Real Polytheism

[stvdv]

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?

Know the purpose of God(s) and you got your answer

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of the comments here the ones that struck me the most informative is likening multiple gods to multiple occupational specialists, and likening polytheism to democracy.

You seek individuals who sponsor your craft or embody a craft you need in your life, but have a general respect for all crafts and craftsmen.

And a pantheon like a democracy, division of power to specialists goes smoother than a single leader dictatorship.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Of the comments here the ones that struck me the most informative is likening multiple gods to multiple occupational specialists, and likening polytheism to democracy.

You seek individuals who sponsor your craft or embody a craft you need in your life, but have a general respect for all crafts and craftsmen.

And a pantheon like a democracy, division of power to specialists goes smoother than a single leader dictatorship.

Well , in the lokasenna poem, Odin wants Loki at the feast table. Jesus casts judas away

 

[Rival]

Well , in the lokasenna poem, Odin wants Loki at the feast table. Jesus casts judas away

I've heard that Judas is symbolic for the Jews (hence his name Yehuda) and being let go of by God in favour of the 'new covenant'.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I've heard that Judas is symbolic for the Jews (hence his name Yehuda) and being let go of by God in favour of the 'new covenant'.

I haven't really thought about that line of thought on it, but the gospels seem to feature myriad people who get rejected.. a good thread would be to analyze all of those characters together. They all are personalities , often with minor bit roles , disapproved of by Jesus or Paul

I tend to think polytheism might have been more about integrating and exploring personalities, but that is a broad and bold statement

 

[Erebus]

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

If Greek mythology is anything to go by, worshipping the most powerful god was no guarantee of safety.

Poor, poor Semele.

 

[Bear Wild]

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?

The common theme for the polytheistic communities I know is to Celebrate multiple different gods and goddesses, There are different festivals for the different deities and different reasons to honor a different god or goddess. It seems also important to honor and acknowledge the god and the goddess aspects of community. That said there are many reasons why one might focus more on one yet still be able to respect the others and honor them at certain times in addition to the one a person feels connected with. If you believe in just one god or just one goddess then you are henotheistic as you pointed out in another thread or exclusive monotheistic and deny all others.

Focusing one one a time or during a particular part of the year or event is still polytheistic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Polytheism is just the belief in multiple deities. It doesn't mean worshipping more than one at once.

 

[Bear Wild]

Exactly. Religion certainly kept them busy year-round - I just don't think it kept their minds so busy.

Why do you think that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Poor, poor Semele.

Not that poor:
"When he grew up, Dionysus rescued his mother from Hades, and she became a goddess on Mount Olympus, with the new name Thyone, presiding over the frenzy inspired by her son Dionysus. At a later point in Dionysiaca, Semele, now resurrected, boasts to her sister Ino how Cronida ("Kronos's son", that is, Zeus), "the plower of her field", carried on the gestation of Dionysus and now her son gets to join the heavenly deities in Olympus, while Ino languishes with a murderous husband (since Athamas tried to kill Ino and her son), and a son that lives with maritime deities."

To be honest, she sounds like a bit of a *****. Lol. The myth about her dying is most likely supposed to warn against hubris because she was definitely pretty arrogant. She was "testing the Gods". Zeus didn't want to reveal his true glory to her, knowing it would kill her, but she insisted.

 

[Harel13]

Why do you think that?

A personal theory based mostly on what ancient Jewish sources (the Tanach and Talmudic texts) say about polytheism and polytheists, together with the bit I know about the history and culture of those civilizations. And a nagging feeling that complicated theologies, at least in the West and the Middle East, are a monotheistic invention and are wrongly ascribed to those ancient polytheistic ones.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In my opinion, we modern people can't truly comprehend the polytheistic mentality of old, that is, the mindset of the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Caananites, Romans, Greeks, etc. At times I'm not sure they had so deeply-developed theologies as appear to sometimes be ascribed to those religions by modern scholars and/or neo-pagans. 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?

We know the Greeks and Romans had complex theologies because we have the writings of the philosophers, which were the theologiansof the day, among other things, or the closest to it as they were not codified religions for the most part. They were the ones pondering the nature of the Gods, the soul and so on. We also know about various sects like Orphism (don't ask me to explain the cosmic egg because I don't get it, either). I have no idea why you would think they don't have "spiritual deepness". That sounds like a sort of prejudice.

 

[Harel13]

which were the theologiansof the day

I'm not sure that's true. Remember, Socrates was tried for heresy because of his philosophy. Now look at the writings of other philosophers. Are you certain they line up with the religions of the cultures of those philosophers (I'm talking about the Greek and Roman ones)? I don't think so.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure that's true. Remember, Socrates was tried for heresy because of his philosophy. Now look at the writings of other philosophers. Are you certain they line up with the religions of the cultures of those philosophers (I'm talking about the Greek and Roman ones)? I don't think so.

What you're thinking of as theology is mostly an Abrahamic notion, but the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers fulfilled much the same function, and philosophy itself was seen as a spiritual endeavor, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure what Socrates has to do with your point. If anything, it agrees more with what I said, as the Greeks (and then the Romans) were a very pious people who had strong notions of what we'd call blasphemy and sacrilege ("impiety").

 

[Harel13]

What you're thinking of as theology is mostly an Abrahamic notion, but the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers fulfilled much the same function, and philosophy itself was seen as a spiritual endeavor, if I recall correctly. I'm not sure what Socrates has to do with your point. If anything, it agrees more with what I said, as the Greeks (and then the Romans) were a very pious people who had strong notions of what we'd call blasphemy and sacrilege ("impiety").

Of course they had strong notions. Just about every religion has it's boundaries. But that doesn't mean that those boundaries are particularly complex.

My point about philosophers is that I'm not sure there's evidence for what you say that they were the theologians of their time. If anything, they were all heretics or near-heretics. The theologians would have been the priests of the various deities. And in my opinion, their theologies weren't particularly complex. And yes, of course my base definition of theology as a complex concept comes from "Abrahamic" monotheism, that's my whole point.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course they had strong notions. Just about every religion has it's boundaries. But that doesn't mean that those boundaries are particularly complex.

My point about philosophers is that I'm not sure there's evidence for what you say that they were the theologians of their time. If anything, they were all heretics or near-heretics. The theologians would have been the priests of the various deities. And in my opinion, their theologies weren't particularly complex. And yes, of course my base definition of theology as a complex concept comes from "Abrahamic" monotheism, that's my whole point.

Priests and priestesses weren't theologians. Their function is to carry out religious rites. Even in Christianity, priests aren't theologians. They can be pretty stupid about theology, on an individual basis. You can ask them sincere questions and get quite dumb answers. I'm saying that the philosophers were the closest thing to what we consider theologians. Obviously Abrahamic religions aren't like the polytheistic indigenous religions so it's silly to try to find true analogues, but we can find equivalents. And a lot of those Abrahamic theologians are considered heretics, too. You guys were always fighting with each other and trying to repress rival groups.

 

[Harel13]

Priests and priestesses weren't theologians. Their function is to carry out religious rites. Even in Christianity, priests aren't theologians. They can be pretty stupid about theology, on an individual basis. You can ask them sincere questions and get quite dumb answers.

Perhaps nowadays, but many Christian theologians of days past were clergymen. And, I think you're proving my point: You're wrapping a modern mentality around an ancient culture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Perhaps nowadays, but many Christian theologians of days past were clergymen. And, I think you're proving my point: You're wrapping a modern mentality around an ancient culture.

Many, not all. There were ancient Roman emperors who were priests and philosophers. Not all village priests were scholars.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do you mean by "neutrality"?

Not attached to something, equanimity. Beyond yours or mine.

 

[firedragon]

Not attached to something, equanimity. Beyond yours or mine.

Is that the meaning or a concept of Shanthi?