• 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!

What does Polytheism mean to you?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Whether or not you consider yourself a polytheist, what does polytheism mean to you? Aim to go beyond a simple, one-sentance definition here. Perhaps use that as a starting point, but ask yourself what the implications are of the idea.

For example, we know that polytheism at its core is the honoring of many gods. What does that really mean? How does it impact our relations with the world? How does it change our approach to religion and ritual?
 

rocala

Well-Known Member
Great question.I can't say this is a subject that I have thought much about, but one thing does always come to mind. Is it possible to have a true polytheistic religion, in that different deities may have different wants? How does one faith accommodate this? Or if they are all of one mind, are they really seperate? Or just aspects of a greater singularity?

Once I am past this I hope to be able to respond to your second paragraph.
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting things to think about. @rocala, and I wager traditions might answer those questions a bit differently depending on the nature of their many gods.

For me, deities generally do not "want" as they are not persons in the same sense as humans are. Among my gods, for example, is Storm. Do we talk about Storm (just "storm" for most of you, I suppose) "wanting" to rain? Not so much, yeah? For me, the gods are what they are, and do what they do. It isn't about desire or want, but they are definitely distinct from each other. As distinct as you are from your parents, and your parents are from someone else's parents. We know this through simple observation and basic experience. It's not too hard to accommodate either. One home can accommodate a family of people, after all. Whether or not we adjudge that household as functional or dysfunctional is another matter, and often polytheistic mythos holds no illusion of households being without strife and chaos.

I suppose one of the things that appeals to me about polytheism is it's realist. It doesn't sugar coat reality, it doesn't overlook that death, chaos, and disharmony are things. There's no "problem of evil" to explain away, because when you have many gods with different natures, conflict is something of an inevitability. Cooperation happens too, of course, but one doesn't have to pretend that conflict doesn't happen or say it is undesirable.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
To me there are two types of polytheism. One is the worship of theological ideas as if they were the ideas themselves and the other venerates parts divine whole. The first one is negative, the second one I understand but don't follow of course.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Interesting things to think about. @rocala, and I wager traditions might answer those questions a bit differently depending on the nature of their many gods.

For me, deities generally do not "want" as they are not persons in the same sense as humans are. Among my gods, for example, is Storm. Do we talk about Storm (just "storm" for most of you, I suppose) "wanting" to rain? Not so much, yeah? For me, the gods are what they are, and do what they do. It isn't about desire or want, but they are definitely distinct from each other. As distinct as you are from your parents, and your parents are from someone else's parents. We know this through simple observation and basic experience. It's not too hard to accommodate either. One home can accommodate a family of people, after all. Whether or not we adjudge that household as functional or dysfunctional is another matter, and often polytheistic mythos holds no illusion of households being without strife and chaos.

I suppose one of the things that appeals to me about polytheism is it's realist. It doesn't sugar coat reality, it doesn't overlook that death, chaos, and disharmony are things. There's no "problem of evil" to explain away, because when you have many gods with different natures, conflict is something of an inevitability. Cooperation happens too, of course, but one doesn't have to pretend that conflict doesn't happen or say it is undesirable.
Yes, this.

"It isn't about desire or want, but they are definitely distinct from each other. As distinct as you are from your parents, and your parents are from someone else's parents."

An extension: While there are things that are distinct, some things are distinct because of convenience of conception, as opposed to things that are easier to tell are distinct. For example, the boundary between Mountain and Storm seems pretty intuitive and there are plenty of pretty clear criteria for differentiating between them.

On the other hand, where is the boundary between Sunny Day and Storm? Or between Mountain and Valley? Forest and Prairie? Many of our concepts are actually quite fuzzy.

I really don't have a problem with this, personally: I try to recognize and embrace the ambiguity...
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Whether or not you consider yourself a polytheist, what does polytheism mean to you? Aim to go beyond a simple, one-sentance definition here. Perhaps use that as a starting point, but ask yourself what the implications are of the idea.

For example, we know that polytheism at its core is the honoring of many gods. What does that really mean? How does it impact our relations with the world? How does it change our approach to religion and ritual?
I think that to honor something is to acknowledge its existence and then to treat it with respect.
There are natural forces to be reckoned with and they seem to be independent of each other for the most part.
I think those two together make polytheism. It isn't make-believe like some other religions are. The powers are real and the respect of them is real.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Even better, the distinction between Rain and Storm (to me, Freyr and Thor)
As I've said before, I don't do deities at this time, but I think that to deal with any of the powers/things in the cosmos, we have to, on the basis of some distinctions we can recognize, have a relationship with those others, who we can view as kin.

I think of the distinctions of the various components of Storm...wind, rain (or snow), cloud, heat, cold...their interaction with day, night, land, sea...their role in the whole that is Earth...and the solar system...and so on...

We may all be part of a unified whole, but we have to experience it as an individual part, and among our kin, the other individual parts.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Interesting things to think about. @rocala, and I wager traditions might answer those questions a bit differently depending on the nature of their many gods.

For me, deities generally do not "want" as they are not persons in the same sense as humans are. Among my gods, for example, is Storm. Do we talk about Storm (just "storm" for most of you, I suppose) "wanting" to rain? Not so much, yeah? For me, the gods are what they are, and do what they do. It isn't about desire or want, but they are definitely distinct from each other. As distinct as you are from your parents, and your parents are from someone else's parents. We know this through simple observation and basic experience. It's not too hard to accommodate either. One home can accommodate a family of people, after all. Whether or not we adjudge that household as functional or dysfunctional is another matter, and often polytheistic mythos holds no illusion of households being without strife and chaos.

I suppose one of the things that appeals to me about polytheism is it's realist. It doesn't sugar coat reality, it doesn't overlook that death, chaos, and disharmony are things. There's no "problem of evil" to explain away, because when you have many gods with different natures, conflict is something of an inevitability. Cooperation happens too, of course, but one doesn't have to pretend that conflict doesn't happen or say it is undesirable.

I had to think about this. If applied to my understanding of life, its seeing everything and one as worthy of my respect without reservations of who did what to me and so forth. There is nothing with universalism and dualism. I find it easier to understand life in regards to each thing and person being unique to themselves.

As for multiple gods, if you mean deities, I dont believe that regardless the religion. If you mean thing/person of worship, Id take that as appreciation, for lack of better words, and involvement in all life without taking it for granted.

Seeing life in polarity rather than singular or dual.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
To me there are two types of polytheism. One is the worship of theological ideas as if they were the ideas themselves and the other venerates parts divine whole. The first one is negative, the second one I understand but don't follow of course.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "worship of theological ideas as if they were the ideas themselves." Could you expand on that?

I'd also like to clarify what you mean by "venerates parts divine whole." Do you intend to imply soft polytheism/monotheism here, or did you mean something else?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
On the other hand, where is the boundary between Sunny Day and Storm? Or between Mountain and Valley? Forest and Prairie? Many of our concepts are actually quite fuzzy.

I really don't have a problem with this, personally: I try to recognize and embrace the ambiguity...

Yes, this is an interesting thing to think about. Does this imply that a polytheistic perspective is more comfortable with ambiguity? Maybe, maybe not. I've definitely come across polytheists who want to very explicitly outline what is and is not a particular deity.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Whether or not you consider yourself a polytheist, what does polytheism mean to you? Aim to go beyond a simple, one-sentance definition here. Perhaps use that as a starting point, but ask yourself what the implications are of the idea.

For example, we know that polytheism at its core is the honoring of many gods. What does that really mean? How does it impact our relations with the world? How does it change our approach to religion and ritual?
This isn’t meant to cover the entire extent of what polytheism could be, but more about the image of a “typical” polytheist that comes to my mind:

When I think of polytheism, I mainly think of not just someone who believes in many gods, but who believes in them as part of a pantheon. They may not claim to know every god in that pantheon, but could potentially be just as opposed to a god outside that pantheon as a classical monotheist is opposed to other gods, depending.

I also think of someone who believes in active gods who respond to prayers. While I suppose “polydeism” is technically possible, I associate polytheism with the idea of practitioners taking real actions (e.g. making offerings, reading augurs) to either divine or influence the mood of the gods, and of gods carrying acts that flow from those moods that have real, measurable effects on the world.

For modern polytheism, I also think of someone who’s almost certainly in a minority religion, and therefore like most minority religions reflects tolerance for other beliefs and on social issues.

I also tend to think of polytheism as at least paying lip-service to history. To me, modern polytheistic religions tend to put themselves forward as the continuation of the traditional beliefs of some particular people or place, not a new religion (even if it is a new religion).
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Yes, this is an interesting thing to think about. Does this imply that a polytheistic perspective is more comfortable with ambiguity? Maybe, maybe not. I've definitely come across polytheists who want to very explicitly outline what is and is not a particular deity.
I don't think polytheism is necessarily more or less comfortable with ambiguity...yeah, I've seen some who want to spend all their time and effort, it seems, to defining and categorizing...
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Whether or not you consider yourself a polytheist, what does polytheism mean to you?

The tendency to perceive that which is sacred by way of two or more non-converging deities.

Aim to go beyond a simple, one-sentance definition here. Perhaps use that as a starting point, but ask yourself what the implications are of the idea.

It hints at an ability for perceiving and accepting variety, and probably some measure of peace when faced with the idea that there may well be no sole, ultimate authority with supreme and direct power over every human being.

In very broad strokes, the affinity for perceiving discernible attributes and perhaps identities in the manifestation of the sacred tends to also suggest an appreciation of the very existence of attributes, suggesting a measure of artistical affinity and perhaps a bit more acceptance of variety of lifestyles and of the need for self-expression and self-discovery than a strict, emphatic monotheism is likely to accept and encourage.

On other hand, when contrasted with less mystical, more skeptic worldviews it also suggests more of a taste for the unseen world than those views are likely to nurture, and that correlates with a heightened appreciation of individual people, even of individuality itself, as well as with a sense of wonder and gratitude for everyday's miracles.

TLDR: Generally speaking, and of course barring evidence to the contrary, I would assume polytheists to be overall contemplative, to live in the moment, to have a well-developed sense of wonder, to have fairly good emotional expression and to be slightly more authentic than average. It may be more of a challenge to actually connect with them beyond the most superficial levels, though; there is a price to be paid for all that self-acceptance.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
When I think of polytheism, I mainly think of not just someone who believes in many gods, but who believes in them as part of a pantheon. They may not claim to know every god in that pantheon, but could potentially be just as opposed to a god outside that pantheon as a classical monotheist is opposed to other gods, depending.

Yeah, I think folks get this impression because of how historical Paganisms are taught in grade school. Pantheon mixing is certainly a subject of discussion in contemporary communities, but on the whole historical assemblages (aka, pantheons) aren't kept hard and fast (nor were they in antiquity).

This did make me think of another issue of discussion in the community though, and that's the ever-raging debate about archetypialism versus literalism. Some are of the persuasion that "real polytheists" must not be archetypalists. That is, it isn't enough to just believe in some abstract archetype called "The Smith," there must also be a distinct persona or agent behind that archetype for the polytheism to be "real." I found a really good essay diving into this recently, but I want to read it a few more times before trying to parse it into a discussion topic.


I also tend to think of polytheism as at least paying lip-service to history. To me, modern polytheistic religions tend to put themselves forward as the continuation of the traditional beliefs of some particular people or place, not a new religion (even if it is a new religion).

That's interesting, as I'd label this as "Paganism" rather than "polytheism." I suppose that's mostly a matter of personal preference, though. The two terms are often used synonymously, and I took to interpreting (contemporary) Paganism specifically as the new religious movement that looks backwards in time for inspiration (contrasting, say, to the New Age movement which looks forwards in time).
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The tendency to perceive that which is sacred by way of two or more non-converging deities.

Oh, I like this way of framing it! I might amend it to "three or more" since just two deities could go by the term "duotheism" or "ditheism." The "non-converging" bit might be a bit controversial for some, but I'm a fan of keeping polytheism hard, not turning it into soft monotheism/polytheism (aka, these gods are really just aspects of this one god).


It hints at an ability for perceiving and accepting variety, and probably some measure of peace when faced with the idea that there may well be no sole, ultimate authority with supreme and direct power over every human being.

In very broad strokes, the affinity for perceiving discernible attributes and perhaps identities in the manifestation of the sacred tends to also suggest an appreciation of the very existence of attributes, suggesting a measure of artistical affinity and perhaps a bit more acceptance of variety of lifestyles and of the need for self-expression and self-discovery than a strict, emphatic monotheism is likely to accept and encourage.

On other hand, when contrasted with less mystical, more skeptic worldviews it also suggests more of a taste for the unseen world than those views are likely to nurture, and that correlates with a heightened appreciation of individual people, even of individuality itself, as well as with a sense of wonder and gratitude for everyday's miracles.

TLDR: Generally speaking, and of course barring evidence to the contrary, I would assume polytheists to be overall contemplative, to live in the moment, to have a well-developed sense of wonder, to have fairly good emotional expression and to be slightly more authentic than average. It may be more of a challenge to actually connect with them beyond the most superficial levels, though; there is a price to be paid for all that self-acceptance.

A more flattering view than polytheists often hear in today's culture. This provides a good window into the polytheist soul, I think. It's at least as thoughtful of an analysis as I've seen from modern polytheistic writers. :D
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I sure feel flattered! Thanks. That really means a lot to me.

Sometimes I like to use that reference to what is sacred. It seems to me to be a somewhat clearer, more direct representation of worship-worthy entities than the words "god" and "deity" without any context can currently be, since those words are so often associated with other, unrelated meanings.

It also hints at a common ground for mutual understanding between theists and non-theists, and that is also a nice bonus to have.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This did make me think of another issue of discussion in the community though, and that's the ever-raging debate about archetypialism versus literalism. Some are of the persuasion that "real polytheists" must not be archetypalists. That is, it isn't enough to just believe in some abstract archetype called "The Smith," there must also be a distinct persona or agent behind that archetype for the polytheism to be "real." I found a really good essay diving into this recently, but I want to read it a few more times before trying to parse it into a discussion topic.
Well, I do think that someone who doesn’t believe in gods that literally exist isn’t literally a theist. The term “theism” - or “polytheism” if we’re talking about multiple gods specifically - refers to belief in gods. I make a distinction between belief and aesthetic appreciation or employment of a concept as a useful metaphor.

That being said, whether belief in literal deities is required to be part of a specific faith community isn’t my call; that’s up to that faith community... so while I think it’s possible to be a Pagan without belief in literal deities, I think a “non-theist polytheist” is a contradiction in terms.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Whether or not you consider yourself a polytheist, what does polytheism mean to you? Aim to go beyond a simple, one-sentance definition here. Perhaps use that as a starting point, but ask yourself what the implications are of the idea.

For example, we know that polytheism at its core is the honoring of many gods. What does that really mean? How does it impact our relations with the world? How does it change our approach to religion and ritual?
An interesting question with no one "right" answer. There are many forms of polytheism, but for me it usually implies of a belief in separate gods, usually with rather human characteristics, the same morals and flaws that we have. Though some beliefs have one underlying god with merely different personalities that come out. It is an interesting topic that covers quite a bit of human belief.
 
Top