As if anyone is really going to care 
But it interests me. Many people who have an animistic perspective describe a polytheistic world-view. I’ve never been able to do that, probably for a number of epidemiological nit picky reasons and for some person history ones.
Theism refers to belief in deity, which I understand to be supernatural. I have no need for a supernatural element in my world view. That which exists, that which I can stand in relation to, is natural.
Theism and deity also relate in my understanding to a “creator from nothing” God. To me the existence of “creation from nothing” is a divine mystery but does not require me to invoke a supernatural (which a “creator from nothing” God would necessarily be) being in explanation. This may indeed be a hang over from a High Anglican upbringing (not heavy but always present).
The beings referred to by some as Gods or Goddesses I regard as people who contribute to how I am defined and I contribute to how they are defined by the nature of my relationship with them (I don’t have a relationship with many, and that a distant kinship through my Ancestors at best), just as with any other persons, human or otherwise.
While I do distinguish between categories of people (bird, animal, tree, story, poem, thought), the category of God has too much baggage for me, and describes a relationship I do not find myself wishing to be defined by, nor would I wish to define others in that way. I prefer to think that there are people with different realms of experiences, who stand in relationship to me as having different powers, different responsibilities, different authority.
I guess if I was going to describe my self as anything, it would have to be a polypersonist
And please please please do not take this as an attempt in any way to denigrate the beliefs and experiences of polytheists. It isn’t. It is an attempt to iron out for myself why I have always had real difficulty with words like theism, theology, deity
That’s an interesting perspective. And I like ‘polypersonist’.
As for gods (as opposed to GOD) though I see what you mean I couldn’t personally do without them. I do see, and often ponder, the possibility that my need to experience deities in this way is too humanistic a perspective, but in the end I conclude that as a human I can hardly avoid this, while also keeping in mind the fact that, as you put it, “different powers, different responsibilities, different authority” manifest themselves in a number of ways.
I don’t do without them… just that the word gods is not really in my working vocabulary and defines a relationship for me that I’m not sure it necessarily defines for anyone else. So it’s all fine, blind men, elephants, that sort of thing
I used to be heavily involved with such interests and relationships. And I find with many pagans the concept of deities and gods seems to override connection and relationship with the living world in some ways. Anyways I got burned out on that kind of relating. I do prefer the term deity over god, where as it is gender neutral, and god seems to invoke anthropomorphism which I no longer seem to have the need for. Basicaly, I believe in all deities that have ever been worshiped, feared, or been in relation with some kind of humans at one point. However, i choose not to worship any of them. Sure I encounter them on a daily basis. When it rains, in the clouds, when I walk barefoot on the morning due, when I hike in the mountains, when I chat with Raven . . . as you said their just people. I have a suspicion in earlier relations with these deities there Thor was not the god of thunder he IS thunder, Eros IS Sex/Love, no human qualities needed. . . as for a creator well . . . to me there is no distinction between the creator and the creation and creation is a continues processes in which we are all a part so the idea of something separate from the world and universe which created (seemingly out of nothing) is a mute point. Mater changes form, energy changes . . . we are all stardust – puts us all on equal footing if your human, plant, mineral, animal, or deity. Thanks for the thought provoking topic.
“As if anyone is really going to care . . .” Hey, your readers care what you think! That’s why we read. And although I am a flaming polytheist, I respect your point of view. Sometimes, I think it’s more of a semantical difference than one of substance, though, since my gods are a kind of person, too, just bigger and more powerful than I am. Some you might experience as forces (like Uncle Karma and Auntie Chaos) and some as nature beings, (like Green Man) and some as the Great Mystery (like my Creator and Great Mystery). I do not experience my gods as supernatural because there is no supernatural. All is natural, all entangled, all sacred.
I also find that those people most damaged by dominator religions, that set a big-G monogod apart from “his” Creation and admit of no others, are least likely to embrace the word god or the concept of many gods. And that’s just fine with me.
In my world, all people and gods are welcome who practice kindness and love, be they animist or materialist, atheist or polytheist, or whatever. I’m glad you are in it!
Love,
Puny
heh heh… the “As if anyone is really going to care” quip was intended to communicate that I’m coming to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter… we inhabit the same manifest existence and share kinship with all people… the words we use to describe that kinship are perhaps (no, definately!) less important than the kinship itself
In the words of Mr Pratchett, “I think perhaps the most important problem is that we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.”
Thanks Puny and Fishbowl
I think you are getting caught up in the classical literal meaning here which would apparently have some unwelcome connections. The definition of Gods has probably changed over time and I would suggest that for earlier generations, we would qualify as Gods because of our lifestyles and method of living. I prefer the term deity, as per the previous comment and even though I class myself as a polytheist, names muddy the water for me, so I don’t use them (plus, I can’t help but think there is somewhat of a snobbery value here, with competition as to who deity is the most influence, etc). My use of the label is merely confirmation in the recognition of my acceptance of independent external entities who choose to interact, or not, with us and for me it has always been more about the interaction and messages received than the labels or methods used to qualify them.
RR
My use of the label is merely confirmation in the recognition of my acceptance of independent external entities who choose to interact, or not, with us and for me it has always been more about the interaction and messages received than the labels or methods used to qualify them.
I’m happy with that
For me, the term “animism” as I understand it serves that purpose without presupposing a hierarchy of “Godness”, but allows me to focus freely on the nature of relationship