Real Polytheism

[Aupmanyav]

A common theme I've begun seeing in polytheistic communities is a person taking one god and basically dedicating him or herself to that one at the expense of the others. This happened historically as well, of course. But it seems to me to defeat the purpose of polytheism. I mean, if you have, say, 20 gods why just focus only one one and write/pray/give offers etc. only to one?

Not like that in polytheistic Hinduism (which constitutes the majority). All Gods and Goddesses are venerated. Some people will have a preference for one or the other (without forgetting the others).

 

[Erebus]

To address the question in the OP:

I'll use polytheism in the sense of belief in multiple gods rather than worship of multiple gods here. I'd rather not focus too much on whether henotheism and monolatry are forms of polytheism or distinct categories. With that in mind, there are a few possibilities as to why somebody may focus on only one god.

The first option is that they feel that this god has called them.This seems like the most common occurrence and I've spoken to people who focused primarily or exclusively on a single deity because they got the overwhelming sense that it's what they're supposed to do. There's not much more I can say on that one really. It sounds like something that can't fully be understood if you haven't experienced it.

Option two is that a person just isn't all that interested in other gods. This is one that I can better understand as there are deities and cultures that don't capture my interest as much as others. I think that if you don't have the "spark" for a deity then you can't really worship them. At best, you'd just be going through the motions.

Option three is that somebody might be a soft polytheist who sees deities as somewhat interchangeable and/or aspects of a singular whole. Some Neo-Pagan forms of pantheism could fall into this category, where a person identifies the gods as natural forces but chooses to worship nature as a whole rather than the individual components of it.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons for it, along with countless variations on the three options I presented but I'm not even going to attempt to cover all of them!

 

[Sirona]

I think this is kind of another issue I'm seeing, though - treating a god as if he or she is just kind of a guy you go to for xyz and then leaving again.

In Hinduism, there is a state called shanti-rasa (peaceful neutrality) which probably corresponds to this. The god you worship most is your ishta-deva or "chosen god". In shanti-rasa you "acknowledge" or "give a nod" to other gods without having an active relationship with them. In Hinduism, you ideally are to worship your god in a "selfless attitude", as (the image of) a god is considered a "guest". You're to welcome and serve your guest, not to "assault" him with your wishes when he arrives.

 

[Rival]

In Hinduism, there is a state called shanti-rasa (peaceful neutrality) which probably corresponds to this. The god you worship most is your ishta-deva or "chosen god". In shanti-rasa you "acknowledge" or "give a nod" to other gods without having an active relationship with them. In Hinduism, you ideally are to worship your god in a "selfless attitude", as (the image of) a god is considered a "guest". You're to welcome and serve your guest, not to "assault" him with your wishes when he arrives.

I suppose my view would be the opposite, basically. We're God's guests and we should seek a relationship with Him, whether we're in the mood to or not.

 

[firedragon]

Having come into a world where this is common, I've noticed a trend that may be lost on most Abrahamics and it's confusing to me, so I'll just lay it out.

A common theme I've begun seeing in polytheistic communities is a person taking one god and basically dedicating him or herself to that one at the expense of the others. This happened historically as well, of course. But it seems to me to defeat the purpose of polytheism. I mean, if you have, say, 20 gods why just focus only one one and write/pray/give offerings etc. only to one?

I believe that though the polytheistic theology by default means polytheistic, one of the oldest ideas in polytheism is to dedicate yourself to one deity, that's how that deity is happy with you.

While I am not very happy with some people changing their avatars from such serene pics to others, I make this statement quite assuredly.

 

[Rival]

@Augustus

Would you say that the common Classical polytheisms have theological intricacy in the sense of Abrahamic religions, or have any comment on the idea of a polytheists dedicating him or herself to only one god? You seem quite well-read in this area.

 

[firedragon]

In Hinduism, there is a state called shanti-rasa (peaceful neutrality)

Isn't that a "taste" or one of the tastes. What do you mean by "neutrality"?

 

[Sirona]

I suppose my view would be the opposite, basically. We're God's guests and we should seek a relationship with Him, whether we're in the mood to or not.

RE: whether we're in the mood to or not: The Bhagavad-Gita stresses the importance of the attitude in which something is given. If an offering was was given begrudgingly, or because one feels that "they should" do it (but they don't really want to) has a negative taint. It's true that Hinduism emphasizes the importance of performing one's duties, but it is equally important that duties should be performed in a benevolent, friendly attitude. An offering that is not made in this kind attitude is considered "not done".

 

[Rival]

RE: whether we're in the mood to or not: The Bhagavad-Gita stresses the importance of the attitude in which something is given. If an offering was was given begrudgingly, or because one feels that "they should" do it (but they don't really want to) has a negative taint. It's true that Hinduism emphasizes the importance of performing one's duties, but it is equally important that duties should be performed in a benevolent, friendly attitude. An offering that is not made in this kind attitude is considered "not done".

I get this but I think this is where we differ fundamentally. I mean just acknowledging God in general. I could be that you're angry, upset or as you say 'neutral', but that shouldn't affect the fact that you give God due reverence. I can't really imagine just essentially ignoring God.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I think it's more akin to having a favorite game. You're not discounting other games, or that others enjoy playing those games, but you like yours. As the "point" of polytheism is that there is more than one god, even with henotheism or monolatry you are able to worship and enjoy your deity, while not holding the Imperialistic world-view that yours is the only god to exist. Polytheism doesn't mean one must actively worship more than one deity, it only holds that there are many one can worship.

Aye, this. To me it seems more like a belief than a practice. Many gods are part of the world view, but that doesn't mean you have to worship them.

 

[Sirona]

I suppose my view would be the opposite, basically. We're God's guests and we should seek a relationship with Him, whether we're in the mood to or not.

RE: We're God's guests and we should seek a relationship with Him
Krishna devotees humanize God in a way that may be considered mostly ridiculous to others. Krishna means "black", but some say it means "all-attractive". Krishna appears as the cutest child, the sexiest lover, that some people are attracted to him on their own. Some Hindus believe that it fills Krishna with joy when you consider him your equal out of friendship, or when you "forget that he's god" and you command him to do something out of "ignorance". Of course, this is not a carte blanche to boss your god around but rather an emphasis on how much the loving, "voluntary" attitude counts.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

And what, pray tell, is the purpose of polytheism?

Sublimation of power. I wonder as well, if the greeks had that in mind when they came up with democracy. Of course, the samuel passages are useful as well, arguing that human power can't represent god, but in that case , they must chase the understanding of a single , abstract and unseen , divine power. Polytheism seems to argue for putting a tapestry of personalities as the highest divine ideal - The biblical god's thoughts , on the hand , are higher than man can understand . Either method causes humans to engage their minds well , if they follow their respective beliefs earnestly

 

[syo]

A common theme I've begun seeing in polytheistic communities is a person taking one god and basically dedicating him or herself to that one at the expense of the others.

BFFs

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I feel that all stems from the complicated theological mentality ingrained in Western and Eastern-Muslim thought, and so we expect that ancient religions had complicated theologies and spiritual-deepness, but...what if they didn't? What if we simply think that because that's the modern understanding of religion, based on monotheism?

I don't really know, but I especially like to find riffs that link the ancients to us 'moderns.' We are asymmetrical, but share commonalities. We upgraded technology to work up the impulses that were already there. People always wanted social media, always wanted information access, and always asked spiritual questions . That were are the descendants of those mysterious peoples is no accident, we are extending all of the inclinations they already had.

 

[VoidCat]

Having come into a world where this is common, I've noticed a trend that may be lost on most Abrahamics and it's confusing to me, so I'll just lay it out.

A common theme I've begun seeing in polytheistic communities is a person taking one god and basically dedicating him or herself to that one at the expense of the others. This happened historically as well, of course. But it seems to me to defeat the purpose of polytheism. I mean, if you have, say, 20 gods why just focus only one one and write/pray/give offerings etc. only to one?

it's kinda like how I hang with people: it's hard to focus on multiple else I forget to contact another

I think this is kind of another issue I'm seeing, though - treating a god as if he or she is just kind of a guy you go to for xyz and then leaving again.

this is not the way to treat a deity. But some people do and it's not nice

 

[Wildswanderer]

If I believed in a bunch of puny little gods I'd worship the most powerful one just to hedge my bets. That way if the others got ticked about it, the powerful one could just kick thier butts for me

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus

Would you say that the common Classical polytheisms have theological intricacy in the sense of Abrahamic religions, or have any comment on the idea of a polytheists dedicating him or herself to only one god? You seem quite well-read in this area.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't say I'm particularly well informed on this topic so won't be of much use

Theology for Greeks like Aristotle was something a bit different from Abrahamic theology and was part of philosophy similar to metaphysics. It was intricate, but in a different way and with a different purpose. It may have got a bit more 'religious' by the time of Neoplatonism, which in turn influenced Abrahamic theology.

As for people dedicating themselves to one god, I can't say much, but priests of Cybele used to cut their balls off which seems quite devoted to me

"Attis" may have been a name or title of Cybele's priests or priest-kings in ancient Phrygia.[115] Most myths of the deified Attis present him as founder of Cybele's Galli priesthood but in Servius' account, written during the Roman Imperial era, Attis castrates a king to escape his unwanted sexual attentions, and is castrated in turn by the dying king. Cybele's priests find Attis at the base of a pine tree; he dies and they bury him, emasculate themselves in his memory, and celebrate him in their rites to the goddess. This account might attempt to explain the nature, origin and structure of Pessinus' theocracy.[116] A Hellenistic poet refers to Cybele's priests in the feminine, as Gallai.[117] The Roman poet Catullus refers to Attis in the masculine until his emasculation, and in the feminine thereafter.[118] Various Roman sources refer to the Galli as a middle or third gender (medium genus or tertium sexus).[119] The Galli's voluntary emasculation in service of the goddess was thought to give them powers of prophecy.[120]

 

[Rival]

Unfortunately, I wouldn't say I'm particularly well informed on this topic so won't be of much use

Theology for Greeks like Aristotle was something a bit different from Abrahamic theology and was part of philosophy similar to metaphysics. It was intricate, but in a different way and with a different purpose. It may have got a bit more 'religious' by the time of Neoplatonism, which in turn influenced Abrahamic theology.

As for people dedicating themselves to one god, I can't say much, but priests of Cybele used to cut their balls off which seems quite devoted to me

"Attis" may have been a name or title of Cybele's priests or priest-kings in ancient Phrygia.[115] Most myths of the deified Attis present him as founder of Cybele's Galli priesthood but in Servius' account, written during the Roman Imperial era, Attis castrates a king to escape his unwanted sexual attentions, and is castrated in turn by the dying king. Cybele's priests find Attis at the base of a pine tree; he dies and they bury him, emasculate themselves in his memory, and celebrate him in their rites to the goddess. This account might attempt to explain the nature, origin and structure of Pessinus' theocracy.[116] A Hellenistic poet refers to Cybele's priests in the feminine, as Gallai.[117] The Roman poet Catullus refers to Attis in the masculine until his emasculation, and in the feminine thereafter.[118] Various Roman sources refer to the Galli as a middle or third gender (medium genus or tertium sexus).[119] The Galli's voluntary emasculation in service of the goddess was thought to give them powers of prophecy.[120]

Stuff like this is why it's worthwhile asking you anyway.

Lol.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If I believed in a bunch of puny little gods I'd worship the most powerful one just to hedge my bets. That way if the others got ticked about it, the powerful one could just kick thier butts for me

My serious reply to this tongue and cheek would be might doesn't make right.

 

[Rival]

My serious reply to this tongue and cheek would be might doesn't make right.

I actually read something that I would like to have turned into a serious response, too, but I have way too much of a headache. It's basically about why the most powerful gods in pantheons tend to be distant, and it has to do with limiting their power for pretty similar reasons to WW's assessment.