Monotheistic Paganism

[Sha'irullah]

It seems to me that polytheism is the default norm in the Neo-Pagan community yet I am not exactly fond of it at all. It could be my previous Islamic affiliation or my hardcore deistic goggles which render polytheism void of spiritual value.
I use the concept of polytheism such as the usage of solar and lunar deities to express the objects they are associated with yet I do not by any means worship nor pray to such things at all.
Usage of words like Baal, Allah, El, Bel, Khuda, and Ilah are all acceptable words for god for me as they are very vague words yet applying anthropomorphic names to god removes the desire to worship such a being. Early polytheistic Arabs did not even establish idols with physical form till much later on and instead used stelae to as focal points of worship.

Am I the only person who finds hard polytheism or even soft polytheism a very difficult issue?

I understand the monist approach but trying to focus on a deity with such specific attributes limits my mind and instead I am pondering about everything from Chronos to Amaterasu.
Also I have never really dived into Paganism and have only loosely studied Semitic Paganism for some years during my Islamic affiliation so perhaps I have "residual muslimness" in me

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yeah, Neo paganism has a lot of cool parts but it has become the dogma to accept all gods as to appease everyone, as the common theme is that everyones God is right.
But one idea is monotheism expressed as polytheistic, some people consider all deities as the same faceless big God.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yeah, Neo paganism has a lot of cool parts but it has become the dogma to accept all gods as to appease everyone, as the common theme is that everyones God is right.
But one idea is monotheism expressed as polytheistic, some people consider all deities as the same faceless big God.

What you are describing is monism which is a fine concept and all except when it comes to to the practicality of worship and prayer which is best done in a monotheistic manner. People fail to realize that very often was each of these gods worshiped until a special event called for it. Agriculture or astrological events were usually the designated points.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

The whole poly pantheist thing is one way to go about it , sure. But its more of a universalist statement.

The Hindu smartas believe all gods are really the same GOD. Not necessarily monism or pantheism. Just a very laid back mindset.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

yet applying anthropomorphic names to god removes the desire to worship such a being.

I disagree.

Most of the time people model their God(s) anthropomorphically in order to scratch the surface of understanding it, in order to relate to it and therefore have indirect, personal contact with it.

I doubt most people who use anthropomorphic representation of deities actually believe those features are legitimately describing the objective nature of God. This is because God is among us, comprehending God is extremely difficult if not impossible without features we can relate to.

Which also explains why demigods, avatars, incarnations, etc. came in the form of human rather than appearing as something totally different than us. Which is also present in having to learn a culture before living in a culture.

 

[Sees]

I have talked to a lot of pagans in the last 20 years or so and some have a hard time with polytheism or seeing any divine being as more than metaphor and symbolism. As is there is nothing wrong with this...we all have different experiences and information we contact and digest in different ways. We live in a predominantly monotheistic world and ingrained to view religious, spiritual, philosophical things in it's shadow.

In the old times it wasn't necessarily every God of every person/tribe is true, real, awesome but you give them benefit of doubt by honoring them at least briefly. You also honored those people by doing so.

Generally the various mix of Gods as higher level spirits/energy-beings, forces of nature, symbol and archetype, etc. is inclusive and our black vs white truth-claim minds have issue with this. What wasn't usually done is take the ever-changing All as a specific thing, mind, substance that can be worshipped, visualized, or treated as a personal mind or being. The All is the All and it's different just a micro-second later. Even though everything changes, evolves, etc. the beings, forms, spirits, forces can be still recognized and identified.

Paganisms tend to view Every-thing/Wholeness over All/Oneness...it's the difference between philosophy and spirituality throughout. So many neo-pagans are using monotheistic philosophy with grafted on bits of theology and practices that it is confusing. You have to step out of your skin and completely empty your cup for a bit to transfer over to polytheistic, animistic philosphical worldview.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I disagree.

Most of the time people model their God(s) anthropomorphically in order to scratch the surface of understanding it, in order to relate to it and therefore have indirect, personal contact with it.

I doubt most people who use anthropomorphic representation of deities actually believe those features are legitimately describing the objective nature of God. This is because God is among us, comprehending God is extremely difficult if not impossible without features we can relate to.

Which also explains why demigods, avatars, incarnations, etc. came in the form of human rather than appearing as something totally different than us. Which is also present in having to learn a culture before living in a culture.

I am talking about myself not others. I should have been more clear on that . Most people love human like gods, i do not.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have talked to a lot of pagans in the last 20 years or so and some have a hard time with polytheism or seeing any divine being as more than metaphor and symbolism. As is there is nothing wrong with this...we all have different experiences and information we contact and digest in different ways. We live in a predominantly monotheistic world and ingrained to view religious, spiritual, philosophical things in it's shadow.

In the old times it wasn't necessarily every God of every person/tribe is true, real, awesome but you give them benefit of doubt by honoring them at least briefly. You also honored those people by doing so.

Generally the various mix of Gods as higher level spirits/energy-beings, forces of nature, symbol and archetype, etc. is inclusive and our black vs white truth-claim minds have issue with this. What wasn't usually done is take the ever-changing All as a specific thing, mind, substance that can be worshipped, visualized, or treated as a personal mind or being. The All is the All and it's different just a micro-second later. Even though everything changes, evolves, etc. the beings, forms, spirits, forces can be still recognized and identified.

Paganisms tend to view Every-thing/Wholeness over All/Oneness...it's the difference between philosophy and spirituality throughout. So many neo-pagans are using monotheistic philosophy with grafted on bits of theology and practices that it is confusing. You have to step out of your skin and completely empty your cup for a bit to transfer over to polytheistic, animistic philosphical worldview.

Well the issue for me is that my philosophical worldview in regards to theology is Deistic and with that view I have no further need to propose more than one god. This is why there are barely any polydeists at all. In Deism this is an absurdity. My paganism starts from philosophy first so any theological aspects will be molded in order of importance.

The requirements for a god are very great in the Deistic viewpoint as reason and science are mandated as a must. So dividing god up into partitions cuts away from the Deistic philosophy and propagates a lesser deity or set of deities. I myself have always held the Deistic outlook before I understood theology, philosophy or the nature of religion. So going past what I instinctively find truthful is difficult. The first time I realized Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, it just changed my outlook on religion altogether.

I also had issues with grasping Hinduism as well I may add . I rejected Christianity on an account of polytheism so my upbringing in a pseudo monotheistic religion really has nothing to do with me. I am just applying Occam's Razor to God and making the simplest and most likeliest choice possible

 

[Sees]

Well the issue for me is that my philosophical worldview in regards to theology is Deistic and with that view I have no further need to propose more than one god. This is why there are barely any polydeists at all. In Deism this is an absurdity. My paganism starts from philosophy first so any theological aspects will be molded in order of importance.

The requirements for a god are very great in the Deistic viewpoint as reason and science are mandated as a must. So dividing god up into partitions cuts away from the Deistic philosophy and propagates a lesser deity or set of deities. I myself have always held the Deistic outlook before I understood theology, philosophy or the nature of religion. So going past what I instinctively find truthful is difficult. The first time I realized Benjamin Franklin was a Deist, it just changed my outlook on religion altogether.

I also had issues with grasping Hinduism as well I may add . I rejected Christianity on an account of polytheism so my upbringing in a pseudo monotheistic religion really has nothing to do with me. I am just applying Occam's Razor to God and making the simplest and most likeliest choice possible

In your Deism do you see God as immanent and pantheistic or panentheistic or more transcendent or some mix inbetween?

 

[Sha'irullah]

In your Deism do you see God as immanent and pantheistic or panentheistic or more transcendent or some mix inbetween?

Pananetheisn or Panendeism to be technical. I obviously do not divide god into anything at all

 

[Sees]

Pananetheisn or Panendeism to be technical. I obviously do not divide god into anything at all

Is the lack of identifiers the characteristic of God? Sort of the All I mentioned?

I always describe myself as a sort of panendeistic polytheist

 

[Sha'irullah]

Is the lack of identifiers the characteristic of God? Sort of the All I mentioned?

I always describe myself as a sort of panendeistic polytheist

Yep indeed. To me if you are going to say god is O3(all 3 omni) then anthropomorphic depiction is a weakness.
The qualifications for what is worthy of my worship is rather hi.

The only exception is Burt Reynolds

 

[Sees]

Yep indeed. To me if you are going to say god is O3(all 3 omni) then anthropomorphic depiction is a weakness.
The qualifications for what is worthy of my worship is rather hi.

The only exception is Burt Reynolds

The mustache and overall exuded manliness can't be argued with.

Polytheistic paganisms are exempt of the O3 concepts vast majority of the time. They are seen more as a philosophical construct - product of pondering more than actualized reality.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The mustache and overall exuded manliness can't be argued with.

:shout His mustache is a beacon of hope for humanity

Polytheistic paganisms are exempt of the O3 concepts vast majority of the time. They are seen more as a philosophical construct - product of pondering more than actualized reality.

Could not agree more. Polytheism lends an issue I dislike altogether and that is assigning individual tasks to deities, splintering the pantheon to conform a billion such ways and then there is an issue of over population of a pantheon to the extent it is not practical.

I had to remember suwar of the Qur'an in a language I did not understand. Applying that to gods is just going to baffle my mind as it lends to a whole range of issues on a philosophical perspective.
Being a militant Deist is one of my strong points as it makes me immune to theistic and non-theistic attacks.

 

[Sees]

Depending who the person is, you will see a more esoteric or exoteric side. For a philosophical religious leader, healer, priest, etc. sort of fellow the pantheon and its myths, tasks and roles are never taken at face value. The way a common less educated farmer or craftsman who is extremely busy with "mundane" tasks sees and interprets will be pretty different. A lot of people only see the cover of the book such as the way the ever-popular Greek pantheon is portrayed.

For this reason in modern society polytheism will definitely most often seem primitive and sort of naive. You hear comments like "well now we know wher rain comes from"

The brilliance is hidden without a dive into the waters....almost as if mysteriously intentional.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Depending who the person is, you will see a more esoteric or exoteric side. For a philosophical religious leader, healer, priest, etc. sort of fellow the pantheon and its myths, tasks and roles are never taken at face value. The way a common less educated farmer or craftsman who is extremely busy with "mundane" tasks sees and interprets will be pretty different. A lot of people only see the cover of the book such as the way the ever-popular Greek pantheon is portrayed.

The amount of subtext and undertones in myths is almost always overlooked. I myself am just familiar with Semitic ones and a bit Greek but this does not alter the fact myth means a whole lot more than gods and men.
It is about the relations of gods and men.

For this reason in modern society polytheism will definitely most often seem primitive and sort of naive. You hear comments like "well now we know wher rain comes from"

I never found polytheism to be primitive, I just find it unnecessary.

 

[Sees]

The amount of subtext and undertones in myths is almost always overlooked. I myself am just familiar with Semitic ones and a bit Greek but this does not alter the fact myth means a whole lot more than gods and men.
It is about the relations of gods and men.



I never found polytheism to be primitive, I just find it unnecessary.

We all fit in...action and deeds, not metaphysical creeds

Have you ever talked to a non-human, paranormal, supernatural, yada yada type of being?

 

[Sha'irullah]

We all fit in...action and deeds, not metaphysical creeds

Have you ever talked to a non-human, paranormal, supernatural, yada yada type of being?

Nope. I have had a moment best described as a flock of jinn emerging from the ground and something else quite bizarre that I have not a single clue on how to interpret.
Main reason I like learning about Semitic paganism and especially Arabic is because of the whole jinn thing

 

[Sees]

Nope. I have had a moment best described as a flock of jinn emerging from the ground and something else quite bizarre that I have not a single clue on how to interpret.
Main reason I like learning about Semitic paganism and especially Arabic is because of the whole jinn thing

I would bet 99% percent of such experiences and communication aside from those who seem kinda "off" falls into polytheistic, animistic framework. It follows my little saying "change and plurality are nature and reality" God as a monistic abstract concept doesn't compute as personal, conscious, being/entity outside of those rare revelations. Nature and reality is personalities and manifestations are actualized in multiplicity.

"The so and so" or The One is abstract thought-construct. Extreme deconstruction to find a source or at least a source-concept and then name it God. What reflects the world and universe all around us and within us best? Is the harmonization of things dependent on one choreographer or storyteller?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I would bet 99% percent of such experiences and communication aside from those who seem kinda "off" falls into polytheistic, animistic framework. It follows my little saying "change and plurality are nature and reality" God as a monistic abstract concept doesn't compute as personal, conscious, being/entity outside of those rare revelations. Nature and reality is personalities and manifestations are actualized in multiplicity.

Monistic would actually explain personal attributes as monism as the word implies means one. This means god can be every contradiction it wants to be. Monism is absolute so anything you dislike is also god int his field of view. This means that the problem of good and evil is expunged int he pantheistic, panentheistic, and monistic theology.

"The so and so" or The One is abstract thought-construct. Extreme deconstruction to find a source or at least a source-concept and then name it God. What reflects the world and universe all around us and within us best?

This is why I subscribe to polytheism in an objective standpoint since people can objectively worship a different god. Subjectively I can conclude that all gods are the same yet only worship one.

I am a monotheist when it comes to ritualization of any sort. I worship the same god and use the same name for god always and the conception of this god is consistent throughout. Never though will you see me addressing god as if it is a multitude of beings.

Polytheism in reality is just a matter of subjectivity and individual expression as every person each has their own god since all definitions of god are different. This is called Igtheism in short. Polytheism is objective in this sense.

Is the harmonization of things dependent on one choreographer or storyteller?

It is dependent upon as many things as one wishes. I used the HDD analogy before and expressed how computer hard-drives despite being partitioned and functioning as different drives are all on the same disk and transfer the same data on the same bandwidth limitations while abiding by the requirements of the same BIOS specifications.