Talk:Polytheism

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Hard-Polytheism

I note that the entry on hard-polytheism has been edited and the current discription is very inaccurate and misleading. Hard-Polytheism is essentially the belief that the Gods are distinct and seperate divine beings. This is usually taken to mean that the Gods are not aspects or manifestations of one God, or that Gods of different pantheons cannot be identified with each other. This can be taken in two ways exclusivistically; the Gods of other religions either don't exist, are daemons or are lessser divine beings, or Pluralistically; the Gods of other religions are just other Gods and there are many Pantheons. Ehumerism is a really bad example for Hard-Polytheism as also the equation with atheism, as most Hard-Polytheists believe the Gods are real divine beings.

I think the entry was deleted as there were no references this was possibly because Hard-Polytheism is something that has largley evolved on message boards. There are now articles in print.

If there are no objections, I'll try to find some references and edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

It is athe convention among polytheists to capitalise the noun 'God' in reference to a particular deity but use lower case when refering to divinty or godhood ie god. I've edited the article to reflect this.

In the editing of the current article (Oct. 16, 1:19) the author has reverted the capitalisation, despite of the last comment on capitalisation (which he had not read). Still, the same comment can be said about the reversion of capitalisation: in many cases, no specified particular deities were mentioned, and when this was the case, it would be confusing for the reader to see god capitalised in one sentence, and not capitalised in the next. Furthermore, in comparison to other articles (such as monotheism) it is aesthetically better, since most pages, which mention a plural of gods, do not use capitalisation. In general the author has no specific aversion to the capitalisation of the word god, but he has an aversion to the absence of consistency on the whole site. Besides the reversion of capitalisation, the author has made some minor spelling/grammar adjustments (replaced dieties in line 1 with deities, reconstructing of the sentences in the middle part, to make it easier to read), poor information (the dominion, represnted by the ocean is not exactly claimed by Poseidon, but by Okeanos; Poseidon holds the seas (water?) and the water under land (Greek tended to think that even fixed land, not just island, floated on the seas, therefore, Poseidon was also the one who could create earthquakes)) and added information (do not confuse Brahman with Brahma). The author would also want to call about a whole review of the article, perhaps the article uses too many examples, which could make it look unproffesional and messy. The author hopes to have explained his motivation to change the article sufficiently.

[edit] Henotheism

I disagree also; Henotheism is a term coined by Max Muller in specific reference to Hindu religion and the way in which Hindu deities are beleived by their devotee to be the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent 'God' in a Theistic sense, the existence of other lesser deities or demi-gods notwithstanding. Also a degree of thological and philophical input into the concept is usual. Henotheism may be a form of Polytheism but the two terms are not identical.

I've removed the reference and link to henotheism in the 1st para, which should read - The belief in many Gods does not necessarily preclude, but it sometimes includes, the belief in an all-powerful all-knowing supreme being, as the ruler and parent (often king and father) of Gods and mankind. In this I was thinking about Zeus who is called 'all-powerful' & 'all-knowing' by Homer. As this dos'nt imply any philosophical or theological componant, like the Demiurge of Neoplatonism, and rather is purely mythological we should consider it polytheism pure and simple.

In context; The Isrealites were Monolotrous and not Henotheistic. MC

I disagree with this article. Henotheism is generally recognized as different from polytheism. For example, the ancient Israelites probably believed that many gods existed, although they only worshipped one; yet few call them polytheists for this belief. -- SJK

I think you are conflating two different issues. The Torah (first five books of the Tanach) is vague on whether the earliest Israelites were strict monotheists in the modern day understanding of the term, or whether they were henotheists. Some passages imply the former, but others may imply otherwise. In any case, the later books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) make clear that no other gods were real, period. Only the God recognized by the Jewish people was held to be extantg. Maybe you could argue that before, and perhaps during, the time of Moses, some Israelites were henotheists, but this is an issue still under study, and one not likely to generate any conclusions any time soon - if ever. In any case, the Tanach teaches a strict and zealous monotheism; the only god that Jews even accepted as existing was the Jewish God (YHVH). However, at certain times some (not all) later adopted the polytheistic beliefs of the surrounding nations. That is precisely why their strict monotheist Israelite neighbors became so incensed at them, and why the Bible attacks them in the harshest of terms. RK

Someone wrote - "IMHO, polytheism implies worship, not just belief" Not so. Most polytheists did not even attempt to pray to all the gods that they believed in. This was especially true of the ancient Greeks and Romans, who acknowledged the existence of a huge pantheon of gods - they even admitted that other pantheons existed! But they usually only worshipped a handful, and sometimes just one.RK

The ReligiousTolerance.Org website defines henotheism in this way:

Henotheism. belief in many deities of which only one is the supreme deity. This may involve: One chief God and multiple gods and goddesses of lesser power and importance. Ancient Greek and Roman religions were of this type; One supreme God, and multiple gods and goddesses who are all simply manifestations or aspects of the supreme God. Hinduism is one example; they recognize Brahman as the single deity. Some Wiccans believe in a single deity about which they know little. They call the deity "The One" or "The All." They recognize the God and Goddess as the male and female aspects of that supreme deity; One supreme God who rules over a country, and many other gods and goddesses who have similar jurisdiction over other territories. Liberal theologians believe that the ancient Israelites were henotheists; they worshipped Jehovah as the supreme God over Israel, but recognized the existence of Baal and other deities who ruled over other tribes.

Isn't this clearly variations on polytheism, and not monotheism? (If we want to keep this quote it will need to be properly cited and rewritten to address fair-use issues. RK

RK: Henotheism can be a form of polytheism, but in at least some forms it is closer to monotheism. Imagine some new sect of Judaism or Christianity or Islam (take your pick; hereafter JCI) called X. X believes all the doctrines JCI, with one difference: it believes in the existence of other universes, each with its own God. However, X believes that we cannot know anything about these other universes or Gods, and that it would be wrong for us to try to worship them. Other than this one new belief, X is identical to JCI. Now to me at least X is much closer to monotheism than polytheism.

Sure. But it depends on whom you ask; many Jews already believe that there may well be some sort of multiverse; this is a big issue in physics nowadays. Scientific American and Discover magazine has done a few articles on this topic. I think this question would be worth posing on the Jewish discussion form I am in, and maybe other on other forums can ask this as well. I am guessing that the Jewish answer would be that this belief system is polytheism nonetheless. RK

Secondly, monotheism and polytheism are not incompatible. Polytheism is incompatible with exclusive monotheism, but is more than compatible with inclusive or pluriform monotheism. Henotheism then is both monotheistic and polytheistic. -- SJK

Wow. This really raises the question of whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be classified as henotheistic. It sure sounds like it. --Dmerrill

What is inclusive monotheism and pluriform monotheism? I have never come across these terms before. The explanations I have seen so far sound like oxymorons. If you believe in more than one god, that polytheism. That is what the prefix "poly" means. I get the idea that there are people who are very uncomfortable with polytheistic belief systems, and want others to think of them as if they were the same as monotheists. But they are not; if people don't want to believe in the existence of one deity, we don't need to make them out to be monotheists. This rubs me the wrong way, in the same way that radical theologians such as Alvin Reines make atheists out to have the same belief system as theists! (Reine's book on theology is called 'Polodoxy').

I have never heard a LDS member confirm or deny that there are polytheists, but they do say that they believe in three distinct deities, not a trinity. Some Catholics and Jews view the Church of LDS as outright polytheistic.

RK: Inclusive monotheism is a common term, I believe; our main competitor (i.e. the Encyclopaedia Britannica) discusses it in its article on monotheism. Pluriform monotheism is a less common term, though Britannica also discusses it; I believe it primarily relates to certain African tribal religions -- it is the belief in several gods, but these are just differing forms of one divine substance.

I think your problem is you are treating exclusive monotheism, traditionally the most common form of monotheism in the West, as the only form of monotheism. Many ancient polytheists were monotheists -- they believed in many gods, but they also believed in one God transcending and incorporating the many gods. -- SJK

[edit] Henotheism; Polytheism v. Monotheism; Monism

Henotheism is worship of many Gods with an understanding that they essentially form part of one whole Truth. Max Mueller used this in describing the ancient Rig Veda of Hinduism which said " Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti" (Truth is One though the Sages see it as Many). Thus, polytheistic henotheism is a weird conjunction of words that doesn't make sense and completely goes against the whole point of why Mueller originally coined the word 'henotheism.' It's like saying a 'biped quadruped.'

Polytheism versus Monotheism is a real debate. But you seem to think that monotheism is some sort of ultimate and the most logical conclusion of theological thought. Polytheism is belief in multiple gods. Monotheism is a belief in one God. That's it. Binding concepts of unity DO NOT form a part of polytheism. Henotheism was a term specifically COINED because polytheism was an inadequate terminology.

Monism is the predominant Hindu concept that arose within the early four Vedas and was much more deeply expounded in polished format in the Upanishads, which are 'commentaries' or derivations of the Vedas. They form the key texts of the Hindu Vedanta movement (it is threefold, one which advocates extreme monism, the other two which are forms of monotheism). Brahman IS NOT an ultimate deity. A deity is a divinity with form who can be worshipped. That is not the case. Indeed, Brahman is beyond the Abrahamic concept of monotheism, one ultimate Creator God, since Brahman is beyond form, beyond attributes, without personality or sex, simply and only pure being-consciousness-bliss. Brahman is divine ground, the monad of which the self-projected cosmos is but a part, a lesser reality viewed through the lense of maya.

Monotheism and Monism cannot be seen as equal. The former espouses a view of theism, where there is a God, a singular-super being who is most commonly thought of as the Judeo-Christian god. The monist 'monad,' like the Hindu 'Brahman' (don't confuse with Brahma) is bereft of attributes, not even part of time and space, just pure awareness.

So, I finish by saying that there is no such thing as 'polytheistic henotheism' or 'henotheistic polytheism', Hinduism was never polytheistic, and Brahman is a monist concept, not monotheistic. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:01, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I’ve added a section on Hard Polytheism

Hard polytheists beleive that the Gods are distinct and seperate beings and are happy to beleive in the existence of the Gods of other peoples.

As well as a section on how polytheists view monotheism

[edit] Atheism

In their refusal to acknowledge the Gods, monotheists were historically charged with atheism.

I’ve removed the doctrinal polemic against polytheism as inappropriate to a page devoted to polytheism.

(Meic Crahart)

I've removed the part on polytheists calling monotheists atheists since I don't know of any sources that make this claim. In fact, I know of sources that say the opposite was true for many societies (mainly in reference to religious tolerance in the Vikings and the evolution of ancient middle eastern religions). From what I've read most sources (including this article) refer to ancient polytheistic societies as open to new gods and rituals which wouldn't seem to make them inclined to calling monotheists atheists. However, yes, they could be refered to as atheists because they didn't worship their particular gods but that would carry on to other polytheistic pantheons as well making it not local to monotheism. Also, if some cultures did in fact do this then it should be changed to say that only certain ones did and, by the large, most didn't since evidence points to this conclusion. -DNewhall

I have always understood the term "atheist" to mean one who denies the existence of a god/gods/deity ... thus if one did believe in multiple gods (for example the Greek pantheon) but denied the existence of a competing pantheon (example the Norse pantheon) would this be aethism? - Low Sea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.90.1 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution of Modern Day Polytheism

We should add something on this topic. If time permits, I'll start a short paragraph. Ariele 13:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHEN DID POLYTHEISM ORIGINATE? Who were the first polytheists? Were they the Sumerians, or did another group come before the Sumerians that also believed in Polytheism? It would be so much easier to understand this article with some kind of timeline to reference to. Any ideas?

Polytheism probably goes back to the paleolithic, if cave paintings in France are to be taken as an indicator. The Sumerians were the first culture with writing however, so they were the first one we know of with certainty.--Rob117 21:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Polytheism, I think firstly originated in Ancient Egypt. The League of Crazy Men 11:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

After going through that I got the impression the only issue was with the editor jguk and an appeal to argument from authority. Given the site has recommendations from Encyclopedia Britannica, American Library Association, Schoolzone, TagTeacherNet I can't see any rational reason for Wikipedia not allowing its use. If you can't use a site recommended by the Encyclopedia Britannica then what pray tell what sites CAN you reference?!--216.234.222.130 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soft or Hard

Under the section "Ancient Polytheism" it says " henotheistic Greek and the Roman Classical Pantheon of gods".

But then in the section "Gods and divinity" it says "The ancient Greeks believed that their gods were independent deities who weren't aspects of a great deity and did stand on their own. "

Okay, so which is it? The first statement says the ancient Greeks were henotheist/soft polytheists and the second statement say they were hard polytheists. Make up your mind.

-greenheart

[edit] Restoring pre-vandalized text, references, etc

I have restored the full version as of 07:30, 11 November 2005. Added directly after the vandal User:68.39.241.4 blanked most of the article was the following, which might be edited back in, in some form: Jenny Blain's 2004 article, <a href="http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/traditions/polytheism.html#>An Understanding of Polytheism</a>, published here with the author's permission, gives us the following insight:

"Polytheism refers to the honouring of 'many deities', each of whom is experienced and acknowledged as an independent, individual personality, not as an aspect or archetype of something else. Polytheist belief systems have a number of deities or sacred beings. Some may have jurisdiction or governance over a large area, others may be associated with (e.g.) a particular river or town, or a particular family. Sacred beings may include spirits, wights, ancestors, 'small gods'. Often individuals within polytheistic cultures will form relationships with a small number of specific goddesses, gods, or other beings while acknowledging their kinship to other discrete entities who are important within the culture, cosmology, and landscape.

In polytheistic cultures, deities are experienced as complex personages. Many have particular skills or abilities but are not restricted to these. A goddess is unlikely to be, for instance, simply a 'goddess of grain' or a 'goddess of weaving', although she may have particular interest in these areas, just as a human musician is also a member of a family and a community, visiting shops and participating in political debates.

Most pre-Christian cultures of Europe, and indeed many cultures around the world, have been and in some cases remain polytheistic. Today many people in the 'Western' world are returning to polytheism. Often they will attempt to reconstruct or re-establish a specific pre-Christian belief system, by studying its history and archaeology, ancient writings (which may or may not be viewed as 'sacred texts'), and the cultures which embraced it, to recreate a living spirituality that works within today's world.

Examples of ancient texts include the Odyssey, Sumerian poems, or the Eddas - writings which make reference to deities and other non-human beings, and give insight into the worldviews of those who composed them.

Individual deities may be known by more than one name, just as human people may be known by different names or titles (Doctor, Dad, etc.) to different individual people. For instance, Odhinn has over 100 names in mediæval texts, and is a master of disguises. He remains distinct from other gods such as Thor or Vidar, just as a cousin who is an actor (taking many parts) is distinct from other relatives or members of the wider community (including other actors)."

[edit] please help...school research project

are there many people in the world who believe in this religion? i have heard that many people in japan believe in polytheinsm...what would make a person think this way? is polytheism the same religion where you believe in certain things that uphold powers such as rock? how would a person be able to know if the rock that they are worshipping is the right one with the special powers??? it is all so confusing please help as soon as possible, i am an 11th grade student and i am doing a research project on polytheism and what it is about, so some input would help tremendously. thanks

You might also want to check out the Humanities Reference Desk - they're pretty good about helping out with stuff like this. Basically, polytheism isn't itself a religion, just like monotheism isn't a religion - it's a belief that underlies a lot of different religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Polytheism underlies religions like Shinto and many Neopagan religions. I think with the bit about worshipping a rock, you may be thinking of animism. Animism isn't the same thing as polytheism, though some people are both polytheists and animinists.

People who grow up in Shinto households generally believe in polytheism for the same reason that people who grow up here believe in monotheism - because it's what they've always known and what the people around them believe. People who convert to polytheistic religions have a lot of different reasons. If you want to hear people's personal stories and be able to ask them questions about their reasons for being polytheistic, you might want to try the discussion boards at Beliefnet, especially the Shinto discussion board and the Lean about Neo-Paganism board. You can also read one person's story of why he is a polytheist here. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism as Not A Polytheistic Religion

I have removed the assertion that "this view of the religion is rejected by most Hindus" because it strikes me as highly dubious and as such should be backed up by an external reference if it is to be included. It may well be true of most Hindu scholars, but that's not to say the same is true of most Hindus... Polytheism is defined here as "belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities". I am willing to be corrected by survey evidence or other hard facts, but I have a distinct impression that the overwhelming majority of Hindus believe in (and often worship) multiple divinities. That these deities are considered to be emanations of one ultimate Divine Ground devoid of personal characteristics is not a convincing counter-argument against their believers fitting this definition of polytheism. The atman within individuals, too, is an emanation of Brahman; is Hinduism then a monoanthropic religion?

--Oolong 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article could still use some heavy editing to make it less controversial and represent Hindu beliefs more accurately.

--Oolong 14:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What problems do you have, Oolong? In Advaita vedanta philosophy, the atman = brahman, but the fact that you seem to feel "individual atmans" is because of illusion. In reality there is only one atman, and it is Brahman himself. Just like the reflection of the moon falling on many bubbles appears to be many moons, similarly one atman appears to be many atmas. You seem to be that kind of a person who is solely interested in the end result, no matter how it comes. And Hindus also believe in one personal God with infinite qualities. He is Ishvar, aka Bhagavan. Whenever a Hindu makes an interjection, he says Hey Bhagawan! or Hey Ishwar -- O God! (less commonly); he never says Hey Bhagawano~ (the plural) or Hey devatao~ (o gods!). The deities are illusions. They are forms of Ishwar that he takes (in the mind of the devotee) to please the devotees.Cygnus_hansa 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cygnus. I'm not sure where you get this idea that I am the 'kind of a person who is solely interested in the end result'; I wonder if you have misunderstood what I am saying? My point is that there is an analogy between the apparent, but (in Hindu thought) illusory division between the souls of people, and the apparent multiplicity of deities. The deities are illusions, perhaps; but is not all of this an illusion, by the same token? As your say, our atman may be one, but does that mean we are going to stop talking about individual people, and say that the population of Earth is really only one? Maybe Ganesha is Durga is Kali is Vishnu is Shiva is Brahman, but are they not prayed to separately, if at all? Are they not seen as individual divinites, just as I am seen as a separate person from you? If yes, then it is a kind of polytheism we are talking about. Respectfully yours - Oolong 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All gods are held to be aspects or manifestations of the same being, which is why some of the functions and names overlap (eg Indra and Parjanya). One may choose to worship any form(s) of the supreme being. --Grammatical error 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Commandment and the Origins of Judaism

Semantics aside, the 1st Commandment clearly indicates that the ancient Israelites believed in the existence of other gods and left the door open to the worship of lesser deities. (Thou shalt have no other gods before me.)-- LKS 5/10/06

That is far from a non-controversial claim. One might hold that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in no way implies that those other gods exist... ^iggy_talk 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The text speaks for itself and the implications are clear. One other note: Elohim is plural and a better translation would be "the gods".--LKS 5/10/06

All I am suggesting is that your particular interpretation is not the only one that has been given — similarly with Elohim (there are ways that both Christian and Jewish commentators who were aware of the plurality have dealt with it). Anyways, this is kind of irrelevant to the article as you are not going to be able to demonstrate, on a Wikipedia talk page, that the ancient religion at the root of Judaism was polytheistic. There are some scholars who believe the evidence inclines that way, there are others who don't. ^iggy_talk 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a better approach to this topic would be to place polytheism within an historical context that tracks the development of religion from polytheism, through henotheism, to monotheism. For example, other gods were acknowledged, tolerated, and even worshipped by the ancient Israelites until monotheism was strictly enforced. Judaism's polytheistic roots and its epic struggle to become a purely monotheistic religion are the stuff of the OT.--LKS 5/10/06

This is one approach, but it does a disservice to the article on a couple of counts: (1) the thesis that ancient Judaism evolved along those lines is controversial at the least (except, I suppose, insofar as such a record can be traced within the Tanakh itself, but even here, the evidence is conjectural); (2) it is entirely too centered on Judeo-Christian development for a general article on polytheism (which encompasses many unrelated traditions across the world) — it is far from evident that all religions were initially polytheistic. I would recommend looking at some reputable sources before suggesting these kinds of changes. You will find that the issues are not as clear-cut as you make them. ^iggy_talk 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The OT explicity acknowledges the existence of other gods. The text supports this, as does the overwhelming body of archaeological evidence. Judaism is one example of the development of a religion from its pre-literate, multi-cultural polytheistic roots to a strict, literate monotheism. Reputable sources abound.

By and large, this topic is about the history of religion, the varieties of religious belief, and the evolution of religion. Polytheism appears to be one stage in this development, and Judaism is a good example of this progression.

This topic should not be used as a forum for defending a particular belief system. -- LKS 5/10/06

To be accurate, that isn't the first of the 10 Commandments for Judaism. Ten Commandments quotes it [slightly altered] as "I am the LORD your G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery..." while the second commandment is "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

Yours is the Christian interpretation, which I don't think would apply as much - MW

[edit] Views presented as Buddhism

"The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon." This was the first quote that I thought of when I read the indic section. The article states that Mahayana Buddhism is considered by some as polytheistic. The only support it was given was a reference to devas, inaccurate understanding and misleading.

From Buddhist views on Devas..

• Buddhist devas are not immortal. They live for very long but finite periods of time, ranging from thousands to billions of years. When they pass away, they are reborn as some other sort of being, perhaps a different type of deva, perhaps a human or something else.

• Buddhist devas do not create or shape the world. They come into existence based upon their past karmas and they are as much subject to the natural laws of cause and effect as any other being in the universe. They also have no role in the periodic dissolutions of worlds.

• Buddhist devas are not incarnations of a few archetypal deities or manifestations of a all-embracing pantheistic One. Nor are they merely symbols. They are considered to be, like humans, distinct individuals with their own personalities and paths in life.

• Buddhist devas are not omniscient. Their knowledge is inferior to that of a fully enlightened Buddha, and they especially lack awareness of beings in worlds higher than their own.

• Buddhist devas are not all-powerful. Their powers tend to be limited to their own worlds, and they rarely intervene in human affairs. When they do, it is generally by way of quiet advice than by physical intervention.

• Buddhist devas are not morally perfect. The devas of the worlds of the Rūpadhātu do lack human passions and desires, but some of them are capable of ignorance, arrogance and pride. The devas of the lower worlds of the Kāmadhātu experience the same kind of passions that humans do, including (in the lowest of these worlds), lust, jealousy, and anger. It is, indeed, their imperfections in the mental and moral realms that cause them to be reborn in these worlds.

• Buddhist devas are not to be worshipped. While some individuals among the devas may be beings of great moral authority and prestige and thus deserving of a high degree of respect, no deva can be a refuge or show the way of escape from saṃsāra or control one's rebirth. The highest honors are reserved to the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha.

According to Buddhism, devas are just beings like you and me, but because they have accumilated more positive karma, they are reborn as devas. But they will die, and then they will be reborn again into a lower/higher state depending on one's karma. Devas != Gods. Buddhist do not accept/recognize gods/god. No gods/god = Not polytheistic.

Therefore, I'll change the Indic Religions views.. Make a different section, Hinduism and Buddhism. Anyone who have knowledge in hinduism should edit it and anyone with knowledge in buddhism can add to it. Monkey Brain 05:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Soft Polytheism" really Polytheism?

I'm not sure I like this trend of increasingly differentiating between "soft" and "hard" variants of polytheism. Firstly (and most importantly), I'm not convinced there is a reliable source which indicates that "soft polytheism" is a distinct approach to the concept of divinity, as opposed to merely being pantheism, atheism, or some other approach by another name. Secondly, even if "soft polytheism" exists, I seriously doubt it's of such importance to the article as to effectively refute more traditional (i.e. "hard") variants of polytheism. (For example, "Polytheism refers to the honouring of 'many deities', experienced and acknowledged sometimes as independent, individual personalities, and sometimes as archetypes or as aspects of some greater being. (italics added for emphasis)) Finally, if "soft polytheism" really is an important, documented phenomenon, it should probably have its own article... but again, that's only if these criteria are met. In any case, we really need some sources on this before we can proceed. -- SwissCelt 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. If deities are honored as part of a greater über-deity, then that's really monotheism. If deities are individuals, then that's polytheism.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree. in any case, the structure described is clearly shown in the articles Monism and Panentheism. therefore, it isn't polytheism. Whateley23 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. You just can't make up a term "soft polytheism" to not offend those who want to use a monotheistic label for a polytheistic religion. If (Gods > 1) then you have polytheism. In Christianity the father and the son have independent minds, they converse with each other as separate individuals. One asks the other for help. They all may be members of the "Trinity Club" but the word trinity itself means 3 and 3 > 1. Christianity is Polytheistic. --Marcperkel (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"polytheism" is a category applied by external observers anyway, so that it is really a matter of definition whether you want to include or exclude "soft polytheism". The problem is that polytheistic religions are not based on belief in the monotheist sense, but on ritual. You are a monotheist if you believe in God. But you are a polytheist if you perform certain rituals in honour of the gods. Theology or belief from the perspective of the polytheist doesn't usually enter the equation, or at least not figure prominently, so that the the "hard" vs. "soft" distinction, while possibly valid, is artificial in that it imposes a distinction not made by practitioners. You might find that if you apply a strict definition of polytheism as proposed by Septegram, you will end up finding that there isn't in fact such a thing as polytheism. Historical polytheists recognize the malleable nature of deities, as is evident in e.g. the interpretatio graeca of barbarian gods. The important part is that gods are actors in a mythology. It is not important that this mythology should be free of self-contradiction as a whole. It is, rather, no problem at all if a myth associated with one ritual is directly in contraditiction with a myth associated with another ritual, as long as you are not trying to perform both rituals at the same time (and perhaps not even then). dab (𒁳) 12:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"But you are a polytheist if you perform certain rituals in honour of the gods." I would argue that belief in multiple gods is sufficient for one to be a polytheist. But more to the point, I agree that this "soft polytheism" is not even about polytheism. I think we're dealing with neologisms here, and the section on "hard and soft polytheism" should be rewritten to ditch the terms and instead expound a bit on the range of beliefs included in polytheism. We don't need neologisms for that. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it is sufficient, of course, but not necessary. My point is that "belief" doesn't enter into it: "religious belief" is a monotheist concept, applied inappropriately to polytheism from a modern perspective. The concept corresponding to monotheist belief is polytheist practice. "Soft polytheism" may be a neologism, but it certainly applies to historical reality: it is certainly found in Hinduism and in Hellenistic polytheism, if not in all historical polytheism. I suspect that "soft polytheism" is in fact a retronym for "polytheism" pure and simple, and that "hard polytheism" is really a modern fallacy born of application of monothesist theology to polytheism. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in Hinduism section

71.210.150.195 edited this section adding the word "burrito" after the word "supreme" in reference to Shiva's divinity. I corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesucristo301 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamic Religions: Christianity

Changed the description of Trinity to correspond to the definition given in the Trinity article. The older definition was more Sabellian than orthodox (i.e., Athanasian) Christian. Edtheist (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)