The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

On a general scale, I know what polytheism is: the belief in/worship of many Gods.

However, I've come to understand that many polytheists believe that truly being polytheist requires you to acknowledge the Gods as being...real, I guess?

I guess this is where my understanding gets a bit hazy. What exactly is meant by "real"?

As a personal example: I don't believe that the Gods could ever manifest before me in any corporeal sense. However, I do believe they are...tangible, I guess, in the same way that I believe spirits (ghosts, if you will) and the like are tangible.

I believe the Gods exist on a plane mostly separate from ours and are limited in their ability to manifest before our physical eyes. Though, I'm not closed to the possibility that the human mind simply would not be able to comprehend a corporeal appearance of a Deity and, therefore, they knowingly choose not to take that route.

...um...

Anyway, I'm just curious as to how others define the term Polytheist...as it seems to have a further definition among people who live their lives as such.

Anyway, I'm just curious as to how others define the term Polytheist...as it seems to have a further definition among people who live their lives as such.

 
I consider my self a polytheist since I believe in multiple deities and spirits, I don't think there is a better basis for a definition beyond that.  That is how I would define it for anyone else, unless they requested I call them something else.. I don't think anyone has the right to say "if you don't believe in the gods "this way" "then you can't be a polytheist.

There's hard polytheism and there's soft polytheism... and there's some flavours of middle polytheism, I guess (I would say I'm somewhere on that middle ground).

Hard polytheism believes the gods to be different individual beings, each with their own personalities and traits. Soft polytheism believes that the gods are facets of a greater god/dess or archetypes, and therefore not "real" on their own, but real nonetheless (if that makes any sense...).

 
This is the classic polytheist "argument" that I've seen for a while. I find myself going from soft to hard(er) polytheism. I believe that there are many deities out there that may share similar traits, but that they are individual gods with their own unique aspects that are a part of them as individuals only. I don't know how they would appear to humans if they chose to take on a physical form, but right now in my practice, I'm okay with that.

Generally, simply that they actually exist somewhere/somehow. Inside reality and/or outside reality. They are not just parts of.creations of our mind.

 
That's the way I see/saw (lol) it and consider(ed) myself to be a polytheist, but I've seen so many definitions thrown around that I wasn't quite sure.

Is this one of those things like the use of the term "Pagan"? Where, in part, it's sort of left up to the individual to decide how they define and relate to the term?

I haven't seen that many different definitions myself. And most of the differences I've usually revolve around the distinction between hard polytheism and soft polytheism.

 
I guess that's where my confusion is coming from then. That particular distinction.


Thanks, everyone, for the clarification.