It is NOT Polytheistic

[blackout]

I would love to know if any Hindu gods and goddesses
fit the "roles" of the ones I posted up above.

Anyone?

 

[Erebus]

No honey. Admittedly I read very little.
At least it assures/inSures that my thoughts are my Own.

Still I'll Google him.

Absolutely! Also it shows that you've come to similar conclusions to somebody who's done a hell of a lot of research. Definitely an indicator of a gift

As a side note, IMO his best work is "Nocturnicon". Some of his earlier books hint too strongly at Wicca for my liking, but by Nocturnicon he seems to have shed that element.

 

[Breathe]

Anyone?

That's definitely a toughie.


Kama (Kamadev/Kamadeva) is the deva ("god") of Love, I know that much. I don't know much about the others though, but possibly Durga/Kali for Nemesis and Saraswati for Isis/Gaia (Saraswati is the devi ("goddess") of knowledge and the arts).

Other possible suggestions welcome.


(I've just noticed something, I seem to be especially keen on the early Vedic deities. Interesting...)

 

[Riverwolf]

I would've named Hindu Gods/Godesses,
but... I don't know them.

EDIT: Idea... can one of you expand my post in Hindu?

Kama is love (both Aphrodite and Cupid. ^_^)

Indra is Zeus/Jupiter. (No, really. Indra is the King of the Devas and of Heaven, and the Lord of Storms.)

Bhoordevi is Mother Earth.

...not really sure if there's a "Nemesis" equivalent, though.

 

[Breathe]

I was thinking of those, but then, they aren't really very widely worshipped nowadays, sadly.

 

[Riverwolf]

What makes you think that they aren't "complete" like us? Surely not that one little quote from Krishna? That could be interpreted in many different ways.

"Little?" You do know who Krishna is, don't you?

So what? The lesser gods in other polytheistic religions could just as well be considered the "arms and legs" of the supreme deity. Every pantheon has a supreme deity, just like every human society has a leader at the top of the dominance hierarchy.

I've never seen a "supreme deity" in the Greek pantheon.

Oh, nonsense. Even humans have characterized themselves as "arms", "legs", and "eyes" of a ruling potentate. That is an old metaphor, and you are reading way too much into it.

How can you "read too deep" in these matters?

The Sanskrit word "deva" correctly translates into its cognate forms in other Indo-European languages--"deus" in Latin and "theos" in Greek.

Finally, a good argument from your part. That's a connection I've never considered.

Right. The so-called "pagan" religions were quite varied and quite polytheistic. Hinduism derived from the same polytheistic origin. It did not go through a henotheistic stage, as did the Abrahamic tribal religion. It has not strayed so far from its roots that one can really call it a monotheistic tradition.

It's not a monotheistic religion, either. It's not ANY-theism. Different Hindus have different concepts of God.

Calling Hinduism polytheistic is basically like saying that religion is monotheistic because the majority of religious people follow that God-concept.

I think that you are really splitting hairs to try to defend a point that is ultimately way too fine a point. Angels and saints existed because monotheism evolved out of polytheistic traditions that needed to provide some continuity for converts. Romans had lesser gods where Christians had patron saints. Not really a huge distinction, except that Christians were laboring under the requirement to have only one god, following the Jewish (and Greek/Achaemenid) trend. Hence, lesser gods got replaced by "messenger" angels and saints. The Trinity was not a new idea, having come into being in roughly the 3rd century, long after the Hindu concept of "trimurti" had been introduced in the Greek and Roman empires.

The "Trimurti" is quite different from the Christian Trinity, but I'm aware that they are similar. I'm also aware of all of this. It doesn't negate my point.

"deva" = "god". You don't acknowledge that translation, but all Sanskrit dictionaries do.

Have you read every single Sanskrit dictionary and glossary?

Not quite the same, but no one can deny that the predominate theistic tradition in the world today favors monotheism.

Right. But we don't say that religion is monotheistic.

I am not "defining" Hinduism. I am describing it as it is--a tradition that promulgates belief in the existence of many gods. All you are saying is that all those different gods spring from a single source, which does not contradict the fact that there are still many gods.

Except that not all Hindus believe in many Gods. Heck, some Hindus could probably be accurately described as basically atheists.

"Maybe not among the people..." Well, those are the people who really keep the religion going, not a bunch of isolated "sages", most of whom spend their time trying to convince the masses to follow their own prescriptions.

The words of the Sages are the backbone of Hinduism.

Nonsense. There are plenty of educated conservative Hindus, just as there are many educated conservative Christian theologians. You exaggerate the harmony. Like any vibrant religion, Hinduism is full of competing ideas about the direction the religion should take. Monotheism has had a strong influence on Hinduism, especially as the religion came through a rather long period of influence from dominant Muslim and Christian invaders.

I only report my experience. You have a different one? Show me.

No, argumentum ad numerum is the fallacy that a proposition is true because many people believe it is true. That is different from the claim that the heart of a religious or political movement is determined by numbers of adherents.

"Argument by numbers." I don't see a significant difference.

I am not claiming that polytheists or monotheists are right, only that it seems ridiculous to claim that a religion with the huge number of gods found in the Hindu tradition is NOT polytheistic. That strikes me as absurd. It requires something more than a mere bald faced claim, and I'm glad that you have risen to the challenge of trying to defend the idea. I am quite happy to debate the issue.

Believe me, debating with you is definitely a good thinking exercise.

We are in violent agreement on this, but I do not believe that all educated Hindus would claim that their religion is monotheistic. Monotheism is the belief that there is one and only one god. Hindus believe that there are many.

Not necessarily.

The Buddhist tradition, which arose in reaction to the vedic tradition,

More specifically, blind ritualism: the same sort of practice that likely inspired the Bhagavad-Gita.

is also essentially polytheistic today because the majority of adherents believe in the existence of gods, even if they take a different attitude about how people should behave towards those gods.

But how the majority view something isn't necessarily a good representation of how the system works.

If it were, if I were to use a political system as a good example, America would be a full-democracy, because so many Americans believe it to be so.

"Many" sages? What does that mean? The vast majority? How would you know this? Have you done a survey of sages? I have no trouble with the idea that all gods are fundamentally different aspects of the same overarching "God". That is quite different from monotheism, which is the doctrine that there aren't any lesser gods acting in place of the Big One.

Hinduism is neither polytheistic nor monotheistic, or any other -theistic. All of these are in it.

And, as I said above, the Sages' teachings are the backbone of Hindu religions. It is the words of the Sages that makes up the four Vedas and their branches, the Epics, the Puranas, and all the other texts, both ancient and modern.

Let me state my argument more clearly in case you missed it: Hinduism, being an umbrella term for many religions rather than being a single religion in itself, is not polytheistic. But maybe that's not an accurate way of saying it. Perhaps it's better to say: it's not accurate to say that Hinduism is strictly polytheistic. It's more accurate to say that there are definitely a ton of Hindus (and I'm willing to accept... in fact, I do, the fact that the majority of Hindus) can be called polytheistic. But others are monotheistic, deistic, monist, even atheist.

...and I am aware that because of that, it's very difficult to define exactly what it is that makes a person "Hindu." ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

I was thinking of those, but then, they aren't really very widely worshipped nowadays, sadly.

Bhoordevi has a small shrine of Her own at a Shiva-Vishnu temple not far from where I live.

 

[Breathe]

Bhoordevi has a small shrine of Her own at a Shiva-Vishnu temple not far from where I live.

Awesome! Is she commonly venerated there?

I have a lot of interest in Rigvedic lesser/rarely worshipped deities, like Indra, Brahma, Varuna, Vayu, and Vishvakarma. That excludes Rudra and Vishnu, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

Awesome! Is she commonly venerated there?

I've only been there once, and it was during some kind of festival, so I couldn't really tell.

But, hey, it's not a shrine as in a murthi in a display case; it was a genuine mini-sanctuary.

I have a lot of interest in Rigvedic lesser/rarely worshipped deities, like Indra, Brahma, Varuna, Vayu, and Vishvakarma. That excludes Rudra and Vishnu, though.

Well, Vishnu and Rudra are the ones who have most fully developed in modern times.

But the early Vedic devas are certainly interesting.

 

[Copernicus]

"Little?" You do know who Krishna is, don't you?

I said that the "quote" was little, not Krishna, an avatar of the god Vishnu, which is considered the supreme deity by vaishnavas, as opposed to Shaivas, who prefer to impose that interpretation on Shiva. Of course, there are also Shaktis, who prefer to worship "Devi", often manifested as the "tridevi" (note the "tri" = three) Lakshmi, Parvati, and Saraswati. Or maybe you prefer Smartis, who really do like to mix them all up.

I've never seen a "supreme deity" in the Greek pantheon.

Zeus was the supreme ruler in the Greek pantheon, but Greek philosophers debated the issue of an over-arching "perfect" god. After all, their empire stretched across a great many cultures with the evolving concept of monotheism. The first stirrings of monotheism actually occurred in Egypt, when the Sun God was favored over all others.

How can you "read too deep" in these matters?

I said you read "too much" into the metaphorical language of "arms" and "legs". Note that human beings have four limbs, not just one. Even if you take all those gods as manifestations of the same underlying being, they are still different manifestations. It is pure nonsense to claim that Hinduism is somehow not polytheistic because of some fine philosophical hair that you can split. You can split hairs of how to interpret every religion.

It's not a monotheistic religion, either. It's not ANY-theism. Different Hindus have different concepts of God.

Thank you for conceding my point that Hinduism is not monotheistic, even if you won't go all the way to admitting that it is polytheistic. Different Hindu branches tend to fixate on different gods as "supreme", but all Hindus recognize the different "devas" as distinct personalities. They take the differences seriously enough to argue over which ought to get the privilege, or even whether any of them ought to be set on top of the others. This in no way obviates the fact that it is a religion with more than one god.

Calling Hinduism polytheistic is basically like saying that religion is monotheistic because the majority of religious people follow that God-concept.

Nonsense. I call Hinduism polytheistic because its followers believe in the existence of different gods with different names and different background stories. I call Abrahamic traditions monotheistic because those traditions deny the existence of different gods.

Have you read every single Sanskrit dictionary and glossary?

Can you name one in which "deva" is not translated as "god" and "devi" as "goddess"? I've never come across a single one, but I invite you to prove me wrong with a single instance. If you can, I'll retract my claim that "all" of them do and replace it with "vast majority".

Except that not all Hindus believe in many Gods. Heck, some Hindus could probably be accurately described as basically atheists.

That in no way negates my main point--that it is reasonable to call Hinduism an example of polytheism. When Wikipedia defines polytheism, it is right to list Hinduism as a modern religious tradition in which polytheism persists.

"Argument by numbers." I don't see a significant difference.

Then let me try again. "Argument by numbers" is making the claim that God exists because lots of people claim he exists. That is the fallacy. Pointing out that such people are theists is not an "argument by numbers" fallacy. It is merely making a generalization that is based on observation.

But how the majority view something isn't necessarily a good representation of how the system works.

It is legitimate to make generalizations based on observation. If you see lots of statues of beings that people call gods, give different names to, and attribute different behaviors to, then you can legitimately claim that they are polytheists. That is what we mean by the word "polytheism"--belief in more than one god. If Hindus truly believed that, then Shaivas, Vaishnas, and Shaktis would have no reason at all to separate themselves into different groups, yet they still do.

If it were, if I were to use a political system as a good example, America would be a full-democracy, because so many Americans believe it to be so.

That is not the meaning of "democracy". Belief in the existence of more than one god (note lower case spelling) is the meaning of polytheism.

Let me state my argument more clearly in case you missed it: Hinduism, being an umbrella term for many religions rather than being a single religion in itself, is not polytheistic. But maybe that's not an accurate way of saying it. Perhaps it's better to say: it's not accurate to say that Hinduism is strictly polytheistic. It's more accurate to say that there are definitely a ton of Hindus (and I'm willing to accept... in fact, I do, the fact that the majority of Hindus) can be called polytheistic. But others are monotheistic, deistic, monist, even atheist.

Thank you for that summation of your argument and the lively discussion. I will therefore summarize. You have admitted here that the majority of Hindus can be called "polytheistic", and that supports my original rejection of the OP, which questioned whether any could be considered polytheists. So we agree on that much. Where we disagree is on the question of whether Hinduism ought legitimately to be construed the way the majority of its adherents construe it. On that point, I think that Hindus can and should debate among themselves. As an outsider, I consider it legitimate to characterize a religion as polytheistic because the majority of its adherents believe in multiple gods.

 

[Breathe]

I said that the "quote" was little, not Krishna, an avatar of the god Vishnu, which is considered the supreme deity by vaishnavas, as opposed to Shaivas, who prefer to impose that interpretation on Shiva. Of course, there are also Shaktis, who prefer to worship "Devi", often manifested as the "tridevi" (note the "tri" = three) Lakshmi, Parvati, and Saraswati. Or maybe you prefer Smartis, who really do like to mix them all up.

Nevertheless, regardless of whom one regards as the Supreme Entity, the other devas are still seen as aspects of the One by a very large majority of believers.

Even if the word "deva" is translated to the word god in English does not necessarily mean that the Hindu devas are seen as gods in a state similar to the way one may see them as a God. I've seen many Hindus using the term "angel" instead nowadays.

Would you regard Christianity as polytheistic because of its belief in angels, for example?

 

[Riverwolf]

I said that the "quote" was little, not Krishna, an avatar of the god Vishnu, which is considered the supreme deity by vaishnavas, as opposed to Shaivas, who prefer to impose that interpretation on Shiva. Of course, there are also Shaktis, who prefer to worship "Devi", often manifested as the "tridevi" (note the "tri" = three) Lakshmi, Parvati, and Saraswati. Or maybe you prefer Smartis, who really do like to mix them all up.

Krishna's even more than that. Read chapter 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita. ^_^

That being the case, I think we can therefore assume that Vaishnavas, at the very least (who make up the majority of Hindus, by the way), are not strictly polytheistic.

Zeus was the supreme ruler in the Greek pantheon, but Greek philosophers debated the issue of an over-arching "perfect" god. After all, their empire stretched across a great many cultures with the evolving concept of monotheism. The first stirrings of monotheism actually occurred in Egypt, when the Sun God was favored over all others.

I do know about that one. The Sun God was also a major deity of the Vedic Samhitas, and I do know of at least one modern Hindu sect that thinks of Surya as the Supreme.

But when it comes to Greek religion, all I've ever seen is mythology. I've never heard of anything beyond strict polytheism, at least before Christianity.

I said you read "too much" into the metaphorical language of "arms" and "legs". Note that human beings have four limbs, not just one. Even if you take all those gods as manifestations of the same underlying being, they are still different manifestations. It is pure nonsense to claim that Hinduism is somehow not polytheistic because of some fine philosophical hair that you can split. You can split hairs of how to interpret every religion.

Right. We have four limbs. Purusha is described as having a thousand.

Different manifestations is the same as this: I have a manifestation for here on RF. I have a different one for Youtube. I have another one for another forum I'm a part of. But despite these, I'm still one person.

Thank you for conceding my point that Hinduism is not monotheistic, even if you won't go all the way to admitting that it is polytheistic.

Well, neither myself, nor anyone else, has claimed it's monotheistic. ^_^

Different Hindu branches tend to fixate on different gods as "supreme", but all Hindus recognize the different "devas" as distinct personalities.

Not necessarily.

They take the differences seriously enough to argue over which ought to get the privilege, or even whether any of them ought to be set on top of the others. This in no way obviates the fact that it is a religion with more than one god.

Except since we've already established that it's not a single religion, we can't say it's a religion with more than one god.

Besides, haven't you ever heard of Harihara?

Nonsense. I call Hinduism polytheistic because its followers believe in the existence of different gods with different names and different background stories.

Except that many Hindus don't believe that.

Can you name one in which "deva" is not translated as "god" and "devi" as "goddess"? I've never come across a single one, but I invite you to prove me wrong with a single instance. If you can, I'll retract my claim that "all" of them do and replace it with "vast majority".

Well, I thought I could, but it seems that two of my glossaries do basically define it as "God". (One says "Shining One"... used in scriptures to mean "God or Deity", and the other basically summarizes it to mean "god" without actually using the word... odd, because that one comes from the largely monotheistic religion of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.)

Doesn't change the fact that you've provided an absolute and need to support it.

That in no way negates my main point--that it is reasonable to call Hinduism an example of polytheism. When Wikipedia defines polytheism, it is right to list Hinduism as a modern religious tradition in which polytheism persists.

No, it isn't.

Then let me try again. "Argument by numbers" is making the claim that God exists because lots of people claim he exists. That is the fallacy. Pointing out that such people are theists is not an "argument by numbers" fallacy. It is merely making a generalization that is based on observation.

And it's not an accurate generalization.

It is legitimate to make generalizations based on observation. If you see lots of statues of beings that people call gods, give different names to, and attribute different behaviors to, then you can legitimately claim that they are polytheists. That is what we mean by the word "polytheism"--belief in more than one god. If Hindus truly believed that, then Shaivas, Vaishnas, and Shaktis would have no reason at all to separate themselves into different groups, yet they still do.

So? Many such people recognize that Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti are ultimately the same Reality.

That is not the meaning of "democracy". Belief in the existence of more than one god (note lower case spelling) is the meaning of polytheism.

...huh?

Well, anyway, you're using the lowercase spelling, and that's where you're misunderstanding is coming from.

There's only God. There's one Supreme Reality, that has different manifestations. And by the way, according to many Hindu sects, WE are among those manifestations. Are we, therefore, gods?

Thank you for that summation of your argument and the lively discussion. I will therefore summarize. You have admitted here that the majority of Hindus can be called "polytheistic", and that supports my original rejection of the OP, which questioned whether any could be considered polytheists. So we agree on that much. Where we disagree is on the question of whether Hinduism ought legitimately to be construed the way the majority of its adherents construe it. On that point, I think that Hindus can and should debate among themselves. As an outsider, I consider it legitimate to characterize a religion as polytheistic because the majority of its adherents believe in multiple gods.

And I say that that's inaccurate. I say that it's best that an outsider recognize that it can't be comfortably fit into any form of theism.

By the way, I have a question: would you consider the Roman god Janus to be one god, or two gods?

 

[T-Dawg]

Historically, Hinduism has changed over time, and at one point early on it was polytheistic, with about 33,333 gods, then shifted towards three gods, then one god in three forms, like the Christian trinity.
Hinduism today often has God come about in different forms, which may confuse people who are used to the idea of one god, one personality.

 

[Copernicus]

Nevertheless, regardless of whom one regards as the Supreme Entity, the other devas are still seen as aspects of the One by a very large majority of believers.

This is not quite the same thing as saying that the vast majority are not polytheists. If they were not polytheists, then there would be no "other" devas. In any case, Riverwolf has pretty much agreed with my contention that the majority of Hindus could be construed as polytheists. Perhaps a more interesting question is why some of the Hindus here find it necessary to deny polytheism. What is the stigma that people associate with belief in the existence of more than one god?

Even if the word "deva" is translated to the word god in English does not necessarily mean that the Hindu devas are seen as gods in a state similar to the way one may see them as a God. I've seen many Hindus using the term "angel" instead nowadays.

That's a new one on me, but it is interesting that a few Hindus might have taken up that practice. I would expect it to be more common outside of India, where the influence of Christianity is stronger. When I was in India a few years ago, I visited a Hindu temple with a woman who had converted to Christianity. She remarked that it was a strange feeling to go back and see all the gods that she once believed in.

Would you regard Christianity as polytheistic because of its belief in angels, for example?

Interesting question. I do think that angels and saints fulfill the role of lesser gods in more traditional polytheistic religions, especially the "patron saints" that specialize in things that people might pray for. However, the religion has a strong religious taboo against admitting that there is more than one god.

Krishna's even more than that. Read chapter 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita.

I have learned that religious doctrine almost always tends to be a skewed take on scripture. So my reading of the same sutras won't necessarily skew in the same direction that it does for you.

That being the case, I think we can therefore assume that Vaishnavas, at the very least (who make up the majority of Hindus, by the way), are not strictly polytheistic.

In your last post, you asserted quite clearly that the majority of Hindus could be construed as polytheists. Make up your mind. Having a concept of a supreme deity does not rule out polytheism, since virtually all such religions have a supreme deity.

But when it comes to Greek religion, all I've ever seen is mythology. I've never heard of anything beyond strict polytheism, at least before Christianity.

Read Plato. The concept of a perfect God was debated before Christians came on the scene.

Different manifestations is the same as this: I have a manifestation for here on RF. I have a different one for Youtube. I have another one for another forum I'm a part of. But despite these, I'm still one person.

But you do have multiple personalities.

Well, neither myself, nor anyone else, has claimed it's monotheistic. ^_^

Actually, Madhuri states in the OP that some are "monotheistic dualists". And you are close to trapping yourself in a contradiction. If you believe that any god exists, and you believe that not more than one exists, then you must be a monotheist. How do you escape the logic of that argument?

Except since we've already established that it's not a single religion, we can't say it's a religion with more than one god.

We can make a valid generalization that Christianity holds Christ to be divine, even though there are Christians who do not hold that belief. I think that you are getting to caught up in the semantic twists and turns. It is valid to make generalizations about the doctrinal beliefs that are common in religious groupings.

Well, I thought I could, but it seems that two of my glossaries do basically define it as "God". (One says "Shining One"... used in scriptures to mean "God or Deity", and the other basically summarizes it to mean "god" without actually using the word... odd, because that one comes from the largely monotheistic religion of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.)

Just above you said that "neither myself, nor anyone else, has claimed it's monotheistic". You seem to be somewhat inconsistent on the nature of monotheism and polytheism.

Doesn't change the fact that you've provided an absolute and need to support it.

I have met my burden of proof. All of the dictionaries that you and I are aware of support the claim. All you need to do to falsify it is find one dictionary that contradicts my claim. And I am quite ready to replace the quantifier "all" with "vast majority", if you should find one.

And it's not an accurate generalization.

Again, you seem inconsistent. The generalization is that Hinduism is polytheistic because the majority of Hindus are polytheists. At the end of your last post, you agreed with the assertion that the majority could be construed as polytheists.

So? Many such people recognize that Vishnu, Shiva, and Shakti are ultimately the same Reality.

But many do not, which is why there are different schools and doctrines of Hinduism.

Well, anyway, you're using the lowercase spelling, and that's where you're misunderstanding is coming from.

No, that is where YOUR misunderstanding comes from. Polytheism is defined in terms of "gods"--the uncapitalized word.

There's only God. There's one Supreme Reality, that has different manifestations. And by the way, according to many Hindu sects, WE are among those manifestations. Are we, therefore, gods?

By your logic, then, there is only one person, yet you behave as if we were different people having a disagreement. Here, again, I think that you have trapped yourself in a very convoluted position. Polytheism does not deny the existence of a supreme god. It merely asserts the existence of more than one entity that merits the label "god".

And I say that that's inaccurate. I say that it's best that an outsider recognize that it can't be comfortably fit into any form of theism.

OK, but I'm still comfortable claiming that it is a type of theism known as "polytheism". That is a linguistic question, not a religious one. It is a matter of what the majority of English speakers mean by the word "polytheism".

By the way, I have a question: would you consider the Roman god Janus to be one god, or two gods?

From my limited understanding of Janus, he is a single two-faced god. Isn't he the god of politicians?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Historically, Hinduism has changed over time, and at one point early on it was polytheistic, with about 33,333 gods, then shifted towards three gods, then one god in three forms, like the Christian trinity.
Hinduism today often has God come about in different forms, which may confuse people who are used to the idea of one god, one personality.

You can find both monism and monotheism in the earliest hindu writings,

 

[Midnight Pete]

A lot of people get confused if a religion doesn't specifically deal with a certain super-daddy in the sky.

Hinduism is at least as polytheistic as Mormonism, if online sources are accurate. Technically, Mormonism is infnitely polytheistic.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

This is not quite the same thing as saying that the vast majority are not polytheists. If they were not polytheists, then there would be no "other" devas. In any case, Riverwolf has pretty much agreed with my contention that the majority of Hindus could be construed as polytheists.

It is very true that there are polytheists Hindus. ( I have never had any contact with them ) Polytheism is not taught in the Hindu scriptures. The problem is the way Deva has been translated in to english. It means being of light not God.

I know some Christians who believe that America is the new Israel. I cannot find support for this in the bible. So I tend not to think of this as a universal christian ideal. I cannot find support for polytheism in Hinduism so I tend not to think of it as a Hindu doctrine.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hinduism is at least as polytheistic as Mormonism, if online sources are accurate. Technically, Mormonism is infnitely polytheistic.

I won't comment on Mormonism this is what our scriptures say.

indram mitraṃ varuṇam agnim ahur atho divyaḥ sa suparno garutman
ekaṃ sad vipra bahudha vadanty agnim yamam matarisvanam ahuḥ

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna,Agni and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman."
"To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."

“Aditi is the sky; Aditi is the air; Aditi is the mother, and father and son; Aditi is all the gods and the five tribes; Aditi is what ever has been born; aditi is whatever shall be born.” Rg. 1.89.10,

"All this is Brahman alone" Mundaka Upanishad II-2-11

So our scriptures teach only one God. In fact many of us believe there in nothing but God.

 

[Copernicus]

So our scriptures teach only one God. In fact many of us believe there in nothing but God.

Not quite. These passages only say that the many gods that make up the polytheistic pantheon reflect different aspects of the same being. Riverwolf made this point:

And by the way, according to many Hindu sects, WE are among those manifestations. Are we, therefore, gods?

It's a good question. If we are not, then one cannot claim that there is just one God because all those other gods are manifestations of it. Clearly, the authors of the scripture recognized the existence of many gods, just as they recognized the existence of many people. They were just trying to explain the nature of those different gods in terms of an underlying spiritual unity. They were still working within a polytheistic system in which different gods existed with special characteristics.

What I think triggered the OP was Madhuri's frustration with being "accused" of polytheism. Her approach was to deny polytheism, and so all of this discussion has ensued. My question is: what is wrong with polytheism? Why feel embarrassed by the label?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Not quite. These passages only say that the many gods that make up the polytheistic pantheon reflect different aspects of the same being. Riverwolf made this point:

But all the Gods came from two Human sages Kasyapa and his wife Aditi. Thats why they are called as Adityas or Aditeyas. The Gods were created by men. Because Humans are higher then the Gods.

It's a good question. If we are not, then one cannot claim that there is just one God because all those other gods are manifestations of it. Clearly, the authors of the scripture recognized the existence of many gods, just as they recognized the existence of many people. They were just trying to explain the nature of those different gods in terms of an underlying spiritual unity. They were still working within a polytheistic system in which different gods existed with special characteristics.

In my system of thought all the personal Gods are Illusions of maya. Beyond Maya there is only Impersonal Brahman.

Why feel embarrassed by the label?

When the Christians say they are monotheistic they should be taken at their word,and so should Hindus. We just are tired of people who don't have a complete understanding of our views telling us what we are. Some sects have identified themselves Monotheist, others Monist, and some Atheistic. We just have no sects that thought of themselves as pantheists not one. It was only after the conquest of India by the Abrahamic faiths were they labeled as such. So historically it's projecting western beliefs and ideas on the Indians.
You can theorize to the cows come home. If there is no sect that believes they are polytheists why should they be called one.