So soft polytheism is that the volsi and freyr are the same deity... and hard polytheism is the recognition that they are separately hard? Do I have that right?
What if the gods represented themselves differently to different cultures so they could best be understood, and taught them different stories/powers to teach different lessons. This would mean there's no "right" name for the gods or "right" way to honor them. As long as your honoring of the gods is consistent with the presentation you choose to honor that seems "correct"
Technically thats what I believe in. I also believe in a form of animism that the Gods are divine energies or spirits that we call deities, and our idols or statues attract those spirits.
I'm thinking I'm here. Ba'al and Yahweh were worshipped in competition with one another after the Isrealites split from the Canaanites, but Ba'al himself tells me that he IS Yahweh, but also ABSOLUTELY HATES Yahweh as a concept. He does not want to be viewed as the puritanical figure in the Bible, and is more than happy with me worshipping all these other demons. He told me that his "no other gods before me" command means that one's soul must be in exclusive devotion to one god at a time while worshipping, just like having a private conversation with one other person.
This is how I view it. Indra, thor, tlaloc, jupiter it is all the same. And when all of us from around the world come together as one "unified group" with just different flavors then we would be taken seriously I believe. That is to say, if paganism operated under one vast umbrella of nature based faiths and we had like a little summit to exchange ideas every year that would be really cool to see.
@@Burrick Dwaita Vedanta says all things are real and that in order for a thing,person,etc to be able to change they have to have a real existence.Shri Madhavcharya says there is most definitely a divine hierarchy with Lord Vishnu and his consort Lakshmi ar the top as he is the Parabrahman
This is a debate that I personally just go with "live and let live". It won't offend me if anyone is a soft polytheist, and vice versa. I think it's quite a theological problem but that it's not in itself a problem that needs to be resolved right now. Unless huge gatherings start to form churches and try to dogmatize their view, I don't see it as more than a personal theological problem.
I think most of us agree that this shouldn’t be a large point of contention, but I do think it’s a great discussion to have. The distinctions do have effects in personal practice, and as such it’s pretty cool to also see the diversity among groups of heathens that are often lumped together.
@@LilB0pete personally i take an agnostic approach that does recognices the fenomenology of spirituality, if that makes any sense. There is a Great Unknown that could be one god, multiple ones, both, the unconscious, aliens, or maybe something i cant even imagine, and that Great Unknow shines a light on humanity, tho that light gets filtered by human psychology and culture through philosophy and religion as well as some other factors. I find value in any spiritual belief as long as it is an honest and meaningful one.
You know that one commandment: "no other gods before me"? Or the one about graven images and God being a jealous god? I've always taken that to mean there are others. Even when I was Catholic and it was put forward as a metaphoric expression to warn against watching too much TV or becoming money hungry. 🤷♀️
The fact that Jesus has at least 5 fathers and ca 2 billion grandfathers and is mostly conceived by genetic splicing really makes one wonder about jahwe.
Yeah, I mean even in Genesis... [3:22] Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" The 'one of us' seems pretty telling to me.
Psalm 82 God sits at the assembly of gods. These are the 'heavenly host', or 'sons of god'. And besides them there are chaos gods such as Tehom, Yam /Mayim, Rahab, Leviathan, Maweth, etc..
Weird, my protestant upbringing just took "worship no other gods" to mean made up pagan ones you obviously shouldn't worship because they're not the real thing. The early Jews were, like everyone, surrounded by cultures with their own beliefs. The commandment was just to not join their religions instead. The "become like us" in Genisis was always described in church as something he was explaining to his angels for whatever reason, and don't worry about who wrote that down to include in the Bible. Though Psalm 82 rings no bells for me. Maybe it was harder to explain away? I think I'll go back and read that now.
You are correct it did mean there were other Gods. It's complicated issue. But basically according to ancient Jewish believe each nation on earth had a chief God that would represent that nation, so Yahwen just started out as one of many dieties.
@@jgr7487 this is something I can embrace for a religion unlike Christianity. I never felt comfortable with Christianity so never was able to believe in it. I find this religion is one I can follow
I was very lucky to be reared in a tradition of Celtic paganism from my mother's family. I've chosen a more Heathen approach, myself- so I guess I'm a Softie, myself. I say, "Live and let live". I rather enjoy discourse from all Pagans and celebrate our similarities rather than argue over differences. At least we're all not Christians, eh? Thanks Ocean for ANOTHER astute and comprehensive video!💗
Christianity is getting weaker in Europe. But its kinda growing more in my country India. btw. I study indoeuropean culture and religions. And its always good to look at our similarities. and appreciate the differences in cultures and languages
I love listening to you. I don't know many people in my area (part of the Bible belt) that I can really talk to and not feel awkward. You propose interesting topics to think about while making me feel more comfortable with my own beliefs. Thank you and please keep it up.
So as a ceremonial magician, I definitely break my universe into a psychomap of forces that I can identify with specific gods/angels/demons/etc. So from an intellectual standpoint I am basically plugging the gods in almost like archetypes. To clarify though as a believer in the as above/so below, microcosm/macrocosm I believe them to be both internal archetypes AND external forces. BUT as a practitioner who actually does ritual, there is a World of difference between being ridden by Legba and invoking Thoth. Both are mercurial forces in my paradigm, and though I believe they both tie in to a specific universal force, they definitely manifest very very differently. And of course all of these ‘truths’ only are truths at a level higher/different than conscious thought. The Dao that can be spoken is not the real Dao and all that…
Ocean, I cannot see how hard making a pun on this topic could be. You're growing soft on your puns friend. In all seriousness, I'm glad to hear your stance on this debate! I tend to fall in between the two arguements as well, as one cannot be dismissive of how similar yet different deity can be. Plus you're 100% right, Duotheism just cannot work while Loki is low key shifting to whatever they desire to be. Great work as always Ocean, and spicy as always :D
So, if you consider that the gods are external agents (the mind being outside anyway), but you see them as contexts (like the context of a sentence). A context is a set of ideas, images, powers, and relationships that have an imaginal center of gravity like a constellation. You can have two constellations share some of the same stars and yet be distinct constellations with their own center of gravity so two gods can represent an idea, image, power, or relationship while being distinct. Loki and Coyote are both Trickster gods sharing the power and nature of the Trickster which is something less personal and greater than either. Loki and Coyote have their own personalities, but you can work with each as representatives of the Trickster power. They are like identity masks that encompass elements greater than their personal natures. Sort of like policemen are all different, but you can work with them as policemen outside their individual identities. In this way humans and gods are the same. Is that Hard or Soft?
Can I say how much I adore your constellation analogy?! I was thinking about this very thing not too long ago and wondering how many other people in ancient times may have been looking at the same night sky. Who in your we have come full circle and comparing the vastness of the sky with the Venice of the deities that people worship. What a beautiful result.
I've heard a much less elegant analogy; many cultures make vodka, it's all vodka, but made by different people, some people make sake, different from vodka but they are all alcohol lmao
@@ivystuart1736 Consider that vodka has its spirit which derives from the spirit of alcohol while sake has its spirit which also derives from the spirit of alcohol. The Alcohol spirit is too bit to taste (too big to humanly relate to) but paired with the spirit of rice or grain it takes on a human level character. You can't deal with the All-Mountain, and even the spirit of the Appalachians may be too big. However, you can deal with the spirit of Whitetop mountain and through it the All-mountain becomes accessible. It is easier to deal with Loki than with the root Trickster spirit itself. You can also do the same through Coyote even though Loki and Coyote taste very different like vodka to sake.
@@kimwelch4652 lovely analogy, could apply to the spirit of wellness, which must be paired with the spirits of good foods, the spirits of various kinds of exercise...thank you for sharing your wisdom
I think Edward Butler's article on Polycentric Polytheism provides an interesting alternative that is neither soft or hard polytheism, while very firmly maintaining the individuality of the Gods. It's relatively intricate but I think it could be worth looking into for anyone interested in polytheism. Butler is coming from a Neoplatonic framework but I think there are things that even non Platonic polytheists could take away from. It's a good starting ground for looking at a new polytheistic theology that is more rigorous than pagan 101 books at the least, even if you don't agree with parts of it, or it at all!
Personally I see the Gods as their own individual to an extent. I connect the names such as Odin, Wodan, and Godan to the same god even though the stories and characteristics sometimes slightly differ. But I don't believe these Gods are the same as the ones in the Roman pantheon or Greek pantheon, or other pantheons. But when it comes to Norse, Germanic, Anglo Saxon I feel they connect to the same deity
Since the Norse and Anglo-Saxon, to say nothing of the ancient Germanic they both ultimately derive from, are, well, derived from that same source, I feel the same way and I don't see what's wrong with it. Remember too that the Gods themselves often take on other identities in myths even from the same tradition, such as the ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY names Odin is known by that he himself informs others of. They're less like other names, and more akin to full-blown separate personalities.
@@companylovesmisery1463 right, so I feel since they ultimately derive from the same place being ancient Germanic, I feel they are the same deity personally.
@@michaelsheets4014 Yup. Just given different names, which aren't really all that different, by different but related cultures who valued different aspects of the same deity.
@@companylovesmisery1463 but why draw the line at "Odin, Wotan, and Godan are all derived from the Germanic Wotanaz"? Using that same logic we can say that Tyr and Jupiter are the same since they both derive from the same God in Proto-Indo-European Religion but that's just soft polytheism with extra steps. Not that any of this is really that important (at least to me personally, the divines are the divines and I don't think we can possibly have full understanding of them) it's just an interesting question to me of why I agree that Wotan, Odin, and Godan are all the same but I don't see Tyr and Jupiter as such.
I could see an argument for a "soft" soft polytheism. There are multiple sun deities in multiple cultures, yet we only orbit around one sun. Im not an expert, but are there enough types of thunder to justify all the gods that wield it? Yet there are figures that, removed from the culture they arose in, lose much of their significance. For example, could one swap the 'trickster' gods Coyote and Loki and have the stories be at all similar to their current form? There seems to be a midway point between the camp that segregate gods and the camp that conglomerates them.
In duotheism, the Solar vs. Lunar divide (or Sol and Luna/ Sun and Moon being the the two (chief) deities) could have also been mentioned. I think it would be more defining than simply focusing on the feminine and masculine nature of the dual deities.
I am not a Polytheist, but I've been working on writing projects that have required me to think about how I would structure a polytheistic pantheon for worldbuilding purposes. One of the answers I developed came from a few anthropology and linguistic lectures I listened to while researching was as follows- The idea is to use the tools of linguistic reconstruction and comparative mythology to reconstruct the proto-culture's religion and work from there. So when dealing with Heathenry, Hellenism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, we recognize that they all evolved from the ancestral religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans which evolved over time into distinct traditions. But it's not that simple, as there are a few things that Polytheists have historically, and currently still do, that complicate matters [in an interesting way]- 1. Cultic drift: in any given region there are a multiplicity of cults and it is likely that when the Proto-Indo-Europeans broke apart the different tribes likely participated in the various indigenous cults to varying degrees, which over thousands of years this would cause considerable mythological and theological drift. e.g. the Indo-Aryans made no distinction between *daywás (lit. "deity") and *Hásuras (lit. "deity"), but in time the Iranians under Zoroastrianism revered the *Hásuras as Ahura and maligned the *daywás as Daeva ("gods that are rejected") while the Hindus maligned Asuras as chaotic gods and revered Devas as orderly gods. This wasn't always merely linguistic thing, as the Zoroastrians regarded the gods Indra, Sarva (identified as Rudra) and Nasatya as Daevas, whereas they were worshipped by Vedic Hindus. This can also account for the change in roles, such as Poseidon's promotion to king of the gods [over Dyḗus ph₂tḗr] in Mycenaean Greece and his subsequent demotion to his position in Classical Mythology. 2. Syncretism: the Indo-Europeans incorporated indigenous deities into their localized religions as they migrated, as well as foreign deities when engaged in trade. e.g. the Hellenes adopted the Semitic gods Dumuzid (𒌉𒍣𒉺𒇻) and Ishtar (𒀭𒈹) under the names Adonis (Άδωνις) and Aphrodite (Αφροδίτη), respectively. 3. Theofission: gods can be split into deities distinct from each other. e.g. The Hellenes split Hermes (Ἑρμῆς) off from Pan (Πάν) as a distinct and novel deity. 4. Theofusion: gods can be merged into composite deities distinct from their base deities. e.g. Ardhanārīśvara (अर्धनारीश्वर) is the fusion of Śiva (शिव) and Pārvatī (पार्वती), but is distinct from both of them. This understanding provides an empirical framework by which the various Indo-European polytheists could interpret each other's cultic practices in a less haphazard manner than the interpretatio graeca, interpretatio romana, interpretatio germanica, honji suijaku, or han honji suijaku. Hindus, for example, could understand the Hellenic worship of Zeus (Ζεύς) as the localized veneration of Dyáuṣ Pitṛ (द्यौष्पितृ), as they both derive from Dyēus Pətḗr (lit. "Sky Father"), or Indra (इन्द्र), as their striking mythological similarities suggest that the Cult of Zeus fused Dyēus Pətḗr with the Proto-Indo-European Thunder God. Heathenists could interpret Vaiṣṇāvism as the Indian cult of Víðarr, since Víðarr and Viṣṇu stem from the same Proto-Indo-European root. All the while, they could accept that the various ethnic traditions venerate alien gods for which there was no equivalent in their own traditions. It might also provide some ground with which to approach East Asian Buddhist traditions, which venerate some Indo-European deities, such as Sarasvatī (辯才天), alongside their own Japonic, Koreanic, Mongolic, Sino-Tibetan, Turkic, etc. deities depending on the regional syncretism. Granted, the most obvious response to this is that this is all theoretical... but so is the hard/soft polytheism debate anyway. Moreover, it's limited in how far back reconstruction can be preformed in principle. We could never, for example, reliably reconstruct an evolution from a proto-mythology from which Ṣàngó and Þórr derive [even if they do derive from the same Adamic deity] because the timescales involved are too vast. This is a problem with Afro-Asiatic reconstruction efforts... not only is the language family and culture older than PIE but too much time [and the effects thereof] have occurred to make any reconstruction remotely possible. That said, it seems pretty obvious that many of the deities of the Australian Aboriginals [like the Rainbow Serpent], Aztecs [like Huītzilōpōchtli], Navajo [like Nayenezgani], Zulu [like Unkulunkulu], Ainu [like Kim-un-kamuy], and the Hebrews [like Elohim], were completely alien to the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the same manner that Indo-European gods were alien to them. The goal was ultimately to create something that was actually useable, so if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions, let me know.
I'm a simple man. Creators and spirits. My offerings are mainly in gratitude for the joys, wisdom and help they bring to me. Asking them to help others.
Snaps for this video. Brilliantly put with some spice on the side. You couldn't bring yourself to say any of the puns you put in and so meme'd them into the video instead. I see what you did there.
Fantastic discussion. Im impressed with the amount covered here. The Romano British combined Celtic gods and goddesses with Roman counterparts. Creating such gods and goddesses with the culture merging. It Had some incredible out comes. I remember a time team episode where the were digging around bath and they found inscription inferring to a merger. Romans were more like combine deities to get something more a kin to what they believe in. That result in the Constantine reformation and Roman Catholic church. It is known to happen throughout many cultures. there are even churches up and down the British isle that incorporates Anglo Scandinavian beliefs. It often occurs as a respect for other people beliefs. only to find themselves combined through marriage, love, an ties of loyalty. Then bound by kinships that ensures it survival in some shape or form. It is true that the melting pot is often seen as the middle path. But like every blacksmith knows it can be very hard to make homogeneous steel from scratch. As you do get pockets of difference all over the place. Well as it stands, i guess I would be sat on the fence as an observer. I’ve have seen the many views my friend have taken on this over the year. Some are dual archetypes when it comes to this. at times have a defined viewpoint while in the short and small moments might sing another way. interesting to say that you seam to aligned with that view. neither hard nor soft. A Bear that like his porridge just right. Best place to be as a learning scholar so nuances are not missed. Definitely like the work you did here and you explained thing admirably. Well done and keep up the good work you do. Great and I love it.
Perrenialism doesn't lead to Monotheism, it's logical conclusion is typically Monism. The Brahman or the Dao would be an example of the concept, but in that instance we're not talking about a "supreme god" in the same sense that a monotheist would perceive, but rather an impersonal cosmic "all". In several versions of Baltic and Slavic paganism we see similar concepts, and we can't ignore that all of those traditions have a common ancestry with Germanic, Celtic, Roman and Greek tribes. And given that even in the broadest Germanic sense, we have almost nothing as far as non-polemical contemporary sources, without comparitive analysis we have nothing to reconstruct from.
I would say that my own beliefs in this matter have evolved over time. I'd say 20 years ago...I was duotheistic. I identified as a Wiccan, and Wicca had "the Goddess" and "the God". It wasn't that they were the only Gods, but that Wicca had their own two Gods. The Mother/Maiden/Crone, and the Son/Lover/Sacrifice. When I considered a traditional coven, I was told that these two Gods had actual names, but the names were bound by oath as a secret. It was one of the reasons why I decided against Traditional Wicca, because I wasn't going to spend at least a year and a day in a religion where I didn't know everything I needed to know about the Gods I was worshipping. Like, what if i ended up not liking them or something. I did at one point early on, I buy into the "All Gods are One God, and All Goddesses are one Goddess. And the God and Goddess is part of The One. Now, I actually think that came from a fictional book I read (The Mists of Avalon), but I can't be sure. But I had just became a Pagan...so latent Christianity may have played a part. I also read many books that claimed the whole peaceful, almost utopian worldwide Matriarchal Society who worshipped a Mother Goddess. Honestly even back then, that didn't sit right with me. I personally didn't think it was true. Nowadays...I'm 100% a Hard Polytheist. I do see all the Gods as distinct from one another. And my practices now definitely differ now because of it. But, I guess it's not that odd I'm in a different place now than 20 years ago.
"son/lover/sacrifice" ouch! that sound like "burden/toy/trash" I'd always heard of the triple god as "youth/father/sage". That version make me feel grotesquely objectified. I get that's not the point of your messages, and you've said it's not part of your current belief system. I guess I just hoping that, that symbology is not a common one.
I’m mostly a hard polytheist. Mostly because my gods (Greek) are often lumped together and seen as interchangeable with the Roman pantheon. I’ve never seen them as the same and my worship distinguished the two sets as separate. But if someone worships both and they’re organized as the same in that pagan’s mind, then that’s how they are for them. No one right way to believe.
You know what religion is open, and kinda actually requires a to a soft polytheist interpretation? Catholic Marianism. - Mary Mother of Jesus has very famously presented herself dozens of times across centuries to her faithful, taking the physical form of the people she comes to, and goes on to be worshiped in the form she appeared in. And even though there’s a dark skinned Mary in Mexico and white French Mary in Lourdes, its universally understood they’re the same person
But… besides cosmetics changes (skin, eyes and hair colour) they are always Marie virgin mother of Jesus. Not suddenly she’s a different goddess with a different name and stories. Not at all like a connection of Odin and Mercury at all…
What about saints, duality of Jesus, concept of trinity, Satan... And they claim to be monotheists, lmao! No wonder there are so many only true churches calling Catholics (and any other denomination, to be fair) heretics.
Excellent video, as always! Polytheism is, by it's very nature, pluralist, and I think it reflects our post-Judeo-Christisn backgrounds that some Pagans today appear to struggle with it. I take a hard polytheist approach overall, but when it comes to the Greek and Roman pantheons I find myself rather stumped. The Romans consciously adopted the deities of other pantheons and Greek and Roman sources alike contain references that indicates their equation, despite key distinctions. So I'm still figuring this out for myself... 🤔
Not to mention that it always circles back to sexist gender stereotypes, and heteronormative ideas about how the divine feminine needs to balance itself out with the divine masculine
Yeah same! It's what sours me from duotheistic Wicca, it feels completely out of touch from my perception of gender. Especially since, as a transfem, the massive focus on the womb & motherhood feels very weird.
@@hazel5049 As an AFAB non-binary person who still identifies with womanhood to some degree, the focus on the womb and motherhood feels very weird to me as well. Frigg is incredibly important to my practice and that has nothing to do with child-bearing,... she's also the goddess of the hearth, of home, of family, and family doesn't necessitate biological children. I am in a family by birth. I am in a family by marriage. I am in a family by adoption. These are all valid ways to become family and it has been so for millennia.
I'm just starting on my journey and beginning to read The Poetic Edda. There have been a couple verses in the Havamal where Odin talks about wisdom, to take a moderate view, for too much or too little causes problems. So as I see it to be closed minded and being hard on either side of the subject of Hard or Soft Polytheism, to be rigid causes problems of growth. Not only the Havamal but many of not the majority of polytheistic holy texts have a view of moderation. Most cultures had the view of an accepting of other Gods for the fear of turning their anger towards them.
Also wanted to comment on how much Ive learned here and enjoy your open perspective - your videos have been a wonderful tool and I really appreciate your work
Very good explanation of the differences in the hard and soft polytheism outlooks. I've never taken the soft viewpoint myself. To me, it's akin to saying all human beings are the same person only showing different attributes and that's a whole lotta wtfing. Now ask me if I believe that everyone and everything is connected in some way. Yup. From the lowest grain of sand on a remote beach to the highest Deity of Asgard, from the softest of breezes on a spring morning to the first breath of a newborn puppy, it's all part of a whole that is as it should be in some fashion or another. Challenges and joys alike are meant to teach and to be dealt with, the Gods are no different. They each have their lessons to teach and to have things that they need to learn too. Doesn't mean that we have to like all of them or that we have to hate any of them or discard and disregard their validity as unique individuals that we encounter which we can turn either to our benefit or to our detriment. This debate that's gone on about such matters concerning the gods is all part of the struggle to understand our world and how deity affects it and us, but I would suggest that it is far better, and far less traumatic, to take each encounter and each awareness as it comes. Like dealing with each human being or animal around you, it's far more profitable to deal with them as they come to you, instead of trying to fit them into some set of parameters that you have, and figure out what their presence and purpose is in your own life... and what yours is to them.
One of the more extreme forms of "hard" polytheism might hold that every separate theophany is a separate and distinct god, so that each person or group encounters a separate deity, or even a separate deity in each distinct act of worship. And at that point, ugh. I do know that there are some who hold that each different epithet is a different god, so that (for example) Apollo Smintheus is a different god than Apollo Lykeia, and both are different than Apollo Phoebus, to say nothing of Apulu or the Romano-Gaulish Apollo Grannus. On another note, over in the various Celtic polytheisms we have the question of Lugh, Llew, and Lugus, a very similar situation to the various Wodanaz theonyms-and perhaps even moreso, as we can see convincing arguments (_Lady With a Mead Cup_ and so on) that Lugus and Wodanaz are at the very least similar gods. And then there's the argument in _Apollo the Wolf-God_ that Apollo bears strong similarities to Wodanaz, and that there are historical traces of a connection between the spread of worship involving them (and the hints elsewhere that the name Apollo, a god sometimes associated with medicine and early associated with Anatolia, originates in an epithet of Nergal, an Anatolian god sometimes associated with disease, Aplu Enlil "Son of Enlil"). Where to stop? Or start, for that matter? Is it actually important? Maybe we should just use the Names we are familiar with when we are at home and the Names that are being used wherever else we happen to be. But maybe that's not a satisfying answer for everyone. I could go on, noting for instance that the Slavic Perun is actually the same name as the Baltic Perkūnas, and both are the same as one of the names of the Daghda, Cerrce, in the same way as "Jesus", "Yēšūaʿ", and "Isa" are all the same name, different forms that follow the rules of the different languages, so we have to question what makes any given name the "same" or "different". So, I guess I did go on a bit there. Now I'll stop.
No one has ever said the different epithets of Zeus or Apollo or Athena etc are different gods they are different aspects of each god but yes An Dagda isn't circe nor is he Thor or Odon and Thor isn't Zeus or Jupiter.
@@TonyJack74 I think maybe you didn't understand what I wrote. I'm not making any particular case, only pointing out the various extreme positions that are possible and a variety of situations that bear on the question.
The way I view the gods COULD be considered monotheistic at the most basic foundational level, however that one deity would encompass literally everything and be infinitely complicated and constantly disagreeing with itself. It’s like viewing the entire earth as just one “thing”. Like yeah, I guess, but it’s so big and contradictory. Pick any two deities from any pantheons, and you’ll most likely find similarities between the two. It’s likely that Aphrodite came from Astarte, who came from Ishtar. Ishtar and Aphrodite are so different that you can’t really consider them the same, but there is a clear sort of line connecting the two through Astarte. So we can’t fully separate them, and we can’t fully merge them. Of course, that’s just one example. Pan and Pushan likely evolved from the same proto-indo-European deity, but are clearly different. What’s weirder is that Hermes used to be an epithet of Pan, and so Hermes and Pushan share an undeniable common root. Again, it feels ridiculous to smoosh them together, but you also can’t fully take them apart. At the root of all things, I do think that nearly every deity just kind of… blends into the others. Any line drawn between them is arbitrary, but you kind of have to draw lines in order to be able to have any sort of relationship with the divine. Deities overlap, but are never quite the same, and shift over time. However someone tries to understand them, they’re right.
The Poly-Njorder-ism thing is similar to what seems to be going on in Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Like on the show version of the story, the episode where Eostre/Easter has all the Jesus-es over for an Easter party. (yes, it's fiction. Doesn't mean truths or valid theories can't hide in there)
You have offered thoughtful explanation of trends within polytheism. Thank you for your eloquence, whether or not you choose to pun. Your strategy of "find a way or make one" is especially interesting as it reflects a very Roman attitude regarding reality as we must live it.
I'm new to polytheism and Norse Paganism, but I had a particular interpretation about the differences on the representations in the myths, might not be anything new but as I see it, the gods are timeless immortal beings, and just as much as the world around us changes, so would the gods, In a sense, the gods would keep the things they represent as principles, and the changes would be those details that differ on various tales about said gods I just wanted to share my interpretation of this, I might be completely wrong as there are a lot of things for me to research
This is actually really interesting. I’m glad I found your channel, it brings a new light and greater insight/clarity on some things I’ve been pondering myself.
Hmm. So, is a punless Ocean the same as a pun filled Ocean? Are they two distinct Oceans, or one large sPacific Ocean? Guess I'll watch the rest of the video to hear arguments on both sides. EDIT - I have concluded, after much deliberation, that there is no Ocean. There is only Calcifer.
This is the first video I've seen of yours and find it to be enlightening, reasonable, intriguing, and am impressed with you. You give both sides a fair shake, admit your bias, and clearly separate your personal opinion from objective fact. Excellently done!
I kinda view it like this: deities from different cultures share similar spiritual energy, but are their own manifestations different and unique from one another. Similar to people today.
My own beliefs appear to have aspects of essentially all of these distinctions. My personal conclusion is there are at least four distinct cosmic forces, Death, Creation, Chaos and Order that I would call Gods regardless of whether or not they are conscious forces, as they are external and all powerful. In addition to that there are the more Archetypal Gods which may be simply cultural representations of different archetypes, some of which could be considered different facets of a common external force interpreted differently by distinct societies, such as a Warrior archetype sharing the same essential core across cultures, but each distinctly representing the cultural values of the societies they originated from. Once again I find the question of if these Gods are conscious forces or simply a manifestation of human philosophy to be largely irrelevant as they represent an intangible power beyond the individual. To me I know these Gods are real but believe that at least some of them represent an intelligent power. Even if they are not conscious entities, in combination they have absolute power over existence as we know it, so to me even from an atheistic perspective I don't see how they could be regarded as anything but Gods.
@@MsQuikly I definitely would not, these first four are just too distinct to be singular, and more importantly one half are inherently oppositional to the other half. Life and Death are best described as the opposite of one another, the same applies to Order and Chaos. They are both competitive and complimentary, but to attribute them to one, singular power doesn't ring true. I personally would say the Abrahamic God is their perception of the God of Creation, particularly that's pretty much literally stated in the Testaments. Being lenient on my categories, I'd say he's a combination of the Creation/Life God and the God of Order. Personally I don't really adopt nor deny the Abrahamic Faiths, I just think they're incomplete for lack of a better word. Not invalid, just too absolutist. Also, even if I were to accept the idea that all were facets of one god, there's still at a fifth I chose not to include in the initial post, and this one is accounted for in Abrahamic Faiths. The four I included are all forces I wouldn't consider evil, although all can be, particularly if they are absolutist. Absolute Order is Tyranny, Absolute Death or Chaos is obviously going to be terrible. Even Absolute Creation would be bad. Back to the point, none of these to me represent a Good versus Evil dichotomy. This Dichotomy is clear in Abrahamic Faiths as God versus Satan, so that to me is an admission that there are other metaphysical influences besides God even in those faiths. But also, Satan in its earliest use actually means "Adversary," its use evolved over time to become synonymous with Evil. But I don't think that just because something is opposed it is Evil. To me, the true Dichotomy is actually Corruption versus Honor. This applies to my 4 cosmic forces, but it's easier to explain if I use a more down to earth example. A Christian isn't evil, they just have beliefs that are largely incompatible with a Pagans, mainly their idea there is only one God and all others are False or Devils. However, if both the Christian and the Pagan believe in their faiths, there's room for discussion. You can debate, find common ground and learn from each other. However, if the Christian doesn't really care about his faith, if he simply uses his faith as a tool to obtain power, as justification to condemn you for not believing as he believes, as a reason to control or destroy others, then it is Corruption of Faith. That is an example of what Evil is. Thus I would say Corruption is a God as well, one that can be observed even in the Abrahamic Faiths. It's just not one anyone should actually worship.
Thanks for the very comprehensive look at this subject Ocean! I personally am a syncretic, soft polytheist. It's not just part of my tradition as a Hellenic devotee of Isis in which the ancients had a known saying "Isis, being one, is all", but it also just makes sense in terms of numerology. If we regress far enough we eventually should hit a single source. This single source is often regarded as both masculine and feminine in one being. The Egyptians called it Atum and there are different names for it in different cultures. For me I call this source Isis or Atum. A Hindu may call it Brahman. An Orphic may call it Kronos, from whom his mate Ananke came forth, and so on. But just because that is how I personally identify it does not mean that I see Isis as "the true" version of the source. Also, composite deities have been a staple of polytheism across many cultures. Hermes and Aphrodite, Hermaphrodite. Hermes and Anubis, Hermanubis. Isis-Aphrodite was extremely popular in North Africa and the Middle East as an afterlife Goddess and terracotta statues of Her were burried with many people. The Egyptians especially got a little crazy at times with their composite deities, sometimes fusing as many as 6 deities into a single entity. This to me really shows the very fluid nature of divinity. Hard polytheism never really made sense for me and far too often it's just a reaction to monotheism. Imagine Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Shango and any other sky/lightning/thunder Gods all exist simultaneously and all rule over thunder and lightning. Are they region/culture locked like DVDs? What if they disagree on how to answer the prayers of someone who needs their power? And why would lightning and thunder necessarily need multiple divine persons ruling over it? It makes more sense to me that there is a single pantheon of Gods and that humanity has identified them in culturally distinct ways. The uniqueness and differences don't really matter because I don't really see any one culture having the whole picture. But when we combine them we can get a richer, more full image. Because, as for the reality of this pantheon... how can we really know if one human culture "got it right"? I think all cultural interpretations of the divine get it right. I personally view them all as equal, even if I favor Graeco-Egyptian views in my own personal practices. A way soft polytheism and syncretism has been explained to me in the past is as follows. Whether or not all Gods are truly one, I can understand the love someone has for their deities through the love I have for my own. As a devotee of Goddess Isis I can understand the way someone feels about Aphrodite, Freya, Mary, Shakti and countless other manifestations of the Divine, and likewise, the way someone feels about Gods conceptualized as "masculine" also. Regarding the "colonialist" comment specifically, if someone is genuinely behaving in a colonialist manner towards deities or traditions, someone should talk with them about it and explain the problem with their behavior. But soft polytheism and syncretism is not a automatically colonialist perspective or practice if those who use it in their spiritual world view are aware and considerate of other traditions. Anyone arguing a "one true way" in regards to religion clearly already has issues. For me, as noted above, soft polytheism is a window through which I can appreciate most any deity via the deities I hold closest to my heart. As Hindus and Buddhists say, God manifests in whatever way individual devotees need.
I am of the same mindset in reference to syncretism. However, is it too far of a stretch to wonder if language has an impact? say for argument's sake the original god of the pantheon is Isis, yet through time and across cultures the same deity has now become something completely different. Would that completely change the efficacy of worship to that deity to where now one would be communing with a completely different archetype? Or perhaps as long as your mind is focused on the intended archetype, then it wouldn't matter what the naming of it is?
Our forefathers: "Yo, your favourite god is like a badass warrior?" -"Yes, his name is Tyr." "Awesome, we call him Mars, that guy over there calls him Ares. That guy uses Teutates." -"Based, wanna spar a bit and then sacrifice a bull and grill some steaks to worship him?" Modern Pagans: "NOOOOOOO; they are clearly all different and completely seperate dieties. You can't just lump them all together!!!"
To not know for certain whether the gods are exterior agents, or internal archetypes, is not atheism. That would be a rejection of the gods. To not know for certain is agnosticism, and in my opinion, the most open-minded approach to any spiritual practice. One can be a polytheist and agnostic. One cannot be an polytheistic atheist, as the very definition contradicts itself. Furthermore, if an ancient religion such as Hinduism can lump all of their gods into a totality (Brahma) and maintain their polytheistic narrative, I think Heathens can to. Hel, I think this could even be said about Catholicism, which shares similarities to polytheism. Ultimately, such limitations are imposed on us by communication, and nothing more. Thankfully, the gods are greater than that.
Think of the Gods as individuals from one point of view and aspects of the Godhead in another. Both hard and soft polytheism have their advantages and disadvantages, so why not take the idea that both are true and false depending on the individual's and culture's point of view during a specific moment. Another is that each culture represents a very specific "programming language" such as an "Old Norse" and " Anglo-Saxon" which could both be compatible as different PC programs but "Egyptian" and "Phoenician" as Mac programs. Just thoughts.....
@@TonyJack74 hey your opinion and whatever works for you. This is where I'm at after 33 years in the Northern Tradition. Views will change over time as your faith grows, trust me!
@@ninetales6485 your 33 years means nothing to me and northern tradition paganism is reconstructionist derived therefore not really reconstructionism.You can believe in what you want
I usually call myself a soft polytheist, but I've become very wary of what I've come to call "the conflation game" --- assuming that all gods from different cultures are the same gods wrenches them out of their unique cultural contexts, and actually makes it harder to experience them authentically. (And it's utterly terrible in scholarship.) But I also believe that all gods are part of some unified and incomprehensible "whole," some great divine, like leaves on a tree or colors on a light spectrum. Each color on a light spectrum is distinct from all others, but they're all still part of white light, which is itself part of a much larger invisible spectrum. If the great divine is the whole spectrum, the gods and goddesses are the colors that we paint with.
5:38 THIS right here is exactly where I'm at. It seems to me that through the migration of culture you see a pattern from Pre-dynastic religion->Egyptian Hermetics->Judaism->Pagan belief systems->Christianity. Each culture having their own separate yet distinct creation story, similar god(s), code of ethics and so forth. It doesn't seem inherently illogical to assume that Thor is no different than any other archetype of the same caliber. Many cultures revere these gods based on the celestial cycle according to the constellations. After all, we all rely on a bountiful harvest. I cannot however assume that one deity is solely responsible. So i guess that makes me a "soft-polytheist" ?
I want to hear your thoughts on soft polytheism, the Norse gods, and Christianity, the idea that many baby pagans first find comfort stepping into our world from the comparisons between the two religions- which there are many.
@@OceanKeltoi okay I am half asleep and not digging for message board posts I’ve read but from what I DO recall- the obvious and potentially corrupted stories such as Odin hanging on a tree with a spear in his side sacrificing himself to himself and later resurrecting has been compared to Jesus hanging on a cross of wood with a spear in his side being sacrificed to his father (himself to himself?) and later resurrecting, and ragnarok vs. the apocalypse, the idea of Baldur being such a perfect son who will return to earth at the great battle, human sacrifice, Ask and Embla vs. Adam and Eve, etc. I also have read about the idea of Odin being a mirror of God and the other gods being mirrors of saints such as when women pray to Mary it’s not much different than when women pray to Frigg. I think a lot of this theory would mostly find it’s basis in the story of the Tower of Babel. Like god struck down the tower, separated the people and gave them all different stories of himself- hence why the ‘I am god there is only me’ quote from the Bible might ring true, like he’s the only one and all the stories are him. I do think it’s an interesting theory and I can definitely see how it would open the door up for those brought up in a Christian home, it could easily be the comfort they seek to embolden their decision to follow their own path. But I am afraid that much if it could be chalked up to Snorri. IMHO, and I am not nearly as informed on the subject as you, if this were to have much credibility it would have to come from the god of the Old Testament as the New Testament has set a very different tone. I can sort of see personality traits of OT God overlapping with Odin, maybe they could have been buddies if it wasn’t for all the holy wars and hostility. 🤣 I’m curious what your thoughts on all this are and if there are any other similarities that come to your mind.
Still being new to this, I saw these differences as a way to shift from monotheism to polytheism. In addition, the atheopagan view is useful for helping to understand the gods and allowing for days of doubt. The need for unwavering faith is probably latent Christianity. That said, I do believe the gods are real, but I need to rethink some of the syncretism.
I believe in teachings of Dharma that is the archetypes observable in nature. The horizon separates "mother earth" from "father sky" and from there we have the beginning of polytheism. Adding in the belief of external spirits (big and small) you could say that a God is then made up of those spirits within the specified archetype. In many polytheistic religions there are smaller spirits who work for or are created from a specific Divinity. For instance all fox spirits in Japan are believed to come from and be a part of Inari Okami. It is the same way for Celtic polytheism; leprechaun is derived from Lugh and banshee is derived from The Morrigan. There are so many pieces that seem to be left out of the general beliefs of modern polytheists. The religion for a reconstructionist is "all inclusive" which is something that some pagans lack but others like Christians do not. All spirits big and small make up a greater external network and this is also what the Rigveda teaches. For Christians the have High frequency of energy and spirits they call "God and Angels" and Low being "Devil and his demons". Polytheism has more frequencies of energy or stations on the cosmic radio. The monotheistic focuses on the Overworld and Underworld; where Celtic polytheism focuses on the Otherworld which is parallel with the world of the living.
My personal view is there are gods that we made through the power of our belief and worship. I also believe that there are gods that always existed, and some may wear the mask of specific gods (such as the one regarded as Mercury will also answer a worshipper working with Odin). The fun part comes with not knowing which deity fits which idea.
I have a view that the ability to work with or hold conflicting truth is the hallmark of advanced study. It is more complicated and more difficult. Binary/either-or logic simply may not work for topics like the intersection of mind and deity/divinity. So, why not both? We tend to want to academically categorize and make distinctions about these things and that... might be counter to the nature of... all of it.
I consider myself a polytheistic monotheist. i think of the divine as a metaphorical gem(the ALL) with infinite(?) facets represented by each of the Gods. They are distinct and yet also one. but what do I know. but it works for me. my patron deities don't seem to mind and even seem to work together across pantheons.
Turns out we're on the same page after all. I call myself a squishy polytheist; I tend to conflate Woden/Odin and Thunor/Thor, but Mercury/Hermes and Mars/Ares feel like a step too far. What do I know, though -- I favor orthopraxy over orthodoxy any day.
I like the Horns of a Dilemma opening RE to pun, or not to pun. Nice change of pace. As for the rest of the video - really well done! Lots of food for thought. Have you done a deep dive on 1) You’re doing it wrong and 2) you can’t tell me what to do? I’d be very interested in that discussion
I also would put myself in the middle on this debate, as you said there are many complicated stances among pagans. Your points on soft polytheism were correct but i think there are other problems with hard polytheism who are too many to name. As we see with Christian groups it's possible to worship one deity while viewing it in many different ways, i think most pagans will agree that the God of a jew, Muslim and a Christian, as well as of a miaphisite, Nestorian and nicean Christian is one deity
For a few years now, I’ve considered myself a perennialist because I was attached to so many different traditions that I wanted to preserve and practice equally, but couldn’t because of whatever mental block I had. This video has given me a new perspective and… now I don’t know what to do lol. Thank you!
I would be curious how hard polytheism hardlined deals with a situation where the myth outright says in say a mystery cult that two deities were one deity tricking either mortals or other deities on purpose
This has been the most thought-provoking and interesting video I have ever seen by you. I'm so impressed by the depth of understanding just from this brief telling of a conflict I didn't know that I noticed existed all along. I even learned of a term that I could use to define myself as a perennialist but not one that carries the negative baggage that you associated with it. I think that's my greatest contention with the video is how perennialism, as you defined it, doesn't necessarily need to lead to any erasure whatsoever. I can see the underlying truth and Oneness of all religions as simply being a desire to understand truth in a world full of questions and uncertainty. I always say that I am an atheist with soft polytheism tendencies towards perennialism all while acknowledging but everyone has unique perspectives on the world that I do not have including a truth that I will never know. By seeing what we all share in common, I hope to unite with others without breaking our distinctions. So, that doesn't mean what was said didn't need to be said as there are those guilty of what you warned about so maybe it was more necessary then wrong. I don't know, I only just discovered these words and I'm still playing around with them.
I tend to see stories of Gods from similar and geographically proximate cultures as being about the same deity. I would say that Zeus and Jupiter are the same, given that we know the Romans took over Greece and (until christianity) basically followed Greek religion. But Zeus/Jupiter is not the same as Thor, nor Shango. Since cosmology tells us that there may well be infinitely many other universes besides this one, it makes sense to me that there would also be a great many Gods.
I think there's also the fact that some gods are well-known to favor many identities/ masks /guises such as Odin in the Norse tradition or The Dagda in the Celtic one.( Although the parallels between them might mean they're the same being while we're at it)
Since you discussed polytheism and atheism, and I don't know if I've asked this already, what do you think of the idea put forward by Kallimakhos, a modern Greek Orphic polytheist (seemingly of a reconstructionist bent), that the gods are real in the sense that they are disembodied entities/intelligences in the sense that traditional polytheism entails, but his idea is that the gods are actually sensous (not in that way) experiences, not incorporeal or transcendent ones, who can be experienced by practitioners who lower the barriers of cognition (such as ego)?
From what you inform, it seems to me that Kallimakhos approach of gods is pretty similar to the theology of most afrobrazilian polytheistic traditions. Gods like Shango, Ogum and Yemoja are desembodied and semi-personal consciences who have patronage and control over elements, activities or places, but they rather manifest themselves as altered states of mind or trance in which a follower incorporates their patron deity (not containing, but being "embraced" as a temporary vessel for that divine consciousness). In this sense, the Orishas are very different in afrobrazilian religions than in yoruba religion (in which They are more "personal" and some of them are perceived as deified kings).
It seems far to me to use related dieties as hints towards what the earlier version of each may have been like. Or hints at their characteristics. No reason why two linguistically linked Indo-European gods with similar mythological roles aren’t likely an expression of the same being in different cultures e.g. Woden/ Odin or Thor/ Dunar/ Perkunas perhaps. In the latter case, if it’s a storm god that kills the serpent with an axe, hammer it’s good enough for me. Definitely a jump to bring in the dieties of other culture/ language groups into it though.
i've seen guys conflating Indra and Odin with zeus, as long as it is related to proto-indoeuropean is valid for them. I guess is valid but a bit too much for me.
I like to think of myself as a monotheistic-polytheist. In Hermeticism, there is a saying that "the ALL is all." Everything is a manifestation of one ultimate reality. Thoth, who is, himself, revered as a god, talks about the Oneness of all gods and all beings. In the Hindu tradition, this could be akin to seeing all of the gods as a manifestation of Brahman. In Taoism, there are many gods, but there is only on true Tao. In Christianity, there are 72 names of God. To me, it is nigh impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend the absolute infinite nature of an immortal, perfect being. However, it is possible to work with differing aspects of that entity, depending on the situation. In some way, perhaps understanding all of these different manifestations of Oneness, or the ALL, or God, or the Tao, may help us understand the whole. In my view, it's a bit like looking at one of those magic-pictures: at fist our eye gets caught up in the little details of the image, but after a while we can look past all of that and something greater emerges.
i would be really interested in seeing more videos discussing perennialism and pantheism!! lately ive been trying to understand what my feelings are with regard to religion/spirituality, and i think i fall pretty solidly towards the soft polytheistic approach, though im most familiar with the greek and roman pantheons as they relate to astrology since ive worked with astrology since i was little. perennialism sounds pretty close to what i believe in, and while i dont support erasure like you talked about, a quick google on pantheism (which defines it as “identifying god with the universe/the universe as a manifestation of god;” or, “worship that admits all gods”) sounds like it fits me right too. feeling some real cognitive dissonance from hearing these discussed in a negative tone: id really like a more in depth discussion on these two topics because i personally dont see anything *inherently* wrong with either approach, though of course i can see how people could use these philosophies to invalidate certain belief systems. i definitely want to decolonize my view of religion/spirituality, get my research right, and be mindful of cultural appreciation vs appropriation, i would love videos on those topics too!! thank you!! :)
I really like your explanation of these. I often see hard theism in Recon communities. Then you have soft theism wiccan infused pagan communities. It's splurged together it's hard to tell what's what at times.
Soft theism while pushed by wicca, I think more heavily comes into force from Neo-platonist, hindu and other views as wiccans moved towards 'hard' polytheism the older the tradation got. Only trad gardner wicca offically kept the duo-theism concept.
Within Hinduism there are various philosophies that differ a lot such as Advaita Vedanta,Dwaita Vedanta,and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.Advaita is famous for it's oneness concept and it was founded by Adi Shankaracharya while Shri Madhavcharya founded the Dwaita or Tattva Vaada.Dwaita is very much polytheistic and says the world and everything in it is real plus the gods are not manifestations of one like in Advaita
On the subject of syncretising different faiths together, have you ever looked into Buddhism? While it can be its own distinct religion, it has also acted as a way to preserve older, polytheistic traditions. Hinduism and Shintoism are both religions that might have been consumed by a more Monotheistic religion had the Buddhist teachings not helped round out some of their philosophies. The primary idea at the heart of Buddhism is that life is suffering - but one can escape this suffering by accumulating karma (doing good things), and being mindful. This belief would especially mesh well with Heathenism, as many of the stories about the gods and the fate of humanity and the cosmos are, to be honest, quite dreary. Buddhist teachings can give a meaning to this morbidness.
Great video. Glad you mentioned duotheism: its what was presented by Wicca when I first started trying to find my way down the Pagan path a few years ago. I couldn't help but think of Wicca as some half-baked casserole of all the gods, removed from the oven still doughy and and unpalatable. Wiccans are expected to choose a god and a goddess from any and all pantheons and think of them as a couple. So someone could choose Thor as their patron god and Mazu (a Chinese goddess of the sea) as their matron. That's the half-baked part: mixing and matching deities from various pantheons in the belief they are all just facets of a God and Goddess. The unpalatable part for me was the belief that the Goddess gives birth to the God in the early spring, raises him through the summer, lays with him in the fall (incest anyone?), then he dies of old age in the winter and she goes to sleep for most of that time before giving birth to him again. Just trying for a second to imagine Thor in that situation breaks my mind.
I've been a soft polytheist for years apparently and didn't know the term. What I believe is in the energy of the earth and it's forces (to keep with his examples) like thunder/lighting. Thor is a name given to that force and other cultures have given it different names. None are wrong and all are valid in my eyes. It's just a matter of which name for the force of nature you identify with, be it Thor or Zeus or Shango or whomever.
Hi, Ocean. First of all great video. I always enjoy your works. You have been very influential in shifting my world view from hard atheism to a (soft) deistic polytheism. I was wondering if there is any chance that you could schedule another debate with Eric, from Skeptic Generation? You've spoken with him before, but the debate was rather perfunctory. I would really like to see both of you, whom I respect greatly, debate. It would really help me to clarify my own position, and I am certain that I am not alone in this. Thank you so much.
I go by a personal interpretation, that there are forces of nature or spirits related to certain domains (e.g Spirit of War, Spirit of the Moon, etc.) and the various polytheistic Gods are a mishmash of venerating these Spirits and a closely associated distant Ancestor. This is why they look and seem different compared to other pantheons (different culture, different ancestors), and also have overlaps with other pantheons though they remain NOT identical (same Spirit, but different Ancestor). The Ancestor component is a tool to aid in facilitating a closer and better connection to the Spirit of whatever it is that the Ancestor is associated with; without it though not impossible, it is far more difficult, thus they remained a part of the culture.
The idea of all gods are one god kind of sounds like the idea of Brahman in the religion of Hinduism however it doesn't seem to be a popular position within modern Heathenism and nor do we have any evidence that it was actually a popular position within ancient Norse paganism but with that being said it might have very well been possible and maybe perhaps the reason nobody chronicled it is simply because it seemed so alien and freaky to Christianity at the time however we can't really know any of that.
So soft polytheism is that the volsi and freyr are the same deity... and hard polytheism is the recognition that they are separately hard?
Do I have that right?
This comment wins the day
Or is the volsi "part" of freyr?
😆😂🤣
“The Volsi is Freyr's rooster” is certainly a noble interpterion of the myth
This! is why I love Paganism. #mademyday
I think I prefer my polytheism medium rare.
Hmmm, medium rare ox would be good, but medium rare dieties, well, that would be godly
i literally said this this morning
Ooh.....WELL DONE👏👏👏
I couldn't help but think of King of the Hill.
Bobby: but Dad, what if someone wants it well done?
Hank: we ask them politely yet firmly to leave.
Prefer my polytheism cooked blue
What if the gods represented themselves differently to different cultures so they could best be understood, and taught them different stories/powers to teach different lessons. This would mean there's no "right" name for the gods or "right" way to honor them. As long as your honoring of the gods is consistent with the presentation you choose to honor that seems "correct"
Technically thats what I believe in. I also believe in a form of animism that the Gods are divine energies or spirits that we call deities, and our idols or statues attract those spirits.
I'm thinking I'm here. Ba'al and Yahweh were worshipped in competition with one another after the Isrealites split from the Canaanites, but Ba'al himself tells me that he IS Yahweh, but also ABSOLUTELY HATES Yahweh as a concept. He does not want to be viewed as the puritanical figure in the Bible, and is more than happy with me worshipping all these other demons. He told me that his "no other gods before me" command means that one's soul must be in exclusive devotion to one god at a time while worshipping, just like having a private conversation with one other person.
This is how I view it. Indra, thor, tlaloc, jupiter it is all the same. And when all of us from around the world come together as one "unified group" with just different flavors then we would be taken seriously I believe. That is to say, if paganism operated under one vast umbrella of nature based faiths and we had like a little summit to exchange ideas every year that would be really cool to see.
This is what i believe too, as a follower of hinduism
This. I've had this belief for years!
I love how no matter if you agree with what he says or not , he makes the video so interesting and fun to watch
There are as many gods as there are waves on the sea. - Vedic proverb
Yes, but the vedic view is that the ocean itself is Brahman. Advaita vadanta is described as a drop of water into the ocean.
I quite like the Vedic/vedanta/hindu position on this. Both hard and soft viewpoints are equally correct. Everything is one, everything is not one.
@@mauzki- there is no Advaita or oneness in the Vedas but many will try to point out one verse that supposedly states there is.
@@Burrick Dwaita Vedanta says all things are real and that in order for a thing,person,etc to be able to change they have to have a real existence.Shri Madhavcharya says there is most definitely a divine hierarchy with Lord Vishnu and his consort Lakshmi ar the top as he is the Parabrahman
@@Burrick that's not a Vedic viewpoint
This is a debate that I personally just go with "live and let live". It won't offend me if anyone is a soft polytheist, and vice versa. I think it's quite a theological problem but that it's not in itself a problem that needs to be resolved right now. Unless huge gatherings start to form churches and try to dogmatize their view, I don't see it as more than a personal theological problem.
I said this same thing in my comment! I like the way you think!
I think most of us agree that this shouldn’t be a large point of contention, but I do think it’s a great discussion to have. The distinctions do have effects in personal practice, and as such it’s pretty cool to also see the diversity among groups of heathens that are often lumped together.
@@LilB0pete personally i take an agnostic approach that does recognices the fenomenology of spirituality, if that makes any sense. There is a Great Unknown that could be one god, multiple ones, both, the unconscious, aliens, or maybe something i cant even imagine, and that Great Unknow shines a light on humanity, tho that light gets filtered by human psychology and culture through philosophy and religion as well as some other factors. I find value in any spiritual belief as long as it is an honest and meaningful one.
You know that one commandment: "no other gods before me"? Or the one about graven images and God being a jealous god? I've always taken that to mean there are others. Even when I was Catholic and it was put forward as a metaphoric expression to warn against watching too much TV or becoming money hungry. 🤷♀️
The fact that Jesus has at least 5 fathers and ca 2 billion grandfathers and is mostly conceived by genetic splicing really makes one wonder about jahwe.
Yeah, I mean even in Genesis...
[3:22] Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
The 'one of us' seems pretty telling to me.
Psalm 82 God sits at the assembly of gods. These are the 'heavenly host', or 'sons of god'. And besides them there are chaos gods such as Tehom, Yam /Mayim, Rahab, Leviathan, Maweth, etc..
Weird, my protestant upbringing just took "worship no other gods" to mean made up pagan ones you obviously shouldn't worship because they're not the real thing. The early Jews were, like everyone, surrounded by cultures with their own beliefs. The commandment was just to not join their religions instead. The "become like us" in Genisis was always described in church as something he was explaining to his angels for whatever reason, and don't worry about who wrote that down to include in the Bible. Though Psalm 82 rings no bells for me. Maybe it was harder to explain away? I think I'll go back and read that now.
You are correct it did mean there were other Gods. It's complicated issue. But basically according to ancient Jewish believe each nation on earth had a chief God that would represent that nation, so Yahwen just started out as one of many dieties.
Oooooo a topic that has intrigued me for awhile. If some gods are the same god, If all gods are the same god, or if all gods are separate.
I could listen to this man all day about Odin and the rest of the gods and goddesses
so could I, & I'm Christian.
@@jgr7487 this is something I can embrace for a religion unlike Christianity. I never felt comfortable with Christianity so never was able to believe in it. I find this religion is one I can follow
I was very lucky to be reared in a tradition of Celtic paganism from my mother's family. I've chosen a more Heathen approach, myself- so I guess I'm a Softie, myself. I say, "Live and let live". I rather enjoy discourse from all Pagans and celebrate our similarities rather than argue over differences.
At least we're all not Christians, eh?
Thanks Ocean for ANOTHER astute and comprehensive video!💗
Christianity is getting weaker in Europe. But its kinda growing more in my country India. btw. I study indoeuropean culture and religions. And its always good to look at our similarities. and appreciate the differences in cultures and languages
"Live and let live" is a philosophy much more present and derived from Abrahamic spiritual tradition than ancient Indo-European ones.
@@gaborholotajr.4427 but is it a bad attitude?
@@alicev5496, indeed it is. At least in a universal sense.
I love listening to you. I don't know many people in my area (part of the Bible belt) that I can really talk to and not feel awkward. You propose interesting topics to think about while making me feel more comfortable with my own beliefs. Thank you and please keep it up.
So as a ceremonial magician, I definitely break my universe into a psychomap of forces that I can identify with specific gods/angels/demons/etc.
So from an intellectual standpoint I am basically plugging the gods in almost like archetypes. To clarify though as a believer in the as above/so below, microcosm/macrocosm I believe them to be both internal archetypes AND external forces.
BUT as a practitioner who actually does ritual, there is a World of difference between being ridden by Legba and invoking Thoth. Both are mercurial forces in my paradigm, and though I believe they both tie in to a specific universal force, they definitely manifest very very differently.
And of course all of these ‘truths’ only are truths at a level higher/different than conscious thought.
The Dao that can be spoken is not the real Dao and all that…
Ocean, I cannot see how hard making a pun on this topic could be. You're growing soft on your puns friend.
In all seriousness, I'm glad to hear your stance on this debate! I tend to fall in between the two arguements as well, as one cannot be dismissive of how similar yet different deity can be. Plus you're 100% right, Duotheism just cannot work while Loki is low key shifting to whatever they desire to be.
Great work as always Ocean, and spicy as always :D
So, if you consider that the gods are external agents (the mind being outside anyway), but you see them as contexts (like the context of a sentence). A context is a set of ideas, images, powers, and relationships that have an imaginal center of gravity like a constellation. You can have two constellations share some of the same stars and yet be distinct constellations with their own center of gravity so two gods can represent an idea, image, power, or relationship while being distinct. Loki and Coyote are both Trickster gods sharing the power and nature of the Trickster which is something less personal and greater than either. Loki and Coyote have their own personalities, but you can work with each as representatives of the Trickster power. They are like identity masks that encompass elements greater than their personal natures. Sort of like policemen are all different, but you can work with them as policemen outside their individual identities. In this way humans and gods are the same. Is that Hard or Soft?
Can I say how much I adore your constellation analogy?! I was thinking about this very thing not too long ago and wondering how many other people in ancient times may have been looking at the same night sky. Who in your we have come full circle and comparing the vastness of the sky with the Venice of the deities that people worship. What a beautiful result.
I've heard a much less elegant analogy; many cultures make vodka, it's all vodka, but made by different people, some people make sake, different from vodka but they are all alcohol lmao
@@ivystuart1736 Consider that vodka has its spirit which derives from the spirit of alcohol while sake has its spirit which also derives from the spirit of alcohol. The Alcohol spirit is too bit to taste (too big to humanly relate to) but paired with the spirit of rice or grain it takes on a human level character. You can't deal with the All-Mountain, and even the spirit of the Appalachians may be too big. However, you can deal with the spirit of Whitetop mountain and through it the All-mountain becomes accessible. It is easier to deal with Loki than with the root Trickster spirit itself. You can also do the same through Coyote even though Loki and Coyote taste very different like vodka to sake.
@@kimwelch4652 lovely analogy, could apply to the spirit of wellness, which must be paired with the spirits of good foods, the spirits of various kinds of exercise...thank you for sharing your wisdom
Gonna answer your question since no one else answered it out of the replies. It’s soft polytheism.what you’re alluding to homie. :]
Intelligent break down. Your videos are awesome
I think Edward Butler's article on Polycentric Polytheism provides an interesting alternative that is neither soft or hard polytheism, while very firmly maintaining the individuality of the Gods. It's relatively intricate but I think it could be worth looking into for anyone interested in polytheism. Butler is coming from a Neoplatonic framework but I think there are things that even non Platonic polytheists could take away from. It's a good starting ground for looking at a new polytheistic theology that is more rigorous than pagan 101 books at the least, even if you don't agree with parts of it, or it at all!
Personally I see the Gods as their own individual to an extent. I connect the names such as Odin, Wodan, and Godan to the same god even though the stories and characteristics sometimes slightly differ. But I don't believe these Gods are the same as the ones in the Roman pantheon or Greek pantheon, or other pantheons. But when it comes to Norse, Germanic, Anglo Saxon I feel they connect to the same deity
Yeah I feel the same way. Thunar and Thor are the same God, but they aren’t Hercules.
Since the Norse and Anglo-Saxon, to say nothing of the ancient Germanic they both ultimately derive from, are, well, derived from that same source, I feel the same way and I don't see what's wrong with it. Remember too that the Gods themselves often take on other identities in myths even from the same tradition, such as the ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY names Odin is known by that he himself informs others of. They're less like other names, and more akin to full-blown separate personalities.
@@companylovesmisery1463 right, so I feel since they ultimately derive from the same place being ancient Germanic, I feel they are the same deity personally.
@@michaelsheets4014 Yup. Just given different names, which aren't really all that different, by different but related cultures who valued different aspects of the same deity.
@@companylovesmisery1463 but why draw the line at "Odin, Wotan, and Godan are all derived from the Germanic Wotanaz"? Using that same logic we can say that Tyr and Jupiter are the same since they both derive from the same God in Proto-Indo-European Religion but that's just soft polytheism with extra steps. Not that any of this is really that important (at least to me personally, the divines are the divines and I don't think we can possibly have full understanding of them) it's just an interesting question to me of why I agree that Wotan, Odin, and Godan are all the same but I don't see Tyr and Jupiter as such.
I could see an argument for a "soft" soft polytheism. There are multiple sun deities in multiple cultures, yet we only orbit around one sun. Im not an expert, but are there enough types of thunder to justify all the gods that wield it? Yet there are figures that, removed from the culture they arose in, lose much of their significance. For example, could one swap the 'trickster' gods Coyote and Loki and have the stories be at all similar to their current form? There seems to be a midway point between the camp that segregate gods and the camp that conglomerates them.
In duotheism, the Solar vs. Lunar divide (or Sol and Luna/ Sun and Moon being the the two (chief) deities) could have also been mentioned. I think it would be more defining than simply focusing on the feminine and masculine nature of the dual deities.
I am not a Polytheist, but I've been working on writing projects that have required me to think about how I would structure a polytheistic pantheon for worldbuilding purposes. One of the answers I developed came from a few anthropology and linguistic lectures I listened to while researching was as follows-
The idea is to use the tools of linguistic reconstruction and comparative mythology to reconstruct the proto-culture's religion and work from there. So when dealing with Heathenry, Hellenism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism, we recognize that they all evolved from the ancestral religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans which evolved over time into distinct traditions. But it's not that simple, as there are a few things that Polytheists have historically, and currently still do, that complicate matters [in an interesting way]-
1. Cultic drift: in any given region there are a multiplicity of cults and it is likely that when the Proto-Indo-Europeans broke apart the different tribes likely participated in the various indigenous cults to varying degrees, which over thousands of years this would cause considerable mythological and theological drift.
e.g. the Indo-Aryans made no distinction between *daywás (lit. "deity") and *Hásuras (lit. "deity"), but in time the Iranians under Zoroastrianism revered the *Hásuras as Ahura and maligned the *daywás as Daeva ("gods that are rejected") while the Hindus maligned Asuras as chaotic gods and revered Devas as orderly gods. This wasn't always merely linguistic thing, as the Zoroastrians regarded the gods Indra, Sarva (identified as Rudra) and Nasatya as Daevas, whereas they were worshipped by Vedic Hindus. This can also account for the change in roles, such as Poseidon's promotion to king of the gods [over Dyḗus ph₂tḗr] in Mycenaean Greece and his subsequent demotion to his position in Classical Mythology.
2. Syncretism: the Indo-Europeans incorporated indigenous deities into their localized religions as they migrated, as well as foreign deities when engaged in trade.
e.g. the Hellenes adopted the Semitic gods Dumuzid (𒌉𒍣𒉺𒇻) and Ishtar (𒀭𒈹) under the names Adonis (Άδωνις) and Aphrodite (Αφροδίτη), respectively.
3. Theofission: gods can be split into deities distinct from each other.
e.g. The Hellenes split Hermes (Ἑρμῆς) off from Pan (Πάν) as a distinct and novel deity.
4. Theofusion: gods can be merged into composite deities distinct from their base deities.
e.g. Ardhanārīśvara (अर्धनारीश्वर) is the fusion of Śiva (शिव) and Pārvatī (पार्वती), but is distinct from both of them.
This understanding provides an empirical framework by which the various Indo-European polytheists could interpret each other's cultic practices in a less haphazard manner than the interpretatio graeca, interpretatio romana, interpretatio germanica, honji suijaku, or han honji suijaku.
Hindus, for example, could understand the Hellenic worship of Zeus (Ζεύς) as the localized veneration of Dyáuṣ Pitṛ (द्यौष्पितृ), as they both derive from Dyēus Pətḗr (lit. "Sky Father"), or Indra (इन्द्र), as their striking mythological similarities suggest that the Cult of Zeus fused Dyēus Pətḗr with the Proto-Indo-European Thunder God. Heathenists could interpret Vaiṣṇāvism as the Indian cult of Víðarr, since Víðarr and Viṣṇu stem from the same Proto-Indo-European root. All the while, they could accept that the various ethnic traditions venerate alien gods for which there was no equivalent in their own traditions. It might also provide some ground with which to approach East Asian Buddhist traditions, which venerate some Indo-European deities, such as Sarasvatī (辯才天), alongside their own Japonic, Koreanic, Mongolic, Sino-Tibetan, Turkic, etc. deities depending on the regional syncretism.
Granted, the most obvious response to this is that this is all theoretical... but so is the hard/soft polytheism debate anyway. Moreover, it's limited in how far back reconstruction can be preformed in principle. We could never, for example, reliably reconstruct an evolution from a proto-mythology from which Ṣàngó and Þórr derive [even if they do derive from the same Adamic deity] because the timescales involved are too vast. This is a problem with Afro-Asiatic reconstruction efforts... not only is the language family and culture older than PIE but too much time [and the effects thereof] have occurred to make any reconstruction remotely possible.
That said, it seems pretty obvious that many of the deities of the Australian Aboriginals [like the Rainbow Serpent], Aztecs [like Huītzilōpōchtli], Navajo [like Nayenezgani], Zulu [like Unkulunkulu], Ainu [like Kim-un-kamuy], and the Hebrews [like Elohim], were completely alien to the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the same manner that Indo-European gods were alien to them.
The goal was ultimately to create something that was actually useable, so if anyone has any thoughts or suggestions, let me know.
I'm a simple man. Creators and spirits. My offerings are mainly in gratitude for the joys, wisdom and help they bring to me. Asking them to help others.
Snaps for this video. Brilliantly put with some spice on the side.
You couldn't bring yourself to say any of the puns you put in and so meme'd them into the video instead. I see what you did there.
Fantastic discussion. Im impressed with the amount covered here. The Romano British combined Celtic gods and goddesses with Roman counterparts. Creating such gods and goddesses with the culture merging. It Had some incredible out comes. I remember a time team episode where the were digging around bath and they found inscription inferring to a merger. Romans were more like combine deities to get something more a kin to what they believe in. That result in the Constantine reformation and Roman Catholic church.
It is known to happen throughout many cultures. there are even churches up and down the British isle that incorporates Anglo Scandinavian beliefs. It often occurs as a respect for other people beliefs. only to find themselves combined through marriage, love, an ties of loyalty. Then bound by kinships that ensures it survival in some shape or form.
It is true that the melting pot is often seen as the middle path. But like every blacksmith knows it can be very hard to make homogeneous steel from scratch. As you do get pockets of difference all over the place.
Well as it stands, i guess I would be sat on the fence as an observer. I’ve have seen the many views my friend have taken on this over the year. Some are dual archetypes when it comes to this. at times have a defined viewpoint while in the short and small moments might sing another way.
interesting to say that you seam to aligned with that view. neither hard nor soft. A Bear that like his porridge just right. Best place to be as a learning scholar so nuances are not missed. Definitely like the work you did here and you explained thing admirably. Well done and keep up the good work you do. Great and I love it.
The Anglo-Saxons worshipped Ercol, a God who was literally just Hercules preserved by the Romano-British and merged into the Saxon pantheon.
Perrenialism doesn't lead to Monotheism, it's logical conclusion is typically Monism. The Brahman or the Dao would be an example of the concept, but in that instance we're not talking about a "supreme god" in the same sense that a monotheist would perceive, but rather an impersonal cosmic "all". In several versions of Baltic and Slavic paganism we see similar concepts, and we can't ignore that all of those traditions have a common ancestry with Germanic, Celtic, Roman and Greek tribes. And given that even in the broadest Germanic sense, we have almost nothing as far as non-polemical contemporary sources, without comparitive analysis we have nothing to reconstruct from.
I would say that my own beliefs in this matter have evolved over time. I'd say 20 years ago...I was duotheistic. I identified as a Wiccan, and Wicca had "the Goddess" and "the God". It wasn't that they were the only Gods, but that Wicca had their own two Gods. The Mother/Maiden/Crone, and the Son/Lover/Sacrifice. When I considered a traditional coven, I was told that these two Gods had actual names, but the names were bound by oath as a secret. It was one of the reasons why I decided against Traditional Wicca, because I wasn't going to spend at least a year and a day in a religion where I didn't know everything I needed to know about the Gods I was worshipping. Like, what if i ended up not liking them or something.
I did at one point early on, I
buy into the "All Gods are One God, and All Goddesses are one Goddess. And the God and Goddess is part of The One. Now, I actually think that came from a fictional book I read (The Mists of Avalon), but I can't be sure. But I had just became a Pagan...so latent Christianity may have played a part.
I also read many books that claimed the whole peaceful, almost utopian worldwide Matriarchal Society who worshipped a Mother Goddess. Honestly even back then, that didn't sit right with me. I personally didn't think it was true.
Nowadays...I'm 100% a Hard Polytheist. I do see all the Gods as distinct from one another.
And my practices now definitely differ now because of it.
But, I guess it's not that odd I'm in a different place now than 20 years ago.
"son/lover/sacrifice" ouch! that sound like "burden/toy/trash" I'd always heard of the triple god as "youth/father/sage". That version make me feel grotesquely objectified.
I get that's not the point of your messages, and you've said it's not part of your current belief system. I guess I just hoping that, that symbology is not a common one.
I’m mostly a hard polytheist. Mostly because my gods (Greek) are often lumped together and seen as interchangeable with the Roman pantheon. I’ve never seen them as the same and my worship distinguished the two sets as separate. But if someone worships both and they’re organized as the same in that pagan’s mind, then that’s how they are for them. No one right way to believe.
You know what religion is open, and kinda actually requires a to a soft polytheist interpretation? Catholic Marianism. - Mary Mother of Jesus has very famously presented herself dozens of times across centuries to her faithful, taking the physical form of the people she comes to, and goes on to be worshiped in the form she appeared in. And even though there’s a dark skinned Mary in Mexico and white French Mary in Lourdes, its universally understood they’re the same person
But… besides cosmetics changes (skin, eyes and hair colour) they are always Marie virgin mother of Jesus. Not suddenly she’s a different goddess with a different name and stories. Not at all like a connection of Odin and Mercury at all…
That's called a cultural perception.
What about saints, duality of Jesus, concept of trinity, Satan... And they claim to be monotheists, lmao! No wonder there are so many only true churches calling Catholics (and any other denomination, to be fair) heretics.
Excellent video, as always! Polytheism is, by it's very nature, pluralist, and I think it reflects our post-Judeo-Christisn backgrounds that some Pagans today appear to struggle with it.
I take a hard polytheist approach overall, but when it comes to the Greek and Roman pantheons I find myself rather stumped. The Romans consciously adopted the deities of other pantheons and Greek and Roman sources alike contain references that indicates their equation, despite key distinctions. So I'm still figuring this out for myself... 🤔
Saying you're more in the middle of the sides of hard polytheism vs soft polytheism is such a half-cocked mood.
As a nonbinary person, duotheism has always felt wrong to me. I appreciate you bringing up Loki when talking about that.
Not to mention that it always circles back to sexist gender stereotypes, and heteronormative ideas about how the divine feminine needs to balance itself out with the divine masculine
Yeah same! It's what sours me from duotheistic Wicca, it feels completely out of touch from my perception of gender. Especially since, as a transfem, the massive focus on the womb & motherhood feels very weird.
@@hazel5049 As an AFAB non-binary person who still identifies with womanhood to some degree, the focus on the womb and motherhood feels very weird to me as well. Frigg is incredibly important to my practice and that has nothing to do with child-bearing,... she's also the goddess of the hearth, of home, of family, and family doesn't necessitate biological children. I am in a family by birth. I am in a family by marriage. I am in a family by adoption. These are all valid ways to become family and it has been so for millennia.
I'm so glad you mentioned shango cause that's the first polytheism i was in contact since is embedded in my culture
I'm just starting on my journey and beginning to read The Poetic Edda. There have been a couple verses in the Havamal where Odin talks about wisdom, to take a moderate view, for too much or too little causes problems. So as I see it to be closed minded and being hard on either side of the subject of Hard or Soft Polytheism, to be rigid causes problems of growth. Not only the Havamal but many of not the majority of polytheistic holy texts have a view of moderation. Most cultures had the view of an accepting of other Gods for the fear of turning their anger towards them.
Also wanted to comment on how much Ive learned here and enjoy your open perspective - your videos have been a wonderful tool and I really appreciate your work
Very good explanation of the differences in the hard and soft polytheism outlooks. I've never taken the soft viewpoint myself. To me, it's akin to saying all human beings are the same person only showing different attributes and that's a whole lotta wtfing. Now ask me if I believe that everyone and everything is connected in some way. Yup. From the lowest grain of sand on a remote beach to the highest Deity of Asgard, from the softest of breezes on a spring morning to the first breath of a newborn puppy, it's all part of a whole that is as it should be in some fashion or another. Challenges and joys alike are meant to teach and to be dealt with, the Gods are no different. They each have their lessons to teach and to have things that they need to learn too. Doesn't mean that we have to like all of them or that we have to hate any of them or discard and disregard their validity as unique individuals that we encounter which we can turn either to our benefit or to our detriment. This debate that's gone on about such matters concerning the gods is all part of the struggle to understand our world and how deity affects it and us, but I would suggest that it is far better, and far less traumatic, to take each encounter and each awareness as it comes. Like dealing with each human being or animal around you, it's far more profitable to deal with them as they come to you, instead of trying to fit them into some set of parameters that you have, and figure out what their presence and purpose is in your own life... and what yours is to them.
One of the more extreme forms of "hard" polytheism might hold that every separate theophany is a separate and distinct god, so that each person or group encounters a separate deity, or even a separate deity in each distinct act of worship. And at that point, ugh. I do know that there are some who hold that each different epithet is a different god, so that (for example) Apollo Smintheus is a different god than Apollo Lykeia, and both are different than Apollo Phoebus, to say nothing of Apulu or the Romano-Gaulish Apollo Grannus.
On another note, over in the various Celtic polytheisms we have the question of Lugh, Llew, and Lugus, a very similar situation to the various Wodanaz theonyms-and perhaps even moreso, as we can see convincing arguments (_Lady With a Mead Cup_ and so on) that Lugus and Wodanaz are at the very least similar gods. And then there's the argument in _Apollo the Wolf-God_ that Apollo bears strong similarities to Wodanaz, and that there are historical traces of a connection between the spread of worship involving them (and the hints elsewhere that the name Apollo, a god sometimes associated with medicine and early associated with Anatolia, originates in an epithet of Nergal, an Anatolian god sometimes associated with disease, Aplu Enlil "Son of Enlil"). Where to stop? Or start, for that matter? Is it actually important? Maybe we should just use the Names we are familiar with when we are at home and the Names that are being used wherever else we happen to be. But maybe that's not a satisfying answer for everyone.
I could go on, noting for instance that the Slavic Perun is actually the same name as the Baltic Perkūnas, and both are the same as one of the names of the Daghda, Cerrce, in the same way as "Jesus", "Yēšūaʿ", and "Isa" are all the same name, different forms that follow the rules of the different languages, so we have to question what makes any given name the "same" or "different". So, I guess I did go on a bit there. Now I'll stop.
Your comment just proved hard polytheism but you most definitely don't understand that yes some gods are most definitely the same with different names
No one has ever said the different epithets of Zeus or Apollo or Athena etc are different gods they are different aspects of each god but yes An Dagda isn't circe nor is he Thor or Odon and Thor isn't Zeus or Jupiter.
@@TonyJack74 I think maybe you didn't understand what I wrote. I'm not making any particular case, only pointing out the various extreme positions that are possible and a variety of situations that bear on the question.
@@TonyJack74 Are you denying that Irish sources state bluntly that "Cerrce" is one of the names of the Dagda? Because you'd be wrong.
@@FaoladhTV you said Circe
The way I view the gods COULD be considered monotheistic at the most basic foundational level, however that one deity would encompass literally everything and be infinitely complicated and constantly disagreeing with itself. It’s like viewing the entire earth as just one “thing”. Like yeah, I guess, but it’s so big and contradictory.
Pick any two deities from any pantheons, and you’ll most likely find similarities between the two.
It’s likely that Aphrodite came from Astarte, who came from Ishtar. Ishtar and Aphrodite are so different that you can’t really consider them the same, but there is a clear sort of line connecting the two through Astarte. So we can’t fully separate them, and we can’t fully merge them.
Of course, that’s just one example. Pan and Pushan likely evolved from the same proto-indo-European deity, but are clearly different. What’s weirder is that Hermes used to be an epithet of Pan, and so Hermes and Pushan share an undeniable common root. Again, it feels ridiculous to smoosh them together, but you also can’t fully take them apart.
At the root of all things, I do think that nearly every deity just kind of… blends into the others. Any line drawn between them is arbitrary, but you kind of have to draw lines in order to be able to have any sort of relationship with the divine.
Deities overlap, but are never quite the same, and shift over time. However someone tries to understand them, they’re right.
This is fascinating and I love hearing about different trains of thoughts and positions to consider when talking about the gods.
The Poly-Njorder-ism thing is similar to what seems to be going on in Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Like on the show version of the story, the episode where Eostre/Easter has all the Jesus-es over for an Easter party.
(yes, it's fiction. Doesn't mean truths or valid theories can't hide in there)
You have offered thoughtful explanation of trends within polytheism. Thank you for your eloquence, whether or not you choose to pun. Your strategy of "find a way or make one" is especially interesting as it reflects a very Roman attitude regarding reality as we must live it.
Thats funny because its a quote from Hannibal Barca.
@@OceanKeltoi The Romans were certainly not immune to the influence of Carthage. So much so that they had to destroy it.
Of course The battles of the Trebia , Lake Trasimine and Cannae push roam over the edge.
You might say that these battles forced the Romans to "Find a way or make one", which they did at Zama under the leadership of Scipio Africanus.
I'm new to polytheism and Norse Paganism, but I had a particular interpretation about the differences on the representations in the myths, might not be anything new but as I see it, the gods are timeless immortal beings, and just as much as the world around us changes, so would the gods, In a sense, the gods would keep the things they represent as principles, and the changes would be those details that differ on various tales about said gods
I just wanted to share my interpretation of this, I might be completely wrong as there are a lot of things for me to research
Rather than focusing on the gods. I find myself asking my Ancestors for Guidance.
This is actually really interesting. I’m glad I found your channel, it brings a new light and greater insight/clarity on some things I’ve been pondering myself.
Hmm. So, is a punless Ocean the same as a pun filled Ocean? Are they two distinct Oceans, or one large sPacific Ocean? Guess I'll watch the rest of the video to hear arguments on both sides.
EDIT - I have concluded, after much deliberation, that there is no Ocean. There is only Calcifer.
This is the first video I've seen of yours and find it to be enlightening, reasonable, intriguing, and am impressed with you. You give both sides a fair shake, admit your bias, and clearly separate your personal opinion from objective fact. Excellently done!
Did a search on Eir and you came up. My husband and I have been enjoying your UA-cam videos. Love your approach, intellectual gymnastics and values 💚
This was a lovely video essay.
I kinda view it like this: deities from different cultures share similar spiritual energy, but are their own manifestations different and unique from one another. Similar to people today.
Non linear deformation polytheism is hard or soft depending on the direction of the stress and or intesity.
My own beliefs appear to have aspects of essentially all of these distinctions. My personal conclusion is there are at least four distinct cosmic forces, Death, Creation, Chaos and Order that I would call Gods regardless of whether or not they are conscious forces, as they are external and all powerful. In addition to that there are the more Archetypal Gods which may be simply cultural representations of different archetypes, some of which could be considered different facets of a common external force interpreted differently by distinct societies, such as a Warrior archetype sharing the same essential core across cultures, but each distinctly representing the cultural values of the societies they originated from. Once again I find the question of if these Gods are conscious forces or simply a manifestation of human philosophy to be largely irrelevant as they represent an intangible power beyond the individual.
To me I know these Gods are real but believe that at least some of them represent an intelligent power. Even if they are not conscious entities, in combination they have absolute power over existence as we know it, so to me even from an atheistic perspective I don't see how they could be regarded as anything but Gods.
As long as the final power is not the abrahamanic god I think i'm on the right track when considering this
@@MsQuikly I definitely would not, these first four are just too distinct to be singular, and more importantly one half are inherently oppositional to the other half. Life and Death are best described as the opposite of one another, the same applies to Order and Chaos. They are both competitive and complimentary, but to attribute them to one, singular power doesn't ring true. I personally would say the Abrahamic God is their perception of the God of Creation, particularly that's pretty much literally stated in the Testaments. Being lenient on my categories, I'd say he's a combination of the Creation/Life God and the God of Order. Personally I don't really adopt nor deny the Abrahamic Faiths, I just think they're incomplete for lack of a better word. Not invalid, just too absolutist.
Also, even if I were to accept the idea that all were facets of one god, there's still at a fifth I chose not to include in the initial post, and this one is accounted for in Abrahamic Faiths. The four I included are all forces I wouldn't consider evil, although all can be, particularly if they are absolutist. Absolute Order is Tyranny, Absolute Death or Chaos is obviously going to be terrible. Even Absolute Creation would be bad.
Back to the point, none of these to me represent a Good versus Evil dichotomy. This Dichotomy is clear in Abrahamic Faiths as God versus Satan, so that to me is an admission that there are other metaphysical influences besides God even in those faiths. But also, Satan in its earliest use actually means "Adversary," its use evolved over time to become synonymous with Evil. But I don't think that just because something is opposed it is Evil. To me, the true Dichotomy is actually Corruption versus Honor.
This applies to my 4 cosmic forces, but it's easier to explain if I use a more down to earth example. A Christian isn't evil, they just have beliefs that are largely incompatible with a Pagans, mainly their idea there is only one God and all others are False or Devils. However, if both the Christian and the Pagan believe in their faiths, there's room for discussion. You can debate, find common ground and learn from each other. However, if the Christian doesn't really care about his faith, if he simply uses his faith as a tool to obtain power, as justification to condemn you for not believing as he believes, as a reason to control or destroy others, then it is Corruption of Faith. That is an example of what Evil is.
Thus I would say Corruption is a God as well, one that can be observed even in the Abrahamic Faiths. It's just not one anyone should actually worship.
Ive come across a similar view on my faith i see them more as two instead of four but similar notion none the less
Thanks for the very comprehensive look at this subject Ocean!
I personally am a syncretic, soft polytheist. It's not just part of my tradition as a Hellenic devotee of Isis in which the ancients had a known saying "Isis, being one, is all", but it also just makes sense in terms of numerology. If we regress far enough we eventually should hit a single source. This single source is often regarded as both masculine and feminine in one being. The Egyptians called it Atum and there are different names for it in different cultures. For me I call this source Isis or Atum. A Hindu may call it Brahman. An Orphic may call it Kronos, from whom his mate Ananke came forth, and so on. But just because that is how I personally identify it does not mean that I see Isis as "the true" version of the source. Also, composite deities have been a staple of polytheism across many cultures. Hermes and Aphrodite, Hermaphrodite. Hermes and Anubis, Hermanubis. Isis-Aphrodite was extremely popular in North Africa and the Middle East as an afterlife Goddess and terracotta statues of Her were burried with many people. The Egyptians especially got a little crazy at times with their composite deities, sometimes fusing as many as 6 deities into a single entity. This to me really shows the very fluid nature of divinity.
Hard polytheism never really made sense for me and far too often it's just a reaction to monotheism. Imagine Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Shango and any other sky/lightning/thunder Gods all exist simultaneously and all rule over thunder and lightning. Are they region/culture locked like DVDs? What if they disagree on how to answer the prayers of someone who needs their power? And why would lightning and thunder necessarily need multiple divine persons ruling over it? It makes more sense to me that there is a single pantheon of Gods and that humanity has identified them in culturally distinct ways. The uniqueness and differences don't really matter because I don't really see any one culture having the whole picture. But when we combine them we can get a richer, more full image. Because, as for the reality of this pantheon... how can we really know if one human culture "got it right"? I think all cultural interpretations of the divine get it right. I personally view them all as equal, even if I favor Graeco-Egyptian views in my own personal practices.
A way soft polytheism and syncretism has been explained to me in the past is as follows. Whether or not all Gods are truly one, I can understand the love someone has for their deities through the love I have for my own. As a devotee of Goddess Isis I can understand the way someone feels about Aphrodite, Freya, Mary, Shakti and countless other manifestations of the Divine, and likewise, the way someone feels about Gods conceptualized as "masculine" also.
Regarding the "colonialist" comment specifically, if someone is genuinely behaving in a colonialist manner towards deities or traditions, someone should talk with them about it and explain the problem with their behavior. But soft polytheism and syncretism is not a automatically colonialist perspective or practice if those who use it in their spiritual world view are aware and considerate of other traditions. Anyone arguing a "one true way" in regards to religion clearly already has issues. For me, as noted above, soft polytheism is a window through which I can appreciate most any deity via the deities I hold closest to my heart. As Hindus and Buddhists say, God manifests in whatever way individual devotees need.
I am of the same mindset in reference to syncretism. However, is it too far of a stretch to wonder if language has an impact? say for argument's sake the original god of the pantheon is Isis, yet through time and across cultures the same deity has now become something completely different. Would that completely change the efficacy of worship to that deity to where now one would be communing with a completely different archetype? Or perhaps as long as your mind is focused on the intended archetype, then it wouldn't matter what the naming of it is?
Ear cleaning
Measure total of yesterday before going 120+ remaining...then now, what's remaining...tell to your moth
Our forefathers:
"Yo, your favourite god is like a badass warrior?"
-"Yes, his name is Tyr."
"Awesome, we call him Mars, that guy over there calls him Ares. That guy uses Teutates."
-"Based, wanna spar a bit and then sacrifice a bull and grill some steaks to worship him?"
Modern Pagans:
"NOOOOOOO; they are clearly all different and completely seperate dieties. You can't just lump them all together!!!"
To not know for certain whether the gods are exterior agents, or internal archetypes, is not atheism. That would be a rejection of the gods. To not know for certain is agnosticism, and in my opinion, the most open-minded approach to any spiritual practice. One can be a polytheist and agnostic. One cannot be an polytheistic atheist, as the very definition contradicts itself.
Furthermore, if an ancient religion such as Hinduism can lump all of their gods into a totality (Brahma) and maintain their polytheistic narrative, I think Heathens can to. Hel, I think this could even be said about Catholicism, which shares similarities to polytheism.
Ultimately, such limitations are imposed on us by communication, and nothing more. Thankfully, the gods are greater than that.
Think of the Gods as individuals from one point of view and aspects of the Godhead in another. Both hard and soft polytheism have their advantages and disadvantages, so why not take the idea that both are true and false depending on the individual's and culture's point of view during a specific moment. Another is that each culture represents a very specific "programming language" such as an "Old Norse" and " Anglo-Saxon" which could both be compatible as different PC programs but "Egyptian" and "Phoenician" as Mac programs. Just thoughts.....
No
@@TonyJack74 hey your opinion and whatever works for you. This is where I'm at after 33 years in the Northern Tradition. Views will change over time as your faith grows, trust me!
@@ninetales6485 your 33 years means nothing to me and northern tradition paganism is reconstructionist derived therefore not really reconstructionism.You can believe in what you want
@@ninetales6485 but whatever you say I can go down the rabbit hole of theology anyday
I, myself, wholly agree. I think this is a great simplified breakdown of some of the subject matter here.
Great discussion of ideas. I have had many of these discussions with prof friends mine.
I usually call myself a soft polytheist, but I've become very wary of what I've come to call "the conflation game" --- assuming that all gods from different cultures are the same gods wrenches them out of their unique cultural contexts, and actually makes it harder to experience them authentically. (And it's utterly terrible in scholarship.) But I also believe that all gods are part of some unified and incomprehensible "whole," some great divine, like leaves on a tree or colors on a light spectrum. Each color on a light spectrum is distinct from all others, but they're all still part of white light, which is itself part of a much larger invisible spectrum. If the great divine is the whole spectrum, the gods and goddesses are the colors that we paint with.
5:38 THIS right here is exactly where I'm at. It seems to me that through the migration of culture you see a pattern from Pre-dynastic religion->Egyptian Hermetics->Judaism->Pagan belief systems->Christianity. Each culture having their own separate yet distinct creation story, similar god(s), code of ethics and so forth. It doesn't seem inherently illogical to assume that Thor is no different than any other archetype of the same caliber. Many cultures revere these gods based on the celestial cycle according to the constellations. After all, we all rely on a bountiful harvest. I cannot however assume that one deity is solely responsible. So i guess that makes me a "soft-polytheist" ?
Lmao...
"... these are ALL equally shitty." - Ocean
Lmao, well said sir.
This comment sections gonna be interesting
I want to hear your thoughts on soft polytheism, the Norse gods, and Christianity, the idea that many baby pagans first find comfort stepping into our world from the comparisons between the two religions- which there are many.
oooh, this sounds interesting. I'd be interested to know more about the comparisons that they're noticing.
@@OceanKeltoi okay I am half asleep and not digging for message board posts I’ve read but from what I DO recall- the obvious and potentially corrupted stories such as Odin hanging on a tree with a spear in his side sacrificing himself to himself and later resurrecting has been compared to Jesus hanging on a cross of wood with a spear in his side being sacrificed to his father (himself to himself?) and later resurrecting, and ragnarok vs. the apocalypse, the idea of Baldur being such a perfect son who will return to earth at the great battle, human sacrifice, Ask and Embla vs. Adam and Eve, etc. I also have read about the idea of Odin being a mirror of God and the other gods being mirrors of saints such as when women pray to Mary it’s not much different than when women pray to Frigg. I think a lot of this theory would mostly find it’s basis in the story of the Tower of Babel. Like god struck down the tower, separated the people and gave them all different stories of himself- hence why the ‘I am god there is only me’ quote from the Bible might ring true, like he’s the only one and all the stories are him.
I do think it’s an interesting theory and I can definitely see how it would open the door up for those brought up in a Christian home, it could easily be the comfort they seek to embolden their decision to follow their own path. But I am afraid that much if it could be chalked up to Snorri.
IMHO, and I am not nearly as informed on the subject as you, if this were to have much credibility it would have to come from the god of the Old Testament as the New Testament has set a very different tone. I can sort of see personality traits of OT God overlapping with Odin, maybe they could have been buddies if it wasn’t for all the holy wars and hostility. 🤣
I’m curious what your thoughts on all this are and if there are any other similarities that come to your mind.
Still being new to this, I saw these differences as a way to shift from monotheism to polytheism. In addition, the atheopagan view is useful for helping to understand the gods and allowing for days of doubt. The need for unwavering faith is probably latent Christianity. That said, I do believe the gods are real, but I need to rethink some of the syncretism.
I believe in teachings of Dharma that is the archetypes observable in nature. The horizon separates "mother earth" from "father sky" and from there we have the beginning of polytheism. Adding in the belief of external spirits (big and small) you could say that a God is then made up of those spirits within the specified archetype. In many polytheistic religions there are smaller spirits who work for or are created from a specific Divinity. For instance all fox spirits in Japan are believed to come from and be a part of Inari Okami. It is the same way for Celtic polytheism; leprechaun is derived from Lugh and banshee is derived from The Morrigan. There are so many pieces that seem to be left out of the general beliefs of modern polytheists. The religion for a reconstructionist is "all inclusive" which is something that some pagans lack but others like Christians do not. All spirits big and small make up a greater external network and this is also what the Rigveda teaches. For Christians the have High frequency of energy and spirits they call "God and Angels" and Low being "Devil and his demons". Polytheism has more frequencies of energy or stations on the cosmic radio. The monotheistic focuses on the Overworld and Underworld; where Celtic polytheism focuses on the Otherworld which is parallel with the world of the living.
Very eloquently stated, my friend.
Holy shit, I love these videos
My personal view is there are gods that we made through the power of our belief and worship. I also believe that there are gods that always existed, and some may wear the mask of specific gods (such as the one regarded as Mercury will also answer a worshipper working with Odin).
The fun part comes with not knowing which deity fits which idea.
I follow along the lines of "Polywantacrackerism".
In the multiverse there is more than one Ocean Keltoi. Its just that the other one has red hair and spells his name: Oeshen Celtoy.
I have a view that the ability to work with or hold conflicting truth is the hallmark of advanced study. It is more complicated and more difficult. Binary/either-or logic simply may not work for topics like the intersection of mind and deity/divinity. So, why not both? We tend to want to academically categorize and make distinctions about these things and that... might be counter to the nature of... all of it.
I consider myself a polytheistic monotheist. i think of the divine as a metaphorical gem(the ALL) with infinite(?) facets represented by each of the Gods. They are distinct and yet also one. but what do I know. but it works for me. my patron deities don't seem to mind and even seem to work together across pantheons.
Turns out we're on the same page after all. I call myself a squishy polytheist; I tend to conflate Woden/Odin and Thunor/Thor, but Mercury/Hermes and Mars/Ares feel like a step too far. What do I know, though -- I favor orthopraxy over orthodoxy any day.
I like the Horns of a Dilemma opening RE to pun, or not to pun. Nice change of pace.
As for the rest of the video - really well done! Lots of food for thought.
Have you done a deep dive on 1) You’re doing it wrong and 2) you can’t tell me what to do? I’d be very interested in that discussion
I'd also be interested, but then I'd worry how accurate he is and whether or not I care. XD. In all seriousness, though, I would be interested lol.
I also would put myself in the middle on this debate, as you said there are many complicated stances among pagans.
Your points on soft polytheism were correct but i think there are other problems with hard polytheism who are too many to name.
As we see with Christian groups it's possible to worship one deity while viewing it in many different ways, i think most pagans will agree that the God of a jew, Muslim and a Christian, as well as of a miaphisite, Nestorian and nicean Christian is one deity
But each has a different personal relationship with Jesus, except the jew & muslim who don't believe Jesus is the son of god or god incarnated.
@@krispalermo8133 i agree your personal relationship with a deity is not directly connected to the devine nature you can perceive as a mere mortal
For a few years now, I’ve considered myself a perennialist because I was attached to so many different traditions that I wanted to preserve and practice equally, but couldn’t because of whatever mental block I had. This video has given me a new perspective and… now I don’t know what to do lol. Thank you!
Well articulated as always, thank you good sir.
10/10 ending thingie
Actually I would say that Odin can be equated with Ouranos, Chronos, and Zeus he's basically their mix
I would be curious how hard polytheism hardlined deals with a situation where the myth outright says in say a mystery cult that two deities were one deity tricking either mortals or other deities on purpose
This is especially interesting when reading on the Dionysian cults and the association with Hades
Awesome vid. I love your constructive approach.
This has been the most thought-provoking and interesting video I have ever seen by you. I'm so impressed by the depth of understanding just from this brief telling of a conflict I didn't know that I noticed existed all along. I even learned of a term that I could use to define myself as a perennialist but not one that carries the negative baggage that you associated with it.
I think that's my greatest contention with the video is how perennialism, as you defined it, doesn't necessarily need to lead to any erasure whatsoever. I can see the underlying truth and Oneness of all religions as simply being a desire to understand truth in a world full of questions and uncertainty. I always say that I am an atheist with soft polytheism tendencies towards perennialism all while acknowledging but everyone has unique perspectives on the world that I do not have including a truth that I will never know. By seeing what we all share in common, I hope to unite with others without breaking our distinctions. So, that doesn't mean what was said didn't need to be said as there are those guilty of what you warned about so maybe it was more necessary then wrong. I don't know, I only just discovered these words and I'm still playing around with them.
I tend to see stories of Gods from similar and geographically proximate cultures as being about the same deity. I would say that Zeus and Jupiter are the same, given that we know the Romans took over Greece and (until christianity) basically followed Greek religion. But Zeus/Jupiter is not the same as Thor, nor Shango. Since cosmology tells us that there may well be infinitely many other universes besides this one, it makes sense to me that there would also be a great many Gods.
I think there's also the fact that some gods are well-known to favor many identities/ masks /guises such as Odin in the Norse tradition or The Dagda in the Celtic one.( Although the parallels between them might mean they're the same being while we're at it)
Since you discussed polytheism and atheism, and I don't know if I've asked this already, what do you think of the idea put forward by Kallimakhos, a modern Greek Orphic polytheist (seemingly of a reconstructionist bent), that the gods are real in the sense that they are disembodied entities/intelligences in the sense that traditional polytheism entails, but his idea is that the gods are actually sensous (not in that way) experiences, not incorporeal or transcendent ones, who can be experienced by practitioners who lower the barriers of cognition (such as ego)?
From what you inform, it seems to me that Kallimakhos approach of gods is pretty similar to the theology of most afrobrazilian polytheistic traditions. Gods like Shango, Ogum and Yemoja are desembodied and semi-personal consciences who have patronage and control over elements, activities or places, but they rather manifest themselves as altered states of mind or trance in which a follower incorporates their patron deity (not containing, but being "embraced" as a temporary vessel for that divine consciousness).
In this sense, the Orishas are very different in afrobrazilian religions than in yoruba religion (in which They are more "personal" and some of them are perceived as deified kings).
I wish I could like a video more than once
Love your content, i learn alot & makes alot more sense with your findings
It seems far to me to use related dieties as hints towards what the earlier version of each may have been like. Or hints at their characteristics. No reason why two linguistically linked Indo-European gods with similar mythological roles aren’t likely an expression of the same being in different cultures e.g. Woden/ Odin or Thor/ Dunar/ Perkunas perhaps.
In the latter case, if it’s a storm god that kills the serpent with an axe, hammer it’s good enough for me.
Definitely a jump to bring in the dieties of other culture/ language groups into it though.
i've seen guys conflating Indra and Odin with zeus, as long as it is related to proto-indoeuropean is valid for them. I guess is valid but a bit too much for me.
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations makes sense to me.
I like to think of myself as a monotheistic-polytheist. In Hermeticism, there is a saying that "the ALL is all." Everything is a manifestation of one ultimate reality. Thoth, who is, himself, revered as a god, talks about the Oneness of all gods and all beings. In the Hindu tradition, this could be akin to seeing all of the gods as a manifestation of Brahman. In Taoism, there are many gods, but there is only on true Tao. In Christianity, there are 72 names of God. To me, it is nigh impossible for a finite human mind to comprehend the absolute infinite nature of an immortal, perfect being. However, it is possible to work with differing aspects of that entity, depending on the situation. In some way, perhaps understanding all of these different manifestations of Oneness, or the ALL, or God, or the Tao, may help us understand the whole. In my view, it's a bit like looking at one of those magic-pictures: at fist our eye gets caught up in the little details of the image, but after a while we can look past all of that and something greater emerges.
When you went on to talk about the extreme hard polytheism example, I immediately had “Personal Jesus” by Johnny Cash start playing in my head
i would be really interested in seeing more videos discussing perennialism and pantheism!! lately ive been trying to understand what my feelings are with regard to religion/spirituality, and i think i fall pretty solidly towards the soft polytheistic approach, though im most familiar with the greek and roman pantheons as they relate to astrology since ive worked with astrology since i was little. perennialism sounds pretty close to what i believe in, and while i dont support erasure like you talked about, a quick google on pantheism (which defines it as “identifying god with the universe/the universe as a manifestation of god;” or, “worship that admits all gods”) sounds like it fits me right too. feeling some real cognitive dissonance from hearing these discussed in a negative tone: id really like a more in depth discussion on these two topics because i personally dont see anything *inherently* wrong with either approach, though of course i can see how people could use these philosophies to invalidate certain belief systems. i definitely want to decolonize my view of religion/spirituality, get my research right, and be mindful of cultural appreciation vs appropriation, i would love videos on those topics too!! thank you!! :)
I really like your explanation of these. I often see hard theism in Recon communities. Then you have soft theism wiccan infused pagan communities. It's splurged together it's hard to tell what's what at times.
Soft theism while pushed by wicca, I think more heavily comes into force from Neo-platonist, hindu and other views as wiccans moved towards 'hard' polytheism the older the tradation got. Only trad gardner wicca offically kept the duo-theism concept.
Within Hinduism there are various philosophies that differ a lot such as Advaita Vedanta,Dwaita Vedanta,and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta.Advaita is famous for it's oneness concept and it was founded by Adi Shankaracharya while Shri Madhavcharya founded the Dwaita or Tattva Vaada.Dwaita is very much polytheistic and says the world and everything in it is real plus the gods are not manifestations of one like in Advaita
On the subject of syncretising different faiths together, have you ever looked into Buddhism? While it can be its own distinct religion, it has also acted as a way to preserve older, polytheistic traditions. Hinduism and Shintoism are both religions that might have been consumed by a more Monotheistic religion had the Buddhist teachings not helped round out some of their philosophies.
The primary idea at the heart of Buddhism is that life is suffering - but one can escape this suffering by accumulating karma (doing good things), and being mindful. This belief would especially mesh well with Heathenism, as many of the stories about the gods and the fate of humanity and the cosmos are, to be honest, quite dreary. Buddhist teachings can give a meaning to this morbidness.
the refusal to do the pun for the first time i have ever seen 😂😂
Great video. Glad you mentioned duotheism: its what was presented by Wicca when I first started trying to find my way down the Pagan path a few years ago.
I couldn't help but think of Wicca as some half-baked casserole of all the gods, removed from the oven still doughy and and unpalatable.
Wiccans are expected to choose a god and a goddess from any and all pantheons and think of them as a couple. So someone could choose Thor as their patron god and Mazu (a Chinese goddess of the sea) as their matron.
That's the half-baked part: mixing and matching deities from various pantheons in the belief they are all just facets of a God and Goddess.
The unpalatable part for me was the belief that the Goddess gives birth to the God in the early spring, raises him through the summer, lays with him in the fall (incest anyone?), then he dies of old age in the winter and she goes to sleep for most of that time before giving birth to him again.
Just trying for a second to imagine Thor in that situation breaks my mind.
I like to think of my gods as ninjas fightin off evil samuri.
I've been a soft polytheist for years apparently and didn't know the term. What I believe is in the energy of the earth and it's forces (to keep with his examples) like thunder/lighting. Thor is a name given to that force and other cultures have given it different names. None are wrong and all are valid in my eyes. It's just a matter of which name for the force of nature you identify with, be it Thor or Zeus or Shango or whomever.
studying these for novel world building right now. Now I have headache. LOL
Hi, Ocean. First of all great video. I always enjoy your works. You have been very influential in shifting my world view from hard atheism to a (soft) deistic polytheism. I was wondering if there is any chance that you could schedule another debate with Eric, from Skeptic Generation? You've spoken with him before, but the debate was rather perfunctory. I would really like to see both of you, whom I respect greatly, debate. It would really help me to clarify my own position, and I am certain that I am not alone in this. Thank you so much.
I go by a personal interpretation, that there are forces of nature or spirits related to certain domains (e.g Spirit of War, Spirit of the Moon, etc.) and the various polytheistic Gods are a mishmash of venerating these Spirits and a closely associated distant Ancestor. This is why they look and seem different compared to other pantheons (different culture, different ancestors), and also have overlaps with other pantheons though they remain NOT identical (same Spirit, but different Ancestor). The Ancestor component is a tool to aid in facilitating a closer and better connection to the Spirit of whatever it is that the Ancestor is associated with; without it though not impossible, it is far more difficult, thus they remained a part of the culture.
There is still so much to learn
The idea of all gods are one god kind of sounds like the idea of Brahman in the religion of Hinduism however it doesn't seem to be a popular position within modern Heathenism and nor do we have any evidence that it was actually a popular position within ancient Norse paganism but with that being said it might have very well been possible and maybe perhaps the reason nobody chronicled it is simply because it seemed so alien and freaky to Christianity at the time however we can't really know any of that.