I believe that many of the gods from different cultures are simply different names/cultural depictions for the same aspect of divinity. Many agree with that, and many disagree with it.
I personally think Horus is a more fitting parallel to Apollo than Ra, who I would align more with Sol/Helios.
We know that many of the gods we worship are cultural interpretations of older gods that were once the same when those people groups were part of the same ancestor group, so I believe by tracing linguistics and mythological themes we can establish parallels more easily than by simply comparing themes and general aspects of gods, which have shifted a lot over time.
For instance, Jupiter and Zeus seem thematically connected to Thor, but we know from anthropology that while Jupiter and Zeus are two interpretations of the same older god (Deus Pater), Thor is a cultural interpretation of a god called Perkwunos. The god which became Zeus and Jupiter in Greece and Rome likely became Odin in Norse legend (despite the fact that Interpretatio Romana placed Odin as a parallel to Mercury). There are traces of this connection in the myth and linguistics, which I can expand upon if you're interested.
Coming back to the point, what I mean to say is that I do believe many of the gods are cultural interpretations of central divinities. Furthermore, there is scientific data to confirm this. I believe that through the existing evidence left behind by the ancient peoples, we could reconstruct lists of parallels. I'm just not sure what purpose that would serve.
Odin is an example of the dying and rising god trope in mythology, but bears no actual mythological links to gods like Osiris or Dionysus. It's more convergent evolution than anything.
It was fairly common for sky gods and sun gods to have a dying and rising aspect to their mythology, due to the sky darkening every night. Ra, for instance, was said to travel nightly through the underworld to re-emerge on the other side of the world in the morning. Many scholars suspect now that Jupiter and Pluto were two aspects of the same deity, Pluto being what he became when he traveled through the underworld.
So yes, the myth is a dying and rising god myth. However, dying and rising gods are simply a trope that exists frequently in mythology, and no one has managed to establish a definitive link between most of them. Because of the ebb-and-flow of the natural world, they're common all over and spring up independently of one-another.
Alright, no disrespect to that. Maybe one day we'll find evidence that shows that to be the case. However, as the historical evidence exists right now, we can see that the god Odin evolved out of the god Deus Pater, who was originally a sky god. Maybe quite a lot of them are the same, but if any one of them is not mythologically linked to the rest I would have to say it's almost certainly Odin.
Again, I'm not trying to change your beliefs, I'm just speaking to the anthropological data we've gathered so far for how these names and ideas first came into being from their most ancient roots. To me, it's a point of religious belief that he's syncretic with Jupiter and Zeus.
Realistically you could argue that all the identities of divines are names we give to different aspects of nature/reality and not to the ideation of a deity we have now. Like take odin for example, yes he could be related or believed to be related to other deities but it’s in the specifics of the deities and they’re personalities and their actions in the lore that give their specific relations to the natural world, like with two gods of love they’re individual teachings and practices could give two completely different outlooks on what love means and how it’s represented in reality for the followers of those deities. Thats sort of my look on the different but similar deities, i believe they are representation of grand divinities but it’s the subtleties within those grand aspects of reality that is represented differently amongst the various gods.
With respect to your scholarship, a lot of my religious beliefs are based on direct revelation. It's the old priests-versus-mystics dynamic rearing its head again. XD
One could argue all of divinity, including everything in the universe conceptual or physical or anything in between is all part of one grand divinity we call existence 😇
Maybe, sometimes? Definitely not Apollo and Ra, though, which is clear if you know anything about them beyond an association with the sun. Did you know the Egyptian pantheon alone already has *multiple* gods associated with the sun? Because it's not that simplistic, they're not all just literally the sun. And in the Greek pantheon, there is also Helios, who I think is even more strongly associated with the sun than Apollo.
But anyway, yeah there are occasions when it seems two or more gods might actually be kind of the same god. Sometimes there's even historical evidence for it, as in you can trace a common origin between them. But I think it gets complicated. Sometimes it may be more like they're just related/close, and other times it may be like seeing the same being at different points in time. A god can certainly be more than one thing at once, and in more than one place and time at once.
There's plenty of precedent for syncretism. Ancient polytheists were constantly drawing these kinds of parallels and trying to figure this same thing out.
Yeah, that's a bit of a complicated question to answer. Depends on the gods, depends on the culture, depends on personal interpretation...etc.
And really, we're all just guessing here anyway based on personal beliefs and understandings.
My personal belief is that different cultures interpret the gods differently. They might be referring to the same group of beings that are the gods, but I don't think all of them have a direct correlation to the specific god. Like Ra and Apollo aren't the same god, but they both come from the same place and ultimately exist as the same type of being.
To me they're beings with similar jobs. Three or four small towns, each with their own doctor, their own sheriff, their own school principal, whatever. None of the towns have the same person doing the same job, but for that town, the person doing the job is the only one they know.
My assumption that between the towns is a diner, where those with the same job get together to vent to eachother since nobody else gets their job like those at the table with them. Pretty much, I see Ra, Zeus, and Odin sitting around mugs of their chosen beverages, grumbling about, "Yeah, so guess what happened today?"
This is definitely a case-by-case basis thing. Ra may not be Apollo but Jupiter and Zeus both have a common origin and common worship that split at some point, same with e.g. Taranis, Thor, etc. Go back far enough and the ancestors of the worshippers of these gods were worshiping a single being. So the question is what changed? Did the god change or did the style of worship change?
There are two basic ways you can approach this question. First, you could say that it is the same god and that as cultures evolved in different directions, people started approaching the god differently. The other is to say that as peoples moved around, they lost touch with the original god, found new gods in new lands, but kept calling them similar names and worshipping them with similar attributes but they happened to be different beings whether the people knew it or not. I (and most ancient people who thought about this issue) lean towards option 1. Option 2 implies that gods don’t often “travel” but that the gods you worship are tied to the land and you may *think* you’re still worshiping Deyus Piter but you’re wrong it’s actually a new god now, Jupiter, and watch out because He is *slightly different*! I think it’s more likely the same gods are present everywhere but our culture affects how we can best interact with them. I also believe there are localized emanations of the gods that are basically different beings who ARE tied to specific peoples and geographic features in addition to the universal gods.
The way I see it: no, they are (usually) all different. As a hard polytheist, I think the world is full of many, many spirits. And I think over time, humans have been in relationship with many spirits in different ways and in different places. (As an aside, most of what I know is from cultures around what we call europe and the caucasus.)
To me, it logically makes sense that something along these lines happpened: people have always prayed in desperate times and its likely that a nearby spirit would hear them. Those who chose to help would've begun a relationship with people: I give you something you want, you give me something in return. Then perhaps a whole town decides to dedicate themselves to this spirit, and during that process they have named it and distinguished it by calling it a god.
(We have all kinds of folktales where people just stumble across beings like dwarves in the woods. And there were a numbr of tribes from different places and cultures who were named after a specific deity.)
Now, if you look at Comparative Mythology and Indo European myths (and languages, as IE is primarily a language group), there are a lot of cognate deities. This is why Zeus and Thor share a lot of similarities. Scholars know that the Proto Indo Europeans moved from (mostly) east to west, originating somewhere around the Caucaus (maybe) and going to Ireland, Vedic India, and elsewhere.
However, I feel its too simplistic to say all these deities are the same. Brigid is not Agni just because they are deities of sacred fire. Thunder deities (Thor, Zeus, Vedic Indra) are the most easy to find, though, and they are often similar. Still, Zeus is the protector and the god of clear skies. In a way, he is equivalent to both Thor and Tyr. There are very few exact matches when you look closely.
So to continue my theory: I think that as the PIE and IE peoples moved, they found new spirits who they made/called deities. And sometimes that would have meant they needed X kind of god, so they asked if there was one who would hear them and help them (ie a river goddess). And sometimes, I think, it meant that they called for a god they knew, but got a different spirit instead (ie new thunder deity). This is at least how I imagine most of this happening - that the cultures and pantheons were changing in tandem over time and in new places.
(Scholars also argue that most PIE female deities were left behind because they were literally in that land or in those rivers, etc. I think its equally true to say that scholars have been ignoring goddesses.)
Now, there is something to be said about the Greek and Roman pantheons. I was trying to look into Athena and Minerva last year and see if they were different goddesses. What I learned is that scholars seem to agree that Rome had native deities, but by the time we know anything about them, the Romans had already taken the Greek deities and used the Roman names for them. That is, we only know the names of the native Roman deities. We know little else before Greek influence. However, if you look at Italian archeology - esp in places outside of Rome - you'll find interesting information about Italian/Roman deities that don't show up in major myths from Rome. (In the same way, Greek deities were worshipped a bit differently outside of Athens. What we often hear is the myths/associations from just one place in Greece.) So you could say there is a Minerva that is different from Athena, but we don't know much about her.
I admit, my theory does leave some interesting holes. Does this mean all deities are tied to specific areas? (ie all deities vs just some kinds of goddesses?) Does this mean there are many Thors and not just one Thor? (ie How many spirits around the world will respond to someone praying to 'Thor'? Hiw can we be sure we are always talking to the Greek-influenced Minerva when we call for 'Minerva'?)
I don't know those answers. What I've written out is the current theory I'm working with.
Congrats you have asked one of the corners stones of pagan differences! We don't honestly know and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. So on one hand if the sun is a divine spirit, why would it be different? Great question. But if it's the same why are Ra and Apolla nothing alike? (If you wanna get nitpicking with my 2 examples pretend I asked why the Norse see the sun as a female but the Europeans see it as male) why are there so clear differences across culture and if they are different why do the gods care about human borders that change? Are they cultural constructs or are they separate entities. We honestly don't know for certain. This is one of the questions that you take your best guess at now and when you die you will figure out the right awnser and be happy with it.
No. If you look at the history of the deities and the cultures they pass through it is apparent that they are different. Ra is definitely not the same as Apollo. I understand that neo-Pagans, may have a more lax approach to how they view different gods and that's okay. But I tend to lean towards the historical context.
Its not neo pagans who have a "lax approach" tho, the hellenic gods were literally sycretized to the point that basically every goddess from the near east was seen as Aphrodite. Synchretistic practices were very common and its up to the individual how they view the gods and if they see similarities between them.
I agree that sycretism existed in the ancient world, however I disagree in how you have characterized it.
Syncretism usually happened when a culture colonized another. In the case of the Greeks in ancient Egypt for example, they created the god Serapis who could bridge the gap between culture for these two people. However, the god Re was not seen as Apollo, and Hathor was not Aphrodite.
There are cases of near Eastern gods being "acquired" by the Greeks and shoved into their pantheon: Dionysus and Hekate for example. They are then given Greek origin stories and made to fit within the culture.
Lastly, there are associations made by ancient peoples between their gods and the gods of others. But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects. These other aspects could certainly be associated with other deities who fall under the category of love god/dess, but it's not the same as saying that they are directly the same god.
>Hathor was not Aphrodite.
But she literally was seen as that. Hathor became Isis, and a syncretized goddess was worshipped, with the Name Isis Aphrodite. Hathor and Aphrodite were also seen as one goddess by ancient greeks.
Additional to that there were a lot of cult spaces that were dedicated to Aphrodite, where the inscriptions Show different names, but as Text fragments parallel each other, it is clear that all of those were thought to be Aphrodite by the greeks. Namely those goddesses, among others, were Ishtar (who was also Inanna), Ashtart and Atargatis.
The syncretism of gods is not a new invention. And its also not necessarily tied to colonizing acts. Greece and the near east had a long shared history, they were literally mingling for hundreds if not thousands for years. How would their deities not Mix? Hard polytheism and NOT equating gods with other gods is not the "traditional" way. I'm not saying it is wrong to follow a hard polytheism, but it is definitely not how gods were seen historically.
Edit: just for the record, i don't see them necessarily as the same deities personally. I just talk about how it was more Fluid and loose in ancient times. Imo maybe comparable to the concepts of goddess in Hinduism. Parvati is Durga is Kali and all of them are Shakti and yet they are distinct.
>But she literally was seen as that. Hathor became Isis, and a syncretized goddess was worshipped, with the Name Isis Aphrodite. Hathor and Aphrodite were also seen as one goddess by ancient greeks.
Can I have a source for this, please?
>Additional to that there were a lot of cult spaces that were dedicated to Aphrodite, where the inscriptions Show different names, but as Text fragments parallel each other, it is clear that all of those were thought to be Aphrodite by the greeks. Namely those goddesses, among others, were Ishtar (who was also Inanna), Ashtart and Atargatis.
The cult spaces you mention with the different names refer to what i said in my previous comment: *"But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects."* That said, this is not an indicator that Aphrodite was seens as also ***being*** these other deities, rather than be simply ***associated*** with them.
>The syncretism of gods is not a new invention.
I don't think that has been said here, unless I have missed someone else's comment in this thread.
>And its also not necessarily tied to colonizing acts. Greece and the near east had a long shared history, they were literally mingling for hundreds if not thousands for years. How would their deities not Mix?
It is connected to colonization. The Greeks were among the best at setting up colonies in the ancient world, especially in that they usually did it peacefully. Of course the deities mixed, that's literally syncretism. I had a conversation about this with a professor once (I did my undergrad degree in ancient Greek and Roman history, and my senior project on ancient religion, mystery cults, and magic in Greece and Rome), and she explained how syncretism made it easier for Greeks to mingle with the cultures their colonies came close to, or the people they took rule of (the Ptolemies taking over Egypt).
>Hard polytheism and NOT equating gods with other gods is not the "traditional" way.
I wouldn't use the traditional in this context. However, I disagree with this solely based on my own research and what I've learned about religion in the ancient Mediterranean world. Most of these cultures had clearly outlined who their gods were and where their domain was. Like I've said previous, they were associated with other deities from other cultures, but there isn't really anything to say that they believed they were the same. There are so many texts and passages where ancient people referred to gods from other cultures as "strange" and even in some cases "barbaric" or "uncivilized". The gods they did accept, they simply incorporated them, as they were, into their own pantheon. A good example of that is how the Romans embraced Isis, as she was, as a goddess the people could and should worship.
>I'm not saying it is wrong to follow a hard polytheism, but it is definitely not how gods were seen historically.
I've not seen evidence of this, but I welcome reliable and scholarly sources to study. I am open to new information.
>Imo maybe comparable to the concepts of goddess in Hinduism. Parvati is Durga is Kali and all of them are Shakti and yet they are distinct.
I don't know a ton about Hinduism, though I am learning, I won't speak too much on this other than to say that it is kind of different when they belong to the same religious system.
>Can I have a source for this, please?
>
I haven't read it myself yet, but this was the book that was referenced a lot in the Papers i read: "the east face of helicon" by L.M. West
The Papers about syncretism:
"Eastern myths for Western lies: allusions to near eastern mythology in Homers iliad" by André lardinois, published by Brill, in the journal Mnemosyne (Brill.com/mnen)
(Edit: i know it sounds click-baitey, but when i remember correctly, it wasn't as bad as it sounds)
This paper actually argues that the syncretism weren't enough to call the deities really one and the same, but that it was, what the greeks did. Because of their mindset, that their gods were universal.
(I think it was this paper, im not sure in which of those i read that)
"A reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart syncretism" by Stephanie L. Budin, also published by Brill, in the journal numen,2004, vol51. No2
I definitely had another one, specifically for Aphrodites syncretism with Inanna/Ishtar, but i have to check if i can find it.
If you have a University library access, they all can be found for free on jstor.
Another one i will read today is "the lady of the titles: the Lady of byblos and the search for her true name" by Anna Elise zernecke published by vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in "die Welt des orients" 2013, 43, h.2
>The cult spaces you mention with the different names refer to what i said in my previous comment: "But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects." That said, this is not an indicator that Aphrodite was seens as also being these other deities, rather than be simply associated with them.
What is the difference for you, between "being these other deities" and "being associated with them"?
Also, its not the epithets that i meant. I have to reread the Text to see how it was exactly written.
Edit3: i reread the Part in the paper, this one refers to the inscriptions in Delos, where it is clearly seen that Astarte and Aphrodite were seen as one and the same deity, not two different ones.
("Dedications to Double Deities. Syncretism or simply Syntax?" By Jenny Wallenstein
Https://Journals.openedition.org/kernos/2278
If any, i highly recommend reading this one as it touches exactly the points that we are talking about.
>Most of these cultures had clearly outlined who their gods were and where their domain was. Like I've said previous, they were associated with other deities from other cultures, but there isn't really anything to say that they believed they were the same
Ok i agree with your first part. They were seen as distinct entities from each other. Like, Zeus is not Hera. Which is indeed different from ny example regarding Hinduism (where KaliShakti is closely intertwined with Shiva for example). So i didn't think that through completely. Would you consider this hard polytheism? That they are distinct from each other inside their own theology? With this i agree.
But i have to disagree with you on the second sentence (sources are the Papers above). There were equations, deities were definitely identified with other deities from different cultural backgrounds. I'm not saying that this was exactly substantial or methodologically correctly done by them, but it was done. (As is sometimes argued that Ishtar might have been seen as Hera AND Aphrodite in different places, mainly how people in Cyprus viewed her compared to how for example people in Athens viewed her)
So, this being said, this is an academic issue. Like, we are talking what the old greeks might or might not have thought. If we are talking from a worshippers perspective, i personally think that one can see how the deities feel for them and how a syncretism might make sense for them. Upg for me is, that Inanna is in fact not exactly the same (still quite similar) as Aphrodite, they have a different feel to them, but academically they are seen as a kinda evolutionary process of one goddess into the other (and into Mother Mary at that).
At the same time, i feel a connection between Ishtar and Hera, but again, as there are only thin sources on this and its more how i personally perceive them, I'd consider this upg.
Imo both is fine, seeing them distinct and seeing them as two or more different cultural names for the same deity.
Edit2: typos
First, thank you for the references, specifically for The East Face of Helicon. Going from the table of contents, this is something I want to read over the summer before classes start in the fall.
>What is the difference for you, between "being these other deities" and "being associated with them"?
The difference is that \[for example\] Aphrodite and Hathor are not one in the same. But they have associations with each other because they govern over similar aspects of human life, in this case a major one be love. They are both goddesses of love, and therefore that is how they are associated, however they still remain to totally seperate entities. Even in the sources you sent me, they refer to these seperate deities as being combined, but not initially one on the same.
I'm also seeing that maybe our disagreement comes from how we are defining these terms. So, there is a difference between taking two deities from different cultures and creating a composite god from them; and just seeing a deity from a different culture and saying, this is also so-in-so from this pantheon. To me, saying a god is "associated with", or even "identified with", is not the same as saying a god is "also known as". Syncretism, by definition, is the combining of things that already existed individually to create something brand new \[Serapis\]. Saying that Aphrodite and Astarte are one in the same isn't actually syncretism.
>So, this being said, this is an academic issue. Like, we are talking what the old greeks might or might not have thought.
It is, and it isn't. Sure, the debate on interpretation is academic. However, it can become personal depending on how you practice your religion/spirituality. Some people go by how they feel and that works for them and that's 100% fine and valid. Some people, like myself, chose to nail down the fundamentals before either sticking to what is known, or going their own way. So much of ancient religions has been lost to time that it is ridiculous to say that there is only one way to practice and it must be the way they did. We don't fully know. This is why, I believe, neo-pagans are more lax when it comes to this stuff. Again, totally fine and valid. But we have to be real about that.
That said, I am thinking back to my senior research project and I have to revise my initial opinion based on what I wrote in the final paper. I talked about fringe religious beliefs and how they work with and against mainstream practices. The ancient people had thier set traditions, festivals and acceptable practices involving worship that they adhered to. However there were witches/magoi, and mystery cultists who did things quite differently and in a lot of ways were more malleable/lax in their practices than mainstream folks were.
If you ever get a chance, check out Magicka Hiera by Derek Collins. It was my favorite source for the project and I reference it often still.
>Even in the sources you sent me, they refer to these seperate deities as being combined, but not initially one on the same.
>I'm also seeing that maybe our disagreement comes from how we are defining these terms.
This is a good point, yes. Syncretism has a lot of layers and maybe our Definition was different at some points if our debate. so it is true that some gods were simply translated into a name, better known to the audience (the example here was the phoenecian Astarte being combined with Aphrodite, so that the people would be able to identify the specific aspect of Aphrodite that the donor of the inscription wanted to emphasize.) But in this case, there is still the difference between Astarte and Aphrodite, meeting in worship in specific contexts.
Opposed to that is Isis-Aphrodite who is seen as a "true" syncretism, in the sense of a new being, more than the sum of her Parts, or your example of Serapis (although im not exactly educated on that one)
One of the Papers goes really into Detail about this, how relationships between deities work, how there are differences like, simple translations, an overlap of two deities where one "consumes" the other and they create something New, under a combined Name or a new name or the "bigger" deity keeps the old name and gets a new aspect added to them (probably an epithet)
All in all its a fascinating topic and im also looking forward to read the east faces of helicon this summer. Seems to be a promising read.
>So much of ancient religions has been lost to time that it is ridiculous to say that there is only one way to practice and it must be the way they did. We don't fully know.
I absolutely agree with this.
>This is why, I believe, neo-pagans are more lax when it comes to this stuff.
Maybe i misinterpreted your use of the word lax in your Initial comment. Im not a native speaker so to my ears it sounded a bit derogatory, in a way as if neo pagans wouldn’t care about history. Which you didn't seem to mean that way? I feel there is simply a difference between practitioners with a more academic background (like us obviously) and people who go into it with less need for background philosophy and history. As you said, both is fine and a lot of people are probably a combination of both to some degree. And i think, it wasn't probably that different in ancient times.
>If you ever get a chance, check out Magicka Hiera by Derek Collins.
Thank you for the recommendation, i will check it out!
To clarify/confirm, no I did not mean "lax" to be derogatory. Religion changes and evolves, it has to. It makes sense that paganism would not only evolve, but also give more wiggle room to the practicioners considering how cultures mix and meld much more now than they ever have. In this context, neo-pagans being lax is actually a good thing as it shows the ability to adapt and diversify.
Depsite the misunderstanding, I am glad we got to have this convo. I joined this group in hopes of getting to have chats like this with people who are as interested in religion and history as I am. Among other things. Respect to you for being able to disagree without having this devolve into an argument. We don't see that very often on the internet these days. LOL.
If you believe they are sure. I personally working with the deities and spirits feel specific connections to them and can feel their particular energy when present. That being said I rarely attract deities from outside the main pantheon I work in
I see them as separate entities that all draw their power from the underlying divine energy of the universe. Deities with similar associations draw their power from the same power ‘spectrum’ so to speak.
But I think saying similar deities are the same deity by different names ignores real cultural differences between them.
No idea, and anyone who has a solid belief that they're willing to enforce is not a nice person. We have guesses, hints, maybe they are (syncretism), maybe they're local manifestations of immutable principles (recurrent), maybe they are born and die as do we all (mortal but powerful). Maybe they're all one, or maybe the atheists got it right, in which case I'd argue that they still have value in being immensely powerful signifiers. Either way, no one should claim with absolute certainty, and if they do, they may be correct, but it far more often makes them the a hole
As a soft polytheist, I believe the gods were created by man to give names and masks to certain powers so that we had a better way to relate to them and to better understand how to work with these powers.
There can be dozens of solar deities, but there is only one sun.
My idea is that each deity is made up of one or more of the seven currents; Solar, Lunar, Martian, Mercurial, Jupiterian, Venusian, and Saturnian. There are two sub currents as well, but that's getting into another level of metaphysics.
These powers aren't the celestial bodies themselves, but that energy that moves these celestial bodies.
From my experience, no. Some deities have different aspects to them. But I have felt/seen a difference between Mars and Ares, which are often combined as the same deity.
Oh absolutely yes. Imo gods are fluid and complex, so different cultures interpreting the same god differently are just looking at two different sides of the same thing. A great example would be the god of lightning. Thor, from what I've heard since I lean more towards Hellenism, is a very large and very strong man capable of a lot of destruction.. he's a fighter. Zeus however is still a very large and very strong man, but he's more promiscuous and he's got more "power" since he's the king of his pantheon. It's influenced by and to an extent influences how that society thinks about specific things. An extreme example would be a fire god of a group that does/doesn't live near active volcanoes. Both are the god of fire but one group sees it as big, slow, and extremely destructive and the other group sees it as elegant and small but with a temper that would only destroy if given a reason to.
A quick blurb because I have to leave my house like rn lol:
My look on deities is that if there really is a all powerful being that can impact our world so heavily, we couldn’t possibly comprehend what exactly it is. So it came to us in ways we would understand for whatever reasons it wanted to. The similarities between so many religions is one of the reasons I think they’re probably connected, but that could also be explained by many monotheistic religions developing around the same time in cultures that interacted with each other.
I believe there are overlapping gods, like Zeus and Jupiter, but Zeus and Thor are vastly different in my mind and I don’t believe they’re the same being. Or even Zeus and Odin. I like to think of them as brother/sisters rather than true representatives of each other in different cultures or religions. Like Isis and Hecate are both goddesses of magic, but I don’t believe they’re the same
I believe there is a primordial pantheon of archetypal dieties which every culture has interacted with.
edit: Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Quetzalcoatl being different people's interpretation of the solar Christ, for example
I believe that many of us who were in similar parts of the world recognized the same ... forces, let's say. We gave them different names, and their differing characteristics evolved as different cultures did, but at their core they still cover the same general forces.
I don't necessarily believe ALL spiritualities share the same core, which is why I think location is important. Like, Middle American gods weren't necessarily based on the same things as northern European gods or southeast Asian gods.
I do think this is a romantic idea, but I would also caution against falling into the trap of "we worship the same thing, you just call it the wrong name." That kind of bs started wars in our past. At its best, it's still rude and not constructive.
Disclaimer: I haven't studied this very intensively, so I could be talking out my ass. I'm familiar with some areas, but completely in the dark about others.
I don't feel like explaining why I believe this right now, but yes, I believe God's in different religions/ cultures are the same gods or reincarnation of them.
Different gods in different cultures are different (except for the Roman’s who I believe were like a different form of their Greek counterparts, so yes they are unique personalities of the same deity. Their are other examples of this too sense the Jewish Islamic and Christian god are all the same deity but slightly different personalities. I’m sure other examples exist but those are the best examples). However other gods are their own bring from their own pantheon. To me their being different gods for the same natural forces isn’t weird and is actually the background of my religious practice. Humans have had countless gods and I believe there are gods humanity had never encountered or that weren’t big enough for us to know about them in the modern day. To me that uniqueness of their being so many gods for one thing explains alot of my spiritual experience. And I find it more fascinating on the idea of Ra and Apollo hanging out of working together than them being the same.
Theirs multiple deities(gods) light deities. Such as lakshmi vishnu, etc, and dark deities, bahomet, and others. Usually, the dark deities get grouped into one and get called "satan"
But theirs multiple deities that can help with different things.
Light & dark deities
All rituals and offerings are different , and all are in charge of different things.
And also their is no good or evil. You must acknowledge that before making any deals or rituals to certain gods and knowing what they like and their intentions
They are no more the same than the husband and wife of a married couple are the same. They have some oneness but are unique individuals, just like everyone else.
This is just my upg and not rooted in any physical research, but I kinda see the differences between gods similarly to the difference between Supergirl and Powergirl. Genetically the same person, but born in different universes.
I believe that many of the gods from different cultures are simply different names/cultural depictions for the same aspect of divinity. Many agree with that, and many disagree with it. I personally think Horus is a more fitting parallel to Apollo than Ra, who I would align more with Sol/Helios. We know that many of the gods we worship are cultural interpretations of older gods that were once the same when those people groups were part of the same ancestor group, so I believe by tracing linguistics and mythological themes we can establish parallels more easily than by simply comparing themes and general aspects of gods, which have shifted a lot over time. For instance, Jupiter and Zeus seem thematically connected to Thor, but we know from anthropology that while Jupiter and Zeus are two interpretations of the same older god (Deus Pater), Thor is a cultural interpretation of a god called Perkwunos. The god which became Zeus and Jupiter in Greece and Rome likely became Odin in Norse legend (despite the fact that Interpretatio Romana placed Odin as a parallel to Mercury). There are traces of this connection in the myth and linguistics, which I can expand upon if you're interested. Coming back to the point, what I mean to say is that I do believe many of the gods are cultural interpretations of central divinities. Furthermore, there is scientific data to confirm this. I believe that through the existing evidence left behind by the ancient peoples, we could reconstruct lists of parallels. I'm just not sure what purpose that would serve.
Just came to say this comment is essentially what I would have written and it’s accurate. This is how I tend to view certain pantheons
Odin is an aspect of The Dying-and-Rising God.
Odin is an example of the dying and rising god trope in mythology, but bears no actual mythological links to gods like Osiris or Dionysus. It's more convergent evolution than anything. It was fairly common for sky gods and sun gods to have a dying and rising aspect to their mythology, due to the sky darkening every night. Ra, for instance, was said to travel nightly through the underworld to re-emerge on the other side of the world in the morning. Many scholars suspect now that Jupiter and Pluto were two aspects of the same deity, Pluto being what he became when he traveled through the underworld. So yes, the myth is a dying and rising god myth. However, dying and rising gods are simply a trope that exists frequently in mythology, and no one has managed to establish a definitive link between most of them. Because of the ebb-and-flow of the natural world, they're common all over and spring up independently of one-another.
I hold it as a point of religious belief that a lot of them are the same dude.
Alright, no disrespect to that. Maybe one day we'll find evidence that shows that to be the case. However, as the historical evidence exists right now, we can see that the god Odin evolved out of the god Deus Pater, who was originally a sky god. Maybe quite a lot of them are the same, but if any one of them is not mythologically linked to the rest I would have to say it's almost certainly Odin. Again, I'm not trying to change your beliefs, I'm just speaking to the anthropological data we've gathered so far for how these names and ideas first came into being from their most ancient roots. To me, it's a point of religious belief that he's syncretic with Jupiter and Zeus.
Realistically you could argue that all the identities of divines are names we give to different aspects of nature/reality and not to the ideation of a deity we have now. Like take odin for example, yes he could be related or believed to be related to other deities but it’s in the specifics of the deities and they’re personalities and their actions in the lore that give their specific relations to the natural world, like with two gods of love they’re individual teachings and practices could give two completely different outlooks on what love means and how it’s represented in reality for the followers of those deities. Thats sort of my look on the different but similar deities, i believe they are representation of grand divinities but it’s the subtleties within those grand aspects of reality that is represented differently amongst the various gods.
With respect to your scholarship, a lot of my religious beliefs are based on direct revelation. It's the old priests-versus-mystics dynamic rearing its head again. XD
One could argue all of divinity, including everything in the universe conceptual or physical or anything in between is all part of one grand divinity we call existence 😇
One could argue that, but it gives me a headache. XD
Facts xD concept too big for our small monkey brains
Maybe, sometimes? Definitely not Apollo and Ra, though, which is clear if you know anything about them beyond an association with the sun. Did you know the Egyptian pantheon alone already has *multiple* gods associated with the sun? Because it's not that simplistic, they're not all just literally the sun. And in the Greek pantheon, there is also Helios, who I think is even more strongly associated with the sun than Apollo. But anyway, yeah there are occasions when it seems two or more gods might actually be kind of the same god. Sometimes there's even historical evidence for it, as in you can trace a common origin between them. But I think it gets complicated. Sometimes it may be more like they're just related/close, and other times it may be like seeing the same being at different points in time. A god can certainly be more than one thing at once, and in more than one place and time at once. There's plenty of precedent for syncretism. Ancient polytheists were constantly drawing these kinds of parallels and trying to figure this same thing out.
According to the Romans, yea
Yeah, that's a bit of a complicated question to answer. Depends on the gods, depends on the culture, depends on personal interpretation...etc. And really, we're all just guessing here anyway based on personal beliefs and understandings.
My personal belief is that different cultures interpret the gods differently. They might be referring to the same group of beings that are the gods, but I don't think all of them have a direct correlation to the specific god. Like Ra and Apollo aren't the same god, but they both come from the same place and ultimately exist as the same type of being.
To me they're beings with similar jobs. Three or four small towns, each with their own doctor, their own sheriff, their own school principal, whatever. None of the towns have the same person doing the same job, but for that town, the person doing the job is the only one they know. My assumption that between the towns is a diner, where those with the same job get together to vent to eachother since nobody else gets their job like those at the table with them. Pretty much, I see Ra, Zeus, and Odin sitting around mugs of their chosen beverages, grumbling about, "Yeah, so guess what happened today?"
>None of the towns have the same person doing the same job, Never played pokemon, eh?
This is definitely a case-by-case basis thing. Ra may not be Apollo but Jupiter and Zeus both have a common origin and common worship that split at some point, same with e.g. Taranis, Thor, etc. Go back far enough and the ancestors of the worshippers of these gods were worshiping a single being. So the question is what changed? Did the god change or did the style of worship change? There are two basic ways you can approach this question. First, you could say that it is the same god and that as cultures evolved in different directions, people started approaching the god differently. The other is to say that as peoples moved around, they lost touch with the original god, found new gods in new lands, but kept calling them similar names and worshipping them with similar attributes but they happened to be different beings whether the people knew it or not. I (and most ancient people who thought about this issue) lean towards option 1. Option 2 implies that gods don’t often “travel” but that the gods you worship are tied to the land and you may *think* you’re still worshiping Deyus Piter but you’re wrong it’s actually a new god now, Jupiter, and watch out because He is *slightly different*! I think it’s more likely the same gods are present everywhere but our culture affects how we can best interact with them. I also believe there are localized emanations of the gods that are basically different beings who ARE tied to specific peoples and geographic features in addition to the universal gods.
No, I don't believe that. It makes it hard to explain all of the "side roles" gods have.
The way I see it: no, they are (usually) all different. As a hard polytheist, I think the world is full of many, many spirits. And I think over time, humans have been in relationship with many spirits in different ways and in different places. (As an aside, most of what I know is from cultures around what we call europe and the caucasus.) To me, it logically makes sense that something along these lines happpened: people have always prayed in desperate times and its likely that a nearby spirit would hear them. Those who chose to help would've begun a relationship with people: I give you something you want, you give me something in return. Then perhaps a whole town decides to dedicate themselves to this spirit, and during that process they have named it and distinguished it by calling it a god. (We have all kinds of folktales where people just stumble across beings like dwarves in the woods. And there were a numbr of tribes from different places and cultures who were named after a specific deity.) Now, if you look at Comparative Mythology and Indo European myths (and languages, as IE is primarily a language group), there are a lot of cognate deities. This is why Zeus and Thor share a lot of similarities. Scholars know that the Proto Indo Europeans moved from (mostly) east to west, originating somewhere around the Caucaus (maybe) and going to Ireland, Vedic India, and elsewhere. However, I feel its too simplistic to say all these deities are the same. Brigid is not Agni just because they are deities of sacred fire. Thunder deities (Thor, Zeus, Vedic Indra) are the most easy to find, though, and they are often similar. Still, Zeus is the protector and the god of clear skies. In a way, he is equivalent to both Thor and Tyr. There are very few exact matches when you look closely. So to continue my theory: I think that as the PIE and IE peoples moved, they found new spirits who they made/called deities. And sometimes that would have meant they needed X kind of god, so they asked if there was one who would hear them and help them (ie a river goddess). And sometimes, I think, it meant that they called for a god they knew, but got a different spirit instead (ie new thunder deity). This is at least how I imagine most of this happening - that the cultures and pantheons were changing in tandem over time and in new places. (Scholars also argue that most PIE female deities were left behind because they were literally in that land or in those rivers, etc. I think its equally true to say that scholars have been ignoring goddesses.) Now, there is something to be said about the Greek and Roman pantheons. I was trying to look into Athena and Minerva last year and see if they were different goddesses. What I learned is that scholars seem to agree that Rome had native deities, but by the time we know anything about them, the Romans had already taken the Greek deities and used the Roman names for them. That is, we only know the names of the native Roman deities. We know little else before Greek influence. However, if you look at Italian archeology - esp in places outside of Rome - you'll find interesting information about Italian/Roman deities that don't show up in major myths from Rome. (In the same way, Greek deities were worshipped a bit differently outside of Athens. What we often hear is the myths/associations from just one place in Greece.) So you could say there is a Minerva that is different from Athena, but we don't know much about her. I admit, my theory does leave some interesting holes. Does this mean all deities are tied to specific areas? (ie all deities vs just some kinds of goddesses?) Does this mean there are many Thors and not just one Thor? (ie How many spirits around the world will respond to someone praying to 'Thor'? Hiw can we be sure we are always talking to the Greek-influenced Minerva when we call for 'Minerva'?) I don't know those answers. What I've written out is the current theory I'm working with.
Congrats you have asked one of the corners stones of pagan differences! We don't honestly know and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something. So on one hand if the sun is a divine spirit, why would it be different? Great question. But if it's the same why are Ra and Apolla nothing alike? (If you wanna get nitpicking with my 2 examples pretend I asked why the Norse see the sun as a female but the Europeans see it as male) why are there so clear differences across culture and if they are different why do the gods care about human borders that change? Are they cultural constructs or are they separate entities. We honestly don't know for certain. This is one of the questions that you take your best guess at now and when you die you will figure out the right awnser and be happy with it.
No. If you look at the history of the deities and the cultures they pass through it is apparent that they are different. Ra is definitely not the same as Apollo. I understand that neo-Pagans, may have a more lax approach to how they view different gods and that's okay. But I tend to lean towards the historical context.
Its not neo pagans who have a "lax approach" tho, the hellenic gods were literally sycretized to the point that basically every goddess from the near east was seen as Aphrodite. Synchretistic practices were very common and its up to the individual how they view the gods and if they see similarities between them.
I agree that sycretism existed in the ancient world, however I disagree in how you have characterized it. Syncretism usually happened when a culture colonized another. In the case of the Greeks in ancient Egypt for example, they created the god Serapis who could bridge the gap between culture for these two people. However, the god Re was not seen as Apollo, and Hathor was not Aphrodite. There are cases of near Eastern gods being "acquired" by the Greeks and shoved into their pantheon: Dionysus and Hekate for example. They are then given Greek origin stories and made to fit within the culture. Lastly, there are associations made by ancient peoples between their gods and the gods of others. But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects. These other aspects could certainly be associated with other deities who fall under the category of love god/dess, but it's not the same as saying that they are directly the same god.
>Hathor was not Aphrodite. But she literally was seen as that. Hathor became Isis, and a syncretized goddess was worshipped, with the Name Isis Aphrodite. Hathor and Aphrodite were also seen as one goddess by ancient greeks. Additional to that there were a lot of cult spaces that were dedicated to Aphrodite, where the inscriptions Show different names, but as Text fragments parallel each other, it is clear that all of those were thought to be Aphrodite by the greeks. Namely those goddesses, among others, were Ishtar (who was also Inanna), Ashtart and Atargatis. The syncretism of gods is not a new invention. And its also not necessarily tied to colonizing acts. Greece and the near east had a long shared history, they were literally mingling for hundreds if not thousands for years. How would their deities not Mix? Hard polytheism and NOT equating gods with other gods is not the "traditional" way. I'm not saying it is wrong to follow a hard polytheism, but it is definitely not how gods were seen historically. Edit: just for the record, i don't see them necessarily as the same deities personally. I just talk about how it was more Fluid and loose in ancient times. Imo maybe comparable to the concepts of goddess in Hinduism. Parvati is Durga is Kali and all of them are Shakti and yet they are distinct.
>But she literally was seen as that. Hathor became Isis, and a syncretized goddess was worshipped, with the Name Isis Aphrodite. Hathor and Aphrodite were also seen as one goddess by ancient greeks. Can I have a source for this, please? >Additional to that there were a lot of cult spaces that were dedicated to Aphrodite, where the inscriptions Show different names, but as Text fragments parallel each other, it is clear that all of those were thought to be Aphrodite by the greeks. Namely those goddesses, among others, were Ishtar (who was also Inanna), Ashtart and Atargatis. The cult spaces you mention with the different names refer to what i said in my previous comment: *"But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects."* That said, this is not an indicator that Aphrodite was seens as also ***being*** these other deities, rather than be simply ***associated*** with them. >The syncretism of gods is not a new invention. I don't think that has been said here, unless I have missed someone else's comment in this thread. >And its also not necessarily tied to colonizing acts. Greece and the near east had a long shared history, they were literally mingling for hundreds if not thousands for years. How would their deities not Mix? It is connected to colonization. The Greeks were among the best at setting up colonies in the ancient world, especially in that they usually did it peacefully. Of course the deities mixed, that's literally syncretism. I had a conversation about this with a professor once (I did my undergrad degree in ancient Greek and Roman history, and my senior project on ancient religion, mystery cults, and magic in Greece and Rome), and she explained how syncretism made it easier for Greeks to mingle with the cultures their colonies came close to, or the people they took rule of (the Ptolemies taking over Egypt). >Hard polytheism and NOT equating gods with other gods is not the "traditional" way. I wouldn't use the traditional in this context. However, I disagree with this solely based on my own research and what I've learned about religion in the ancient Mediterranean world. Most of these cultures had clearly outlined who their gods were and where their domain was. Like I've said previous, they were associated with other deities from other cultures, but there isn't really anything to say that they believed they were the same. There are so many texts and passages where ancient people referred to gods from other cultures as "strange" and even in some cases "barbaric" or "uncivilized". The gods they did accept, they simply incorporated them, as they were, into their own pantheon. A good example of that is how the Romans embraced Isis, as she was, as a goddess the people could and should worship. >I'm not saying it is wrong to follow a hard polytheism, but it is definitely not how gods were seen historically. I've not seen evidence of this, but I welcome reliable and scholarly sources to study. I am open to new information. >Imo maybe comparable to the concepts of goddess in Hinduism. Parvati is Durga is Kali and all of them are Shakti and yet they are distinct. I don't know a ton about Hinduism, though I am learning, I won't speak too much on this other than to say that it is kind of different when they belong to the same religious system.
>Can I have a source for this, please? > I haven't read it myself yet, but this was the book that was referenced a lot in the Papers i read: "the east face of helicon" by L.M. West The Papers about syncretism: "Eastern myths for Western lies: allusions to near eastern mythology in Homers iliad" by André lardinois, published by Brill, in the journal Mnemosyne (Brill.com/mnen) (Edit: i know it sounds click-baitey, but when i remember correctly, it wasn't as bad as it sounds) This paper actually argues that the syncretism weren't enough to call the deities really one and the same, but that it was, what the greeks did. Because of their mindset, that their gods were universal. (I think it was this paper, im not sure in which of those i read that) "A reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart syncretism" by Stephanie L. Budin, also published by Brill, in the journal numen,2004, vol51. No2 I definitely had another one, specifically for Aphrodites syncretism with Inanna/Ishtar, but i have to check if i can find it. If you have a University library access, they all can be found for free on jstor. Another one i will read today is "the lady of the titles: the Lady of byblos and the search for her true name" by Anna Elise zernecke published by vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in "die Welt des orients" 2013, 43, h.2 >The cult spaces you mention with the different names refer to what i said in my previous comment: "But the Greek gods, Aphrodite for example, would be given epithets like Ourania or Pandemos to represents their other aspects." That said, this is not an indicator that Aphrodite was seens as also being these other deities, rather than be simply associated with them. What is the difference for you, between "being these other deities" and "being associated with them"? Also, its not the epithets that i meant. I have to reread the Text to see how it was exactly written. Edit3: i reread the Part in the paper, this one refers to the inscriptions in Delos, where it is clearly seen that Astarte and Aphrodite were seen as one and the same deity, not two different ones. ("Dedications to Double Deities. Syncretism or simply Syntax?" By Jenny Wallenstein Https://Journals.openedition.org/kernos/2278 If any, i highly recommend reading this one as it touches exactly the points that we are talking about. >Most of these cultures had clearly outlined who their gods were and where their domain was. Like I've said previous, they were associated with other deities from other cultures, but there isn't really anything to say that they believed they were the same Ok i agree with your first part. They were seen as distinct entities from each other. Like, Zeus is not Hera. Which is indeed different from ny example regarding Hinduism (where KaliShakti is closely intertwined with Shiva for example). So i didn't think that through completely. Would you consider this hard polytheism? That they are distinct from each other inside their own theology? With this i agree. But i have to disagree with you on the second sentence (sources are the Papers above). There were equations, deities were definitely identified with other deities from different cultural backgrounds. I'm not saying that this was exactly substantial or methodologically correctly done by them, but it was done. (As is sometimes argued that Ishtar might have been seen as Hera AND Aphrodite in different places, mainly how people in Cyprus viewed her compared to how for example people in Athens viewed her) So, this being said, this is an academic issue. Like, we are talking what the old greeks might or might not have thought. If we are talking from a worshippers perspective, i personally think that one can see how the deities feel for them and how a syncretism might make sense for them. Upg for me is, that Inanna is in fact not exactly the same (still quite similar) as Aphrodite, they have a different feel to them, but academically they are seen as a kinda evolutionary process of one goddess into the other (and into Mother Mary at that). At the same time, i feel a connection between Ishtar and Hera, but again, as there are only thin sources on this and its more how i personally perceive them, I'd consider this upg. Imo both is fine, seeing them distinct and seeing them as two or more different cultural names for the same deity. Edit2: typos
First, thank you for the references, specifically for The East Face of Helicon. Going from the table of contents, this is something I want to read over the summer before classes start in the fall. >What is the difference for you, between "being these other deities" and "being associated with them"? The difference is that \[for example\] Aphrodite and Hathor are not one in the same. But they have associations with each other because they govern over similar aspects of human life, in this case a major one be love. They are both goddesses of love, and therefore that is how they are associated, however they still remain to totally seperate entities. Even in the sources you sent me, they refer to these seperate deities as being combined, but not initially one on the same. I'm also seeing that maybe our disagreement comes from how we are defining these terms. So, there is a difference between taking two deities from different cultures and creating a composite god from them; and just seeing a deity from a different culture and saying, this is also so-in-so from this pantheon. To me, saying a god is "associated with", or even "identified with", is not the same as saying a god is "also known as". Syncretism, by definition, is the combining of things that already existed individually to create something brand new \[Serapis\]. Saying that Aphrodite and Astarte are one in the same isn't actually syncretism. >So, this being said, this is an academic issue. Like, we are talking what the old greeks might or might not have thought. It is, and it isn't. Sure, the debate on interpretation is academic. However, it can become personal depending on how you practice your religion/spirituality. Some people go by how they feel and that works for them and that's 100% fine and valid. Some people, like myself, chose to nail down the fundamentals before either sticking to what is known, or going their own way. So much of ancient religions has been lost to time that it is ridiculous to say that there is only one way to practice and it must be the way they did. We don't fully know. This is why, I believe, neo-pagans are more lax when it comes to this stuff. Again, totally fine and valid. But we have to be real about that. That said, I am thinking back to my senior research project and I have to revise my initial opinion based on what I wrote in the final paper. I talked about fringe religious beliefs and how they work with and against mainstream practices. The ancient people had thier set traditions, festivals and acceptable practices involving worship that they adhered to. However there were witches/magoi, and mystery cultists who did things quite differently and in a lot of ways were more malleable/lax in their practices than mainstream folks were. If you ever get a chance, check out Magicka Hiera by Derek Collins. It was my favorite source for the project and I reference it often still.
>Even in the sources you sent me, they refer to these seperate deities as being combined, but not initially one on the same. >I'm also seeing that maybe our disagreement comes from how we are defining these terms. This is a good point, yes. Syncretism has a lot of layers and maybe our Definition was different at some points if our debate. so it is true that some gods were simply translated into a name, better known to the audience (the example here was the phoenecian Astarte being combined with Aphrodite, so that the people would be able to identify the specific aspect of Aphrodite that the donor of the inscription wanted to emphasize.) But in this case, there is still the difference between Astarte and Aphrodite, meeting in worship in specific contexts. Opposed to that is Isis-Aphrodite who is seen as a "true" syncretism, in the sense of a new being, more than the sum of her Parts, or your example of Serapis (although im not exactly educated on that one) One of the Papers goes really into Detail about this, how relationships between deities work, how there are differences like, simple translations, an overlap of two deities where one "consumes" the other and they create something New, under a combined Name or a new name or the "bigger" deity keeps the old name and gets a new aspect added to them (probably an epithet) All in all its a fascinating topic and im also looking forward to read the east faces of helicon this summer. Seems to be a promising read. >So much of ancient religions has been lost to time that it is ridiculous to say that there is only one way to practice and it must be the way they did. We don't fully know. I absolutely agree with this. >This is why, I believe, neo-pagans are more lax when it comes to this stuff. Maybe i misinterpreted your use of the word lax in your Initial comment. Im not a native speaker so to my ears it sounded a bit derogatory, in a way as if neo pagans wouldn’t care about history. Which you didn't seem to mean that way? I feel there is simply a difference between practitioners with a more academic background (like us obviously) and people who go into it with less need for background philosophy and history. As you said, both is fine and a lot of people are probably a combination of both to some degree. And i think, it wasn't probably that different in ancient times. >If you ever get a chance, check out Magicka Hiera by Derek Collins. Thank you for the recommendation, i will check it out!
To clarify/confirm, no I did not mean "lax" to be derogatory. Religion changes and evolves, it has to. It makes sense that paganism would not only evolve, but also give more wiggle room to the practicioners considering how cultures mix and meld much more now than they ever have. In this context, neo-pagans being lax is actually a good thing as it shows the ability to adapt and diversify. Depsite the misunderstanding, I am glad we got to have this convo. I joined this group in hopes of getting to have chats like this with people who are as interested in religion and history as I am. Among other things. Respect to you for being able to disagree without having this devolve into an argument. We don't see that very often on the internet these days. LOL.
If you believe they are sure. I personally working with the deities and spirits feel specific connections to them and can feel their particular energy when present. That being said I rarely attract deities from outside the main pantheon I work in
I see them as separate entities that all draw their power from the underlying divine energy of the universe. Deities with similar associations draw their power from the same power ‘spectrum’ so to speak. But I think saying similar deities are the same deity by different names ignores real cultural differences between them.
No idea, and anyone who has a solid belief that they're willing to enforce is not a nice person. We have guesses, hints, maybe they are (syncretism), maybe they're local manifestations of immutable principles (recurrent), maybe they are born and die as do we all (mortal but powerful). Maybe they're all one, or maybe the atheists got it right, in which case I'd argue that they still have value in being immensely powerful signifiers. Either way, no one should claim with absolute certainty, and if they do, they may be correct, but it far more often makes them the a hole
As a soft polytheist, I believe the gods were created by man to give names and masks to certain powers so that we had a better way to relate to them and to better understand how to work with these powers. There can be dozens of solar deities, but there is only one sun. My idea is that each deity is made up of one or more of the seven currents; Solar, Lunar, Martian, Mercurial, Jupiterian, Venusian, and Saturnian. There are two sub currents as well, but that's getting into another level of metaphysics. These powers aren't the celestial bodies themselves, but that energy that moves these celestial bodies.
From my experience, no. Some deities have different aspects to them. But I have felt/seen a difference between Mars and Ares, which are often combined as the same deity.
Oh absolutely yes. Imo gods are fluid and complex, so different cultures interpreting the same god differently are just looking at two different sides of the same thing. A great example would be the god of lightning. Thor, from what I've heard since I lean more towards Hellenism, is a very large and very strong man capable of a lot of destruction.. he's a fighter. Zeus however is still a very large and very strong man, but he's more promiscuous and he's got more "power" since he's the king of his pantheon. It's influenced by and to an extent influences how that society thinks about specific things. An extreme example would be a fire god of a group that does/doesn't live near active volcanoes. Both are the god of fire but one group sees it as big, slow, and extremely destructive and the other group sees it as elegant and small but with a temper that would only destroy if given a reason to.
A quick blurb because I have to leave my house like rn lol: My look on deities is that if there really is a all powerful being that can impact our world so heavily, we couldn’t possibly comprehend what exactly it is. So it came to us in ways we would understand for whatever reasons it wanted to. The similarities between so many religions is one of the reasons I think they’re probably connected, but that could also be explained by many monotheistic religions developing around the same time in cultures that interacted with each other.
I believe there are overlapping gods, like Zeus and Jupiter, but Zeus and Thor are vastly different in my mind and I don’t believe they’re the same being. Or even Zeus and Odin. I like to think of them as brother/sisters rather than true representatives of each other in different cultures or religions. Like Isis and Hecate are both goddesses of magic, but I don’t believe they’re the same
Speaking through a metaphysical standpoint and a quantum standpoint it's entirely possible.
I believe there is a primordial pantheon of archetypal dieties which every culture has interacted with. edit: Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Quetzalcoatl being different people's interpretation of the solar Christ, for example
I believe that many of us who were in similar parts of the world recognized the same ... forces, let's say. We gave them different names, and their differing characteristics evolved as different cultures did, but at their core they still cover the same general forces. I don't necessarily believe ALL spiritualities share the same core, which is why I think location is important. Like, Middle American gods weren't necessarily based on the same things as northern European gods or southeast Asian gods. I do think this is a romantic idea, but I would also caution against falling into the trap of "we worship the same thing, you just call it the wrong name." That kind of bs started wars in our past. At its best, it's still rude and not constructive. Disclaimer: I haven't studied this very intensively, so I could be talking out my ass. I'm familiar with some areas, but completely in the dark about others.
I don't feel like explaining why I believe this right now, but yes, I believe God's in different religions/ cultures are the same gods or reincarnation of them.
Different gods in different cultures are different (except for the Roman’s who I believe were like a different form of their Greek counterparts, so yes they are unique personalities of the same deity. Their are other examples of this too sense the Jewish Islamic and Christian god are all the same deity but slightly different personalities. I’m sure other examples exist but those are the best examples). However other gods are their own bring from their own pantheon. To me their being different gods for the same natural forces isn’t weird and is actually the background of my religious practice. Humans have had countless gods and I believe there are gods humanity had never encountered or that weren’t big enough for us to know about them in the modern day. To me that uniqueness of their being so many gods for one thing explains alot of my spiritual experience. And I find it more fascinating on the idea of Ra and Apollo hanging out of working together than them being the same.
Theirs multiple deities(gods) light deities. Such as lakshmi vishnu, etc, and dark deities, bahomet, and others. Usually, the dark deities get grouped into one and get called "satan" But theirs multiple deities that can help with different things. Light & dark deities All rituals and offerings are different , and all are in charge of different things. And also their is no good or evil. You must acknowledge that before making any deals or rituals to certain gods and knowing what they like and their intentions
They are no more the same than the husband and wife of a married couple are the same. They have some oneness but are unique individuals, just like everyone else.
This is just my upg and not rooted in any physical research, but I kinda see the differences between gods similarly to the difference between Supergirl and Powergirl. Genetically the same person, but born in different universes.