There is no such thing as "soft polytheism"

[The Hammer]

Are they gods, or psychological?

I don't make a solid distinction here. That was the point.

A psychological entity is a god inasmuch as may other object of Worship.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Paganism and polytheism are different topics imo.

If you're talking about capital P Paganism as the folkway of an ethnic group, I can understand making the distinction.

 

[firedragon]

Yep. It is indeed a waste of time to try to tread god-concepts as if they were entities with epistemological solidity.

They are a very ill fit to that sort of expectation. But much worse still is that people tend to create great harm while engaged in the attempt to fulfill those expectations.


Oh, no. I was wasting time as well.

But it may conceivably happen that someone might be awakened into insight about this matter slightly faster and more easily due to my words. In that respect, no, it may not be a waste.

Besides, I was also warning the likes of you about the dangers.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

If there's ultimately only one god...

Soft polytheism: The belief that there is more than one god, but that the gods are in some way aspects of a single (or dual) Deity. Soft polytheist positions may include the following: 1) the gods are all aspects of one God/dess, who has both immanent and
transcendent aspects (as in panentheism); 2) the goddesses are all aspects of one Goddess and the gods are all aspects of one God (also called duotheism); 3) the gods are metaphors for natural forces that make up a larger Deity (as in pantheism); or 4) the gods are expressions of Jungian archetypes, through which human beings can experience an otherwise unknowable Deity. - Prof Kraemer

 

[Quintessence]

It's also important to preserve polytheism in the face of colonialism instead of twisting it to be monotheism with more steps

Okay, um...

... acknowledging the diversity of theology doesn't twist or eliminate the existence of that diversity. Acknowledging "soft" monotheism or polytheism are a thing doesn't threaten the "hard" varieties. They don't need your "help" to preserve them, they're all still here. On the other hand, your insistence that the "how many" question of theological diversity fits into an either-or binary does precisely that - twists or eliminates diversity. You're not going to get me on board with that. I see you fall into the gatekeeping crowd. Oh well.

 

[Quintessence]

To add - because I think this gets overlooked by the types who enjoy community gatekeeping - for individuals undergoing theological and religious transformations, the presence and existence of a gradient is extremely important for this journey and contributes to people's ability to make it and succeed at it.

To put things another way, if someone who has been a monotheist their entire life has found themselves dissatisfied that and wanting a change, it is tremendously more difficult to totally jump ship on that to straight polytheism than to take incremental steps towards it. In this sense, "soft" polytheism is all but essential to helping monotheists de-convert from monotheism into a more polytheistic orientation. It is helping monotheists find us and begin to understand us. For some, "soft" polytheism is a needed transitional stage as they move away from monotheism into polytheism that they later leave behind. And if it isn't? Frankly, I'm happy with any and all of that theological diversity. Its existence doesn't bother me or pose any threat to me. I still don't do gatekeeping, and I've been around in the community enough that I'm very aware of how "soft" polytheism helps monotheists reconcile polytheist theology and move in a more polytheist direction. Polytheism is the natural orientation of the human species anyway, monotheism is never going to eliminate it.

 

[paarsurrey]

To add - because I think this gets overlooked by the types who enjoy community gatekeeping - for individuals undergoing theological and religious transformations, the presence and existence of a gradient is extremely important for this journey and contributes to people's ability to make it and succeed at it.

To put things another way, if someone who has been a monotheist their entire life has found themselves dissatisfied that and wanting a change, it is tremendously more difficult to totally jump ship on that to straight polytheism than to take incremental steps towards it. In this sense, "soft" polytheism is all but essential to helping monotheists de-convert from monotheism into a more polytheistic orientation. It is helping monotheists find us and begin to understand us. For some, "soft" polytheism is a needed transitional stage as they move away from monotheism into polytheism that they later leave behind. And if it isn't? Frankly, I'm happy with any and all of that theological diversity. Its existence doesn't bother me or pose any threat to me. I still don't do gatekeeping, and I've been around in the community enough that I'm very aware of how "soft" polytheism helps monotheists reconcile polytheist theology and move in a more polytheist direction. Polytheism is the natural orientation of the human species anyway, monotheism is never going to eliminate it.

monotheism is never going to eliminate it (polytheism)

Is the ^ from Science, please?

Regards

 

[Quintessence]

Is the ^ from Science, please?

Regards

Of course it isn't. Not all human knowledge derives from science. The study of religion is one of the humanities, not a science.

 

[Quintessence]

Monotheism, one figures, is the default/natural/normal position of human beings; when they are lead astray they are either polytheists or Atheists, please, right?

No. Some monotheists sure like to believe this, though.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Update 2:
There's a very common, and equally false, distinction floating around that there are two forms of polytheism: hard and soft polytheism. Let me explain why this distinction is invalid.

I want to say, this is a very interesting topic, and I'm glad you opened the thread.

First, there is not even a solid definition of soft polytheism. The more common ones tend to be (1) belief that gods in one culture may be the same as in another culture but with a different name, (2) belief that the gods are all facets of one ultimate God, (3) belief that the gods are symbolic embodiments of nature and/or Jungian archetypes, or (4) belief that everything, including the god, reduces to one source (monism). Still, let's address all four.

Thank you. I had understood soft polytheism to be the idea that all the gods are masks of one God/Source. You have taught me some new stuff.

(1) Gods in one culture may be the same as in another culture but with a different name. This is literally just called “polytheism.” There is nothing “hard” or “soft” about it, it is by definition polytheism. Even if there is just one big pantheon where gods are given different names by different cultures, there's still more than one god, otherwise we get to (2). Egyptians, Greeks, Romans… many, many polytheistic societies accepted this. So (1) is not “soft polytheism,” it's just polytheism.

Yes it is polytheism, but the folks that speak of soft and hard polytheism are trying to make a distinction within the polytheism group.

I completely agree with you that this is classic polytheism. The fact that the gods are interchangeable between different cultures with merely a superficial name change, puts in into the category of hard polytheism.

(3) The gods are symbolic embodiments of nature and/or Jungian archetypes. In other words there are not many gods, in fact there are no gods, just nature and the human psyche, which is known as atheism. Looking back to (2) we can see that “many gods exist” and “no gods exist” contradict. To reduce polytheism to symbolic LARPing more or less is beyond insulting, which makes (3) the worst offender imo. So (3) is not “soft polytheism” or polytheism at all, it is atheism.

I've changed your order a bit, because I believe the "nature" idea above to be as number one. The gods in polytheism are simply great powers over humanity, whether they are the sun and sea, or war, or the emperor. These powers ARE the gods of hard polytheism.

The Jungian view, where the gods are not actual entities, is neither hard nor soft. It is so profoundly different that it deserves to have its own label. The gods that show up across cultures in a Jungian sense are perceived because they are embedded into our unconscious mind; they function as metaphors for the powers, although their perception seems to be biologically passed down.

(2) The gods are all facets of one ultimate God. This is probably the most frustrating, and appears to require a basic crash course in the laws of logic and language. Polytheism is more than one god, and monotheism is one god. This is the meaning of “poly” and “mono.” Logic comes in because if there is more than one god, there cannot also only be one god, A cannot be Non-A. The idea that all gods reduce to one god contradicts there being many gods, there's only the illusion of many. This is closer to the Emanationism seen in paths like Kabbalah, which is quite far from polytheism. So (2) is not “soft polytheism” or polytheism at all, it is monotheism.

(4) The belief that everything, including the gods, reduces to or stems from one source (monism). Originally I had labeled this as not polytheism, but I've been corrected in that polytheistic monism is an active and valid path. It seems many here distinguish between “the gods” and “the source,” so there is not, in fact, “one god” as in (2). This means (4) is indeed polytheism, but you may have already caught the label of “polytheistic monism.” Again this is not “soft polytheism” because, like (1), it's just a form of polytheism, but with the addition of monism. The monism part doesn't change the polytheistic part to make it “softer,” so once again this is not soft polytheism, just polytheistic monism.

I see both these as just being two expressions of the same thing: the perception of a united Divine, but one that wears many masks. Some see this divine as a person, and others simply call it a source or energy. These differences, IMHO, are superficial. I realize that a great many people will disagree with me, including those in my own religion. But well, this is how I see it.

There is a distinction between this and the the expressions of God in the Jewish Kabbalah. In the former the expressions or Devas, while they are illusion, they appear as entities. In the Kabbalah, these expressions do not take the form of entities, but rather are aspects of God such as Kindness, Judgment, or Beauty. Similarly, Islam has the 99 names of God, but they are not distinct entities, but things like Benevolence. All this to say that I would NOT put the above into the category of monotheism, because it does preserve the gods as distinct entities, even those this is illusion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are they gods, or psychological?

They are psychological, deeply hard wired into our unconscious minds, and biologically passed on from one generation to the next. However, they do have enormous power, and because they do, it makes sense to call them gods. It's just that they are the gods within us, rather than the gods outside of us.

I am reminded of a book I read called "Women who run with the wolves." The Jungian author shows us how fairy tales tell us much about our own inner nature. For example, in the story of Bluebeard, each of us has within us a shadow self, a secretive, cruel, destructive power which we have a tendency to deny despite obvious warning signs that we are in danger. "Oh, his beard isn't really that blue." However, there are other powers within us that can destroy this inclination to self destruction, the brothers who come to rescue the young woman. But of course, powers like this can never be completely destroyed, can they?

How that for an ominous ending?