#polytheist theology

[chthonic-sorcery]

"I know everything about ancient Egyptian theology" okay bet

[sarenth]

Religious =/= Christian

I am a Heathen, someone who has studied religion in college and is actively, deeply engaged in a non-Christian religion.

Christianity is not all religions. If you mean Christian or Christianity use those words. Not Abrahamic, not Judeo-Christian (the use of this term is inaccurate, and erases the large gulfs of theological and cultural differences between Christian and Jewish religions and cultures), not "religious".

I am a Heathen. I believe in, worship, and in some cases, work for various Ginnreginn, which is a word meaning Mighty/Holy Powers, and I use to mean the Gods, Ancestors, and vættir (spirits). I am religious. I have a hearth cultus I keep with my family and communities, and have a rich religious and cultural life.

If you are talking about being ex-Christian, critiquing Christianity as an institution, critiquing Christian theology, or making comments towards or on Christian communities, please be clear about it.

It's inaccurate and poor practice rhetorically, politically, and religiously to cast the issues of Christian religions and communities on everyone else. It adds nothing useful to dialogue or discourse if you cannot be bothered to be specific with regards to issues around Christianity or any other religion or religious topic.

Blanket condemning all religions because of Christian religions, history, actions, theology, politics, etc is not only supporting Christian hegemony and supremacy, it also denies every other religion and culture their own unique voices, theologies, ideas, and culture concepts. Likewise, condemning all religions in the name of "rationality" and "logic" is just supremacy by different means.

[whereserpentswalk]

Do you see the gods as having genders? Like, most of the gods we interact with are gendered by human culture, but as beings that don't have mortal bodies, and that are likely much older then any human cultural ideas about gender, I don't think it makes sense for them to really be gendered. Because the gods are intelligent beings with individual identities it's very human to gender them, but as an agender being myself I don't think it holds up to see them as having gender identities that aren't assigned to them by worshipers.

(This is mostly a poll for people who actually see the gods a real entities with actual thoughts and feelings.)

[temple-of-eternal-hera]

Understanding Hellenic Polytheism: The Orthos

There are three big theological "orthos" that typically define religions. They are orthopraxy, orthodoxy, and orthopathy. Orthos is a Greek word that means "straight" and is often interpreted as "right" or "correct."

Orthopraxy means "right action" and emphasizes correct actions over belief or feeling. Hellenic Polytheism is orthopraxic - essentially holding that one's personal beliefs and feelings are irrelevant, but that performing the correct actions, both ritual and ethical, are integral to securing the blessings of the Gods and having a strong society.

Orthodoxy means "right belief" and emphasizes having the correct beliefs over feelings or actions. The Abrahamic religions are all orthodox. They require certain beliefs in order to be a practitioner: belief in one singular divinity, belief in one particular savior, belief in one particular prophet, etc. However, many orthodox religions also have orthopraxic elements. For example, a Torah-observant Jew believes in the orthopraxy of the halacha, while a Catholic believes in the orthopraxy of confession, and a Muslim must uphold the five pillars of Islam.

Orthopathy means "right feeling" and emphasizes correct feeling over actions or beliefs. Orthopathy is uncommon on its own, but is a common feature of evangelical religions, as well as new age spirituality. In many evangelical sects, you have to feel the "Holy Spirit" or you just aren't doing it right. In new age spirituality, beliefs and actions are ignored or warped to suit whatever makes the individual feel good.

This is something that can be challenging to wrap your head around as a practitioner. For me, growing up Christian, everything was orthodox. Ultimately the only thing that really mattered was a belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God and savior of the world. Prayer and adherence to orthopraxy were just a way of expressing that belief. However, the right feeling was how I knew that I was believing correctly, so that was a big feature too. The emphasis was on a "personal relationship" with Jesus, and that involved feelings and belief.

I still struggle sometimes, more with orthopathy than anything else. I find great comfort, when I'm struggling with faith, in the fact that the Gods don't give a single rat's ass if I believe in Them or not. Despite that, I frequently struggle with the idea of not being in the right mindset to "approach" the Gods. Growing up, if my mind wandered during prayer, that meant I wasn't actually focused on God, and I was being disrespectful. That leads to me not doing the right actions now, because I don't feel good enough. For example, I'll skip Hekate's Deipnon-Noumenia-Agathos Daimon because I'm not in the right mindset, even though I know that all the Gods care about is that I do the rituals, correctly, and on time.

[olympianbutch]

Butchfemme Ares & Aphrodite.

That is all, thank you.

TERFs and transmisogynists DNI.

[faithless-faithful]

Welcome, sibling! 🙏🏻❤️

My name is E, I use they/it/he/she pronouns, and I am 25 years old! I'm a current art history major at university, and I have a special interest in religion!

I am always a spiritual seeker and have been pagan for seven years now. I am interested in eclectic and syncrectic faiths, especially Christopagan and Ozark folk practices.

I do have a set of non-negotiable beliefs: I am an omnist/pluralist (all paths are equally valid and ultimately lead to God), a panentheist, and universalist. I am very much going down a heterodox/heretical path, as I am interested in Christianity from a polytheistic perspective! I also have interests in process and liberation theology, as well as queer theology.

DNI: TERFs/radfems and debate-bros or proselytizers. I'm not here to debate my religion or my existence, I'm here to worship my God/s and learn. I'm pro-autonomy all the way - people can make their own decisions on what is best for them and I respect that, and I expect others to do the same.

[devouredbyflame]

A Pagan Goes to Church

On Christmas Eve, I did something I never thought I would do again but the inexplicable pull of curiosity told me I needed to. I went to my parents’ church for their Lessons and Carols Christmas Eve service. In the past, they always went to an evangelical Presbyterian church and now they go to some form of Anglican. My mother invited me the day before and asked me if I would go with the assumption I would refuse and for some reason, I said yes.

Any other year besides this one, I would typically scoff and give a visceral “no” as in “how dare you think I’d want to commit heresy to my good pagan name?” This year, however, a pang in my chest said “let’s go.” And I did.

In case you’re wondering for some reason, no, I didn’t find Jesus. Jesus and I are not at odds but I have spoken very heavily about how I do not wish to pursue a relationship with Him. He seemed willing to back down going forward. The only presence I felt was that of Loki’s – whom I usually feel in my day-to-day being. He was the one that prompted me to go, oddly enough, and when asked He told me “I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.” As in “why is this God popular and what makes this more popular?” Or perhaps He just wanted to see what makes this church different from all the others I attended before meeting Him as that was also my curiosity……

You can find the rest of this post here:

[sag-dab-sar]

Please feel free to elaborate in reblog, reblog tags, or comments 🤍🤍🤍 ​Would also be nice if you add which practice/tradition/religion you are too!

Reblog for more community sample size & dialogue!

[magickfromscratch]

If response rates are any indication, what people most NEED, spiritually is:

1. To be told the gods love them

2. That they are safe

3. That they are enough

4. That they are valuable

5. That they are OK

So if you are clergy, maybe write that down. Whatever hifalutin initiatory mystical darkness bullshit can wait. You parishioners need comfort.

[hestiashearthfire]

What is devotional Hellenic Polytheism?

When I first began my journey into paganism and other non-Abrahamic religions, I like many people, was enamored with magic. For a short while, I considered myself a Wiccan. I kept a small altar, prayed to the God and Goddess, and tried to observe the Wiccan Sabbats. I tried my hand at spells, potions, and divination, working as hard as I could to feel the energies around me in ritual. After a few months of half-hearted practice, I decided Wicca wasn’t my path. It just didn’t feel right.

And that was fine, I thought. Maybe traditional Wicca wasn’t my speed. I was still hooked on magic, so I jumped into traditional witchcraft with both feet, reading every book I could get my hands on. I continued to learn more about tarot, spirits, herbal magic, poppets—whatever obscure topic struck me at the time. I was gathering information, cultivating knowledge until hopefully, something would stick. Looking back, I can see how lost I was. I didn’t understand it at the time, but I was searching in vain for some ideal, “perfect” pagan path to follow. Having been raised Christian, I had very little experience with faiths outside the Abrahamic sphere. I did know quite a few pagans, however, and all of them practiced witchcraft. Growing up, I loved myths, magic, and fairytales. Naturally, I thought, why wouldn’t I like magic?

I did like magic. I found magical theory and systems of magic were fascinating to study. But actually practicing magic? The “magic” of magic always vanished, and I was left feeling empty, lonely, and drifting. Sure, practicing ritual always felt a bit silly, but it was more than a matter of acclimating. I was despondent. I had, after much thought and struggle, left the Church. For many, religion is a source of hurt; the Church breaks apart what it should hold together, and severs the ties it should bind. I am forever thankful that was not true for me. For me, the Church was home. The Church was family, safety, acceptance, love, and so many things I hadn’t been able to find. Still, as my ideologies changed, I felt I couldn’t stay. The Church and I parted on good terms; I didn’t want to leave, but I knew I needed to. Leaving hurt. I lost the sense of belonging and community the Church had provided, and I missed the comforting constancy of daily prayer.

I missed prayer. I missed that kind of ritual. Not performing a spell, not seeking a result, not seeing ritual as utility, but as a relationship. I was sure the universe was still singing, but adrift as I was, I had forgotten how to listen. I don’t remember how I discovered Hellenic Polytheism, but I do remember feeling so utterly content the first time I poured out a libation to Hestia. There we were, neither demanding anything of the other, just basking in the presence of the Gods. The first spark of our kharis caught fire, and I felt, for the first time since I left the Church, the presence of the divine.

Devotional Polytheism is just that—devotional. After several years as a practicing Hellenic Polytheist, I now know that I do not need magic to be pagan. Religious devotion through offerings and observances is enough for me. I’m content simply worshipping my Gods and building a relationship with them. Perhaps it’s a symptom of my Christian roots, but I still enjoy worship of something greater than myself. Nowadays that something is quite different, but I continue to pray. Magic is wonderful, but it isn’t for everyone, and Wicca is, by all rights, its own religion with its own practices and beliefs.

I don’t want to “work with,” but worship my Gods. I want to rely on them, trust them, pray to them, have faith in them. I found my path. I know the Gods are with me. For that, may they ever be praised.

[renegade-hierophant]

Apollo by zt Liu

[highropoios]

I think the theoi do give a shit about equal rights, actually.

[zhengzi]

i don't think the bald*r's g*te 3 fandom is ready for my takes

[whereserpentswalk]

do you believe in god? i want to but can't help to think that if god was real he would never allow so much suffering, hate, misogyny, this world is straight up rotten and seeks blood and horror. if god exist he would never allow this to happen.

I'm a polytheist so those issues kind of resolve themselves for me. The problem of evil doesn't exist for polytheists because:

1: gods are not all powerful by nature.

2: there are some gods who aren't morally good.

[sebastophanes]

Are the Sebastoi gods?

Good question.

Yes and no, which is an honest but unhelpful reply.

In Ancient Rome the question was largely an academic/philosophical one (divine honours were accorded and temples were built with heedless disregard for such pedantic specifics) but was also, it seems, a question that no-one sat down to answer. As far as I am aware there is no ancient philosopher or Late Classical theurgist who addressed the nuts and bolts of the Emperors’ divinity in private letters, public rumination, or any other kind of surviving text — although I would be thrilled to be found wrong.

This is not to say that it was never addressed at all: imperial deification was a trope often mocked and maligned by Roman satirists (Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis included a harsh indictment of the Emperor Claudius’ deification, with Divus Augustus cuttingly asking the divine Senate of the Gods “who will worship such a god? Who will believe in him? While you create gods of this sort nobody will believe that you are gods.”) and sometimes the Emperors themselves, such as Vespasian’s dying proclamation that “I think I am becoming a god!”

This still isn’t all that useful, however.

A starting place that is useful would be the Declaration of the Roman Imperial Cult, which forms the doctrinal (as it were) and religious basis of the Imperial Cult’s revival within Byzantium Novum and the Classical Church. The Declaration is a very interesting document and I’ll discuss it further later, but for this post Art. II is most relevant:

“We affirm the Divi Imperii (Divine Emperors) to be Divine Beings who have transcended Earthly existence to dwell with the Dii Immortales, the ancient Goddesses and Gods. They are not the Gods themselves yet are spiritual beings with ability to intercede with the Gods on behalf of human civilization. They are akin to the demigods and Divine Heroes of the Classical world.”

That would seem to settle the matter fairly conclusively, at least in a Byzantine Pagan context. In this reading the difference between the Divine Emperors and the Roman Catholic communion of saints is arguably pretty slim, and the Emperors are “not the Gods themselves” — and notably the term used for the Gods here is Dii Immortales, not Dii Consentes, which indicates that the statement is applicable to all the Gods as opposed to the Emperors being outranked by ‘just’ the Twelve Olympians; a situation which would be only natural. Perhaps we are being too parsimonious with godhood, however. The Declaration holds that the Emperors are not the Gods, but what about being ‘simply’ gods, uncapitalised? Steven Dillon’s excellent work of natural theology, The Case for Polytheism, posits a fair definition of polytheistic divinity which the Emperors easily meet:

By using a selection of our paradigmatic examples of gods, I propose the following three conditions as sufficient for godhood:

(i): Disembodied consciousness

(ii):  Immensely more powerful than evolved minds

(iii): Remarkable greatness

The Divine Emperors (all 101 of them recognised by Byzantium Novum) have in my own personal experience hit all three points: disembodied consciousnesses who are immensely more powerful than mortal minds — as indeed they must be, given the works they have wrought before me. “Remarkable greatness” is somewhat more difficult to define, however, and so we turn back to Dillon:

…it seems to be that which is deserving of our awe. When you stand before a truly magnificent accomplishment, dwarfed in the shadow of a great pyramid for example, you might be struck by a sense of awe. It is reverence we feel, and we’re impressed by it. […]

It is important to describe greatness as that which deserves our awe instead of as that which happens to elicit our awe, because our awe may be elicited by something that is not great. For example, your sensus magnae (sense of greatness) would be malfunctioning if a team of wayward neuroscientists manipulated you to feel awe whenever you had to use the restroom. To deserve our awe is to be worthy of it.

This applies to the Emperors quite well — in life they were responsible for stunning and near-superhuman accomplishments: pacifying savage and barbarian lands to establish peace, order, and civilisation; building some of the most tremendous monuments and architectural achievements of the West; and shepherding Father Jupiter’s covenant people for well over a thousand years. What is remarkable, if not the legacy of Roman civilisation which they have bequeathed to us? By Dillon’s metric the Divine Emperors are, then, certainly gods; but having reached this conclusion there are important questions which still remain, namely what is the ontological difference between the Emperors as gods and The Gods™️, and what exactly turned a dead Emperor into a Divine Emperor? This is where I dip into the realm of speculative theology.

First and most obviously the Emperors are created beings — once mortal men — whereas the Gods have eternally existed and were never created per se by any greater Intelligence. Just as important a distinction is that the Divine Emperors are still subject to a range of emotions, whereas The Gods™️ do not experience emotions as-such; or at any rate not more than one of them. Heliokles, a contemporary polytheist philosopher aligned with the school of Julian Hellenism, discusses in his article The divine are happy: appropriate attitudes to worshipping divinity the fact that “[t]he Gods were frequently understood as being in an eternal state of blessedness, a feature of divinity which distinguished the Gods from mortal-kind” and references Cicero’s De natura Deorum, wherein Gaius Velleius asserts that “the Gods are supremely happy, and no-one can be happy without virtue”. The use of the word ‘supremely’ is important here: the Gods are not only happy, they are as happy as it is possible to be, and if like Velleius we grant that happiness is intrinsically connected to virtue then it logically follows that the Gods also possess the complete fullness of virtue.

But what is this virtue which the Gods possess?

The Romans conceived of virtus as a complex thing, overlapping many different kinds of behaviour according to one’s station and situation, all working together to order, promote, and preserve the social contract; that the Gods possess the fullness of virtue is an important point when considering the question of mechanics. It is a frequent stumbling block for modern Roman polytheists that Imperial divinity was not the result of some spiritual process per se, but rather was something conferred by a legislative vote postmortem. This is seen as somehow dubious and insincere; some political machination which is no longer worthy of credence or respect in the revitalised Roman nation. Such opinions are resolutely ill-founded.

The simple truth is that in the traditional Cultus Deorum the Gods are in a sense Roman citizens as well — and it is only natural that, should the Senate properly decree divine honours, the Gods as good citizens would facilitate this process and honour the social contract. It would after all be requisitely virtuous of a Roman citizen to obey the laws and execute them where necessary; as the Gods possess supreme virtue, and are regarded in Roman religion as basically citizens, they must therefore be the most perfect of citizens and reflect this unblemished reputation in their respect of institutions… such as by welcoming deified Emperors into the fold by dint of the Senate’s vote.

John Scheid’s wonderful and authoritative An Introduction to Roman Religion speaks at length to the conception and conceptual framework of “citizen gods” in the ancient Cultus Deorum; and an important part of that framework was the idea that the Gods respected (were in a sense ‘bound’ by in the same way as a citizen) the authorities of the Roman state and their actions. Scheid provides an excellent example of this which was “handed down to posterity by a judicial opinion of the pontifex maximus Quintus Mucius Scaevola,” wherein “the city … obliged (so to speak) [an] offended deity to adopt a course of action founded upon reason.” The cultural/theological foundation which provided to State authorities the ability to ‘oblige’ deities to their decisions is one which the author handily describes:

…the correct approach to religion involved believing that the gods were good and respected the social code of the city: so long as they were not gravely offended and the city institutions continued to function, the gods were not expected to take direct revenge or to heap disasters upon weak human beings. That was the gods' way of honouring the contract of respect and assistance that they were commonly believed to have made with Rome…

The civic image of ‘citizen gods’ was confirmed by numerous rituals and rules, and may be regarded as one of the major interpretations of traditional Roman religion. The determination, affirmed ever since at least the fifth century BC, to diminish the power of the priests and submit religion to the will and control of the people, expressed, for example, in laws relating to priesthoods, underlines the public and communal nature of the relationship between gods and men. It is reasonable to assume that this tendency was also linked with … the kind of religion worthy of a citizen…

..the deities owed their place at the heart of cities not to any epiphany - not, that is, to any personal manifestation on their part - but above all to a human decision, the will of the people, the senate, a magistrate or a mythical king.

Likewise he remarks upon the involvement of the Senate in adjudicating divinity; a practice which had been represented in Roman religion not only in the Imperial era, but from the time of the Republic as well:

When an unknown deity unexpectedly manifested himself or herself, even with the purpose of coming to the Romans' aid, like the famous Aius Locutius in the fourth century BC, his epiphany had first to be accepted by the public institutions; it had to receive, as it were, the approval of a majority vote in the Senate. One Christian writer could write with irony: `Among you (pagans) a god's divinity depends on man's decision. Unless a god please man, he shall not be a god at all; in fact, man must look kindly on god' (Tertullian, Apologeticus 5.1).

We have established that the Divine Emperors are gods but are not among the Gods. That they are gods I have learnt from experience; these experiences have likewise supplied proof of their distinction from Dii Immortales. It could be fair to say that we have also established that the Roman government, and the Senate specifically, long had every right and expectation in Roman religion to make concrete determinations on divinity and divine conduct; as well as to ‘oblige’ the Gods to acknowledge and subsequently act upon such determinations. Examining the qualities of the Gods leads one to believe that that is something they would do anyway given that they possess supreme and perfect virtue — a condition which naturally entails the kind of respect for the social contract which would lead them to recognise and facilitate the results of a Senatorial vote on apotheosis.

Let’s now take just a moment to focus on the actual transcendental mechanics of how the Emperors went from mortals to gods. The precise nature of their existence “dwell[ing] with the Dii Immortales” is probably beyond the ken of mortal reasoning — or at least beyond mine right now — but the basics also touch upon a concept I consider very important. We are all children of the Gods, intrinsic partakers in the very same divine nature as the Immortals, and the Gods’ eternal experience of bliss is expressed in their love and concern for our welfare just as much as their civic propriety. Kleanthes’ ancient Hymn to Zeus speaks of this beautifully:

For we all descend from you, bearing our share of your likeness

We alone, of all mortal creatures that live and move on earth …

But you know how to make the crooked straight

And to bring order to the disorderly; even the unloved is loved by you.

The nuts and bolts of the Emperors’ apotheosis can, I feel, best be described in light of this understanding: their mortal bodies and limitations are transcended in death (as is the case for us all) but the inherent limited nature of their created state, which continues to define our typical existence in the afterlife as manes in relation to Gods, gods, heroes, etc. — and sometimes even sours to the state of the lemures — is transcended as well to leave only their innermost states as partakers in the Divine. Unlike the Gods the Emperors do experience emotions, certain personalities, etc. but they are not bound or limited by them, and like the Gods they are unable to work against virtue or the Good; the cleansing (as it were) of their created human nature has left them with some measure of the Dii Immortales’ characteristics of bliss as well as Steven Dillon’s qualities of godhood.

Okay. I think that’s enough. I think this adequately maps the theological position of the Divine Emperors in my sacerdotal capacity as well as my sacra privata — or at least the foundation and basic beats thereof. This is good; for awhile I never really hashed any of this out, generally contented to not poke too much at it… but that was also kind’ve stressful because I’m a big fan of doctrinal precision and suchlike. I’ll pin this, which means I’ll probably edit it over time, and hopefully it will prove useful to those interested in my gods!

[bleedingseeds]

As a Pagan on the polytheist spectrum of theology, also as someone who benefits a lot from Family Systems and Internal Family Systems theories, I really like Donald Hoffman's theories of consciousness.

Like. A LOT.