• 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!

Metaphor Gods

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
It seems many polytheists on this thread take their gods symbolically rather than literally. What exactly does that mean? Perhaps it means they are metaphors for what they are god of. If so, how would this go about for the underworld deities? Also, we all know the things they stand for metaphorically (thor = thunder for example) exist, but why treat them god-like?

I'm not sure how an entity would be metaphorical.
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
I don't know about others, but the Devas (to me anyway) are the puzzle pieces to a great reality: Brahman. In other words, Brahman is the sum total of its finite characteristics. Another way to view the Gods are that they represent the potential divinity within everyone.

Still, why bother if they are only metaphors? Because they are still greater than us.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I don't know about others, but the Devas (to me anyway) are the puzzle pieces to a great reality: Brahman. In other words, Brahman is the sum total of its finite characteristics. Another way to view the Gods are that they represent the potential divinity within everyone.

Still, why bother if they are only metaphors? Because they are still greater than us.

Many things are greater than us, and if we were to address them all as gods we would be overloaded with divinities and would be unable to keep track of them all.

If they are the potential divinity within everyone, how are they greater than us?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Thor isn't a metaphorical stand-in for thunder; Thor IS Thunder. Quite literally, actually; the word "thunder" derives from "thunor", which is Thor's Anglo-Saxon name. At heart, Thor is the Son of Woden and Jord, that is, the Sky and Earth.

Calling them metaphors implies distinction and separation, which I don't believe is there.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Thor isn't a metaphorical stand-in for thunder; Thor IS Thunder. Quite literally, actually; the word "thunder" derives from "thunor", which is Thor's Anglo-Saxon name. At heart, Thor is the Son of Woden and Jord, that is, the Sky and Earth.

Calling them metaphors implies distinction and separation, which I don't believe is there.

Could you explain why it implies distinction and separation rather than resemblance and portrayal of Thunder as an anthropomorphic deity?

And why is Thunder a god? What differentiates you and atheism if the gods literally are what they are gods of? You both believe in thunder, sky, earth, etc.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Thor isn't a metaphorical stand-in for thunder; Thor IS Thunder. Quite literally, actually; the word "thunder" derives from "thunor", which is Thor's Anglo-Saxon name. At heart, Thor is the Son of Woden and Jord, that is, the Sky and Earth.

Calling them metaphors implies distinction and separation, which I don't believe is there.
Isn't personification of any type a distinction and separation from the thing in itself?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
In all honesty, I think that many (perhaps most) of the polytheists who say this are saying it because they don't want to be associated with the often maligned mythological literalists of the monotheisms.

That aside, most people's theological vocabulary and understanding is poor. Consequently, our ability to discuss and elucidate our views are is poor, especially when we're too busy trying to set ourselves apart from those undesirable people to have a serious in-depth discussion about what we believe.

Also, some of it could be because theology is generally unimportant in polytheisms compared to practice. I know that for me, the manner in which I regard my gods as real has no impact on what I actually do. If that aspect of reality is important to me and something I want to spend time celebrating, I do it and really couldn't care less whether or not someone classifies it as "imaginary" or "symbolic" or "literal" or whatever.
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
Many things are greater than us, and if we were to address them all as gods we would be overloaded with divinities and would be unable to keep track of them all.

Simple, that's why we don't address all things which are greater than us (which are many, many things). That's why we focus on certain pantheons, nature, or the universe itself; whatever helps is along our path. If we focus on all things which are greater than us, it would be mental and spiritual overload.

If they are the potential divinity within everyone, how are they greater than us?

Many people don't know of the potential divinity within themselves; as such, the deities serve as tools to help us on the path of self-realization. When a practitioner is in a state of unawareness, then the Devas are, by default, something greater.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Could you explain why it implies distinction and separation rather than resemblance and portrayal of Thunder as an anthropomorphic deity?

A metaphor is using one thing in place of another thing. That is, two things being compared, not one thing standing on its own.

And why is Thunder a god? What differentiates you and atheism if the gods literally are what they are gods of? You both believe in thunder, sky, earth, etc.
Deification(making things into Gods), and the fact that I believe there is some Otherworldly sentience at work.

Isn't personification of any type a distinction and separation from the thing in itself?

Only if one thinks that Thor, i.e., Thunder, literally is a red-headed hammer-wielder as he's described in the Old Tales, which I don't.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
That aside, most people's theological vocabulary and understanding is poor. Consequently, our ability to discuss and elucidate our views are is poor, especially when we're too busy trying to set ourselves apart from those undesirable people to have a serious in-depth discussion about what we believe.

I actually think the problem lies in the language itself. English as a language developed alongside Christianity and Aristotelian logic, with clear-cut definitions on what's REAL and NOT-REAL. As a result, the fact that we don't have an extensive enough vocabulary to accurately express what's going on inside our crazy Pagan heads, is because Modern English itself lacks such vocabulary.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I actually think the problem lies in the language itself. English as a language developed alongside Christianity and Aristotelian logic, with clear-cut definitions on what's REAL and NOT-REAL. As a result, the fact that we don't have an extensive enough vocabulary to accurately express what's going on inside our crazy Pagan heads, is because Modern English itself lacks such vocabulary.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but I do agree that our cultural paradigm that labels things as "real" and "not real" is problematic. It's sad that our culture encourages a collective abandonment of a large chunk of reality from the header of "reality." Although people interact with things they call "not real" on a daily basis, they still insist on calling them "not real." It makes no sense to me, and I wonder where it stems from, especially since it's inconsistent with how people actually behave and function in life. We're trained to call something "not real" if it happens to not be tangible, yet we interact with the intangible (and even the otherworlds) on a daily basis. I don't get it.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Am I misunderstanding completely (like usual) or are you saying metaphorical theology = pantheism?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Am I misunderstanding completely (like usual) or are you saying metaphorical theology = pantheism?

Animism, more like, though remember that I don't think "metaphor" is an entirely accurate word in this case.

Asatru is often regarded as the "Native European Religion", that is, it's the Northern European equivalent to Native American religion and spirituality. While I don't quite agree with this viewpoint, since Celto-Germanic mythology is descended from Proto-Indo-European language, mythology, and culture, a lot was retained from the earliest days, including Animistic-type beliefs.

One of the oldest semi-surviving Northern European religions is that of the Sami. The Sami people are a Tribe who live in the Northernmost parts of Scandinavia, Finland, and parts of Russia, and their native spirituality is very much Animistic in nature. I believe that they're the last surviving practitioners of Northern Europe's native spirituality in its most native form.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Sorry for the constant questions but I'm just trying to understand this a bit clearer, it's all very interesting to me. I mean I've heard it a lot of times, but never understood what it means. Now I think I have a decent understanding of metaphorical deities but; why Asatru? What part of Asatru stood out from another pagan religion or maybe even simply animism?

I could be wrong, but it feels too cut and dry to say Norwegian theology is animism. If it's not exactly animism, what is different about the theology compared to animism?
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I was always under the impression that what people mean by metaphorical is that they aren't actually entities, more like tools. Like, climbing yourself up the ladder with steps that don't exist but acts as if they do. Maybe I've been talking to too many Discordians...
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Sorry for the constant questions but I'm just trying to understand this a bit clearer, it's all very interesting to me. I mean I've heard it a lot of times, but never understood what it means. Now I think I have a decent understanding of metaphorical deities but; why Asatru? What part of Asatru stood out from another pagan religion or maybe even simply animism?

I could be wrong, but it feels too cut and dry to say Norwegian theology is animism. If it's not exactly animism, what is different about the theology compared to animism?

Woden called me. That's why.

And by the way, Asatru/Odinism/The Old Way extends far beyond Scandinavia. It's represented in all of Germanic polytheism, and I believe Celtic polytheism as well. The Sami religion is not usually regarded as Asatru, as far as I know.

Animism is the general concept. Exactly what Gods are invoked in the rituals, and exactly which rituals are used, determines the name.

I was always under the impression that what people mean by metaphorical is that they aren't actually entities, more like tools. Like, climbing yourself up the ladder with steps that don't exist but acts as if they do. Maybe I've been talking to too many Discordians...

I believe that they're actual entities.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I was always under the impression that what people mean by metaphorical is that they aren't actually entities, more like tools. Like, climbing yourself up the ladder with steps that don't exist but acts as if they do. Maybe I've been talking to too many Discordians...

That's a possibility. An observation, if you will.

In Paganisms of antiquity, gods were understood as categorically distinct from humans. They're fundamentally greater than humans, and as greater powers, they were worthy of worship in a religious context. Offerings were given to the gods out of respect and reverence, and sacrifices might be made in their name to petition for their blessings.

In the modern day, Pagan gods might be approached differently. Instead of regarding the gods with the dignity and respect our ancestors gave them, there are some who will plug-and-play them like tools into spellwork for their own ends. Essentially, they use them as symbols, or what you might be calling metaphors. These people may not identify as polytheists or contemporary Pagans; they're New Agers, occultists, or some other sister movement that happens to use Pagan gods for their window dressing. They don't really worship the gods, in many respects don't really believe in the gods, and are perfectly comfortable regarding them as mere symbols/metaphors because that's what they function as in their path.

The idea of using the gods as tools/symbols is controversial within the Neopagan community. I don't think we need to get into that here, but what I want to emphasize here is the observation that we shoudl be cautious in labeling people who "use" the gods - and who tend to take the "they're just symbols" approach - as necessarily polytheists or Pagans. What they're doing isn't an act of worship, they're desacrilizing the subject, and in at least some cases, they genuinely don't identify as polytheists (or even theists).
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Woden called me. That's why.

And by the way, Asatru/Odinism/The Old Way extends far beyond Scandinavia. It's represented in all of Germanic polytheism, and I believe Celtic polytheism as well. The Sami religion is not usually regarded as Asatru, as far as I know.

Animism is the general concept. Exactly what Gods are invoked in the rituals, and exactly which rituals are used, determines the name.

What is Woden a metaphor of? Or what is the entity that you call Woden?

Thanks for the info. I did know that Germanic polytheism was pretty in touch with Norse polytheism, but I never thought Celts were. I knew Celts had something to do with them, but I just envisioned them as the hippies of their day.



I believe that they're actual entities.

Then are they truly metaphors?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
What is Woden a metaphor of? Or what is the entity that you call Woden?

King of Northern Europe and its People, and the God of Wisdom, War, Poetry, Inspiration, Magic, and Death.

Thanks for the info. I did know that Germanic polytheism was pretty in touch with Norse polytheism, but I never thought Celts were. I knew Celts had something to do with them, but I just envisioned them as the hippies of their day.
:biglaugh:Understandable, but still :biglaugh:

'Twas not a group of hippies that sacked little baby Rome with the phrase "Woe to the vanquished!" 'Twas not a group of hippies that made a valiant if failed last stand against Julius Caesar in Gaul. 'Twas not a group of hippies that burned Roman-occupied London to the ground.

Celtic and Germanic are primarily linguistic terms. Whatever language family being represented, the Northern Spirit is the same.

I actually suspect, though I haven't looked into it, that Slavic religion is in there, as well, creating a pan-Celto-Germano-Slavic religion. (I hear the Northern Spirit when I hear the Kalevala). But that's just a guess.

Then are they truly metaphors?
As in they are real in my mind.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
'Twas not a group of hippies that sacked little baby Rome with the phrase "Woe to the vanquished!"

The weighting took forever, and gave the Romans opportunity to make a comeback that was even more brutal than the one offered by Brennus. Camillus exclaimed: "not by gold, but by iron, is the nation to be recovered". And the Gauls were then expelled.​
 
Top