#also people getting confused between revivals of ancient greek religion

[cruelsister-moved2]

you guys..... this is a new lowww 😭

[sisterofiris]

Sorry, this may be kinda basic but I'm getting some conflicting info. Can you please explain the diff between the terms Hellenic, Hellene, Hellenist, Hellenistic, Hellenism, Hellenismos and Hellenic Polytheism? What is the proper term to use for a practitioner of the religion who is not culturally/ethnically Greek? Or does it matter? Is Hellene referring to a Greek person? Do any of those terms have anything to do with recon vs revival? I want to be sure I'm using the terms correctly.

I don’t think I’ve ever addressed these terms on this blog, so here goes.

Hellenic (adj.) simply refers to something Greek. Whereas the word “Greek” comes from Latin Graecus, the word “Hellenic” comes from Ancient Greek Ἑλληνικός (Hellênikos) and is still used by Greek people to refer to Greece, or Ελλάδα (Ellada) in modern Greek, to this day. Because of this, any phrase with the word Greek can be replaced with Hellenic: for example, Hellenic food, Hellenic music, Hellenic culture, and yes, Hellenic polytheism.

Hellene (n.) is the term Greek people use to identify themselves. Just like a German person might say “I’m a German” or a French person might say “I’m a Frenchman”, Greek people call themselves Hellenes (or Έλληνες, Ellines, in Greek). Within the Hellenic polytheistic community, there has been debate on whether non-ethnically Greek polytheists should call themselves Hellenes, the main argument in favour of this being that Hellene was historically the term for polytheists, whereas Greek Christians called themselves Romans. I personally don’t encourage this, given that regardless of the term’s history, it’s currently the term in use by Greek people to describe themselves. A non-Greek person calling themselves a Hellene is misleading, just like it would be for a Norse polytheist to call themselves Norwegian (despite both terms having similar etymologies).

Hellenist (n.) refers to a person who admires and/or academically studies (usually Ancient) Greek civilisation. If you have a bust of Socrates in your home, you’re probably a Hellenist. If you have a degree in Classics, you’re definitely a Hellenist. (The equivalent term for people who study Rome, by the way, is Latinist.) Hellenist can be used to describe Hellenic polytheists, but while I don’t discourage using it like I do with Hellene, I’m personally not a big fan of it, since it can lead to confusion as to what, exactly, we do.

Hellenistic (adj.) specifically refers to the period of history between the death of Alexander the Great and the Battle of Actium (323 to 31 BC). As a result, Hellenistic polytheism is the religion that was practised at the time in Greece, and which involved a large amount of cultic exchange and syncretism (for example, Zeus-Serapis).

Hellenic polytheism (n.), by contrast, is the general term for the polytheistic religion practised by Ancient Greeks, in all its forms. Hellenistic polytheism is Hellenic polytheism; Mycenaean polytheism is Hellenic polytheism; the modern revival of the religion is Hellenic polytheism. When it comes to modern movements specifically, I would define a practise as Hellenic polytheism if it strives to honour Hellenic deities within the spirit of Ancient Greek belief. According to this definition, a Wiccan who calls on the four quarters while summoning Hekate for a spell is not a Hellenic polytheist, despite a Hellenic deity being involved, since this practise functions within the belief system of Wicca. On the other hand, an eclectic polytheist who worships each deity according to their culture of origin could call themselves a Hellenic polytheist, despite not strictly worshipping Hellenic deities only.

Hellenismos, and its anglicised form Hellenism (n.), is another term for Hellenic polytheism. It was invented by the Roman emperor Julian in the 4th century AD, and at the time, it applied not only to the religion, but also to all other aspects of Greek culture Julian was attempting to popularise instead of Christianity. Nowadays, Hellenismos generally - though not exclusively - denotes Hellenic reconstructionism, a Hellenic polytheistic movement that aims to stay as close as possible to ancient practise (as opposed to revivalism, which allows for more modern innovations).

Other terms for Hellenic polytheism include Dodekatheism, Olympianism and Hellenic ethnic religion. The latter is mainly used by Greek people in Greece, and as with Hellene, I would discourage its use by non-Greek people as it implies you are ethnically Greek. Olympianism is rarely used. As for Dodekatheism, a while ago, there was some debate in the Tumblr community as to whether we should call ourselves Hellenic polytheists or Dodekatheists, a term which some people viewed as more respectful towards Greek people; I myself chose not to involve myself in the debate, and still don’t. Personally, I call myself a Hellenic polytheist because it’s an accurate descriptor of my religion (whereas Dodekatheist implies I only worship twelve Gods), and because all of the Greek people I have interacted with have been fine with it. However, I have no issue with the term Dodekatheism and if someone feels more comfortable with it, I encourage them to use it instead.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion!

[teawiththegods]

Part 1// First of all I am sorry for my English, I'm from Eastern Europe. So... I'm trying to explore Hellenic Polytheism, but I feel like my path is very different from what I've seen here on Tumblr. And... I'm confused. After leaving Christianity, I've found out that I believe that absolutely ALL Gods are real. So I became hard Polytheist FIRST and THEN I've started to look for path / pantheon / tradition to follow. Actually for a long time I haven't worshiped any Gods at all.

Part 2 Then I've started to gravitate towards Ancient Greece and Rome... I've been reading Mythos, Greek Religion by W. Burkert, listening to some podcasts about history and culture of Ancient Greece. And still I'm very afraid to approach Gods. I feel like they are... unapproachable, because of time and cultural gap between us and ancients. I see a lot of people here on Tumblr precisely reconstructing ancient practices, but I don't think I want to do it.Part 3 Because... I will probably sound bad, but I DO NOT want to live in Ancient Greece. I understand fascination with history (I love history too!), historical figures, ancient cultures. But... But I love modernity? I enjoy level of personal freedom we have (while obviously there is still some path to do here), I love modern fashion, modern music, modern aesthetic. Being non-binary I can have a look which is comfortable to me.Part 4 // For example I've seen some pagans veiling themselves and to be honest the idea of veiling myself terrifies me. I feel.. . disobedient in some way, because I just CAN'T do all this things. Sorry, this is getting too long. I'm just confused. I don't know what question I want to put here.Part 5 // I just want some help, some advise? How can I bring ancient Gods in modern world? If I can do it at all? Will Hephaestus still be Hephaestus from Ancient Greece if I associate Him with modern technology? Will Apollo still be Apollo if I associate Him with modern arts? I feel sad and sometimes I think there are no Gods for me.

I am sooooo very happy to tell you that you, my dear have come to EXACTLY the right place!

I am THE Priestess of MODERNIZING Hellenic Polytheism! I do it, I promote it, I talk about it, and I sure as hades ENCOURAGE IT! 

I feel the exact same way you do. I’m not Ancient Greek (or even Greek) and I don’t live in Ancient Greece (or even Greece). I’m a New Yorker living in the year 2020 so THAT is exactly how I’m going to worship my gods.

For the record tho, this isn’t an uncommon thing. In Hellenic Polytheism there are actually two ways of worship:

Reconstructionism where a worshiper tries to “reconstruct” the traditions and worship of the past as best they can

Revivalism where worshipers “revive” the religion by bringing it into the modern world. (You and me! xD)

So there’s no reason to worry or fret, love! What you’re looking for is an actual thing and many people here on tumblr do it! You just apparently haven’t found them. But we’re here! 

Def check out my podcast! I think it’ll answer lots of questions you have and dispel your concerns! (Also check out my livestreams on my youtube channel! We all talk so much about modern ways to worship! You’ll love it! I also still do livestreams so think about joining us for one if you can!)

Also take a stroll through my blog. There’s plenty of information and examples on modernizing our religion!

And I am always here to talk to and answer your questions! Don’t worry, love! You’re not alone! 

[divinum-pacis]

The Isms of Religion

There are many, many “isms” regarding religious beliefs and practices. The two most well known would be polytheism and monotheism.

Polytheism: the belief in and worship of more than one/multiple gods or deities. Ancient Egyptian/Kemetic and Greek religions were polytheistic. Some modern day examples are certain forms of Hinduism and various neopagan revival movements.

Monotheism: relatively new compared to polytheism, this is the belief and worship in a single god or deity. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the best examples of monotheistic religions, but even in some cases (mainly Christianity), this concept can get tricky. This will be discussed shortly.

So what other isms exist besides these two? Well let’s take a look.

Atheism: Many atheists further emphasize that atheism itself is not “a religion,” but quite the opposite, being instead the simple lack or absence of any “religion” whatsoever. On the other hand, some religions such as Buddhism and Jainism can be characterized as “atheistic” in nature, insofar as they do not recognize the existence of god(s).[x] But even then, this will vary on geography; for example, there are gods in Tibetan Buddhism, albeit they are seen as a level below a Buddha. In addition, atheism historically did not always mean the absence of belief in a god/gods. It could also mean an individual did not believe in the “mainstream” practices at the time; an example would be early Christians in the Roman Empire. The Romans generally liked to incorporate the deities of conquered lands to their practices, and would allow conquered peoples to continue practicing their own religions. However, since the Christians denied all other gods including the Roman ones, they were declared atheists and faced rebuttal from their neighbors (this is much more detailed and complicated scenario, but for another post).

Agnosticism: This term comes from the Greek gnosis (meaning “knowledge”), but modified with that same sort of negating “a-“ prefix that turns theism (the belief in God or gods) into atheism (the lack of belief in God or gods). So, agnosticism (literally “a-gnosticism,” denoting a lack or absence of gnosis or knowledge) simply refers to being “without knowledge,” one way or the other, regarding God (or gods). Strictly speaking, agnosticism technically refers to the view that definite knowledge about God is impossible or unavailable; colloquially, however, agnosticism is often used more loosely by many people to refer to their persistent personal uncertainty, one way or the other, about the existence of God. Many agnostics so identify themselves simply as a shorthand means of indicating their own noncommittal indecision — a kind of “the jury is still out” position, somewhere midway between theism and atheism, neither fully believing nor fully disbelieving but suspending judgment and remaining open to either possibility. [x]

Animism: Polytheism frequently occurs in indigenous religions blended almost seamlessly with animism (from the Latin anima, meaning “life,” “life force,” “soul,” “spirit”), a view which holds that the world is filled not only with gods per se but also with a vast multitude of spirits of all sorts. Life or “spirit” is ubiquitous, according to animism, with even seemingly “inanimate” objects — rocks, mountains, rivers, wind — often regarded as “alive” insofar as they are each believed to be “ensouled,” each such natural feature possessing a separate and distinct spirit of its own. Add to this mix of gods and nature spirits the lingering (and often meddling, or otherwise influential) spirits of deceased ancestors, and the spiritual universe of polytheistic and animistic cultures begins to look like a pretty crowded place! [x]

Deism: This term comes from the Latin deus, which (like the Greek theos) simply means “god.” (Such terms as “deity,” “divinity,” and “divine” are also etymologically related to deus.) Accordingly, deism literally translates as “god-ism” (just as theism does, too). One might therefore be forgiven for assuming that deism and theism are synonymous — two alternative terms for the exact same thing. However, such an assumption would be incorrect. In practice, Deism as a distinctive term has come to refer quite specifically to a particular religious perspective (one quite distinct from the monotheism of traditional Christianity) that came to prominence during the 17th and 18th centuries, in the wake of the European Enlightenment. Deism holds that God initially created the universe, but subsequently left it to its own devices, allowing it to run unencumbered by further divine adjustment, guidance, or meddling. Deists therefore do not believe that God ever interferes with natural law, or intervenes in human history; hence Deism affirms no miracles, no prophecies, and no divine revelations. [x]

Henotheism: Another relatively new term for an ancient p.o.v., henotheism refers to the worship of one god while simultaneously acknowledging other gods. In other words, henotheists need not deny the existence of multiple gods, all of whom may be legitimately worthy of worship, but they choose to devote themselves only to one specific god (out of all the available gods). Vaishnava Hindus, for example, may primarily worship Vishnu or any of His incarnations, but still acknowledge other gods such as Shiva.

Omnism: Omnism is the recognition and respect of all religions; those who hold this belief are called omnists (or Omnists). In recent years, the term has been emerging anew, due to the interest of modern day self-described omnists who have rediscovered and begun to redefine the term. It can be thought of as syncretism taken to its logical extreme. However, it can also be seen as a way to accept the existence of various religions without believing in all that they profess to teach. Many omnists say that all religions contain truths, but that no one religion offers all that is truth. [x]

Pantheism: this term refers to the belief that God is in everything and everything is in God. The pantheist view maintains that there is no personal God as such, and that “God” and creation are one and the same. Whereas traditional monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam typically maintain that God alone is divine, pantheism asserts that everything is divine, because everything is God. Like everything else, pantheism comes in various forms; some versions of pantheism amount to little more than reducing God to a synonym for nature or the cosmos, which is considered sacred in and of itself. [x]

Panentheism: Whereas straight pantheism insists that God and the universe are identical, panentheism allows that God “contains” the universe within him/her/itself, while also extending beyond the universe (so that God is not limited to, or exclusively contained within, the cosmos).

Trinitarianism: This term mainly applies to the Christian churches who maintain that God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). As mentioned in the beginning of this post, such a view has caused confusion and controversy for believers and non-believers alike over the past millenia. It is understandably confusing to claim that a religion is monotheistic while also saying that God is Three distinct Persons. However, Trinitarian theology is a topic for another post. However, triune natures of deities are not limited to just Christianity. Check this post out for more information.

Unitarianism: On the other hand, this term is often used by Christian churches who affirm that God is not of a tri-fold nature. It can also refer to other religious views that hold strict monotheistic views of God, such as Islam, which claims that God can neither beget nor be begotten (i.e., Jesus being the son of God).

[greggory--lee]

Truths and Facts and History About Whether Sky Culture Is Deteriorating Social Values of Bangladesh

So, I experienced my first identity crisis on a playground. I remember my classmates coming up to me and saying, “Sameer”, what religion are you? Are you Christian or are you Jewish?” And I remember being very confused by that question. I’d just moved back from Bangladesh, I was living in the United States – and I remember thinking, I’m not Christian because I don’t get Christmas presents, therefore, if I had to choose between these two options, I must be Jewish. So I would look up and said, “John, I’m Jewish.” And that was that, and actually went on those few months thinking that I was Jewish – mind you, I was eight years old. That is until Hanukkah rolled around and I didn’t get any presents on Hanukkah either.

My point is that identity matters. And not only does identity matter, your identity should be the story of you, and one that is fitting of your highest aspirations. So when I moved to Bangladesh two years ago, I was looking for an identity that would help me meaningfully express my connection to this land. So I began to do all of the things that I was really interested in: photography, travel, writing – and I began to find a common thread here. I began to see this vast diversity of this land – but not only that, but within that diversity laid the key to understanding what made Bengal so successful as a civilization. Here I can find an identity that I can be proud of, and it was an identity with a potential. So last year, I made a long awaited trip to Tibet. And when my Buddhist tour guide met me at the airport, he was so excited to meet a Bangladeshi. “Bangladeshi! Bangladeshi!”, he yelled out. And I couldn’t understand this, but it turns out that 1,000 years ago the Tibetan king was so taken by this Bengali monk, that he had a delegation sent down to Bengal to ask for him, to come up to Tibet and help reinvigorate and revive the practice of Buddhism there, after years of its decline and suppression. This was a tremendous task. And this Bengali monk took up this task, and he was so transformative and effective in his mission, that Buddhists today, and Tibetans all over Tibet regard him as Atisa, the super Lord, second only to the Buddha himself. And everywhere I went in Tibet, every monastery I visited, we see the statue of Atisa, a Bengali man, seated right next to the Buddha. In fact, if you go to Mongolia, Japan – even Australia and parts of the Buddhist world, you will still find centers, monasteries. and statues dedicated to Atisa – such was the profound influence. Now, how many of you here today have heard of this story? And how many of you here today know where Atisa was from? He was from right here, just a few miles outside Dhaka.

By the way this story is not mine rather one of my friends’.

And if you’re like me and you’re wondering, what kind of society gave birth to such a man – Well, 1,000 years ago, Bengal was an international powerhouse. It had an empire that extended as far west as Afghanistan, it dominated the Indian Ocean trade, and it built monastery university complexes like this at Paharpur. This would have drawn in scholars from all around the region to study at this prestigious campus. See the then version of Sky Culture was so much so prevalent in our society even in 1000 A.D.

Now, if we think of our identity in terms of the nation-state construct, then we have no option but to place so much emphasis on 1971. And in doing so, we risk losing sight of a much grander narrative of what it means to be Bangladeshi equipped with Our very own Bengali tradition and culture and values we adhere to.

See, when 1971 explains why we fought for our cultural identity, it doesn’t explain where our culture and identity came from. And the ‘where’ is critical because it gives us that critical insight into how we became such a civilization force in the first place. See, whether you believe it or not, Bengal was once known for its international prestige, its economic prosperity, and intellectual sophistication. And, so we see a pattern here that begins to emerge – that it takes an open, inclusive and pluralistic society to build the foundations for security, stability and wealth generation that we saw in Bengal. And the early rulers of Bengal seemed to have figured out this winning balance. So we see Bengal as this great diverse place and the rulers and the leaders are able to channel this great diversity towards productive means, openness, inclusiveness, and pluralism. So, if you’re wondering, where does this great diversity in Bengal come from – I’m a big fan of maps and maps can help explain a lot. So, if you see the map you notice the rivers that are coming down from the Himalayas, how they’re all coming right into the Bengal Delta – These rivers, of course, in the ancient time would’ve been early roadway systems. So, perhaps this map is a little bit clearer – you see, from China, India, Bhutan, Nepal… all over South Asia, all these rivers are going straight into Bengal. So you have, from a very early age, Bengal teeming with people, teeming with different ethnicity and cultures.

How do you harmonize this? Pluralism doesn’t just happen. You don’t just become a lovey-dovey utopia, just because you have diversity. Pluralism requires active policies that are designed to engage that diversity, and funnel that diversity towards socially progressive outcomes. It’s an active effort. So to avail more from Sky Culture we need an effective effort not to be the subjects of prejudice and not to become the victims of cultural imperialism of those

So we have, for example, during the Mauryan Empire, 2,300 years ago, King Ashoka – I’m sure many of you are familiar with him, he’s tasked with the enormous responsibility of ruling over a population of 50 million people, including the borders of present day Bangladesh — How does he do this? He would turn to what it would become one of history’s first examples of pluralistic ethic officiated as state doctrine when he inscribed this profound message on rock pillars and have them placed throughout his empire. “The faiths of all others ought to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one honor one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faiths of others – So concord alone is commendable.” And Ashoka – he received great points for this inspired vision. Not only do we regard him as one of South Asia’s most benevolent and greatest kings, but the Greeks and the Romans wrote about Bengal during this period, they wrote about our prosperous ports, they wrote about its quality merchandise, they wrote about our fine quality pearls and muslin, and not only that, but outside Dhaka recently a coin was found dating 300 B.C. – precisely this time period, and it was traced to Greece, so you get a sense of this early cosmopolitanism that Bengal engendered as a result of this pluralistic rule. And we see the same kind of pluralistic ethic embodied throughout the various rulers, throughout the ages of Bengal. But in the 20th century a dangerous myth began to emerge.

— Sky Culture is deteriorating our social values. Irony is in this 21st century we’re still blaming that myth to avoid facts and thus further deteriorating our moral values, significantly harming our social security. However historically, these narrow identifications did not exist in Bengal, in fact, Bengal was converted as a majority to Islam under the rule of the secular Mogul regime – a regime who could care less about what religion you belong to. So we see during the Bengal sultanate, when Muslims ruled over Bengal, poets described, for example, in the 1,500s how there were a Mahabharata in every home, how whether or not you were Hindu or Muslim, it didn’t matter – you read it. We also hear great stories from that same century from another poet, who talks about Muslims weeping when they heard about Rahma’s loss of his beloved Sita in readings from the Ramayana. These Bengali sultans also patronized Hindu works, so the Mahabharata and the Ramayana were translated into Bengali for the first time in this period. Also, Hindu humanist movements were supported by these Bengali sultans. And we see these Bengali sultans during public ceremonies using water – holy water from the Ganges, to purify themselves. So in essence, while these Muslims came to the region as foreigners, with the foreign religion in the 12th century, they essentially became Bengali Rajas as they were known affectionately by their subjects. So you see this great source of strength and unity that comes from this religious synthesis of the history of Bengal.

So when the British in 1905 wanted to partition Bengal in two based on religious lines in the first time in its history, you see people like Tagore taking a stand for unity – for religious and political unity, and you know what his response was when he first heard about this plan? He composed the words that would become, 65 years later, Bangladesh’s National Anthem, “Amar Shonar Bangla” – My Golden Bengal, How could you divide us? And he went out to the street and he tied a rakhi, a hindu band symbolizing kinship and fraternity, on the hands of every Muslim he came across on the streets. And then in the 1940s, when we had this partition of India, we see an existential threat to the Bengali culture come in the form of replacing the Bengali language with the Urdu language. And it was also proposed that the Bengali script would be changed to the Arabic script over time. And this began to rouse the masses, all of the sudden, Bengalis began to see the issue that comes with narrow religious identifications. It was an existential threat to the Bengali culture. So you see at this time – the Language Movement emerged. And one of the heads and founders of this Language Movement was Muhammad Shahidullah, who took a stand at Dhaka University and declared the ancient and syncretic origins of the Bengali language as a confluence of Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian influences throughout the ages. And in the similar spirit, you see Kazi Nazrul Islam echoed the national consensus of Bengal when he sang the song – “I sing the song of equality, where all barriers have crumbled, all differences have faded, and Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians have come together and merged.” And you see posters like this posted throughout Bengal during the revolutionary wars. Once again, Bengal was driving its strength and unity from this great pluralistic history. So when we finally gained our independence in 1971 – sure it was about economic differences, sure it was about political differences, but really it was the culmination of a 2,500-year-history of pluralism that was crying out, that was refusing to be ignored any longer. And now, once again, we are in charge of our own destiny.

And while loving thy neighbor may seem like good ethics, good moral ethics, it”s also good business, especially when you consider the rising opportunities that have come up all around us with this new Asian century. For example, you have India surrounding us on three sides and its meteoric rise. You see China to our north and the east, the world’s second largest economy, to the south, you have the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean – the Indian Ocean being the world’s largest hub of international trade.

And this opportunity is further described by Robert Kaplan when he said, “This ocean is once again at the heart of the world, just as it was in antique and medieval times… ” So, what’s our excuse for not tapping into this dynamic growth? We know the solution, and we have a profound history that serves as a precedent that we can live up to. And if you look around yourselves today, and you see this devastating reality of poverty that we’re surrounded by, know too that that poverty is a recent phenomenon. See, in the history, the grand history of Bengal, Bengal was always being written about in terms of its immense wealth, its grandeur, its beauty – So please, think about that, as you go out there, and you become those ambassadors of change.

What you’re seeing here is actually all the civilizations and all the peoples that Bengal has touched throughout its long history – and in turn, been touched by. So again, as you go out there and become those ambassadors of change for a more open, inclusive and globally engaged Bangladesh, know that history is on your side because the history of Bengal is the history of plurality and prosperity and that there’s no reason why our future does not hold that same promise.

My point- it’s the lack of conviction, not having a vision, and failure to take bold and subtle action may be the causes.

Education and Knowledge of one’s identity of oneself as a Bangladeshi Muslim/Hindu, above all as the part of The Holy Divine, must to be the core…

Source by Sudarshan Suvashish Das

Source: http://bitcoinswiz.com/truths-and-facts-and-history-about-whether-sky-culture-is-deteriorating-social-values-of-bangladesh/