Talk:Polytheism

message: Can someone please rewrite this paragraph under the main topic?  As it is written, the paragraph is grammatically confusing.  I would fix it myself, but it is so convoluted that I don't know what the author is trying to say.  I think the author is saying that Polytheism is a type of theism that contrasts with monotheism, which is the belief in a singular god (not capitalized), which, in most cases is transcendent. 
its the belief in many gods
"It is a type of theism. Within theism, it contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God, in most cases transcendent. Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally, but can be henotheists, specializing in the worship of one particular deity. Other polytheists can be kathenotheists, worshiping different deities at different times."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaches (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Polytheism

message: I've had to re write most of the section on Hard/Soft Polytheism and compltetely delete the innaccurate references to Neoplatonism as the section had been vandalised.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any reliable sources for hard and soft polytheism? I know the phrases are used, but that is simply anecdotal and there does not seem to be a reliable authoritative source for these identifiers. Since this is an old issue, I suggest deleting the commentary on hard and soft polytheism. --151.201.146.123 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the blog article citation and added two others from academics engaging in research related to modern Paganism. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, the blog piece is not a reliable source for this article per WP:RELIABLE. It may be in layman's terms OldManMcSlippy but it is unsourced and the author cannot be identified as a credible source in this situation. If you can find something else that is more reliable then that can be re-added into this article. --- FULBERT (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard-Polytheism

message: In their refusal to acknowledge the Gods, monotheists were historically charged with atheism.
I’ve removed the doctrinal polemic against polytheism as inappropriate to a page devoted to polytheism.
(Meic Crahart)
I've removed the part on polytheists calling monotheists atheists since I don't know of any sources that make this claim. In fact, I know of sources that say the opposite was true for many societies (mainly in reference to religious tolerance in the Vikings and the evolution of ancient middle eastern religions). From what I've read most sources (including this article) refer to ancient polytheistic societies as open to new gods and rituals which wouldn't seem to make them inclined to calling monotheists atheists. However, yes, they could be refered to as atheists because they didn't worship their particular gods but that would carry on to other polytheistic pantheons as well making it not local to monotheism. Also, if some cultures did in fact do this then it should be changed to say that only certain ones did and, by the large, most didn't since evidence points to this conclusion. -DNewhall
:I have always understood the term "atheist" to mean one who denies the existence of a god/gods/deity ... thus if one did believe in multiple gods (for example the Greek pantheon) but denied the existence of a competing pantheon (example the Norse pantheon) would this be aethism? - Low Sea  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.90.1 (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: We should add something on this topic.  If time permits, I'll start a short paragraph.  Ariele 13:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of Modern Day Polytheism

message: This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After going through that I got the impression the only issue was with the editor jguk and an appeal to argument from authority.  Given the site has recommendations from Encyclopedia Britannica, American Library Association, Schoolzone, TagTeacherNet I can't see any rational reason for Wikipedia not allowing its use.  If you can't use a site recommended by the Encyclopedia Britannica then what pray tell what sites CAN you reference?!--216.234.222.130 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religioustolerance.org

message: are there many people in the world who believe in this religion? i have heard that many people in japan believe in polytheinsm...what would make a person think this way?  is polytheism the same religion where you believe in certain things that uphold powers such as rock? how would a person be able to know if the rock that they are worshipping is the right one with the special powers??? it is all so confusing please help as soon as possible, i am an 11th grade student and i am doing a research project on polytheism and what it is about, so some input would help tremendously.  thanks
:You might also want to check out the Humanities Reference Desk - they're pretty good about helping out with stuff like this.  Basically, polytheism isn't itself a religion, just like monotheism isn't a religion - it's a belief that underlies a lot of different religions, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Polytheism underlies religions like Shinto and many Neopagan religions.  I think with the bit about worshipping a rock, you may be thinking of animism.  Animism isn't the same thing as polytheism, though some people are both polytheists and animinists.  
:People who grow up in Shinto  households generally believe in polytheism for the same reason that people who grow up here believe in monotheism - because it's what they've always known and what the people around them believe.  People who convert to polytheistic religions have a lot of different reasons.  If you want to hear people's personal stories and be able to ask them questions about their reasons for being polytheistic, you might want to try the discussion boards at Beliefnet, especially the Shinto discussion board and the Lean about Neo-Paganism board.  You can also read one person's story of why he is a polytheist here. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please help...school research project 

message: Semantics aside, the 1st Commandment clearly indicates that the ancient Israelites believed in the existence of other gods and left the door open to the worship of lesser deities.  (Thou shalt have no other gods before me.)-- LKS 5/10/06
:That is far from a non-controversial claim. One might hold that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in no way implies that those other gods exist... iggytalk 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am suggesting is that your particular interpretation is not the only one that has been given — similarly with Elohim (there are ways that both Christian and Jewish commentators who were aware of the plurality have dealt with it). Anyways, this is kind of irrelevant to the article as you are not going to be able to demonstrate, on a Wikipedia talk page, that the ancient religion at the root of Judaism was polytheistic. There are some scholars who believe the evidence inclines that way, there are others who don't. iggytalk 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is one approach, but it does a disservice to the article on a couple of counts: (1) the thesis that ancient Judaism evolved along those lines is controversial at the least (except, I suppose, insofar as such a record can be traced within the Tanakh itself, but even here, the evidence is conjectural); (2) it is entirely too centered on Judeo-Christian development for a general article on polytheism (which encompasses many unrelated traditions across the world) — it is far from evident that all religions were initially polytheistic. I would recommend looking at some reputable sources before suggesting these kinds of changes. You will find that the issues are not as clear-cut as you make them. iggytalk 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Commandment and the Origins of Judaism 

message: "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon." This was the first quote that I thought of when I read the indic section. The article states that Mahayana Buddhism is considered by some as polytheistic. The only support it was given was a reference to devas, inaccurate understanding and misleading. 
From Buddhist views on Devas..
* Buddhist devas are not immortal.  They live for very long but finite periods of time, ranging from thousands to billions of years. When they pass away, they are reborn as some other sort of being, perhaps a different type of deva, perhaps a human or something else.
* Buddhist devas do not create or shape the world. They come into existence based upon their past karmas and they are as much subject to the natural laws of cause and effect as any other being in the universe. They also have no role in the periodic dissolutions of worlds.
* Buddhist devas are not incarnations of a few archetypal deities or manifestations of a all-embracing pantheistic One.  Nor are they merely symbols. They are considered to be, like humans, distinct individuals with their own personalities and paths in life.
* Buddhist devas are not omniscient.  Their knowledge is inferior to that of a fully enlightened Buddha, and they especially lack awareness of beings in worlds higher than their own.
* Buddhist devas are not all-powerful. Their powers tend to be limited to their own worlds, and they rarely intervene in human affairs. When they do, it is generally by way of quiet advice than by physical intervention.
* Buddhist devas are not morally perfect. The devas of the worlds of the Rūpadhātu do lack human passions and desires, but some of them are capable of ignorance, arrogance and pride. The devas of the lower worlds of the Kāmadhātu experience the same kind of passions that humans do, including (in the lowest of these worlds), lust, jealousy, and anger. It is, indeed, their imperfections in the mental and moral realms that cause them to be reborn in these worlds.
Buddhism is an east asian religion- Really??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaparis (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views presented as Buddhism 

message: 71.210.150.195 edited this section adding the word "burrito" after the word "supreme" in reference to Shiva's divinity. I corrected it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesucristo301 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in Hinduism section 

message: Changed the description of Trinity to correspond to the definition given in the Trinity article. The older definition was more Sabellian than orthodox (i.e., Athanasian) Christian. Edtheist (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic Religions: Christianity 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Three_distinct_beings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Plan_of
  
No, they are not, whatever you herd about them, it was a lie. Mormon's believe the same thing as Christians, that God, is the only god, and that he has a son, named Jesus Christ, and that there is a holy ghost. Mormons are not polytheistic at all!
208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormon (LDS) as Polytheism??

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.48.245 (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments to section on Christianity 

message: Someone had included 'trinitarianism' in the opening list of polytheistic belief systems.  It had been marked as 'dubious', but I've gone ahead and removed it.  Assume Good Faith means I can't accuse whoever it was of a deliberate attempt to provoke dispute; but the nature of trinitarianism is a source of contention amongst Christian traditions.  Many Pentecostal and conservative Christian groups do indeed consider a trinitarian view of God to be polytheism; however the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and numerous other established Christian groups make a very clear distinction between recognising three gods (polytheism) and recognising God manifest in three different aspects (trinitarian monotheism).
Besides, the list only says that polytheism 'includes' the viewpoints mentioned, so it doesn't need to list all: even if editors strongly believe that trinitarianism is polytheism, the list is already long enough and we can afford to miss one out.  The position with regard to the Trinity is also outlined further down the article anyway, with reasons why it does not constitute polytheism - so a statement at the top of the article saying that it is would be inconsistent.  - Laterensis (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed trinitarianism from opening section 

message: This entire article lacks references. Faro0485 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Approximately how many of the world's inhabitants are polytheists now? – Alensha talk 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: %?

message: *Reinserted quotation marks around the "all gods are one god" comment associated with Dion Fortune.  Since it is a quotation, and appears as such later in the article, they are appropriate.  Also changed the "one God" to "one god," as the term "God" with an uppercase "G" is commonly associated with the Abrahamic deity, which is not necessarily what this expression means.  Fortune capitalizes neither "god," "goddess," nor (to my surprise: my memory said otherwise) "initiator" in my edition of The Sea Priestess (Weiser, p226, trade paperback edition 1995, ).
*Changed formatting of "Hard," "Soft," etc. to a more appropriate appearance.
*Edited "misconception" remark to remove dogmatic statement that is not universally accurate; some hard polytheists may indeed recognize all deities as equally real.  In fact, I would argue that this is the default position, but since I can't back that up with references I won't do so on the article's page.
*Changed capitalization in the "Reconstructionism" section for consistency and encyclopedic format.
*Moved reference to Serer religion from the lede to the section on Serer religion. However relevant it may be, I don't believe any particular religion should be referenced in the lede.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 06:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 2012.07.09 

message: Much of this section has little to do with the subject of this article which is "polytheism" being an inadequate and badly sourced attempt to describe monotheistic trinitarianism. I am tempted to delete the whole section as "off-topic" but there are two possible fragments which might be salvaged: (i) the Jewish and Islamic reactions to trinitarian monotheism: (ii) the tritheistic theology of the LDS. This last is questionable in that the early documentation is very confusing and more recent material seems to be pushing doctrine in general into the background.  If the section is not simply deleted, I would reduce it to a very brief statement of the central core of monotheistic trinitarianism which is linked to main articles and serves simply as a background for the Jewish and Islamic reactions  and put the LDS as a separate section. Jpacobb (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite or eliminate Christianity Section? 

message: The section doesn't really talk about neo-paganism but goes off into "soft" and "hard" polytheism. These terms have very little acceptance in mainstream scholarship.
The section has already various objection tags inserted by others. Unless there is strong reason otherwise I will delete this section since it is not adding any value to the topic.Puck42 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Neo-paganism doesn't make much sense 

message: I have restored the information removed without explanation by Lklusener.  I would prefer what is technically a better source, but in its absence I prefer this to nothing. A general check makes me think that the site contains a legitimate understanding of Hinduism and it is mentioned in the way it is to draw attention to the fact that it but one site. It may come within the range of WP:SELFSOURCE and it does come with a proper in-text attribution to indicate that its status.  If the information is incorrect, correct information should be supplied and referenced. If it is correct but the source considered inadequate, then a better source should be given rather than information deleted.   Jpacobb(talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The page in question is not RS, and looks like it was created by an elementary school child.  Wikipedia requires scholarship by reputable sources, not some random website picked because it agrees with the editor's viewpoint.  There are Monotheist Hindus, Monist Hindus, Polytheist Hindus, Pantheist Hindus, et. cetera, and no editor gets to "speak" for all Hindus.  Furthermore, your language "affirms that there is One Supreme Being" is highly unbecoming of an editor on Wikipedia.  Your Christian pro-Monotheist weltanschauung is not the "One Truth" and you cannot use Wikipedia to perform such "Missionary Work".  -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree that the source is not suitable for use on Wikipeida, and what I read there seemed questionable or at best, oversimplified. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Source: Hinduism Facts

message: The sections "Soft polytheism vs. Hard polytheism" and "Types of deity" could well be made subsections of the preceding sections "Terminology" and "Gods and divinity" which probably should be called "Gods and deities" anyway. Jpacobb (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less sections? 

message: Why is polytheism considered historical? All the listed religions still exist today. It is terrible offensive that a US website that is supposed to be academic calls paganism "historic" and speaks in the past tense about it, and calls other religions "contemporary". This needs to be updated.184.155.130.147 (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporary religions include those that have followers in the present day.  Historical pagan religions do not qualify, since there are no surviving followers.  Contemporary paganism, while "inspired by" historical paganism, is generally considered a distinct religious movement. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical polytheism? 

message: The Bible and Book of Mormon are used as references for theological arguments in the Mormonism section.  This is explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia policy, as these are primary sources.  To quote from WP:PSTS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors".  67.188.230.128 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted most of the unreferenced content from the section. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing the Bible 

message: Should there be a section or article that discusses criticism of polytheism? Love to help Wikipedia (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what such a section would contain.  Maybe you could post some sources that you think warrant inclusion?  As far as I know nobody disputes that polytheistic religions exist.  As for theological arguments, I think it is implicit that believers of the one true faith generally consider other belief systems to be incorrect, that doesn't really warrant mention in this article.  Specific religious positions are covered in articles about that particular religion, for example Christianity and other religions discusses Christian positions on other religions. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I propose to delete all the sections from "soft and hard polytheism" to "Wicca", since they are a mass of confused words, in most cases without a single source. The concept is well explained in the lede and all the rest is superfluous.--79.21.44.246 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a thorough cleansing 

message: According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multitheism the term Polytheism is regarded as dated. If this is true the article should be moved to Multitheism. --Gereon K. (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misread the Wikitionary entry. It is not saying that the word "polytheism" is dated; it is saying that the definition of "multitheism" to mean "polytheism" is dated. "Polytheism" is the current term that is always used, in both academic and popular writing. I have never heard anyone use the word "multitheism" to refer to belief in multiple gods and the Wikitionary entry says that its primary definition is as the existence of multiple different types of theisms within a society, which is complete different from a belief in multiple deities. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's rather that we're lacking an article about "multitheism" instead of implementing a redirect. --Gereon K. (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Katolophyromai, I have not encountered multitheism anywhere in the literature that suggests polytheism is no longer used. Without evidence to suggest this change, I think leaving polytheism as is would be accurate and prudent FULBERT (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree with Katolophyromai. Paul August ☎ 11:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree with Katolophyromai I have not heard the term "multitheism," but "polytheism" is quite popular, particularly among polytheists (of which I am one, for full disclosure). *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the article to Multitheism 

message: Hinduism is not a modern religion as compare to Buddhism, Christianity or Judaism. It is very old as Egyptian religion and may be older than it too. The correct date of when the practices of the Hinduism started. The word Hinduism is a new term but it's practices are very old. It doesn't fit the description of a religion like Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity etc. It has multiple belief systems and varies by region. It is also a culture and way of life of the people of the Indian subcontinent. I request "Hinduism" to be removed from the "Modern Religions" section. Debjyoti Gorai 08:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism is not a modern religion 

message: Religions as a whole are able to show a person (that is willing to learn without bias or prejudice, A.K.A= Labels) the ability to see and make connections to anything in life. People need to learn that no matter what you say or counteract, your religion is not the One True Religion. What would that look like some might question. It would be always right and never wrong and have the best interest of growth and learning. I personally believe that all the religions are based partly on Truth at some point in the past.  Religions need to do one thing.... Remember why they are... 2001:48F8:4022:1550:2D42:AC68:35A9:D05A (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theogony 

message: Here is part of the first paragraph: 
Polytheism the belief or worship of more than one god. According to Oxford Reference, is not easy to count gods,
I can't believe anyone would find this acceptable. 104.157.227.172 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor writing