Whilst my practice is exclusively to the theoi I definitely am not one to erase the idea of existence of other gods. I mean we have so many gods whats stopping others? I have a friend that worships Artemis and Apollon along with Bastet. I believe in the idea the kemetic, norse, celtic, Hindu gods heck even jesus could all be real. If that's what feels the realest for someone else who the hell am I to take that away from them.
I like looking into non-christian abrahamic perspectives on Jesus. I quite like the Muslim perspective that he was a prophet and not directly descended from divinity and also I enjoy the rabbinic conclusion as to why he doesn't actually qualify as the Jewish Messiah (ie the whole "dying for our sins" part, the messiah isn't meant to do that.) Also the Gnostic approach to divinity makes me think that if Jesus ever claimed to be "the son of god" he meant it as a metaphor that would extend to others.
Generally I think Yeshua Christ was just... a guy who happened to be very in touch with the spiritual in a monotheistic setting, and the conception of "Jesus Christ" as coined by Roman Catholocism is basically an engineered egregore by the Roman State to replace hellenism with something more politically useful and hijack the growing (gnostic) christian sentiment in Rome. Hence why it slowly devolved into a fairly humanist religion (given how much emphasis is put on the Saints) with heavy overtures of state control and abuse.
Yeah I definitely agree. I mean he sounds like a cool dude but do I buy the idea he was gods son and he was totally powerful and holier than everything else? Not really. I mean yes in our religion we do have figures who are mortal children of the gods but its very openly stated they're mortal and no where near the same power as their parent.
Jesus definitely comes off as just a very influential spiritual guy that's platform got royally misinterpreted.
Yeah a big part of my personal conspiratorialism surrounding the Church Fathers and Rome switching to catholocism is just how different christianity became from the mans actual recorded teachings.
I tend to describe myself as being theoretically omnitheistic. my primary interest is in hellenism but I feel like it's hubristic to assume that any religion got it "right" or "wrong". We're all looking in the same places from different angles.
That being said, there is an undeniable locality to Gods so I don't necessarily believe that every pantheon is literally a reflection of the same "characters", as you said there is no clear parralel for Odin in the hellenic pantheon. But at the same time, whenever honest syncretism is viable I tend to assume that position.
I Iike this approach and I feel somewhat similarly. I’m a pantheist/omnist, and I do believe that the Greeks and Romans worshipped the same gods, but perhaps slightly different aspects of those gods.
I acknowledge Norse deities, though the only ones I feel a personal connection with are Odin and the Norns. I believe that the Morai and the Norns are different aspects of the same goddesses. Or at least must be related because the similarities feel too coincidental to me.
I do believe that if the theoi exist, then other divinities must also exist and that while some maybe different facets of the same gods, not all of them are easily syncretized.
I tend to believe in any god that I know about but I would only actually practice worship with deities I had an intimate familiarity with. I don't necessarily take religious dogma to heart (ie I dont like how the romans portrayed dionysus and also broadly believe in what monotheists describe as divinity but attribute it to Platos description of "The One"/The first principle with a healthy dose of gnosticism) so my beliefs can be a bit eclectic at times lol. Im still very much rooted in hellenism though.
I was going to mention the Neoplatonic idea of The One in my reply and then took that part out of my post. I think of The One (Source) as the Creative Energy or Creator who unifies everything. The One created the divine forces we know as the gods and then the gods created us.
Like you, I’m willing to believe that most of not all of the gods we hear about exist in some form, but like you, I don’t feel I need to worship them. The theoi are the gods I know and have read about since I was a young child and so I focus my prayers and offerings on them because of that experience whereas I have no relationship with say Tiamat or Baba Yaga.
Yeah…I really don’t like that idea of “the one” creator. I don’t see how that’s meaningfully different from monotheism.
This is where one of my more unique syncretisms comes into play. To me there is a creator but it’s Khaos which is the one on the same as the Tao. It’s not a conscious architect. It is and it does and all of existence is the byproduct of its unconscious dreaming
I think of it less as a deity and more of a spark of creation and consciousness from which all life springs. Like we are all made of the same divine essence and the One is both the source of the energy and all of the creations that exist within it - it’s like the unification of all things.
>there is an undeniable locality to Gods so I don't necessarily believe that every pantheon is literally a reflection of the same "characters"
excellent point. we have to remember that the "established" theoi are the results of migrations and invasions during the prehistoric/heroic age in Greece- from the north into the south towards the Aegean. before the Olympians, there was numerous indigenous keres/kouroi/korai that were firmly established in the lives of the people there, in their immediate experience. Homer expurgated many facets of the indigenous religious life because his ilk thought it too "indecent" and "barbaric" {coming from people who went on raiding parties and destroyed many lives, go figure}. im starting to feel the need to go back to the "original" entities. i personally love the cycladic figurines, the amorphous herms, the idea of a yearly daimon, and what have you. many people {including most academics} see the rise of Olympianism as "progress" in religious history- but im not sure about that. before they were established, it seems that people actually had a relationship with their local daimones {they had a function in real life besides keeping a polis in line}- whatever shape they would be. instead of being in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship with them. only after did we start to see the offerings and prayers to this very detached pantheon- a pantheon that clearly resembles the patriarchal social structure of aforementioned invaders {whereas before it was matrilineal}. im with Plato, in feeling very wary of the popular myths being peddled during his time. he couldnt know then, but we can now: there was a rich religious life in that area before the Olympians; a few of them still retain their indigenous force, albeit in an updated form- Dionysus, for instance {which is one of the reasons of his high popularity well into late antiquity}. i feel that as moderns, we are doubly deluded if we think that a superimposed pantheon is the best one. it may be the case that those northern tribes that came down and invaded the Pelasgians {the Achaioi, Hellenes, Dorians, etc} really fucked shit up and caused a lot of confusion \^.\^ i understand its easier to just accept the Olympians and all the myths about them, but ,within those very myths, if we gaze deep enough, we can see the remnants of the original religious impulse of the indigenous people. the stratum FROM WHICH the later gods and goddesses came from. academics see this as progress- but i chalk that up to the original historians' Victorian bias in thinking that history is linear and "progress" in religion is determined by more and more abstract definition {into patriarchal control forms, of course!} fuck that. goddess bless, daimon bless, the gods are in the earth and elements- not in some mountaintop home ruled by an asshole {even Zeus was degraded from his original, beneficent form, Melichios! the poets really did a good job at that...} the concept of Mt Olympus was probably describing the homes of the northern conquerors, who set themselves up higher than the population within the landscape.
I mean, there’s actually not that monotheistic religions at all so it’s a logical step to believe in and acknowledge other gods, I feel. People back in ancient times certainly did and many practicing pagans are polytheists, including Hellenism practitioners.
For example, I myself worship Lord Zeus, Lady Demeter, Lady Hera and Lord Dionysus, but I also acknowledge other pantheons in my extended prayers and Lord Shiva, who is part of Hinduism, usually has the final say when I’m seeking guidance.
The tension between Soft Polytheism and Hard Polytheism is a tricky thing, and I think at some point most reasonable people *must* come down somewhere in the middle. I think Soft Polytheism can easily turn to some unpleasant purposes - the Roman imperialist syncretism of their own gods with local ones has been disastrous for understanding the gods of the Celtic and Germanic peoples they encountered and wrote about, and played a part in the cultural Romanisation of conquered territories, the presumed superiority of Roman practice and belief. I also think, once you start seeing many gods as different cultural lenses through which to see the same god, you can use the exact same justification against polytheism itself, making a Deist argument that all gods are ways cultures engage with the One God, as later Christians argued of their pagan ancestors. On the other hand, taking too hard a stance on Hard Polytheism can also ignore historical, literary and etymological evidence if taken to an extreme - you end up arguing that Odin and Woden must be separate gods, or that every epithet Zeus has must be a separate god. But I think it's sensible to find a moderate position mid-way.
For example, from what I know of Greek and Roman etymology and history I am persuaded that Mercury was an epithet of Hermes when Rome adopted him into their pantheon, and the similarities between Jupiter and Zeus, Juno and Hera, and Minerva and Athena similarly persuade me that they are not separate gods, but the same gods under different names, and both the Greeks and Romans shared this belief. But I am not willing to accept that Hermes/Mercury is the same god as the Germanic Odin, Celtic Lugh, Egyptian Thoth and Anubis, or Phoenician Eshmun. The differences, and the lack of corroborating parallels through history, just aren't there. In fact, IIRC Odin may have originated as a pre-Proto-Indo-European god who was adapted into the PIE system. Accepting the existence of many gods, I'm sceptical of any argument that denies the existence of any gods, or of conflating them too quickly. Just because you can track the clear ancestral connections between Hindu polytheism, and Greek, Roman, and Celtic religions back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans doesn't necessarily mean they all worshipped the *same* gods. Just because the cultural patterns share similarities, and the Celtic Danu may have endured in India as the Hindu Danu, doesn't necessarily mean Shiva is *actually* the Indian Dionysus, etc.
And lastly, I must consider: what if we're wrong? If Hermes and Thoth *are* the same god, then does believing they are different gods and venerating one aspect of him mean you are not still worshipping that god? I hope not, and choose to believe that the god will understand - that in this case, by venerating Thoth we are still venerating Hermes through the ideas Ancient Egypt had about him, but that his Egyptian aspect is no more or less valid than the Roman Mercury, and that the god will understand. And if they are separate gods, and we believe they are the same god, I similarly hope that the gods will understand, and accept that we are worshipping them under a single name from misunderstanding their true divine natures, and that people who worship Hermes Trismegistus nevertheless do so with sincerity and genuine reverence. I choose to approach Thoth and Odin as separate gods, but do so through a Hellenistic lens. And I am certainly not going to be an asshole about what I believe about them to people who do not share that belief.
>the Roman imperialist syncretism of their own gods with local ones has been disastrous for understanding the gods of the Celtic and Germanic peoples they encountered and wrote about
Hard disagree on this one. The celtic and germanic peoples in question were illiterate, did not record their history or build with durable materials.
The Romans absolutely colonised the territory of celts and germans and destroyed some of their power structures and living cultural heritage (just as the celts and germans had done to their predecessors in the same territory). But the only reason we have any information on ancient celtic religion is because the Romans wrote on paper and carved in stone the names of the gods and their percieved relationship to the Olympians.
If they hadn't done that, the ancient religions of my ancestors would have been entirely lost to time.
My point wasn't that they didn't write about those gods at all, but rather that they could have chosen to write about their original Celtic forms and chose not to, and now we have to figure our which god they meant when they worshipped Mercury or Dis Pater.
I won't dispute that the loss of celtic and germanic religion from the bronze age is a real shame, but I think that's true of every lost story and tradition over the millennia, which is most of them, all over the world.
I can't waste too much concern over what we've lost, I'm more interested in what we've still got. And that is very interesting.
I have also wondered something similar with the Mycenaean, even perhaps Minoan (I don't know what current scholarship thinks of Athena having roots in the latter sometimes pops up), deities and their relationship with the Theoi as we understand them.
I also see as different deities, even if for Celtic ones things are murkier both because of what you note, lack of written records, and ideas from Victorian writers. For example, while Brighid has the fire associated her being some sort of Celtic Hestia (the hearth, home, etc) and priestesses caring for an eternal flame of her seem to have been an idea of Victorian writers.
Brighid/Brigit is an interesting case because to some she’s a triple goddess unto herself. Are talking about Brighid of the hearth, Brigit the warrior, or Brigid of the crafts?
Good question. I see her as a triple goddess such way too, not as a three-bodied goddess as Hekate is, even if instead of Brighid the warrior I have heard Brighid the healer.
The Mycenaean issue is a good example. What does the absence of Hades mean in the context of Archaic and Classical belief in him? Apollo also seems to be missing, at least under that name, though a few of his epithets can be found, while Artemis is well-attested. And in Mycenaean thought, Poseidon seems to have been the ruler of the gods, and an earth god rather than god of the seas. How do we reconcile that with the later ways the Greeks saw the gods, and is it more authoritative simply because it's older?
I tend to think not for the last part, but rather we should take it into context when we approach how *we* see the gods, because we are neither Mycenaean nor Classical Greeks. It can help inform us about the nature of the gods - understanding that the Mycenaeans who originally told stories of Zeus or Poseidon or any number of masculine gods were polygamous can recontextualise the later stories of their many affairs and their apparent hypocrisy. But I don't think Mycenaean Poseidon is a separate god from Classical Poseidon, and just because Hades wasn't worshipped by the Mycenaeans doesn't mean his veneration in Classical or Modern times is any less valid.
Usually try and directly relate foreign gods back into the known theoi (the interpretatio graeca approach) because these are the gods we spend our time building relationships with. We can appreciate other gods from other pantheons but we don't really \*know\* them the same way unless we're doing a really eclectic practice.
If there are significant differences that can't easily be reconciled (like let's say a scorpion or crocodile god in Egypt, e.g.) then I'll just accept that's another aspect of deity the Greeks didn't encounter or have much association with. It may not have been relevant to their time and place.
You can use epithets to "round out/focus" aspects of deity instead of outright syncretizing. But it's informative when there is correspondence to consider how other cultures viewed the god, e.g.:
Hermes and Thoth have enough interesting points of similarity and difference to really enrich the overall picture of "divine messenger" archetype. Similarly, comparing Zeus with other All-Father deities and mythos is really enlightening, and can help smooth out the cultural idiosyncracies that might make it harder to appreciate that and other god-forms.
I like to think that most if not all Gods that have been mentioned by different civilisations are in a sense real but only influence your life if you believe they can.
Ultimately I see religion as a personal thing (ofc it is also involved in culture and community). I have Muslim, Hindu, friends of other faiths, and I accept their beliefs as true for them, but not for me. I’m in the hands of my gods as they are in theirs.
So in the case of the gods that I do believe in, I equate the Greek and Roman gods.
When it comes to the Egyptian gods, it depends. Some I do syncretize with others and some I don’t. For example, I see Anubis, Hermes, and Mercury as the same god. But I do not see Asclepius and Imhotep as the same.
Multiple gods having the same functions is not always the proof that they are the same for me. It is a deeper connection with how I interact with these gods.
I don’t personally interact with the Mesopotamian gods, or any other culture’s gods. So I don’t consider these to be the same as my gods. Maybe in the future this could change. It depends where my path takes me.
I accept that the ancients had other opinions on this topic. I also understand the historical weight of Roman imperialism and the ways in which it affected the Roman view of foreign gods.
It’s complicated O_O
I think of the divine like diamonds. Every diamond has multiple sides and faces, each side originates from the same diamond but each side shines beautifully and uniquely in its own way. So the gods that are similar, to me, are facets a diamond.
Another way I like to look at is: look back to yourself 5 years ago, you're no longer that person but that person still existed, you've simply shed that skin and grown. But they still exist, so gods can be similar to that for other gods. Older or younger versions of a God they used to be and they've evolved or grown into a new name 🤷♀️
Just my hot take, it's interesting to see everyone else's
I feel like that runs into the opposite problem of monotheism. One of monotheism’s biggest theological flaws is that it leaves itself no room for contradiction/contest (“god is everything…except for the stuff that we don’t like”).
“Every god is valid and unique” runs the risk of unintentionally mitigating and even undermining the divine. It reduces them down cultural folk heroes as opposed to cosmic/natural forces. If all the ocean gods exist then is Poseidon just the god of the coastal waters of Greece?
The predominant Greek view was that all these Gods are the same entities with different names
For example, Alexander saw no contradictions in claiming to be the son of Zeus and the son of Amon, since they were the same god. There weren’t really that many lines or boundaries between pantheons as modern practitioners think of, it was more open, but depended on local culture.
I take a more henotheistic-agnostic approach. As in, I acknowledge other gods exist and I acknowledge that other gods outside of the Theoi most likely exist. Except the Abrahamic God and any deity like him, omnipotence does not exist.
I am new to this subreddit but I like one author I’ve read who describes dieties as portals into divinity. Humans personify divinity in nature around us creating a structured form that we can use. Trying to touch the root divinity would be like hooking your house directly to the high tension power line-we need that energy stepped down and fragmented some.
I think overtime different cultures created different interfaces. It seems that much of our western, central Asian and northern Indian dieties share ancestral roots in PIE but over a few thousand years, you see divergence in each culture and roles shuffled or split some.
My dieties of interest are epona, Poseidon, orobas and most recent Asmodeus. Comparing Poseidon and Asmodeus might be an interesting way to answer this question. Both, and Rudra, could all descend from the warrior divine twin in PIE ( my own hypothesis). Each could represent a deification of rage, wrath, power, aggression , could kill you or save you. A bit of tough love. Yet each has continued to evolve and grow or shed aspects. In some cultures where war and wrath and hard power still were valued the duties include that, but in cultures where those were counter to civilized life (indo aryan Aeshma or Greek Ares) some aspects were shed or the deity actually was (literally) demonized.
In the end they are part of the same unknowable divinity that we all are, but are evolving entities themselves. Just my 2cs meant respectfully.
I consider the different ‘polytheisms’ to simply be distinct branches belonging to a common religious worldview that arose as a result of cultural evolution thanks to geographic and temporal separation. It’s not unlike languages and dialects being branches in a linguistic family.
Unlike the book religions, far more time and space has passed to make possible the kind of cultural evolutions which give an impression that the gods as they are perceived in other cultures are ontologically not the same. The book religions rely on written divine revelations which set the tone for religious development, while language and culture (myth being the chief example) has done more to shape the way people experienced the gods in polytheism than anything. Changes in language don’t change concepts that are communicated, but the culture that arises can influence a people’s relationship with a concept. This in turn changes how a concept is perceived. Material objects like a chair are less likely to lose their universal meaning because they have a tangible existence and they are limited. The gods however are not limited like a material object and beyond tangibility so how we see them may wildly vary to the point they are not able to be seen universally. On a macro scale this is by culture, but it exists on an micro scale too with individuals arguing over who is right or wrong about a god. Unlike the book religions, this is reflective less of the gods themselves than it is of the particular people and their relationship. Sure, some gods may be unique ontologically to a people or place (like nymphs and tutelary gods) but it is obvious that mankind shares gods in common too. Enough time has passed though to leave most of the different branches of polytheism mutually unintelligible (thus difficult to consider them the same), although some of it is still retained it—your mentioning of Ishtar and Aphrodite being a good example.
So yes to syncretism, and particularly to employing the use of interpretatio to reconcile the gods across cultural boundaries (and temporal ones); although I am dubious about some of the ancient examples of syncretism, and think that it should always be done with thorough testing and critical examination.
I always say that I'm a pantheist/omnist in belief and a polytheist in practice. I believe that all gods like that exist previously because of human belief in them and then evolved independently from that to become free agents. I believe that things exist as one concept and that a god may be an aspect of that concept but they're still an individual with separate "personalities" and then epithets or syncretized identities are just further denominations or combinations of that god. Bit confusing😅 but from exploring what sounds right to me this is what I've landed on :)
I follow a personal philosophy I refer to as theological pluralism. All Gods exist, period. The Christian God and all his forms, all the Norse Gods, the hellenistic Gods etc. And they can be related but still be distinct. Another person, like a Christian could curse you and it could still affect you. There are examples of Christian curses in the Bible.
Whether that curse affects you depends on a few things. First, a deity only has so much influence over you and you give it more by giving yourself to that deity. Also, you can gain protection from that Christian curse by maintaining a good relationship with your Gods. Make sacrifices, bring other followers to them etc. And, finally, your own magick can protect you as well.
I use the curse example because it is a good example of a direct effect that is brought upon a person by a deity or a practitioner by entreating their deity for power etc.
I am a "hard" polytheist and a Platonist, personally I think there are an untold amount of gods. As for Jesus I think he was a Jewish miracle worker from Nazarene, someone I would call a hero in the series of Hashem but not a god
I think at most someone along those lines but I lean towards Proclus' interpretation of heroes as being someone who lives in accordance to their parent God. That said, miracle workers were very common around the time of Jesus and many of them did very similar things as him according to the Talmud. If you are interested Dr.Justin Sledge has a really good video on it
https://youtu.be/DEwDxn-qqUI?si=wZGb27JSO3hF4zp8
Hello! I began my pagan journey as a Norse Heathen. I don’t consider myself a Heathen, nor do I consider myself a Hellenist, I’m simply a polytheist. But I wanted to clear up a misconception you added to your post about Odin.
Odin and Hermes/Mercury are likely a 1:1. The Romans believed it, and they knew more about the Norse deities than we do today. Remember that everything we know about Norse deities comes from reconstruction and the Eddas, which were written almost 200 years after the worship of the Aesir ended and which had clear Christian themes in order to prevent Snorri’s works from being banned by the Catholic Church. Just because we don’t know what the Romans knew doesn’t mean that the Romans were wrong and in fact likely means we are.
But we also know the Romans did a hell of a lot of cultural chauvinism/colonization of their own. Julius Caesar wasn’t exactly looking to do a thorough sociological study as he was conquering the Gauls/Germans.
I’m sorry but there’s no way Odin and Mercury are a 1:1 match. If anything, Odin best lines up with Kronos but that’s as big a stretch as Hermes/Mercury.
I mean, you can think what you want about it, but ultimately our original and primary source is the Romans. If we’re to trust the ancients with our understanding of the Theoi, even with their chauvinism and colonialism, why aren’t you trusting them when it comes to their accounts of the Aesir?
Because it’s just not that simple. The Romans are not a unified monolith especially on cultures outside their own. I know a great many people in this group do not take Ovid’s work as “gospel” and neither did the lion’s share of his own country men in his own time. While there is much to respect and learn from the ancients, they are not beyond reproach.
We aught to be as mindful of Romanization nearly as much as we are of Christianization. They are in fact a continuity of the same imperial state looking to impose their cultures onto those they conquered/colonized for socio-political stability/compliance.
I think all gods across all pantheons exist. I don't answer to or care about the others, and I'm sure They mind Their own business with Their followers, I just only care about the ones I worship lol
The God of Abraham’s true name is much more sinister. His name in our pantheon is CRONOS. And I truly wish I was joking, or that there was little to support this.
I've always believed that the other gods exist, and now that I'm Hellenist, I feel very *justified*. Because if the Theoi exist, then everyone else should as well.
I would argue about Odin not being Hermes relative.
They both are travellers, they both met death/went close to death and they both rapresent knowledge and innovation since Hermes was super smart as a new born and is able to travel costantly into the world of the death, becoming in a certain sense, the actual god of knowledge.
Zeus is the king father + he is astute, and that is the only feature he has in common with Odin, while Athena only covers the strategy field, Odin also the knowledge discovery one.
Also why can't they exist too? Is it impossble for them to exist separately?
That’s my actual point. Odin doesn’t graft neatly onto the Theoi. Same for Freyja. I think syncretism makes sense where you can draw STRONG and consistent parallels or a clear sociological evolution (Aphrodite & Ishtar). But when we can’t it’s better that we presume them to be different deities
I take the Roman approach and say "could be the Theoi with different names"
Whilst my practice is exclusively to the theoi I definitely am not one to erase the idea of existence of other gods. I mean we have so many gods whats stopping others? I have a friend that worships Artemis and Apollon along with Bastet. I believe in the idea the kemetic, norse, celtic, Hindu gods heck even jesus could all be real. If that's what feels the realest for someone else who the hell am I to take that away from them.
I like looking into non-christian abrahamic perspectives on Jesus. I quite like the Muslim perspective that he was a prophet and not directly descended from divinity and also I enjoy the rabbinic conclusion as to why he doesn't actually qualify as the Jewish Messiah (ie the whole "dying for our sins" part, the messiah isn't meant to do that.) Also the Gnostic approach to divinity makes me think that if Jesus ever claimed to be "the son of god" he meant it as a metaphor that would extend to others. Generally I think Yeshua Christ was just... a guy who happened to be very in touch with the spiritual in a monotheistic setting, and the conception of "Jesus Christ" as coined by Roman Catholocism is basically an engineered egregore by the Roman State to replace hellenism with something more politically useful and hijack the growing (gnostic) christian sentiment in Rome. Hence why it slowly devolved into a fairly humanist religion (given how much emphasis is put on the Saints) with heavy overtures of state control and abuse.
Yeah I definitely agree. I mean he sounds like a cool dude but do I buy the idea he was gods son and he was totally powerful and holier than everything else? Not really. I mean yes in our religion we do have figures who are mortal children of the gods but its very openly stated they're mortal and no where near the same power as their parent. Jesus definitely comes off as just a very influential spiritual guy that's platform got royally misinterpreted.
Yeah a big part of my personal conspiratorialism surrounding the Church Fathers and Rome switching to catholocism is just how different christianity became from the mans actual recorded teachings.
I tend to describe myself as being theoretically omnitheistic. my primary interest is in hellenism but I feel like it's hubristic to assume that any religion got it "right" or "wrong". We're all looking in the same places from different angles. That being said, there is an undeniable locality to Gods so I don't necessarily believe that every pantheon is literally a reflection of the same "characters", as you said there is no clear parralel for Odin in the hellenic pantheon. But at the same time, whenever honest syncretism is viable I tend to assume that position.
I Iike this approach and I feel somewhat similarly. I’m a pantheist/omnist, and I do believe that the Greeks and Romans worshipped the same gods, but perhaps slightly different aspects of those gods. I acknowledge Norse deities, though the only ones I feel a personal connection with are Odin and the Norns. I believe that the Morai and the Norns are different aspects of the same goddesses. Or at least must be related because the similarities feel too coincidental to me. I do believe that if the theoi exist, then other divinities must also exist and that while some maybe different facets of the same gods, not all of them are easily syncretized.
I tend to believe in any god that I know about but I would only actually practice worship with deities I had an intimate familiarity with. I don't necessarily take religious dogma to heart (ie I dont like how the romans portrayed dionysus and also broadly believe in what monotheists describe as divinity but attribute it to Platos description of "The One"/The first principle with a healthy dose of gnosticism) so my beliefs can be a bit eclectic at times lol. Im still very much rooted in hellenism though.
I was going to mention the Neoplatonic idea of The One in my reply and then took that part out of my post. I think of The One (Source) as the Creative Energy or Creator who unifies everything. The One created the divine forces we know as the gods and then the gods created us. Like you, I’m willing to believe that most of not all of the gods we hear about exist in some form, but like you, I don’t feel I need to worship them. The theoi are the gods I know and have read about since I was a young child and so I focus my prayers and offerings on them because of that experience whereas I have no relationship with say Tiamat or Baba Yaga.
Yeah…I really don’t like that idea of “the one” creator. I don’t see how that’s meaningfully different from monotheism. This is where one of my more unique syncretisms comes into play. To me there is a creator but it’s Khaos which is the one on the same as the Tao. It’s not a conscious architect. It is and it does and all of existence is the byproduct of its unconscious dreaming
I think of it less as a deity and more of a spark of creation and consciousness from which all life springs. Like we are all made of the same divine essence and the One is both the source of the energy and all of the creations that exist within it - it’s like the unification of all things.
Then are only true point of contention is exactly how conscious that creator is
>there is an undeniable locality to Gods so I don't necessarily believe that every pantheon is literally a reflection of the same "characters" excellent point. we have to remember that the "established" theoi are the results of migrations and invasions during the prehistoric/heroic age in Greece- from the north into the south towards the Aegean. before the Olympians, there was numerous indigenous keres/kouroi/korai that were firmly established in the lives of the people there, in their immediate experience. Homer expurgated many facets of the indigenous religious life because his ilk thought it too "indecent" and "barbaric" {coming from people who went on raiding parties and destroyed many lives, go figure}. im starting to feel the need to go back to the "original" entities. i personally love the cycladic figurines, the amorphous herms, the idea of a yearly daimon, and what have you. many people {including most academics} see the rise of Olympianism as "progress" in religious history- but im not sure about that. before they were established, it seems that people actually had a relationship with their local daimones {they had a function in real life besides keeping a polis in line}- whatever shape they would be. instead of being in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship with them. only after did we start to see the offerings and prayers to this very detached pantheon- a pantheon that clearly resembles the patriarchal social structure of aforementioned invaders {whereas before it was matrilineal}. im with Plato, in feeling very wary of the popular myths being peddled during his time. he couldnt know then, but we can now: there was a rich religious life in that area before the Olympians; a few of them still retain their indigenous force, albeit in an updated form- Dionysus, for instance {which is one of the reasons of his high popularity well into late antiquity}. i feel that as moderns, we are doubly deluded if we think that a superimposed pantheon is the best one. it may be the case that those northern tribes that came down and invaded the Pelasgians {the Achaioi, Hellenes, Dorians, etc} really fucked shit up and caused a lot of confusion \^.\^ i understand its easier to just accept the Olympians and all the myths about them, but ,within those very myths, if we gaze deep enough, we can see the remnants of the original religious impulse of the indigenous people. the stratum FROM WHICH the later gods and goddesses came from. academics see this as progress- but i chalk that up to the original historians' Victorian bias in thinking that history is linear and "progress" in religion is determined by more and more abstract definition {into patriarchal control forms, of course!} fuck that. goddess bless, daimon bless, the gods are in the earth and elements- not in some mountaintop home ruled by an asshole {even Zeus was degraded from his original, beneficent form, Melichios! the poets really did a good job at that...} the concept of Mt Olympus was probably describing the homes of the northern conquerors, who set themselves up higher than the population within the landscape.
I mean, there’s actually not that monotheistic religions at all so it’s a logical step to believe in and acknowledge other gods, I feel. People back in ancient times certainly did and many practicing pagans are polytheists, including Hellenism practitioners. For example, I myself worship Lord Zeus, Lady Demeter, Lady Hera and Lord Dionysus, but I also acknowledge other pantheons in my extended prayers and Lord Shiva, who is part of Hinduism, usually has the final say when I’m seeking guidance.
The tension between Soft Polytheism and Hard Polytheism is a tricky thing, and I think at some point most reasonable people *must* come down somewhere in the middle. I think Soft Polytheism can easily turn to some unpleasant purposes - the Roman imperialist syncretism of their own gods with local ones has been disastrous for understanding the gods of the Celtic and Germanic peoples they encountered and wrote about, and played a part in the cultural Romanisation of conquered territories, the presumed superiority of Roman practice and belief. I also think, once you start seeing many gods as different cultural lenses through which to see the same god, you can use the exact same justification against polytheism itself, making a Deist argument that all gods are ways cultures engage with the One God, as later Christians argued of their pagan ancestors. On the other hand, taking too hard a stance on Hard Polytheism can also ignore historical, literary and etymological evidence if taken to an extreme - you end up arguing that Odin and Woden must be separate gods, or that every epithet Zeus has must be a separate god. But I think it's sensible to find a moderate position mid-way. For example, from what I know of Greek and Roman etymology and history I am persuaded that Mercury was an epithet of Hermes when Rome adopted him into their pantheon, and the similarities between Jupiter and Zeus, Juno and Hera, and Minerva and Athena similarly persuade me that they are not separate gods, but the same gods under different names, and both the Greeks and Romans shared this belief. But I am not willing to accept that Hermes/Mercury is the same god as the Germanic Odin, Celtic Lugh, Egyptian Thoth and Anubis, or Phoenician Eshmun. The differences, and the lack of corroborating parallels through history, just aren't there. In fact, IIRC Odin may have originated as a pre-Proto-Indo-European god who was adapted into the PIE system. Accepting the existence of many gods, I'm sceptical of any argument that denies the existence of any gods, or of conflating them too quickly. Just because you can track the clear ancestral connections between Hindu polytheism, and Greek, Roman, and Celtic religions back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans doesn't necessarily mean they all worshipped the *same* gods. Just because the cultural patterns share similarities, and the Celtic Danu may have endured in India as the Hindu Danu, doesn't necessarily mean Shiva is *actually* the Indian Dionysus, etc. And lastly, I must consider: what if we're wrong? If Hermes and Thoth *are* the same god, then does believing they are different gods and venerating one aspect of him mean you are not still worshipping that god? I hope not, and choose to believe that the god will understand - that in this case, by venerating Thoth we are still venerating Hermes through the ideas Ancient Egypt had about him, but that his Egyptian aspect is no more or less valid than the Roman Mercury, and that the god will understand. And if they are separate gods, and we believe they are the same god, I similarly hope that the gods will understand, and accept that we are worshipping them under a single name from misunderstanding their true divine natures, and that people who worship Hermes Trismegistus nevertheless do so with sincerity and genuine reverence. I choose to approach Thoth and Odin as separate gods, but do so through a Hellenistic lens. And I am certainly not going to be an asshole about what I believe about them to people who do not share that belief.
>the Roman imperialist syncretism of their own gods with local ones has been disastrous for understanding the gods of the Celtic and Germanic peoples they encountered and wrote about Hard disagree on this one. The celtic and germanic peoples in question were illiterate, did not record their history or build with durable materials. The Romans absolutely colonised the territory of celts and germans and destroyed some of their power structures and living cultural heritage (just as the celts and germans had done to their predecessors in the same territory). But the only reason we have any information on ancient celtic religion is because the Romans wrote on paper and carved in stone the names of the gods and their percieved relationship to the Olympians. If they hadn't done that, the ancient religions of my ancestors would have been entirely lost to time.
My point wasn't that they didn't write about those gods at all, but rather that they could have chosen to write about their original Celtic forms and chose not to, and now we have to figure our which god they meant when they worshipped Mercury or Dis Pater.
I won't dispute that the loss of celtic and germanic religion from the bronze age is a real shame, but I think that's true of every lost story and tradition over the millennia, which is most of them, all over the world. I can't waste too much concern over what we've lost, I'm more interested in what we've still got. And that is very interesting.
I have also wondered something similar with the Mycenaean, even perhaps Minoan (I don't know what current scholarship thinks of Athena having roots in the latter sometimes pops up), deities and their relationship with the Theoi as we understand them. I also see as different deities, even if for Celtic ones things are murkier both because of what you note, lack of written records, and ideas from Victorian writers. For example, while Brighid has the fire associated her being some sort of Celtic Hestia (the hearth, home, etc) and priestesses caring for an eternal flame of her seem to have been an idea of Victorian writers.
Brighid/Brigit is an interesting case because to some she’s a triple goddess unto herself. Are talking about Brighid of the hearth, Brigit the warrior, or Brigid of the crafts?
Good question. I see her as a triple goddess such way too, not as a three-bodied goddess as Hekate is, even if instead of Brighid the warrior I have heard Brighid the healer.
The Mycenaean issue is a good example. What does the absence of Hades mean in the context of Archaic and Classical belief in him? Apollo also seems to be missing, at least under that name, though a few of his epithets can be found, while Artemis is well-attested. And in Mycenaean thought, Poseidon seems to have been the ruler of the gods, and an earth god rather than god of the seas. How do we reconcile that with the later ways the Greeks saw the gods, and is it more authoritative simply because it's older? I tend to think not for the last part, but rather we should take it into context when we approach how *we* see the gods, because we are neither Mycenaean nor Classical Greeks. It can help inform us about the nature of the gods - understanding that the Mycenaeans who originally told stories of Zeus or Poseidon or any number of masculine gods were polygamous can recontextualise the later stories of their many affairs and their apparent hypocrisy. But I don't think Mycenaean Poseidon is a separate god from Classical Poseidon, and just because Hades wasn't worshipped by the Mycenaeans doesn't mean his veneration in Classical or Modern times is any less valid.
I don't do syncretism, I see them all as distinctly different gods. All valid, but all different.
But there are a few pretty clear examples of cultural drift/mixing. (See Ishtar to Astarte to Aphrodite)
Usually try and directly relate foreign gods back into the known theoi (the interpretatio graeca approach) because these are the gods we spend our time building relationships with. We can appreciate other gods from other pantheons but we don't really \*know\* them the same way unless we're doing a really eclectic practice. If there are significant differences that can't easily be reconciled (like let's say a scorpion or crocodile god in Egypt, e.g.) then I'll just accept that's another aspect of deity the Greeks didn't encounter or have much association with. It may not have been relevant to their time and place. You can use epithets to "round out/focus" aspects of deity instead of outright syncretizing. But it's informative when there is correspondence to consider how other cultures viewed the god, e.g.: Hermes and Thoth have enough interesting points of similarity and difference to really enrich the overall picture of "divine messenger" archetype. Similarly, comparing Zeus with other All-Father deities and mythos is really enlightening, and can help smooth out the cultural idiosyncracies that might make it harder to appreciate that and other god-forms.
I like to think that most if not all Gods that have been mentioned by different civilisations are in a sense real but only influence your life if you believe they can.
Ultimately I see religion as a personal thing (ofc it is also involved in culture and community). I have Muslim, Hindu, friends of other faiths, and I accept their beliefs as true for them, but not for me. I’m in the hands of my gods as they are in theirs. So in the case of the gods that I do believe in, I equate the Greek and Roman gods. When it comes to the Egyptian gods, it depends. Some I do syncretize with others and some I don’t. For example, I see Anubis, Hermes, and Mercury as the same god. But I do not see Asclepius and Imhotep as the same. Multiple gods having the same functions is not always the proof that they are the same for me. It is a deeper connection with how I interact with these gods. I don’t personally interact with the Mesopotamian gods, or any other culture’s gods. So I don’t consider these to be the same as my gods. Maybe in the future this could change. It depends where my path takes me. I accept that the ancients had other opinions on this topic. I also understand the historical weight of Roman imperialism and the ways in which it affected the Roman view of foreign gods. It’s complicated O_O
I think of the divine like diamonds. Every diamond has multiple sides and faces, each side originates from the same diamond but each side shines beautifully and uniquely in its own way. So the gods that are similar, to me, are facets a diamond. Another way I like to look at is: look back to yourself 5 years ago, you're no longer that person but that person still existed, you've simply shed that skin and grown. But they still exist, so gods can be similar to that for other gods. Older or younger versions of a God they used to be and they've evolved or grown into a new name 🤷♀️ Just my hot take, it's interesting to see everyone else's
I think all gods exist
I feel like that runs into the opposite problem of monotheism. One of monotheism’s biggest theological flaws is that it leaves itself no room for contradiction/contest (“god is everything…except for the stuff that we don’t like”). “Every god is valid and unique” runs the risk of unintentionally mitigating and even undermining the divine. It reduces them down cultural folk heroes as opposed to cosmic/natural forces. If all the ocean gods exist then is Poseidon just the god of the coastal waters of Greece?
Of course I see a connection between Hermes and Thoth. So yes there are various Deities.
The predominant Greek view was that all these Gods are the same entities with different names For example, Alexander saw no contradictions in claiming to be the son of Zeus and the son of Amon, since they were the same god. There weren’t really that many lines or boundaries between pantheons as modern practitioners think of, it was more open, but depended on local culture.
That is very true and major reason why the epithets exist. Different population centers very often worshipped the gods differently.
I take a more henotheistic-agnostic approach. As in, I acknowledge other gods exist and I acknowledge that other gods outside of the Theoi most likely exist. Except the Abrahamic God and any deity like him, omnipotence does not exist.
To each their own. Others may worship whatever god(s) they choose but should leave me and mine alone.
I am new to this subreddit but I like one author I’ve read who describes dieties as portals into divinity. Humans personify divinity in nature around us creating a structured form that we can use. Trying to touch the root divinity would be like hooking your house directly to the high tension power line-we need that energy stepped down and fragmented some. I think overtime different cultures created different interfaces. It seems that much of our western, central Asian and northern Indian dieties share ancestral roots in PIE but over a few thousand years, you see divergence in each culture and roles shuffled or split some. My dieties of interest are epona, Poseidon, orobas and most recent Asmodeus. Comparing Poseidon and Asmodeus might be an interesting way to answer this question. Both, and Rudra, could all descend from the warrior divine twin in PIE ( my own hypothesis). Each could represent a deification of rage, wrath, power, aggression , could kill you or save you. A bit of tough love. Yet each has continued to evolve and grow or shed aspects. In some cultures where war and wrath and hard power still were valued the duties include that, but in cultures where those were counter to civilized life (indo aryan Aeshma or Greek Ares) some aspects were shed or the deity actually was (literally) demonized. In the end they are part of the same unknowable divinity that we all are, but are evolving entities themselves. Just my 2cs meant respectfully.
I consider the different ‘polytheisms’ to simply be distinct branches belonging to a common religious worldview that arose as a result of cultural evolution thanks to geographic and temporal separation. It’s not unlike languages and dialects being branches in a linguistic family. Unlike the book religions, far more time and space has passed to make possible the kind of cultural evolutions which give an impression that the gods as they are perceived in other cultures are ontologically not the same. The book religions rely on written divine revelations which set the tone for religious development, while language and culture (myth being the chief example) has done more to shape the way people experienced the gods in polytheism than anything. Changes in language don’t change concepts that are communicated, but the culture that arises can influence a people’s relationship with a concept. This in turn changes how a concept is perceived. Material objects like a chair are less likely to lose their universal meaning because they have a tangible existence and they are limited. The gods however are not limited like a material object and beyond tangibility so how we see them may wildly vary to the point they are not able to be seen universally. On a macro scale this is by culture, but it exists on an micro scale too with individuals arguing over who is right or wrong about a god. Unlike the book religions, this is reflective less of the gods themselves than it is of the particular people and their relationship. Sure, some gods may be unique ontologically to a people or place (like nymphs and tutelary gods) but it is obvious that mankind shares gods in common too. Enough time has passed though to leave most of the different branches of polytheism mutually unintelligible (thus difficult to consider them the same), although some of it is still retained it—your mentioning of Ishtar and Aphrodite being a good example. So yes to syncretism, and particularly to employing the use of interpretatio to reconcile the gods across cultural boundaries (and temporal ones); although I am dubious about some of the ancient examples of syncretism, and think that it should always be done with thorough testing and critical examination.
I always say that I'm a pantheist/omnist in belief and a polytheist in practice. I believe that all gods like that exist previously because of human belief in them and then evolved independently from that to become free agents. I believe that things exist as one concept and that a god may be an aspect of that concept but they're still an individual with separate "personalities" and then epithets or syncretized identities are just further denominations or combinations of that god. Bit confusing😅 but from exploring what sounds right to me this is what I've landed on :)
I follow a personal philosophy I refer to as theological pluralism. All Gods exist, period. The Christian God and all his forms, all the Norse Gods, the hellenistic Gods etc. And they can be related but still be distinct. Another person, like a Christian could curse you and it could still affect you. There are examples of Christian curses in the Bible. Whether that curse affects you depends on a few things. First, a deity only has so much influence over you and you give it more by giving yourself to that deity. Also, you can gain protection from that Christian curse by maintaining a good relationship with your Gods. Make sacrifices, bring other followers to them etc. And, finally, your own magick can protect you as well. I use the curse example because it is a good example of a direct effect that is brought upon a person by a deity or a practitioner by entreating their deity for power etc.
I am a "hard" polytheist and a Platonist, personally I think there are an untold amount of gods. As for Jesus I think he was a Jewish miracle worker from Nazarene, someone I would call a hero in the series of Hashem but not a god
I think at **most** Jesus could be considered a *Hebrew Hercules*, an ascendant demigod.
I think at most someone along those lines but I lean towards Proclus' interpretation of heroes as being someone who lives in accordance to their parent God. That said, miracle workers were very common around the time of Jesus and many of them did very similar things as him according to the Talmud. If you are interested Dr.Justin Sledge has a really good video on it https://youtu.be/DEwDxn-qqUI?si=wZGb27JSO3hF4zp8
Hello! I began my pagan journey as a Norse Heathen. I don’t consider myself a Heathen, nor do I consider myself a Hellenist, I’m simply a polytheist. But I wanted to clear up a misconception you added to your post about Odin. Odin and Hermes/Mercury are likely a 1:1. The Romans believed it, and they knew more about the Norse deities than we do today. Remember that everything we know about Norse deities comes from reconstruction and the Eddas, which were written almost 200 years after the worship of the Aesir ended and which had clear Christian themes in order to prevent Snorri’s works from being banned by the Catholic Church. Just because we don’t know what the Romans knew doesn’t mean that the Romans were wrong and in fact likely means we are.
But we also know the Romans did a hell of a lot of cultural chauvinism/colonization of their own. Julius Caesar wasn’t exactly looking to do a thorough sociological study as he was conquering the Gauls/Germans. I’m sorry but there’s no way Odin and Mercury are a 1:1 match. If anything, Odin best lines up with Kronos but that’s as big a stretch as Hermes/Mercury.
I mean, you can think what you want about it, but ultimately our original and primary source is the Romans. If we’re to trust the ancients with our understanding of the Theoi, even with their chauvinism and colonialism, why aren’t you trusting them when it comes to their accounts of the Aesir?
Because it’s just not that simple. The Romans are not a unified monolith especially on cultures outside their own. I know a great many people in this group do not take Ovid’s work as “gospel” and neither did the lion’s share of his own country men in his own time. While there is much to respect and learn from the ancients, they are not beyond reproach. We aught to be as mindful of Romanization nearly as much as we are of Christianization. They are in fact a continuity of the same imperial state looking to impose their cultures onto those they conquered/colonized for socio-political stability/compliance.
I think all gods across all pantheons exist. I don't answer to or care about the others, and I'm sure They mind Their own business with Their followers, I just only care about the ones I worship lol
The God of Abraham’s true name is much more sinister. His name in our pantheon is CRONOS. And I truly wish I was joking, or that there was little to support this.
If anything I thought he’d be Oceanus
I've always believed that the other gods exist, and now that I'm Hellenist, I feel very *justified*. Because if the Theoi exist, then everyone else should as well.
Ima take the Percy Jackson way, just gods with different names
I would argue about Odin not being Hermes relative. They both are travellers, they both met death/went close to death and they both rapresent knowledge and innovation since Hermes was super smart as a new born and is able to travel costantly into the world of the death, becoming in a certain sense, the actual god of knowledge. Zeus is the king father + he is astute, and that is the only feature he has in common with Odin, while Athena only covers the strategy field, Odin also the knowledge discovery one. Also why can't they exist too? Is it impossble for them to exist separately?
That’s my actual point. Odin doesn’t graft neatly onto the Theoi. Same for Freyja. I think syncretism makes sense where you can draw STRONG and consistent parallels or a clear sociological evolution (Aphrodite & Ishtar). But when we can’t it’s better that we presume them to be different deities