Topic: Polytheism

[chrevbel]

Am reading Virgil's Aeneid.  No compelling reason why, except that I found a copy of it on sale and that I've been generally (albeit slowly) pursuing a course of "catching up" on reading some things most people read in high school or college.  But already I digress.

It occurred to me that polytheism seems to have completely died.  Is this in fact true?  Or am I just out of touch?  Are there any people today who believe in gods of the sea, and of war, and of love, and of messengers to the other gods, etc.?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Hindus are polytheists.

[deusveritasest]

Hindus are polytheists.

That's highly over-simplistic.

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Hindus are polytheists.

That's highly over-simplistic.

No the more traditional Hindus do worship many different gods. Am I incorrect? I know there are different schools of thought, but the common dirt farmer in India is a polytheist. I welcome correction though.

[chrevbel]

As I figured I'd do before I even posted the question, I checked Wikipedia.  (Though perhaps not considered univerally authoritative, it sure is handy.)

About polytheism it says "It persists into the modern period in traditions such as Hinduism, Shintoism, Chinese folk religion, etc., and it has been revived in currents of Neopaganism in the post-Christian West."

And concerning Hinduism, it states "Religious Hinduism is a broad category which encompasses both monotheistic and polytheistic tendencies, and variations on or mixes of both structures."

So I guess the answer to my original question is "It's complicated."

On a complete tangent...

I found very interesting the reference to the "post-Christian West."  Is the West now generally considered post-Christian?  Or is that just one contributor's take?

[Jetavan]

Before you can talk about whether poly-theism (still) exists, we must first agree on a definition of "theos".

[NorthernPines]

Hindus are polytheists.

That's highly over-simplistic.

No the more traditional Hindus do worship many different gods. Am I incorrect? I know there are different schools of thought, but the common dirt farmer in India is a polytheist. I welcome correction though.

No, deusveritasest is correct, that's terribly over simplistic. I mean, someone could make the same argument about some uneducated peasants and "dirt farmers" in Orthodox countries too. I've seen some Orthodox, who I wonder at times if they really do not think Mary is in fact a goddess, or Saint George is in fact some sort of "god". I mean don't some Orthodox accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary? I know this is common on Mount Athos. I once read a book where a Catholic monk visited Athos for a summer and he kept getting asked, "is it true the Pope is going to make Mary a 4th member of the Trinity?" and "isn't that why Catholics make the sign of the cross with a flat palm, 4 fingers = trinity + mary". It's all nonsense of course but it just goes to show that some Orthodox believe really weird things about other people, why not about their own faith?

 I don't say that to attack our faith, only to point out the argument you have made could be turned right back on us, as is often done by ultra Fundamentalist Protestants.

The answer to your questions depends upon what it is that you are actually asking. Are you asking what the common man of a given faith believes? Or are you asking what the theologians in a given faith believe and teach? I think there has ALWAYS been a dichotomy between these two groups. Again, I've seen Christians say, do and believe some really crazy things, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. Some of us like to joke that Protestants "worship the Bible" but I have actually seen and heard things come out of a few of my Protestant friend's mouths that made me think that they really were Bibliolaters. I could tell stories of things I've overheard some Orthodox, including converts, not just cradles say, that made me go, "wait a minute, what are you saying exactly?" I've heard priests give crypto-Docetic sermons before. That doesn't make any of these people "bad" people, or heretics in my opinion, it's just the way things are. I'm sure if all these people really thought about what the said they'd go "no, no, um, I know I said that but I meant this"...I've done probably 100's of times myself. I think most of us can only ever get closer and closer to the truth on a personal basis I mean, (the truth proclaimed within and by the Church) none of us will ever completely "get there" in this life. I think it's like theosis and even a part of it.

Okay, as for Hindus, yes there are some Hindus that are simply raw polytheists, but generally speaking Hinduism is not polytheistic. And I believe many, many Hindus know this. I think most are familiar with the concept of the Brahman etc and how THAT is the source of all being, THAT is what we would call "God" and all the other gods are manifestations of the Brahman, the One, the well you get the picture. But since The Brahman for Hinduism, is impersonal, most people are devoted to one or more than one of the gods, and their avatars. They speak of these avatars as their gods,  as though they were actually polytheists, but I think many Hindus understand what it is they are saying even if we do not. Their avatars or Incarnations are the way we view Jesus Christ. For us he is the ONLY Incarnation. For Hindus he is but one of many. In the end though it seems a lot of Hindus are at most Tri-theists, and all the other incarnations come from these three. The philosophers go even further and say those three are manifestations of The One. So if hinduism looks complicated from the outside, it's even more so from the inside, but if one is raised in that culture it's probably all second nature.

 I tend to compare the way most of us see Hinduism as comparable to how an ultra Iconoclastic Protestant would view us even though we're not.

A lot of Hindu gurus see the common peasant styled Hinduism as being a sort of "first step" in Hinduism. Nothing wrong with that step or path. Totally appropriate, and may help many people achieve union with the Brahman, but those with a more "spiritual" view don't need all the pomp and circumstance of rituals, festivals, music etc.

It's all very complex and fascinating and I KNOW I haven't done Hinduism any justice in this poor attempt at explaining a religion that has been around in some form for 6000 years, but what can ya do in a few paragraphs? It's also such a vast religion, with divergent traditions that one group or another would refute everything I just said. There is no teaching body per se, so it's hard to pin point things. However I personally do not classify Hinduism as a polytheistic religion. Not that my opinions mean a hill of beans, but I don't see it as raw polytheism even if from the outside it appears that way. Yes I'm sure many common folks don't make any such distinctions in their own minds, but that was kind of John Calvin's argument against Christian iconography. Sure he said, the theologians KNOW that statue isn't Mary, or Joseph but do you really think the peasant bowing and scraping before that thing, praying, crying, weeping, offering flowers etc is making that distinction in their mind?

 It's an interesting question, but I think Calvin was wrong. I think most people, when pushed would recognize the distinction today. I could be wrong though, who knows. I've only studied Hinduism from the outside, not from the inside so I might have it wrong. Fascinating none the less.
 

[Cognomen]

As others have stated, Hinduism is not really a coherent, uniform system of beliefs, and any attempt to classify Hinduism would be overly simplistic.

That said, I believe it's a little silly to claim that there is not a heavily polytheistic theme in many "Hindu" traditions.  Sure, we can debate various terms, Religious Studies jargon, etc, but that doesn't cancel the fact that within "Hinduism" many "gods" are worshiped.  Are these "gods" considered manifestations of one big God?  Sometimes, sometimes not.

[NorthernPines]

Am reading Virgil's Aeneid.  No compelling reason why, except that I found a copy of it on sale and that I've been generally (albeit slowly) pursuing a course of "catching up" on reading some things most people read in high school or college.  But already I digress.

It occurred to me that polytheism seems to have completely died.  Is this in fact true?  Or am I just out of touch?  Are there any people today who believe in gods of the sea, and of war, and of love, and of messengers to the other gods, etc.?

You're talking about raw polytheism, which almost certainly doesn't exist in modern Hinduism. (a god for every aspect of nature etc)


from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism#Contemporary_world_religions

Religious Hinduism is a broad category which encompasses both monotheistic and polytheistic tendencies, and variations on or mixes of both structures. So common worship is largely polytheistic, though even many regular worshipers understand that all religions ultimately point to one God ("Sarva Dharma Samaan hai"/"All religions are the same"). Hindu philosophers and theologians also argue for a transcendent metaphysical structure with a single divine essence. This divine essence is usually referred to as Brahman or Atman, but the understanding of the nature of this absolute divine essence is the line which defines many Hindu philosophical traditions such as Vedanta.

notice the bold part there, even among those we would deem polytheistic they in a sense really are not. No ancient Greek polytheist for example would have said "worshipping Zeus and Apollo really points to the One God of creation/being"...no they were polytheistic in the truest sense. Many gods, all different, and one could over throw another, or give you help in war while another could help in love etc... They were ends to themselves where that doesn't seem to be the case in Hinduism. But it is as you say, complicated...LOL!


Polytheism does still exist in some tribal/native societies though. I'm not that familiar with say South American and African tribal cultures but I'm pretty sure polytheism still exists in a pretty raw form in those cultures. Then we do have some of these "reconstructionist" movements which are attempting to give new life and revice the ancient polytheistic religions. (good luck getting converts for that) It's interesting your comment about what you're reading, as really by the 1st century many Romans were becoming increasingly disenchanted with polytheism. It was already on it's "way out" even then, though it took another 500 years, lots of people were already interested in monotheism, hence Gentiles attending Synagogues, which made for the pool of first Christian converts.

But it does exist in some places in the world, even today. great post and question though, I love this sort of stuff.

[Asteriktos]

Taoism and traditional Chinese religion in general is/can be polytheistic (not sure where the line is between them, or if there is a line for many). That would count for hundreds of millions of more polytheists (besides the Hinduism debate).

[stashko]

I Have A Greek friend that preaches the 12 Pagan gods that Greece use to worship, he believes in them, and still claims to be Orthodox...... 

[NorthernPines]

I Have A Greek friend that preaches the 12 Pagan gods that Greece use to worship, he believes in them, and still claims to be Orthodox...... 

 

They say there is nothing new under the sun, but I think I've just heard one!

[Fr. George]

NP: There are Greeks in Athens who have revived worship of the Olympian gods, and have petitioned the Greek state to open up some of the archeological sites so they can resume worship within the ancient temples.

[Jetavan]

Ancient Vedic fire ritual practiced again. Different Hindu schools of theology interpret what the devas (or "deities") that attend this ritual, really are. Shaiva Siddhanta, for instance, believes that the devas are created beings with subtle (finer-than-matter) bodies who live in the higher subtle realms. The Mahadevas, the "great Gods," are even more highly evolved, in even higher realms. The Supreme Mahadeva is Siva, who is uncreated and who has created the other mahadevas, devas, and all of creation. Siva is the origin, and ultimate destiny, of all.

[NorthernPines]

NP: There are Greeks in Athens who have revived worship of the Olympian gods, and have petitioned the Greek state to open up some of the archeological sites so they can resume worship within the ancient temples.

Fr. George,

Yeah, I had read that before. I knew of some various Pagan "reconstructionists" movements, what I found astonishing was stashko's friend worships the Olympians and STILL claims to be an Orthodox Christian.  

It's just sooooo weird . . . it's kind of like claiming to be a Trekkie and liking the JJ Abram's "Star Trek" movie.  

(oh wait, hope that doesn't ruffle too many feathers...lol!)




NP

[Ortho_cat]

NP: There are Greeks in Athens who have revived worship of the Olympian gods, and have petitioned the Greek state to open up some of the archeological sites so they can resume worship within the ancient temples.

Because their country is in such a state of decline, they look towards their gods of old to restore their former glory.

[chrevbel]

I wonder if any of it is also based on "Hey, here's a cool way to have a good party, get some attention, and do some legitimized rabble-rousing!"

[Iconodule]

Taoism and traditional Chinese religion in general is/can be polytheistic (not sure where the line is between them, or if there is a line for many).

The line is blurry, but what is called "Taoism' is usually more formal- temples, priests, monks, nuns, etc. But yes, Taoism is polytheistic.

[Iconodule]

If Hinduism isn't polytheistic, then there is no such thing as polytheism. Yes, most Hindu theologies treat the deities as different manifestations of a single Godhead. Likewise, many schools of Taoism consider the gods to be emanations of a transcendent reality (Dao). Guess what? There were pagan Greek philosophers that did the same thing.

[Jetavan]

If Hinduism isn't polytheistic, then there is no such thing as polytheism.

Personally, I find the term "polytheism" to be so imprecise, as to be useless.

[NorthernPines]

If Hinduism isn't polytheistic, then there is no such thing as polytheism.

That's just so overly simplistic. One could argue the opposite about us; if Trinitarianism is "monotheistic" then they just aren't real monotheists. Sure you and I would argue in response, "it is monotheistic if you understand it correctly!" BINGO! That's exactly what a Hindu theologian would say as well.

Yes, most Hindu theologies treat the deities as different manifestations of a single Godhead.

Then how is that polytheism? One god, just many incarnations = polytheism?  That's not true polytheism. Poly-incarnational perhaps, but not polytheism. I'm sure there is some scholarly word to describe it, but it's not polytheism in the classical sense of the word. (a belief in many gods, separate and distinct "beings"/minds from one another etc.)  Just think about it. Classical polytheism, like the gods of Olympus were NOT seen as emanations of one all powerful source. They were seen as beings in their own right, who may have come into being from the Titans, but where none the less distinct and were in no sense "revealing" a piece of a whole truth to anyone or anything. Zeus didn't come to reveal the truth of the Brahman, he came to, well, do Zeus like things and be worshiped and feared. (of course there is no Zeus, but you see what I mean) That's what I call raw polytheism, or classical polytheism. Almost no one in modern Hinduism understands Hinduism in that respect. Practically speaking they might be called, "polytheistic" in a sense, but not in the sense most everyone means by that word.

I believe it is of the utmost importance to get facts, details, ideas and theologies as clear as we possibly can then judge them based on their own merits. As a priest once told me (while I was still a Protestant) if you want to know what Judaism teaches, go ask a Jew, don't ask Pat Robertson. That statement forever changed the way I gathered information about other religions. It's very easy to look at Hinduism and "see" polytheism, but then as I said, the same can and does happen with us, just ask John Hagee what we believe, he'll tell you!

I just do not believe the majority of Hinduism can be classified, well into any single framework really, but not polytheism either. That doesn't make me a Hindu though. I find much in the religion that is interesting, and in fact true, that still doesn't make me a Hindu anymore than seeing truth in the ancient Pagan religions made Justin martyr a worshiper of Isis or Mithras.

From a scholarly perspective titling all of Hinduism as polytheistic is useless. In a Christian missionary sense it would be useless too because a Hindu who has knowledge of his/her religion would either say, "So what?" or they'd respond, "uh no we're not. if you can't get even that detail right, why should I bother listening to anything else you say?" It's the same reaction most of us have when we're told we "worship icons/idols" we either brush them off as crack pots, or we think they just haven't the slightest clue about our religion. (see the massive thread with dattaswami to recall just how silly we see people who do not take the time to get our theologies straight)

Appearances can be deceiving, especially when viewing them from the outside. If any sort of Christian should understand this it should be Catholics and Orthodox.

Even putting aside Hinduism though, polytheism does still exist in some parts of the world. As does Animism and all sorts of religious and spiritual views. However much of the world is monotheistic, and I think this is a testament to the Church's ability to spread it throughout the world, even among those who are no Christians. Medieval Arabia got the idea of monotheism from the Church (and resident Judaism) and I suppose an argument could be made that even Hinduism, being influenced by monotheism began to adopt a more monotheistic approach. (though I think there is evidence there has always been a monotheistic strain within Hinduism dating back thousands of years) I guess that's all an exercise in futility because we'll never know. It is an interesting option though.

[Jetavan]

If Hinduism isn't polytheistic, then there is no such thing as polytheism.

That's just so overly simplistic. One could argue the opposite about us; if Trinitarianism is "monotheistic" then they just aren't real monotheists. Sure you and I would argue in response, "it is monotheistic if you understand it correctly!" BINGO! That's exactly what a Hindu theologian would say as well.

Yes, most Hindu theologies treat the deities as different manifestations of a single Godhead.

Then how is that polytheism? One god, just many incarnations = polytheism?  That's not true polytheism. Poly-incarnational perhaps, but not polytheism. I'm sure there is some scholarly word to describe it, but it's not polytheism in the classical sense of the word. (a belief in many gods, separate and distinct "beings"/minds from one another etc.)  Just think about it. Classical polytheism, like the gods of Olympus were NOT seen as emanations of one all powerful source.

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

[chrevbel]

Then how is that polytheism?

Is it valid to say that Hinduism more resembles pantheism than polytheism?  That is, does Hinduism somewhat embrace the notion that everything is God, or could become God, or is becoming God?

[Jetavan]

Then how is that polytheism?

Is it valid to say that Hinduism more resembles pantheism than polytheism?  That is, does Hinduism somewhat embrace the notion that everything is God, or could become God, or is becoming God?

Nope. Hinduism, in general, is PanEntheistic: God permeates all things, but God also transcends all things.

[Cognomen]

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

That's a common existing element of polytheistic traditions.  Many gods came from other gods or some type of "Metadivine Realm," e.g. Gaia. Most polytheistic traditions don't have the gods as being the creators and independently powerful.  

I also tend to think that the idea of "Hinduism" being monotheistic is somewhat exaggerated, and the idea that it is a uniform and coherent tradition certainly is.  Some 19th century Orientalists even went so far as arguing that Hindu worship was actually Trinitarian in nature, with Brahma being the creator and Vishnu and Shiva being other incarnations of this Godhead.  Fascinating, but not particularly accurate.  
Hinduism varies greatly and the religion you get depends on the region, city, or village you are in.  Again, some have this concept of incarnations of a Godhead, while others do not.

It seems that while pronouncing Hinduism as polytheistic may be oversimplified, so is saying that it's monotheistic or not "true polytheism."

Is it valid to say that Hinduism more resembles pantheism than polytheism?  That is, does Hinduism somewhat embrace the notion that everything is God, or could become God, or is becoming God?

I would say no.  Most believe in actual deities.  In other words, the sky, water, or trees aren't really gods, and the gods will actually enter the temple and idols.

 

[Jetavan]

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

That's a common existing element of polytheistic traditions.  Many gods came from other gods or some type of "Metadivine Realm," e.g. Gaia. Most polytheistic traditions don't have the gods as being the creators and independently powerful.  

So how are polytheistic origin narratives and monotheistic origin narratives different, if both posit that spiritual beings (gods, angels, jinns) come from a Supreme Source (God, Chaos, etc.)?

[Cognomen]

So how are polytheistic origin narratives and monotheistic origin narratives different, if both posit that spiritual beings (gods, angels, jinns) come from a Supreme Source (God, Chaos, etc.)?

There are various teachings on this, but the one I'm most familiar with states that Monotheistic traditions, specifically Abrahamic, place God as the sole creator, and subsequently God is not limited by any other force.  In contrast, gods did not create, but were typically created by either other gods or some sort of overarching "metadivine realm," i.e. Supreme Source.

Gods can thwart each others' wills and be limited by the overarching realm, whether that is chaos, gaia, the cosmos, samsara, or what not.  While angels, jinn, etc come from God, God does not come from anything.  Gods, on the other hand, do come from an external Supreme Source.

Of course these are just Religious Studies theories and understandings, I'm not claiming that they are true.

[NorthernPines]

So how are polytheistic origin narratives and monotheistic origin narratives different, if both posit that spiritual beings (gods, angels, jinns) come from a Supreme Source (God, Chaos, etc.)?

There are various teachings on this, but the one I'm most familiar with states that Monotheistic traditions, specifically Abrahamic, place God as the sole creator, and subsequently God is not limited by any other force.

Considering so much of the Torah is full of polytheistic tendencies I wouldn't be quite so quick to jump on that as totally accurate. Genesis itself says "let us make man in our image". I know that the Christian/Jewish interpretation is either the "us" are angels or a reference to the Trinity, but that seems to be a bit of apologetics to me. Of course it all depends if one believes Genesis and the Torah has one sole author; that assumption will color one's opinions. I side with modern scholarship, as well as a few Church fathers and even ancient Rabbis who noticed some pretty weird things in the Old Testament that are better explained by understanding the Torah was written by many different people and not by Moses and only Moses. Anyways I think we're getting a bit side tracked, or at least I am...LOL!

Gods can thwart each others' wills and be limited by the overarching realm, whether that is chaos, gaia, the cosmos, samsara, or what not. 

That's true, however even in ancient near eastern polytheism, the chaos gods, which as you said, were more powerful and actually existed first WERE overthrown by one "super god" who rescued the other members of a pantheon from the grasp of the chaos deity, and in return this super god was made the new king of the gods. Marduk overthrew Tiamat for example. In some of the Psalms we read about YHWH overthrowing Leviathan which was likely just a Hebrew name/version for the chaos dragon seen in other ancient near eastern religions. In the book of Job, when God is asking Job "who can tame Leviathan, who can subdue him" etc, this is what is being referred to...who else but YHWH can do these things?! Now I see this as all symbolism for a spiritual reality, and accept later Christian interpretation of it, but did the writers, even though he was inspired really have "death/sin" in mind, or did the author really think within the time frame he lived? I guess it doesn't matter, but I perceive the author really thought Leviathan was a chaos dragon that YHWH slew or would slay. I don't think the author thought it was all metaphor, and so this would have made him a polytheist. We kind of talked about this in another thread and I and a number of others just don't see a problem with thinking the Israelites slowly came to the realization that there was only one God, and not many. God after all meets us where we are, then draws us out of the darkness. I think that's what happened with the Israelites and the Patriarchs of old. I mean half the Old Testament essentially states that the other gods DO exist, but that they aren't as powerful as YHWH is.

While angels, jinn, etc come from God, God does not come from anything.  Gods, on the other hand, do come from an external Supreme Source.

But that external supreme force would be analogous to God, wouldn't it? That's how I see it anyways.

As we've said, Hinduism is down right impossible to label, it's a mixture of everything. I just tend to agree with those who are in fact Hindu (and thus would know what they believe) that they are generally not polytheistic today.

Of course these are just Religious Studies theories and understandings, I'm not claiming that they are true.

That's all I'm saying too. Nothing I've said a "truth" judgment just a Religious Topics/Studies introspection and dialogue.

[NorthernPines]

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

Hmmm...I'm sorry to say I need to go brush up on my Greek mythology because I don't remember...lol!

I think for them it was essentially an infinite regress though, I think Chaos came from somewhere and on back, which is why some of the Greek philosophers rejected the Greek religion outright and actually became monotheistic. I just don't recall though, I'm embarrassed to say. I say embarrassed because I used to know the Greek myths inside and out, but have long sense forgotten, if I ever knew this in the first place.

However, even if this is so, it kind of says something about monotheism does it not? That in some sense people deep down understand monotheism to be true? Just a thought anyways.

[Shiny]

Considering so much of the Torah is full of polytheistic tendencies I wouldn't be quite so quick to jump on that as totally accurate. Genesis itself says "let us make man in our image". I know that the Christian/Jewish interpretation is either the "us" are angels or a reference to the Trinity, but that seems to be a bit of apologetics to me. Of course it all depends if one believes Genesis and the Torah has one sole author; that assumption will color one's opinions. I side with modern scholarship, as well as a few Church fathers and even ancient Rabbis who noticed some pretty weird things in the Old Testament that are better explained by understanding the Torah was written by many different people and not by Moses and only Moses. Anyways I think we're getting a bit side tracked, or at least I am...LOL!

Whether or not the OT contains polytheistic tendencies, they must be analyzed in the light of Christ. I would even argue that the older books in the OT were man's attempt to try to reconcile who/what God is.

That's true, however even in ancient near eastern polytheism, the chaos gods, which as you said, were more powerful and actually existed first WERE overthrown by one "super god" who rescued the other members of a pantheon from the grasp of the chaos deity, and in return this super god was made the new king of the gods. Marduk overthrew Tiamat for example. In some of the Psalms we read about YHWH overthrowing Leviathan which was likely just a Hebrew name/version for the chaos dragon seen in other ancient near eastern religions. In the book of Job, when God is asking Job "who can tame Leviathan, who can subdue him" etc, this is what is being referred to...who else but YHWH can do these things?! Now I see this as all symbolism for a spiritual reality, and accept later Christian interpretation of it, but did the writers, even though he was inspired really have "death/sin" in mind, or did the author really think within the time frame he lived? I guess it doesn't matter, but I perceive the author really thought Leviathan was a chaos dragon that YHWH slew or would slay. I don't think the author thought it was all metaphor, and so this would have made him a polytheist. We kind of talked about this in another thread and I and a number of others just don't see a problem with thinking the Israelites slowly came to the realization that there was only one God, and not many. God after all meets us where we are, then draws us out of the darkness. I think that's what happened with the Israelites and the Patriarchs of old. I mean half the Old Testament essentially states that the other gods DO exist, but that they aren't as powerful as YHWH is.

Regarding the Leviathian, I believe there were oral traditions circulating at the time which suggested great monsters in the seas who were "gods" and why it was used in the Book of Job was saying "Even if there was this "god" the real, true God is in control".

Half of the OT? What parts? But doesn't this all conflict somehow with the "I Am that I Am" revelation received by Moses at the burning bush? Why the need for other gods? Wouldn't that anger God Himself?

[Cognomen]

Anyways I think we're getting a bit side tracked, or at least I am...LOL!

Guilty as charged here.  That's my understanding of Religious Studies positions on the OT as well, but also that the religious tradition ultimately developed into a monotheistic interpretation.   

Gods can thwart each others' wills and be limited by the overarching realm, whether that is chaos, gaia, the cosmos, samsara, or what not. 

That's true, however even in ancient near eastern polytheism, the chaos gods, which as you said, were more powerful and actually existed first WERE overthrown by one "super god" who rescued the other members of a pantheon from the grasp of the chaos deity, and in return this super god was made the new king of the gods. Marduk overthrew Tiamat for example. In some of the Psalms we read about YHWH overthrowing Leviathan which was likely just a Hebrew name/version for the chaos dragon seen in other ancient near eastern religions. In the book of Job, when God is asking Job "who can tame Leviathan, who can subdue him" etc, this is what is being referred to...who else but YHWH can do these things?! Now I see this as all symbolism for a spiritual reality, and accept later Christian interpretation of it, but did the writers, even though he was inspired really have "death/sin" in mind, or did the author really think within the time frame he lived? I guess it doesn't matter, but I perceive the author really thought Leviathan was a chaos dragon that YHWH slew or would slay. I don't think the author thought it was all metaphor, and so this would have made him a polytheist. We kind of talked about this in another thread and I and a number of others just don't see a problem with thinking the Israelites slowly came to the realization that there was only one God, and not many. God after all meets us where we are, then draws us out of the darkness. I think that's what happened with the Israelites and the Patriarchs of old. I mean half the Old Testament essentially states that the other gods DO exist, but that they aren't as powerful as YHWH is.

Again, I agree, but I think this just indicates the polytheistic roots of the OT, not the later monotheistic understanding.

While angels, jinn, etc come from God, God does not come from anything.  Gods, on the other hand, do come from an external Supreme Source.

But that external supreme force would be analogous to God, wouldn't it? That's how I see it anyways.

Analogous maybe, but perhaps not the same.  The external supreme force is not always identified as a god or worshiped as one; it can  just be a system or impersonal entity.   

As we've said, Hinduism is down right impossible to label, it's a mixture of everything. I just tend to agree with those who are in fact Hindu (and thus would know what they believe) that they are generally not polytheistic today.

Right, although "generally not polytheistic today" would be somewhat dependent on region, village, and the actual tradition.

Overall, far too many agreements and far too minuscule points of contention for us to spend this much time arranging these quotes (especially for someone of my technological limitations). 

[Cognomen]

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

You are right, but I'm not sure how this would change or remove the label of the Ancient Greek religion as polytheistic.  Whether the gods emanated from one source or not, they had independent wills from that source.  

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be arguing that ultimately, nothing is actually polytheistic. 

[Jetavan]

Didn't Zeus have a father and mother, Cronus and Rhea, who could trace their ancestry back to Gaia, who arose from Chaos, the primordial formlessness? So, in some sense, Zeus was an emanation of Chaos.

You are right, but I'm not sure how this would change or remove the label of the Ancient Greek religion as polytheistic.  Whether the gods emanated from one source or not, they had independent wills from that source.

Certain biblical angels also had independent wills, thus rebelling against God. But we don't associate them with the term 'polytheism'. Humans also have independent wills, though they were created by God -- and yet we don't call Genesis 'polytheistic' just because God created humans who possess independent wills.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be arguing that ultimately, nothing is actually polytheistic. 

I'm suggesting that "polytheism" only makes sense once one has defined what a "theos" is. Is a theos a being who has an independent will? Does it possess eternal existence? Is it all-powerful? Is it a spiritual being living in a spiritual realm? Does it ever take birth in a physical form? Is a theos a creator ex nihilo? Or simply a very powerful spirit?

If one defines a theos as a spiritual being living in a spiritual realm, then religions that teach about angels, ghosts, spirits, etc., are polytheistic.

If one defines a theos as a creator ex nihilo, then only the Abrahamic religions are theistic (specifically, monotheistic), and no major polytheistic tradition exists or has ever existed.

[Cognomen]

Certain biblical angels also had independent wills, thus rebelling against God. But we don't associate them with the term 'polytheism'. Humans also have independent wills, though they were created by God -- and yet we don't call Genesis 'polytheistic' just because God created humans who possess independent wills.

Correct, but that is because people within these religious traditions don't view these entities as gods.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be arguing that ultimately, nothing is actually polytheistic.

 
I'm suggesting that "polytheism" only makes sense once one has defined what a "theos" is. Is a theos a being who has an independent will? Does it possess eternal existence? Is it all-powerful? Is it a spiritual being living in a spiritual realm? Does it ever take birth in a physical form? Is a theos a creator ex nihilo? Or simply a very powerful spirit?

I don't mean to oversimplify the issue, but I don't think an exhaustive definition of "theos" is necessary.  Whether religions believe in and worship multiple gods, according to their understanding, should suffice.  Admittedly, this is sometimes difficult to accurately ascertain, e.g. different traditions within Hinduism, forms of Shamanism, etc., but sometimes it is not, e.g. the traditional understanding of Ancient Greek or Norse worship. 

If one defines a theos as a spiritual being living in a spiritual realm, then religions that teach about angels, ghosts, spirits, etc., are polytheistic.

Again, you seem to be following definitional relativism to the extreme. I agree that if you define theos that way, then religions with angels, ghosts, spirits, etc. would be considered polytheistic.  Simultaneously, if your construct understands various gods to be part of one major god, then they are monotheistic.  Monotheistic religions themselves tend to define these spiritual beings specifically as not being gods, whereas some polytheistic religions do the opposite. It's clear, within the context of the respective tradition, that a jinn is not considered a theos, but that Poseidon is. 

According to somewhat standard understandings of polytheism, a tradition with multiple gods, even if they have come from (although independent from) one god/external realm/force, qualifies them as such. 

If one defines a theos as a creator ex nihilo, then only the Abrahamic religions are theistic (specifically, monotheistic), and no major polytheistic tradition exists or has ever existed.

I've never seen that definition though, nor was I was implying it.  It does, however, tend to be a distinguishing factor between monotheistic and polytheistic traditions.  monotheistic traditions usually have a theos who is a creator ex nihilo, whereas polytheistic traditions do not. 

[Jetavan]

A Rabbi who believes in Zeus:

Second, I do believe in Zeus.

No, I don't think that there is a huge bearded guy dressed in a toga sitting in a palace on a mountain in the sky, looking to hurl his thunderbolt or abduct a beautiful human woman. Such a literal view may have been taken by some ancient Greeks, just as some today read their religion's stories literally, but this was not how the great philosophers and educated people of that time saw Zeus, and it is not the intent behind those who first described the many Greek deities. I believe in Zeus in the same way that Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, Heraclitus, and later, Plotinus, did -- as a poetic vision of a true aspect of the Divine. Plato makes this clear in Phaedrus, his mind-boggling treatise on the nature of the soul, where he wrote, "But of the heaven which is above the heavens what earthly poet ever did or ever will be worthily? There abides the very essence with which true knowledge is concerned; the colorless, formless, intangible spirit, visible only to mind, the pilot of the soul."

[Jetavan]

If one defines a theos as a spiritual being living in a spiritual realm, then religions that teach about angels, ghosts, spirits, etc., are polytheistic.

I agree that if you define theos that way, then religions with angels, ghosts, spirits, etc. would be considered polytheistic.

I would also suggest that "polytheistic" is not inherently a 'bad' word. Unfortunately, given the history of Christianity, the label "polytheism" has achieved very negative connotations (and denotations). I'm trying to show that, properly understood, free of ulterior motives, "polytheism" can be descriptive of the "monotheistic" faiths as well.

If one wants to claim that all the theoi (in, say, a particular Hindu tradition) all received their existence due to one ultimate source (say, Brahman), then that would not negate the polytheism of that tradition. Neither would it negate the polytheism of any Christian, Jewish, or Islamic tradition that traces its angels, jinn, or other spirits to one ultimate source.

The problem arises due to the particular definition of "God" that is found in the Abrahamic traditions when they (1) claim that only the Abrahamic traditions are monotheist (because the Abrahamic traditions define their theos as the "one source, one creator-of-all-things", which, by definition, can only exist as "one"); and then they (2) negate their previous definition of theos when looking at other traditions (Greek, Hindu, e.g.), claiming that they are polytheist (because these traditions believe in the existence of "many spiritual entities that exist as distinct persons in the spiritual worlds"), whereas in fact these traditions posit "one source, one creator-of-all-things" who has created/manifested-as those "many spiritual entities".

Monotheistic religions themselves tend to define these spiritual beings specifically as not being gods...

And why don't they do so? What definition of "theos" are the monotheistic religions using?

I've never seen that definition though, nor was I was implying it.  It does, however, tend to be a distinguishing factor between monotheistic and polytheistic traditions.  monotheistic traditions usually have a theos who is a creator ex nihilo, whereas polytheistic traditions do not.  

Well, that raises another issue. We would have to get into what the "nihil" in "ex nihilo" actually refers to, and whether any particular religion would consider a true "nothingness" to be even possible. In the case of Hinduism, e.g., a true nothingness is not possible, because (at the very least) Brahman is the foundation of all, both somethingness and nothingness.