#hard polytheism

[citrineandrosmarin]

So I'm generally a Hard Polytheist, with exceptions. But in the sphere of Hellenic worship the more I learn about how differently we interpret some deities or aspects of them in the modern day, the more I see what has changed and in some ways our "versions" of the gods are more removed from their "originals" than say, the Romans'. In which case if we are not strictly worshiping the theoi in their Greek cultural context but also our own, why would you not include the Roman context too? If the gods adapt to cultural changes then seeing the Roman ones as separate beings rather than the theoi adapting makes less sense.

Am I making sense?

[emilytheghostwitch]

Two types of Polytheism is Hard Polytheism and Soft Polytheism.

I would like to talk about them today in a short post, as I find them helpful terms for those who practise any form of Paganism or blended faith.

Soft Polytheism:

This is where all aspects of the Divine can be seen to be different aspects of the same Being. Many cite the Roman and Greek Deities as prime examples of this, like for instance, when you think of Aphrodite and Venus.

Some also view the different faces or facets of the Divine as archetypes that people can interact with. This can be found in lots of different types of paganism, and is very common in pop culture paganism.

When I think of soft polytheism in fiction I often think of the scene in the first House of Night book where Nyx is showing the different faces of who she is to Zoey.

Many Pagans cite the proto indo European pantheon of gods, that many of our gods can be traced back to; and while I think researching the roots and history of pantheons in general is important, the way you view deity does not have to be justified. (Unless you’re culturally appropriating or whatever, then maybe, you know, rethink what you’re doing?)

Hard Polytheism:

Hard Polytheism in contrast to this is believing that all the Deities to ever have existed and that will exist are their own separate Being.

People who follow this line of logic believe that the Deities are real beings, and not personifications. (Although you don’t have to view them as personifications in soft polytheism either.)

Neither way of viewing the Gods is more right than the other, it is simply a matter of personal belief, and way of interacting with the world.

[dian-and-the-gods]

Was reading De Natura Deorum by Cicero and...my head....

"The first Venus, who has a temple at Elis, was the daughter of Cœlus and Dies. The second arose out of the froth of the sea, and became, by Mercury, the mother of the second Cupid. The third, the daughter of Jupiter and Dione, was married to Vulcan, but is said to have had Anteros by Mars. The fourth was a Syrian, born of Tyro, who is called Astarte, and is said to have been married to Adonis."

So um...??

Seems like some ancients saw that in some myths Venus came from the foam of the sea and in other myths was the child of Jupiter and Dione, and they just went "mm yes that simply means there are like 5 different Venuses who all have the same name and the same domain, but these different myths correspond to only one of those" ... like that's not my explanation for why there are different genealogies in different myths at all...

A difference in genealogy makes a wholly separate deity who still has the same name and domain, this is like super hard polytheism lmao

Also interpretatio romana got in the way here lol, funny how instead of saying "Venus is Astarte just under a different name for the Syrians" they go like "Astarte is yet another Venus who is her own separate individual to our Venus", funny how they went full circle back to hard polytheism lmao

[jarredlharris]

The uniqueness among religions

During my recent appearance on Di the Yoga Witch’s podcast, we got talking about our views on deities. And I provided a few thoughts on why I tend to favor hard polytheism — or at least treating the deities and individuals rather than the same deity (or divine couple) by different names. Here’s what I had to say:1 For those who may not have the time or ability to watch or listen to the video…

[mischiefmanifold]

if it’s ok can I get your thoughts on soft polytheism? is it like okay to do.. is it considered polytheism?.. is it frowned upon?

Admittedly I do not have much experience with "soft polytheism", this post is based on a 5-minute google search.

The website Round the Cauldron (LINK) describes soft polytheism as "the belief that all deities are part of one larger whole". Hellenic Faith (LINK), on the other hand, views soft polytheism as a useless term for a phenomenon that already has a name. ("The various ideas that 'soft polytheism' is usually used to describe already have names; none of which are 'polytheism' because what is being described is not polytheistic.")

I am a "hard polytheist", essentially the opposite of a soft polytheist. I believe that all deities are distinct entities and are not parts of a whole.

My personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter what terms you use as long as you're using them correctly. Polytheism is defined as a belief in multiple deities, and if your version of soft polytheism follows that premise, then honestly I don't really care that you're using it.

[just-a-simple-wanderer]

It’s interesting to see all the different pathways polytheism (or even monism) can take.

I like the mention of most thinking Zeus and Jupiter are the same god, just seen through a Greek and then Roman lens, while Thor is separate from both of them. That seems to be more my take.

On the other hand, while I definitely don’t think I’m a monist, I do like the idea that all these gods can coexist and work together and not step on any toes, despite being part of different pantheons. Which seems more soft. But I also don’t think the Egyptian gods are the same as the Norse, are the same as Chinese, are the same as Greek. There can be similarities, because I believe they help to represent humanity and humans worshipped them, regardless of culture, but they’re not the same.

So I do believe I’m somewhere in between hard and soft polytheism. Maybe I just need to view it as different gods spoke more and connected to different cultures, and so those gods formed pantheons based around that. But, overall, gods are gods. And Zeus/Jupiter can coexist with Thor without them stepping on each others toes because even though they’re storm gods, they have different cultures and people that respect them and worship them and that’s all that matters.

Or maybe I need to stop trying to put my mortal imaginings on gods that I can’t hope to ever truly understand 😅

Polytheism

Most pagan religions are polytheistic in nature, meaning they believe in multiple divine beings. This is one of the hardest parts of paganism for outsiders to understand. In a culture where strict monotheism is treated as the norm, it can be difficult to wrap your head around the idea of worshiping more than one god.

Ironically, monotheism — the belief in a single, all-powerful creator deity — is a relatively new invention. Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic religion, is only about 4,000 years old. In the big scheme of things, that really is not a long time. Evidence for polytheistic religion dates back much, much farther (like, up to 40,000 years). We could argue that polytheism is the natural state of human spirituality.

Within pagan communities, polytheism is often described as a spectrum, with “hard polytheism” on one end and “soft polytheism” on the other. Hard polytheists believe that every deity is a distinct, separate, autonomous spiritual being. Soft polytheists believe that every deity is a part of a greater whole. As we’ve already discussed, extreme soft polytheism isn’t actually polytheism at all, but monism — the belief in a single divine source that manifests in different ways, including as different deities.

Hard polytheism is pretty straightforward. Norse paganism is an example of a hard polytheist system. Most Norse pagans believe that Odin is distinct from Thor, who is distinct from Freyja, who is distinct from Heimdall… you get the idea. Each of these gods has their own area of expertise over which they preside. If you’re dealing with a love matter, you’re probably going to seek out help from Freyja rather than Thor — unless you have a close, ongoing working relationship with Thor. (We’ll talk more about these types of close working relationships in a future post.)

Soft polytheism can be a little harder for people coming from a monotheist system to wrap their heads around. I think Jeremy Naydler describes it best in his book Temple of the Cosmos (here discussing Kemetic/Egyptian polytheism): “Shu and Tefnut are distinct essences dependent on Atum for their existence… The image often used in ancient Egyptian sacred texts concerning the gods in general is that they are the ‘limbs’ of the Godhead.” Shu and Tefnut, who are described in mythology as Atum’s children, are an extension of Atum’s creative power. However, they are also distinct beings with their own thoughts, feelings, and agendas. (It’s worth noting that we also have myths describing Atum’s birth. He is not a supreme being or a timeless force like the Abrahamic God.)

Monism is soft polytheism taken to its logical extreme. In her book, Wicca For Beginners, Thea Sabin describes it this way: “Think, for a moment, of a tree with a thick trunk that splits into two large branches. In turn, smaller branches grow from the large ones, and still smaller branches from the small ones, and so on. Deity is the trunk of the tree, and the God and Goddess are the two main branches. The smaller branches that fork off of the two big ones are the worlds gods and goddesses…”

If you’re not sure what the difference between soft polytheism and monism is, here’s a good litmus test: If you believe in the existence of a supreme divine force, you’re a monist. If not, you’re a polytheist.

Many pagans are somewhere in between hard and soft polytheism. For example, you may believe that Zeus and Jupiter are different versions of the same deity, filtered through the lens of Greek and Roman culture, respectively — but you believe that Thor is distinct and separate from Zeus/Jupiter, even though all three of them are gods of storms.

To make things even more complicated, there are some pagans (and some atheists, for that matter) who believe that the gods exist less as autonomous beings and more as archetypes within mankind’s collective consciousness. Their stories resonate with us because they serve as mirrors for different parts of ourselves. In this sense, we create the gods in our own image.

This belief is how we get “pop culture pantheons.” Some people work with fictional characters as archetypes in their spiritual practice. After all, if Sailor Moon is the ultimate representation of feminine power for you, what’s stopping you from putting her on your altar? Some pop culture pantheons have actually broken through into mainstream paganism — there are a lot of Wiccans who work with Merlin, believe me.

This interpretation is a bit different from polytheism, and could really be its own post (or several), so for the sake of keeping things short and sweet I’m not going to go any deeper into it. If this interests you, I recommend reading the work of Jungian psychologists like Clarissa Pinkola Estés and Robert A. Johnson. You may even want to check out The Satanic Bible by Anton LeVay for a particularly spicy take on the idea that we create our own gods and devils.

Just know that you can still practice paganism, even if you aren’t 100% sold on the idea that the gods literally exist.

Your take on polytheism doesn’t necessarily have to match up with the historical cultures you take inspiration from. For example, you may be a hardcore monist, but find that you’re drawn to work exclusively with the Norse gods. Or, you may be the hardest of hard polytheists, but find that the Kemetic gods are the ones who really speak to you. This is all totally okay! One of the benefits of paganism is that it allows for a lot of personalization.

Now that we’ve got the types of polytheism out of the way, let’s address the other big question that comes up when pagans discuss polytheism with monotheists: Does that mean you believe all those crazy myths are true? Once again, the answer depends on the pagan.

Just like some Christians are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is a factual historical account, there are some pagans who believe that their mythology is factually true. However, many pagans accept that these stories have fantastical or exaggerated elements, but still convey a spiritual truth.

There are multiple Norse myths about men being transformed into dragons by their lust for riches, the most famous of which is probably the story of the dwarf-turned-dragon Fafnir. (Yes, Tolkien did steal that plot point from Norse mythology. Sorry.) These stories aren’t really about the dragons, though — they’re about the corrupting power of greed. The stories are true in that they teach a valuable life lesson that resonated deeply with ancient Norse culture. But did dragons really roam the earth in ancient times? Probably not.

This is one of the most important skills for any pagan: finding the spiritual truth in a myth or story. If you read a myth about Artemis transforming a man into a deer because he spied on her while she was bathing, what does that tell you about Artemis? Next time you read or listen to a myth or folk tale, try to find the message at the core of the story. You may be surprised by how this changes your understanding of the mythology.

If you’re interested in paganism but aren’t sure where to start, it might be helpful to gauge where you fall on the polytheism spectrum. Are you a hard polytheist, a soft polytheist, or somewhere in between? Are you a monist? Do you believe the gods function more as archetypes? Write it down so you can look back on it later.

When we talk about specific pagan traditions in future posts, I’ll point out where they fall on the polytheism spectrum. If you’re looking for a path that is compatible with your own beliefs, this is one thing to keep in mind.

Finally, know that your beliefs about the gods might change as you continue to learn and grow. That’s a natural part of religious exploration, so don’t try to fight it!

[whats-the-word-again]

I saw this and thought immediately of Lord Ares- I laughed for way lounger and louder than I should have 💀

[loemius]

here’s my hot take of the night:

the e-temples that have been cropping up lately are cool, and im glad to see people making specific spaces to come together to worship. that’s awesome! i’m very here for that as a concept. i love nothing more than to see the theoi get the praise they deserve.

that being said, i am very wary about the amount of people i have seen calling themselves priests/priestesses lately. not even just in the e-temples! ive seen multiple people in the tags who have in their bio “priest(ess) of [deity].” i realize most people probably don’t mean harm by it, but it gets under my skin. to call yourself clergy implies a specific level of knowledge and experience with a religion (which isn’t my business to get involved in your praxis like that, that’s personal unless you wanna share it), but more importantly, official recognition by an established institution. there are not that many of these (that i am aware of) for hellenic polytheism. calling yourself clergy is simply that — calling yourself that. there’s no backing for it, and it genuinely concerns me.

we as the polytheist community talk a lot about harmful practices in spirituality, things like spiritual psychosis or cultural appropriation, which are important topics to discuss. it’s been said before and i’ll say again — people claiming to be spiritual authorities of some kind without any kind of proof can be very dangerous. i don’t assume anyone has bad intentions. i give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that everyone is just trying to help other people worship. but it doesn’t change the fact that calling yourself a priest(ess) will make impressionable or unsure people look up to you, and that is a hell of a lot of responsibility. i am concerned that there are minors running these kinds of blogs. that’s a lot of pressure on someone’s shoulders, especially to put on someone who is still growing up and developing their research and critical thinking skills. i don’t want to gatekeep or anything like that. im very glad to see minors having really good experiences with their faith, that they’re excited to share it with others. but it just concerns me.

im certainly not as experienced as other practitioners on this site, having had about two years of experience at this point, but i am very wary of anyone who claims to be any kind of authority on anything unless you can back it up. regardless of if your blog says that you’re not an authority, calling yourself clergy of any kind implies that. people will take it that way. it inherently implies a level of authority, knowledge, and experience on a particular subject, which is usually backed up by having an official institution that recognizes you.

perhaps this is a little callous of me, but in the same way that when someone makes a claim about the theoi academically, i expect them to have sources to prove it, i expect clergy to have some kind of proof of their authority. otherwise, what are you doing that’s different than any other tumblr blog?

to be clear, i don’t have an issue with these devotional spaces. i simply take an issue with people referring to themselves as clergy when that is a particular term with a particular context and a particular implication. words have power. i earnestly think if people just called themselves something like ‘stewards’ of a particular temple, i wouldn’t be so bothered by it. or just call yourself a devotee of a particular god. ultimately, at the end of the day, the words we use have power and implications, and that has to be acknowledged and respected. send tweet

[kore-siciliana]

Hermes, Beautiful Messenger

All that’s left of you is your love and a specter of presence, though I do not feel it.  “I love you” and “I am here.” Like an oracle, they come tumbling from my mouth.  They are echos, sounding in my mind, ever distant.  I cling to your words like stormy wreckage on a now placid sea.   What ever were you?  You are language in the brain. O, Angelos Makarôn, blessed messenger, you brought so many to me.  Divine and deathless, they spoke, and you heralded intoxicating resplendence, all imbibed substance of a yearning soul.  Lovely Pompaios, the cosmos we traversed, were they just synapses?  Did you cut a path through my mind so I might see wonders? Together we spoke beauty.  Erato, beloved Muse, descended upon us, in trance I breathed out poetic love, but now without you I cannot speak.  I fail to put words to my heartache.  I have folded in upon myself and have lost you.  You are wrapped in mystery in some distant place.  My fingers slipping from yours makes me wonder if you ever touched me.  “Dawnstar, live a life that is beautiful to you.”  I’ve etched it across my body, branded it in my memory, made it poetry so I might never forget.  How do I find the beauty in now empty expanses that you once traveled.  I am left without a guide unable to penetrate the dark, standing on murky shores.  Kydimos, I lived a life illuminated and expansive.  You showed me death and I was not afraid knowing I would find your voice as I slipped into boundlessness.  I am now harnessed as a being finite and discrete, alone.  I’m afraid that when you say “I am with you now” it is nothing but a string of flittering words I have found to hold myself in.  Can I ever find you again, in gentle ways?  Like a distant star, might you lead me in dark journeys?  But I am afraid that you are a glorious comet, blazing in my life for a moment, now leaving for a future so distant.  Wherever you live in me, do not stop.  If it is all that you are now, be the language that I speak.  Let me fall into you, embody you.  Live you incarnate.  Find yourself reflected in the liminality of a mind.  That is my home.  You are god of it there.

-Kore Siciliana, 6/30/24

[helpolnix]

Working with gods that are known for being tricksters but getting none of that from them is simultaneously hilarious and also slightly saddening since I’d love that funny slight prankster energy from them. The only ways Hermes and Dolos play tricks on me is if I do he direct opposite of what they asked of me (sometimes on purpose I’m sorry) and they, understandably, hand me my ass for it.

This is a formal apology to Hermes and Dolos.

[ts-witchy-archive]

*Please* go on about Zeus. Im working at reframing my knowledge on him from what media puts him as and that would be so actually helpful?

Okay so this all personal speculation mixed with info I have gathered over the past few years so take it with a grain of salt.

I think the main thing people miss when it comes to analyzing Zeus is that the myths are not meant to be taken literally. Also, the myths are a product of their time quite literally and the gods are meant to be seen as flawed (imo). Zeus was written the way he was because that is what the 'peek' of masculinity was back in Ancient Greece (well partially. not entirely it's more complex than that) but he was written to give explanation to other God's births, complex historical events and more. It's really hard for humans to accept that tragedy, death and heartache are a part of every day life and I don't blame them. I think it's important to remember that, no matter the time period, we're all just confused people trying to explain the unexplainable through art and story telling. It's also easier to share stories with characters that people already know like Zeus. In addition, being King of the Gods gives him a coinvent motive/explanation for a lot of the things that happen in the mythos. The Greeks also interacted with a crap ton of different civilizations and their religion reflected this with the stories that have slowly made their way into the religion (many have Egyptian roots). SO IN SUMMARY, don't take the myths literally. They weren't created to be read that way but rather to attempt to explain huge life events.

I think the best way to reframe your knowledge and view of Zeus is just to start worshiping him if you're Hellenic Pagan. You get comfortable really quickly and experiencing his energy also helps with adjusting. I also felt weird about Zeus when I was first researching and beginning to practice the religion. I feel like it's kind of a universal experience at this point haha.

also, sorry this took me so long to write up and respond. Life has been weird lately and I just have not been on Tumblr. I hope this was a little helpful :) take care

[lavender--milk]

please forgive the low quality Here is my interpretation of Apollo 💛💛💛💛 I am really happy with how it turned out :>

[kyxgrey]

me: *prays to lord hypnos for peaceful sleep*

me: *sleeps twelve hours straight*

me: im still sleepy :(

lord hypnos: patience young one. 

[arandomfangirl2]

As somebody who is starting to learn and practice Hellenic Polytheism/Paganism, listening to 600 strikes was an interesting experience

[skarlitt]

Apologies for my absence! I've got a minute away from my studies this weekend so I can devote my full attention to this again!˘⁠*.⁠｡⁠*⁠♡•⁠◍✧⁠*×

[applefoam]

so I was drowning in dread earlier today, right? so i prayed to dionysus for help (promising i'd do some more reading on him and his myths), and I almost immediately felt better.

I am so!! aa!! im having so much more fun, i lit a candle for him as another thank you