Sin from a Polytheistic Perspective

[Quintessence]

Sin is usually defined in a monotheistic context whereby it represents a violation of laws, wishes, or commandments revealed by the one-god to its followers. Sin is transgression against divine law. This way of looking at things does not work so well outside of classical monotheism, so I am curious to discuss some of the problematic implications. It seems to me that sin is an invalid concept in polytheistic religions for two primary reasons.

First, the gods in polytheistic religions tend to be immanent. In that sense, divine law can be said to be the laws of nature. As such, it is simply impossible for humans to violate these divine laws (or laws of nature) in the first place. You can attempt to disobey gravity all you like, but it isn't going to happen.

Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that in polytheism, there are gods, not god. The gods have distinctly different domains, wishes and desires that can and do come into conflict with one another. Taken as a whole, it is impossible for a polytheist to not make a transgression against the desires of the gods. If you're not at war, you're offending the war gods. If you're not at peace, you're offending the peace gods.

These problems appear to make sin an invalid concept in polytheistic religions. How could we revise the concept of sin to make sense from a polytheistic perspective? What is the polytheistic equivalent?

 

[Iti oj]

Perhaps mocking the gods. Or joing a god in battle against another god who loses or. Well sin makes little sense to begin with and inbpolytheism many times the gods are flawed so no sin no equivalent

 

[Infinitum]

I'm mostly familiar with the ancient Greek concept of sin. Often sin wasn't about offending the actual gods, but trying to avoid your destiny or breaking a basic moral law, hubris and all that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sin is usually defined in a monotheistic context whereby it represents a violation of laws, wishes, or commandments revealed by the one-god to its followers. Sin is transgression against divine law. This way of looking at things does not work so well outside of classical monotheism, so I am curious to discuss some of the problematic implications. It seems to me that sin is an invalid concept in polytheistic religions for two primary reasons.

First, the gods in polytheistic religions tend to be immanent. In that sense, divine law can be said to be the laws of nature. As such, it is simply impossible for humans to violate these divine laws (or laws of nature) in the first place. You can attempt to disobey gravity all you like, but it isn't going to happen.

Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that in polytheism, there are gods, not god. The gods have distinctly different domains, wishes and desires that can and do come into conflict with one another. Taken as a whole, it is impossible for a polytheist to not make a transgression against the desires of the gods. If you're not at war, you're offending the war gods. If you're not at peace, you're offending the peace gods.

These problems appear to make sin an invalid concept in polytheistic religions. How could we revise the concept of sin to make sense from a polytheistic perspective? What is the polytheistic equivalent?

As for the first one, the laws of physics or reality in general being the sins could work for monotheism as well.

I don't think we can revise a concept of sin for polytheism, because all in all it depends on the gods you believe in. I'm pretty sure the Greek and the Norwegians had different "sins".

Like you said, if you're not going to war it's offensive to the war gods, or else the war gods just don't really focus on you as their not in your part.

As for my pantheon, sin literally is the laws of nature, like in your first statement, as my gods reside within nature, different aspects of it. Such as, if you're on earth, the only god that's focusing on you is Mother Earth, Gaia, (earth itself). If you're on mars, the only god that's focusing on you is Mars itself. etc. All together, they make a unity of the Universe itself. The universe has reflexes, natural defenses, and instincts, etc. just like a biological body does. Do we consider it a sin for a bad bacteria or virus gets into our body and does something odd? No, but our body naturally takes care of it.

 

[EyeofOdin]

Sin doesn't exist in most polytheistic traditions (except maybe kemetic). The idea of sin comes from the idea that one can be separated from The Divine. The Divine is everywhere. It's in us, around us, above us, below us. The gods aren't going to run away simply because we've made a bad choice or we did something that they didn't like.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How could we revise the concept of sin to make sense from a polytheistic perspective?

And why would we want to?

Anyway, one thing that does show up a great deal in at least some of the traditions is the "wrongness" of oathbreaking.

Then there is the wrongness of not acting honorably, or of acting selfishly, and so on--not that there is a particular divine injunction about it, but that it seems to be frowned upon.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm mostly familiar with the ancient Greek concept of sin. Often sin wasn't about offending the actual gods, but trying to avoid your destiny or breaking a basic moral law, hubris and all that.

Or overstepping a boundary.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What were the sins of Oedipus, Narcissus and Sisyphus?

 

[HexBomb]

I think polytheistic concepts of sin are varied because the cultures are varied. Monotheism is, by it's nature, obsessed with absolutes. This often puts it in an uncomfortable place when absolutes are unexplained or illogical (ie: if God is all powerful, Biblically why did a pagan sacrifice stop him?)

Whereas, polytheism, again due to its nature realises that there are very few if any absolutes, and that cultures and people differ, and so do the gods. I think one of the few is widely accepted as a sin across cultures is oathbreaking, but even that is not universal. Because of these differences in ethics and morals, I don't think there is a way to set up a polytheistic concept of sin, at least across traditions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In that sense, divine law can be said to be the laws of nature. As such, it is simply impossible for humans to violate these divine laws (or laws of nature) in the first place. You can attempt to disobey gravity all you like, but it isn't going to happen.

Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that in polytheism, there are gods, not god. The gods have distinctly different domains, wishes and desires that can and do come into conflict with one another. Taken as a whole, it is impossible for a polytheist to not make a transgression against the desires of the gods. If you're not at war, you're offending the war gods. If you're not at peace, you're offending the peace gods.

Laws of nature work in a different sphere. In a society, there is dharma, laws which will allow the society to work peacefully. So, if one goes against dharma, that is a sin.

Again, Gods/Goddess did not establish the law. Hinduism does not have commandments. Dharma was there all the time. It was changed according to needs of the time by Sages and the society. It happens even now. Gods/Goddesses only ask you to follow your dharma. They are happy if they see a prosperous and peaceful society. Of course, if someone threatens it, they are ready to help. Hindu Gods and Goddesses are not in conflict with each other. It is a mature and peaceful religion.

The planatory God Mars (Mangal) may be taken as a God of war, Shiva or Shakti too can be hot-headed, but nobody wants you to be at war all the time. The other meaning of Mangal is welfare. Similarly Lord Saturn is hot headed, but he too can be extremely generous. Saturn (Shani) is supposed to be the son of Sun along with Yama. They say Shani gives the results of karmas while one lives, and Yama, after a person is dead.

 

[Quintessence]

And why would we want to?

Oh, I don't think we'd necessarily want to. At the time I'd created this thread, I think there were a few going around on the topic of sin and it had gotten me thinking about how (or if) it might translate into polytheisms. Or maybe I'd listened to one of Aiden Odinson's podcasts on it, because he has a few that remark on the nature of sin that remove it somewhat from its Christian trappings.

What were the sins of Oedipus, Narcissus and Sisyphus?

Heh, touché. I think that in a historical context, though, these wouldn't be regarded as sins, but as poor character or lack of virtue. The word "sin" wasn't in the Hellenic vocabulary.

Laws of nature work in a different sphere. In a society, there is dharma, laws which will allow the society to work peacefully. So, if one goes against dharma, that is a sin.

Again, Gods/Goddess did not establish the law. Hinduism does not have commandments. Dharma was there all the time. It was changed according to needs of the time by Sages and the society. It happens even now. Gods/Goddesses only ask you to follow your dharma. They are happy if they see a prosperous and peaceful society. Of course, if someone threatens it, they are ready to help. Hindu Gods and Goddesses are not in conflict with each other. It is a mature and peaceful religion.

This is an interesting perspective; thanks! When I created this OP, I was thinking more from the non-dharmic polytheistic angle (with my biases and all), so I hadn't considered the angle dharmic polytheisms might take on it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Second, and perhaps more problematic, is that in polytheism, there are gods, not god. The gods have distinctly different domains, wishes and desires that can and do come into conflict with one another. Taken as a whole, it is impossible for a polytheist to not make a transgression against the desires of the gods. If you're not at war, you're offending the war gods. If you're not at peace, you're offending the peace gods.

These problems appear to make sin an invalid concept in polytheistic religions. How could we revise the concept of sin to make sense from a polytheistic perspective? What is the polytheistic equivalent?

Sin in polytheism (as in Hinduism) is to go against 'dharma'. Gods and Goddesses also will like people to follow 'dharma' (fulfilling one's duties and engaging in righteous action). No God or Goddess is in conflict with this. Do you think that if we have an army and a general, we must always be fighting? There is no God of war in Hinduism. Perhaps the closest in Hinduism is Mangal (Mars), but then he is a minor God. There is not much that he has done in mythology. When he is strong (in his astrological position), then he may create unrest.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In Hellenism, as in Hinduism, sin is not disobeying arbitrary commands, but acting against nature.

"The soul sins because, while aiming at good, it makes mistakes … the man who does evil to an enemy thinks that to do evil is bad but to punish his enemy is good …" (Sallustius)

 

[Riverwolf]

I can't really say, to be honest.

From what I can gather from some of the stories and the surviving cultural remnants, any "sin" in the Old Way (if the concept even exists at all) is pretty much encapsulated in general rudeness, lack of hospitality and generosity, carelessness... considering the kind of lives they led, going against the family/Tribe would probably have been the gravest of all "sins": something which isn't a big deal anymore.

I suppose doing a ritual incorrectly would qualify, as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are rituals by which a ritual performed incorrectly can be remedied, but going against family, society, tribe, or country, cannot be remedied.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are rituals by which a ritual performed incorrectly can be remedied, but going against family, society, tribe, or country, cannot be remedied.

Good point. At least nowhere near as easily.

I just remember last year's Midsummer Blot that I held, which was the first Blot I ever did. I must have done something wrong, because the homemade non-alcoholic Meade that Moonwater made for the occasion ended up spilling all over the floor a few hours later, so I must have ticked off some Elf without properly protecting myself first.

But spilled Meade can be cleaned up quickly and easily.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

As @EyeofOdin mentioned, there is a concept of sin in Kemetic Religion. To commit sin was to do something that wasn't in line with Ma'at (truth, order, justice). There were also the Laws of Ma'at or "The 42 Negative Confessions" which the deceased would have to say while being judged in the Underworld. They were as follows (different translations vary):

1. I have not committed sin (done wrong/went against Ma'at).
2. I have not committed robbery with violence.
3. I have not stolen.
4. I have not slain men or women.
5. I have not stolen food.
6. I have not swindled offerings.
7. I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
8. I have not told lies.
9. I have not carried away food.
10. I have not cursed.
11. I have not closed my ears to truth.
12. I have not committed adultery.
13. I have not made anyone cry.
14. I have not felt sorrow without reason.
15. I have not assaulted anyone.
16. I am not deceitful.
17. I have not stolen anyone’s land.
18. I have not been an eavesdropper.
19. I have not falsely accused anyone.
20. I have not been angry without reason.
21. I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
22. I have not polluted myself.
23. I have not terrorized anyone.
24. I have not disobeyed the Law.
25. I have not been exclusively angry.
26. I have not cursed God/Goddess.
27. I have not behaved with violence.
28. I have not caused disruption of peace.
29. I have not acted hastily or without thought.
30. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
31. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
32. I have not worked evil.
33. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
34. I have not polluted the water.
35. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
36. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
37. I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
38. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
39. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
40. I have not taken food from a child.
41. I have not acted with insolence.
42. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I don't think that sin makes sense within Paganism. As Aupmanyav said, morality for the Pagan is fulfilling your duty as a human being in a particular station within a particular society. The Abrahamic concept of sin is disobeying a divine command.

The list of Egyptian "sins" is a law code. For example, years later when Egypt was subject to the Persians, the Persian king wrote to the Egyptian king (I can't remember which ones they were) saying that he was shocked to hear that the pharaoh was married to his sister; did he not realise that God would punish him for his sin? The Egyptian replied that the gods were not interested in people's sex lives: such things were a matter of human laws.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm polytheist in concept, but I follow only one God of the Polytheos, my personal idea of moral structure is to follow the 5 precepts of Buddhism (the Dhamma) but I've also though about it as to me sin could be looked at as doing something that is destructive to myself and others, and I don't mean not smashing a glass for the hell of it, yeah that's destructive but not of consequence unless its valuable and belongs to some one else, and good would be acts that are constructive and beneficial to yourself and others. Of course many acts would be neutral, and being completely non destructive would be impossible, let alone to much to try.

 

[Abishai100]

Mirrors: Murkiness


Can the Chinese Yin-Yang (a re-presentation of the duality of light and darkness) be considered a presentation of polytheism?

Christians believe that Satan is a master of sin, and Satanists contend that consciousness of the darkness (i.e., sin) comprises the labor of Satanic worship.

If there is a 'dark side' to obsession, then maybe there's a 'god of wrath' under polytheistic theory. The Ancient Greeks, for example, would talk about a hypohetical fantastic underworld god who could control fire and therefore vertigo.



Yin and Yang (Wikipedia)