There are no polytheists in the West.

[Heathen Hammer]

A God, actually.

 

[Me Myself]

You're getting sidetracked by things that aren't important like debating whether "polytheists" actually exist. I just wanted to make an eye grabbing thread title. The point of the thread was to talk about concepts of god/God that ACTUALLY MATTER in terms of how we live our lives

2
(god)
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
a moon god
the Hindu god Vishnu
an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god:
wooden gods from the Congo
used as a conventional personification of fate:
he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

Oxford dictionary for you.

Shiva and Ganesh matter to me because they help me become a better person.

This is good for my life and that of those around me.

 

[NIX]

Given that your concept remains a very narrow one and one that almost no one shares, your initial statement remains false.

To most people: God = deity you worship and give importance to and in some way shape your life

Pretty much us. The difference is that you think your god speaks through commandments, and well at least talking for myself, my gods use way subtler means. They shape my life by shaping me.

That's pretty much it right there.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, I've gotten as far as page 12 and I have to say, this sure seemed like a doozy.

King, you go on and on about defining other Gods by your narrow Biblical view, then find yourself unable to process that other religions really don't find much value in the things yours does.

Then there was a period where, obviously and without much subtlety, you attempt to show that you think your God is superior by being that which you trust the most and who is personified as Love.. yet, when pressed for details you show that you expect a God, any God, to be like yours, a slave-owner whose followers are issued commands which they must OBEY without question. Followed in one place by a totally absurd insistence on adherence to 'definitions'.

It baffles me a bit that you can live in a religion where a whole host of undesirable, reprehensible, and immoral concepts are promoted but where, because using their actual names are discomforting, you take much better prettier words whose definitions absolutely don't fit, lick the backs and stick these words over the actual proper names for what's going on. It's basically the church of Orwell; I am amazed.

And yet perhaps it is clearer why as a Heathen who prizes truth and honesty above all, I contest daily against this Cult of the Orwell Cross. The work is tiring and as I said, unrewarding to me personally, but at least the world is nudged back towards a balance of some sort, where deceit does not overflow the scales and tip us all into chaos.

It will be a long road.

 

[McBell]

FWIW, I don't think my definition of "god", what one trusts most in the world, is the only definition. I think it is the only one that really matters when talking about implications for how we live our life. Sure people get warm fuzzy feeling talking to spiritual entities. Sure they may feel like they learn some life lessons but beyond these things, their life would've been exactly the same had so and so 'god' not been in their life. What we depend on, hope in, and have faith in the most is what will really determine how we live our life and consequently, the fruit that comes from our life.

so, in a nutshell, all you have really done is take your personal warm fuzzy feelings, set it as the standard for all warm fuzzy feelings, and are now merely trolling your warm fuzzy feelings as the be all end all of warm fuzzy feelings?

 

[McBell]

Still deriding other god concepts because they don't match up to your own ideals?

I am for some reason reminded of the bully in the school yard who derides others in order to make himself feel good.

 

[Riverwolf]

FWIW, I don't think my definition of "god", what one trusts most in the world, is the only definition. I think it is the only one that really matters when talking about implications for how we live our life. Sure people get warm fuzzy feeling talking to spiritual entities.

Hardly.

Sure they may feel like they learn some life lessons but beyond these things, their life would've been exactly the same had so and so 'god' not been in their life. What we depend on, hope in, and have faith in the most is what will really determine how we live our life and consequently, the fruit that comes from our life.

Completely wrong. Without my Gods, my life would still be a complete mess.

 

[Shermana]

FWIW, I don't think my definition of "god", what one trusts most in the world, is the only definition. I think it is the only one that really matters when talking about implications for how we live our life. Sure people get warm fuzzy feeling talking to spiritual entities. Sure they may feel like they learn some life lessons but beyond these things, their life would've been exactly the same had so and so 'god' not been in their life. What we depend on, hope in, and have faith in the most is what will really determine how we live our life and consequently, the fruit that comes from our life.

As I was saying earlier, do you understand why the Greek and Hebrew often use articulation ("the") before the use of the word "god" when referring to the 'Most high god"? The word "Most high god" means "Highest god", there was no language concept for "god who is most high of all things" in "most high god", I've proven to you that Psalm 136:2 and other places like 82:6 refers to the existence of other beings called "gods" that are inferior to "The god's" power. In other words, why does it often say "The god" when referring to God?

As anyone can see your definition of "god" is not even the Biblical definition. The Bible itself refers to Angels and heavenly beings as "gods". In the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:8, it says that the nations were divided among the "Sons of god", the Masoretic has a very odd change to say "Sons of Israel". Rather than questioning my credentials like when I showed that every translation says "god of the gods", would you like to say what you think "god of the gods" means? If Angels and beings have power and influence over people's lives, even if under the orders of "The god", then your definition isn't "the only one that matters". What do you think Paul meant when he called the Evil one "The god of this age"? Does not the Evil one have great power and influence over everyone's life, even most Christian's? Paul says "Indeed there are many gods and lords" in addition to calling the Evil one "The god of this age". Paul also refers to beings called "Elemental spirits" (RSV) that he claims hold influence over people's lives without them being aware.

So again, you are confusing the concepts of "A god" and "one's god". It's very similar to the confusion between Henotheism and Polytheism. You don't have to trust and believe in a god as YOUR god to acknowledge that the spirit being is called "a god". Even Samuel's soul is called "a god" by the Witch of Endor. What do you think "ye are gods" means? What does it mean that the Father is "A great god among the gods".

 

[Quintessence]

If this is something other than rationalism and/or secularism simply mixed with some occult elements I'd genuinely like to hear about it

That you put this requirement on my response tells me that I'm speaking to someone with a rigged deck. It might be a good idea for you to suspend the desire to categorize polytheist god-concepts into either "rational" or "secular" categories. You might be projecting a judgement onto the polytheists when they would not see themselves in such a light at all. Resist the urge to label. It's hard. But try.

Regardless, I'm a terrible person to put that kind of requirement on, because I very deliberately incorporate science into my religious practice. My practice *is* a hybrid of scientific rationalism and religious mysticism, because I'm both a trained scientist and have had many mystical experiences. I wouldn't characterize it as "simply mixed with some occult elements" in a way that trivializes what I do, however. At any rate, this kind of heavy incorporation of science is pretty abnormal in the Neopagan community. Many of them really are more focused on the "occult" aspects compared to myself.

I think part of what happens as well is that when Neopagans present themselves to outsiders, they gloss over many of the more mystical and occult elements. For one, it's difficult for outsiders with a radically different worldview to understand, so it requires a lot of explaining. For two, our culture at large is intolerant of these things, and speaking of them openly sometimes isn't a wise idea. As it stands, your god-concept is so radically different from that of a typical polytheist, it's going to be tough to wrap the brain around. Believe me, I've been there before; it was something I mentally agonized over for the better part of my first year after realizing Neopaganism existed. >_<;

Step 1: understand that polytheistic god-concepts are usually partially if not fully immanent. The gods are nature, the universe, reality itself. They may or may not have otherworldly components, but understand that many polytheists don't exactly have a supernaturalistic god-concept. Supernaturalism implies transcendence of nature, and polytheistic (Pagan) god-concepts don't tend to do that.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Being an Ignostic myself, this discussion has been quite interesting...

Most people here would (I believe) be willing to agree that a non standard definition for god has been presented... however while some are willing to 'work with' this definition to varying extents by attaching the scope of the term (e.g. if you excuse the programming presentation of one of the values in an array which would be: god[KotJ])

This is important because if we remember that god[KotJ] includes a characteristic which was denoted by an adjective which when used cannot simultaneously be applied to more than one entity (it assures a singular reference) - he said the 'thing you trust in MOST' (you cannot trust in more than one thing the 'most' by definition)

By the same token if we are to review the OP then, the polytheist concept being discussed by KotJ presumably also refers to the god concept god[KotJ]; therefore rather than saying there are no polytheists in the west it is reference to the polytheist[KotJ] concept (which his statement that there are none of these 'must be true', since it uses a singular reference).

I would point out at this point by the way - that this means that one cannot view the Christian Gods as distinct beings as they would then each be capable of being trusted (and therefore cannot all be simultaneously trusted the 'most'), god[KotJ] requires that the christian god be evaluated as a single entity and therefore not polytheistic[KotJ]..

This is particularly interesting since avoiding classifying christianity as polytheistic[KotJ]... requires the capacity to split and recombine god[KotJ] - a process which is equally applicable to other potential god concepts (especially those that make use of avatars, henotheistic models and so forth)


edit:
If we are to drop the term 'most' from god[KotJ] it is possible to have more than one god concept... in which case the assertion that there are no polytheists in the west becomes an assertion that there is no one who trusts in more than one god in the west, a claim made with no supporting evidence - KotJ then makes additional restrictions when provided with evidence to the contrary (claiming imported religions - with the inferred but unjustified exception of Abrahamic theological traditions - do not count). However even facilitating these additional unwarranted exclusions, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim made if allowance is made for having trust in more than one god concept.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Then there was a period where, obviously and without much subtlety, you attempt to show that you think your God is superior by being that which you trust the most and who is personified as Love.. yet, when pressed for details you show that you expect a God, any God, to be like yours, a slave-owner whose followers are issued commands which they must OBEY without question. Followed in one place by a totally absurd insistence on adherence to 'definitions'.

.

As I told Me Myself, talking about who or what is worthy of being called "god" is a waste of time. Everyone has their own definition that they probably wouldn't change for anything in the world. At the end of the day it's irrelevant and is bound to just create strife. I was going for eyecatching when I designed the thread title and how I framed the premise. It ended up backfiring as everyone got all offended. For that I apologize. The true purpose is to talk about definitions of "god" that are actually relevant to our lives in a meaningful way. The reality is that there is nothing more relevant to our lives in this world than the question of what we trust, depend, and have faith in the most. It guides our every step. Who or what is really guiding your steps?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Something you believe in, hate and fear is just as meaningful in shaping your life.

The truth is, whatever you 'believe in' or perceive to be true provides the foundations from which you are likely to base your awareness of (and therefore your possible intentional interactions with) reality.

To link that with the term 'god' is rather limiting, you can believe in (and therefore have a lifestyle guided by) a great deal more than just god concepts (I am not using this in a condescending fashion, but rather to imply that there is a superset of things that can be believed in and provide foundation in such a manner, god concepts are merely one of the many subsets of this superset of possible beliefs).

 

[NIX]

As I told Me Myself, talking about who or what is worthy of being called "god" is a waste of time. Everyone has their own definition that they probably wouldn't change for anything in the world. At the end of the day it's irrelevant and is bound to just create strife. I was going for eyecatching when I designed the thread title and how I framed the premise. It ended up backfiring as everyone got all offended. For that I apologize. The true purpose is to talk about definitions of "god" that are actually relevant to our lives in a meaningful way. The reality is that there is nothing more relevant to our lives in this world than the question of what we trust, depend, and have faith in the most. It guides our every step. Who or what is really guiding your steps?

Why the distinction between monotheists and polytheists then? Why not just ask the general question 'Who or what is really guiding your steps?' of all theists?

 

[Me Myself]

The reality is that there is nothing more relevant to our lives in this world than the question of what we trust, depend, and have faith in the most. It guides our every step. Who or what is really guiding your steps?

From where do you decide which christian denominations are right and which are not?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Why the distinction between monotheists and polytheists then? Why not just ask the general question 'Who or what is really guiding your steps?' of all theists?

What I gather from Muslims and Jews that are practicing is that their steps are truly shaped by their impression of what their god thinks about them. In my understanding of them, these are belief systems which teach molding one's entire life to what their idea of God requires. This is not what I've gathered from most of the conversations have had with self described polytheists.

 

[Me Myself]

What I gather from Muslims and Jews that are practicing is that their steps are truly shaped by their impression of what their god thinks about them. In my understanding of them, these are belief systems which teach molding one's entire life to what their idea of God requires. This is not what I've gathered from most of the conversations have had with self described polytheists.

What I see, is that given your definition, the commandments become your gods.

So you would be a polytheist too.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

From where do you decide which christian denominations are right and which are not?

The Apostle's Creed sums up pretty well the doctrines of Christianity that are key to the faith. I don't really care too much about the lesser stuff. I pulled this off of Wiki. I would also include the doctrine of Jesus death as a sin offering to be key as well


The English text used in the Mass of the Roman Rite since 2011 is:
I believe in God,the Father almighty,Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried;he descended into hell;on the third day he rose again from the dead;he ascended into heaven,and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and life everlasting. Amen.[17][18

 

[Me Myself]

The Apostle's Creed sums up pretty well the doctrines of Christianity that are key to the faith. I don't really care too much about the lesser stuff. I pulled this off of Wiki. I would also include the doctrine of Jesus death as a sin offering to be key as well


The English text used in the Mass of the Roman Rite since 2011 is:
I believe in God,the Father almighty,Creator of heaven and earth,and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary,suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried;he descended into hell;on the third day he rose again from the dead;he ascended into heaven,and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body,and life everlasting. Amen.[17][18

All of those are only beliefs that do not directly affect your life.

I will suppose you go by the 10 commandments and put absolute trust in the fact that following this 10 commandments is the best for you even if it doesn´t seem that way.

So given that you base gods to what you trust more, you would have 10 gods. Each being each commandment. (this is your definition of god)

If you say you only follow the 10 commandments because those are the rules of God, then you would have to say what makes it so, if you say the bible, then you would be admiting to a degree of the biggest trust in the bible as to what you do with your life.

In which case, the bible would be your God.

Literaly, be your god (I am merely using your definition)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The true purpose is to talk about definitions of "god" that are actually relevant to our lives in a meaningful way. The reality is that there is nothing more relevant to our lives in this world than the question of what we trust, depend, and have faith in the most. It guides our every step. Who or what is really guiding your steps?

I guide my own steps.

However the Gods have provided conversations, of a sort, which make suggestions concerning how to go about it. These suggestions, as it turns out, are wise council. Using such ideas I take my own steps. The success of my steps, I show to the Gods to pay homage to their advice and give myself a bit of the glory.
I suppose you are right about these ideas making friction; I cannot figure out why you would want someone to guide your steps, rather than doing it yourself.

 

[Me Myself]

I guide my own steps.

But we all do. He will probaly say he guides his steps by the commandments, but then again he does so because he has chosen to give them that authority.

Ultimately, we all guide ourselves, using whichever rules or relationships we choose to trust in order to do so.

There is no escape to the fact that we guide ourselves.