what pagan religions are not strictly hard polytheistic

[MochaRadha]

besides wicca? I know many say it is but others say it can be duotheistic and so on,So I was wondering about other pagan, or other similar type religions

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hinduism, for one.

 

[Storm]

Hinduism's pagan classification is arguable.

To the op, I'm not aware of any path that can't be interpreted with soft polytheism, so.....

 

[MochaRadha]

i dont know if hinduism truly is pagan but I can see how it would be in some ways

 

[Storm]

One definition of pagan is 'non-Abrahamic.' So, by that loosest of meanings, Hinduism qualifies.

 

[Me Myself]

"pagan" is so incredibly loose. I feel like a pagan by worshipping Shiva. I feel like a pagan merely by worshipping more than one god. Still, I dont feel it is a primary defining quality for me at all so that is why I dont treat this as my dir

(so, smite me if I set you off )

 

[Storm]

Eh, I don't think you're breaking the rule, myself.

I will point out, though, that that's almost certainly the reason they named this the NEOpagan/ Rivival Religions DIR, instead of simply Pagan.

Oh, and, before anyone wonders why *I* post here, as a former neopagan whose theological roots go deep, I got permission.

 

[Quintessence]

I concur with Storm that any polytheistic path can be approached through a soft lens. However, in some cases, doing this would be a... historically inaccurate way of approaching certain types of paths. Soft polytheism is, by and large, a Neopagan thing. Some authors suggest that the tendency towards softness in Neopaganism is because many people have baggage from their monotheistic backgrounds and that as the movement matures, it will return more and more to the classical understanding of the gods (that is, hard polytheism). I can't say whether or not this trend is actually happening, but it has been observed by people more knowledgable and in tune with trends in Neopaganism than myself.

May I inquire as to why you ask this question, Mocha?

 

[Storm]

Granted, but that raises the specter of Reconstructionist historical legitimacy...

 

[horizon]

As a Kemetic, I am not a hard polytheist.

 

[MochaRadha]

I concur with Storm that any polytheistic path can be approached through a soft lens. However, in some cases, doing this would be a... historically inaccurate way of approaching certain types of paths. Soft polytheism is, by and large, a Neopagan thing. Some authors suggest that the tendency towards softness in Neopaganism is because many people have baggage from their monotheistic backgrounds and that as the movement matures, it will return more and more to the classical understanding of the gods (that is, hard polytheism). I can't say whether or not this trend is actually happening, but it has been observed by people more knowledgable and in tune with trends in Neopaganism than myself.

May I inquire as to why you ask this question, Mocha?

i ask because some of the things in pagan or what ever religions you want to call it make sense to me more than abrahamic faiths so it was just a question out of curiosity. I dont mind praying to other gods and believe they may all exist but i believe they are all a part of one supreme creating for.

 

[MochaRadha]

As a Kemetic, I am not a hard polytheist.

didnt most egyptians believe in monolartry

 

[horizon]

didnt most egyptians believe in monolartry

The one and the many, yes. Modern Kemetics span more of a spectrum.

 

[MochaRadha]

The one and the many, yes. Modern Kemetics span more of a spectrum.

I did find that to be interesting also the fact they have a sky goddess and earth god

 

[Quintessence]

i ask because some of the things in pagan or what ever religions you want to call it make sense to me more than abrahamic faiths so it was just a question out of curiosity. I dont mind praying to other gods and believe they may all exist but i believe they are all a part of one supreme creating for.

Yeah, there are plenty of Neopagans who will agree with you on this kind of viewpoint. Personally, I think even playing the numbers game is missing the point. It's a map of the territory; they're all correct and incorrect from a certain point of view. Functionally, I operate as a hard polytheist. I experience reality as a series of discrete objects and I see little reason to not treat the gods (which are immanent within that reality) as equally discrete. The cottonwood tree is not a squirrel, the squirrel is not a city street, and the city street is not a beam of photons. Yes, they have relationships to each other, but they are not the same entity. Just my perspective.