|
Post by devo on Mar 14, 2015 14:41:26 GMT -6
I personally feel like differentiating btwn soft and hard polytheism is kinda redundant. I understand why some people do it, but at the end of the day, anything more than one deity- regardless of how these multiple deities interact together- is still polytheism. It's part of my beef with certain sectors in the community asserting that if you "only" believe in a god and goddess, you're somehow not really a polytheist. When in actuality, anything more than one deity is polytheism. Because "poly".
Kemetics have that issue because while you can be "hard" polytheist- in that you believe our gods are not all one deity-borg, at the end of the day, our religion is canonically mushy in it's polytheism. And there is no way to get around that. We are hard and soft all at once because we are three forms of theism (monolatrism, henotheism, polytheism) all at once.
So idk how you'd classify being both hard and soft, because technically both are still a form of polytheism- because its still more than one god. In certain circles, I've felt as though splitting hairs btwn soft and hard ends up missing the point, and divides people more than anything else....
As for animism, I think that's fairly all or nothing. I'm sure there are some people who draw lines in the sand when using animism, but I personally don't. I think that anything and everything has the potential to carry sentience and a sort of spirit- including man made items. This is especially true, for me, of natural things as well.
So idk. I feel like I'm just rambling and not actually answering anything >.>;;;
-Devo
|
|
|
Post by saintfelicity on Mar 14, 2015 19:06:48 GMT -6
Nah that totally makes sense to me, Devo! And I agree with your point, it definitely applies simultaneously to multiple religions. I can think of a good handful of instances in Gaelic Polytheism.
Definitely my issue is when people use "soft" polytheism to be like "hey well they're all just one God and one Goddess so it doesn't matter what I do with who!" but it's probably more productive to call that out specifically for what it's doing, rather than using more blanket terms.
|
|
aondeug
Full Member
Posts: 141
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers, He/Him/His
Religion: Thai Theravada, Irish polytheism
|
Post by aondeug on Mar 14, 2015 22:44:02 GMT -6
I find it rather important to myself because for me my gods are all distinct individuals. Lugh is Lugh. He also isn't Llew. I like to make that clear with my Gaelic polytheism thing. It's just a nice sort of quickhand I can use to get across something that might otherwise take a sentence of a few to say. It's an important distinction for me belief wise and it's nice to have a way to describe it with a single word basically.
It doesn't apply to everything for me though. Whether or not I "go back" to Buddhism so to speak I do believe that there are gods who are part of some sort of deity borg, as you said. Guanyin, Avalokitesvara and Hayagriva (Buddhist not Hindu Hayagriva) are all the exact same individual. Just different forms of the same being. Sometimes Guanyin has two arms, sometimes she has a thousand and sometimes she's a man. Guanyin isn't Amitabha though and Amitabha isn't Budai. There are distinct beings among the Cosmic Buddhas and Bodhisattas. It's just that some of those individuals also happen to have a variety of other forms they appear in.
|
|
|
Post by Intaier on Mar 15, 2015 4:07:02 GMT -6
I personally feel like differentiating btwn soft and hard polytheism is kinda redundant. I understand why some people do it, but at the end of the day, anything more than one deity- regardless of how these multiple deities interact together- is still polytheism. It's part of my beef with certain sectors in the community asserting that if you "only" believe in a god and goddess, you're somehow not really a polytheist. When in actuality, anything more than one deity is polytheism. Because "poly". I like it every time when I agree with Devo about something, and this is the case :) An article that once helped me very much with understanding of "one or the many" www.patheos.com/blogs/gatheringnectar/2014/10/how-many-water-are-there/
|
|
|
Post by awenyddogamulos on Mar 18, 2015 12:19:59 GMT -6
"Non-Newtonian-solid polytheism" should be a thing - sort of soft, but hard when you poke it rapidly.
|
|
Chev
Junior Member
Struggling to learn and grow.
Posts: 97
Pronouns: She/Her
Religion: Oh, ain't that the question
|
Post by Chev on Mar 18, 2015 14:59:39 GMT -6
"Non-Newtonian-solid polytheism" should be a thing - sort of soft, but hard when you poke it rapidly. That is an amazing way to describe it!
|
|
|
Post by TheModernSouthernPolytheist on Apr 2, 2015 15:22:36 GMT -6
Late, but I'll just add to...someone's point....that historical syncrenicity isn't the same thing, IMO, as soft polytheism, i.e. Lugh is Lugh in Ireland, Scotland, and Isle of Man despite small difference and stories. Same goes for deities absorb like Epona was into Roman religion. I also agree aondeug that it's nice to have a succinct way to get the general idea across.
|
|
jack
Newbie
Posts: 42
Pronouns: he/him/his
Religion: fictional reconstruction
|
Post by jack on Apr 6, 2015 1:49:09 GMT -6
Hm. Is there only soft and hard polytheism? Or is there a middle ground where some deities could be a different aspect of themselves? No offense intended, but as an example, Jupiter and Zeus are commonly portrayed to be aspects due to invasions, but one could also see Odin within them as well, and the same goes for other deities, but not all of them? I call that "squishy" polytheism - I think the Waincraft website was the place I originally saw it.
|
|
leithincluan
Junior Member
Posts: 85
Pronouns: she/her
Religion: Gaelic Polytheism and modern British druidry
|
Post by leithincluan on Apr 6, 2015 1:57:16 GMT -6
Hm. Is there only soft and hard polytheism? Or is there a middle ground where some deities could be a different aspect of themselves? No offense intended, but as an example, Jupiter and Zeus are commonly portrayed to be aspects due to invasions, but one could also see Odin within them as well, and the same goes for other deities, but not all of them? I call that "squishy" polytheism - I think the Waincraft website was the place I originally saw it. I like that For me, deities are like rivers. The Thames is not the Brent, but in places it's hard to see where one ends and the other begins.
|
|
callisto
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Religion: Dodekatheism
|
Post by callisto on May 25, 2015 10:11:26 GMT -6
My understanding is that henotheism is the belief in multiple gods while setting one above the others or choosing only one to worship. Monolatry is the practice itself of worshiping only one god -- whether coming from a henotheistic or monotheistic viewpoint. But my understanding could easily be wrong. Henotheism is the recognizing there are multiple gods, but the person worships one above any others. Monolatry is similar to henotheism in that it also acknowledges there are multiple gods. However, it is the view that only one god merits being worshiped.
|
|
aneczyk
Newbie
Posts: 21
Pronouns: he/they
Religion: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ but mostly Hellenic revivalist
|
Post by aneczyk on Jan 25, 2017 13:14:02 GMT -6
so...some clarification: if you're a polytheist, believing in all gods (or at least in the possibility of all gods), but are devoted to a single deity, you would be a monolatrist?
|
|
Redfaery
Junior Member
Posts: 72
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Religion: Buddhist Polytheism
|
Post by Redfaery on Jan 26, 2017 22:13:15 GMT -6
so...some clarification: if you're a polytheist, believing in all gods (or at least in the possibility of all gods), but are devoted to a single deity, you would be a monolatrist? You would, but "henotheist" could also apply. The difference seems largely semantic. Monolatry is more the practice, henotheism is belief.
|
|