu or even pagan flavor.
If you like literalism so much then you must really believe the Ganges comes from Shiva hair.