Pagan/Polytheistic Discussion Thread: By the Gods!

[Nevertopia]

What the fuck? Have you ever met a hindu? Or lived near them?

Hinduism can be monotheistic in that some sects worship a single god to the total exclusion of other Hindu gods. Hindu atheism is significantly more complex, but in general, it means accepting the accuracy of the Vedas while rejecting the actual existence of the gods named within (way more complex than that), and rejecting claims that the Vedas were divinely inspired and/or written by gods.

isnt hinduism the oldest known religion in the world?

[Thermodolia]

Hinduism can be monotheistic in that some sects worship a single god to the total exclusion of other Hindu gods. Hindu atheism is significantly more complex, but in general, it means accepting the accuracy of the Vedas while rejecting the actual existence of the gods named within (way more complex than that), and rejecting claims that the Vedas were divinely inspired and/or written by gods.

isnt hinduism the oldest known religion in the world?

One of.

There’s debate as to which religion is technically the oldest.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Hinduism can be monotheistic in that some sects worship a single god to the total exclusion of other Hindu gods. Hindu atheism is significantly more complex, but in general, it means accepting the accuracy of the Vedas while rejecting the actual existence of the gods named within (way more complex than that), and rejecting claims that the Vedas were divinely inspired and/or written by gods.

isnt hinduism the oldest known religion in the world?

It is definitely a religion, but it has many many branches. Some are more religious, other are less so and are more akin to Confucianism in degree of religiosity.

[Suriyanakhon]

How can ya'll be celebrating non-abrahamic gods without mentioning the granddaddy of religion itself Ahura Mazda?

Already ahead of you famalam.

[Lady Victory]

How can ya'll be celebrating non-abrahamic gods without mentioning the granddaddy of religion itself Ahura Mazda?

Ngl if I wasn't already a Christian I'd be a Zoroastrian.

[Insaanistan]

Iranian media spreads misinformation claiming that Hindus in India are abandoning their deities.

Yes, many.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post, lol.
No, Iran is lying.

[Insaanistan]

How can ya'll be celebrating non-abrahamic gods without mentioning the granddaddy of religion itself Ahura Mazda?

Ahura Mazda is Allah and Ahriman is Shaytan.

[Insaanistan]

Many Hindus would object to being called “polytheist”. Many Hindus are atheistic or monotheistic.

What the fuck? Have you ever met a hindu? Or lived near them?

Yes, many.
(There we go!)

[Nakena]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

[Insaanistan]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

For several reasons:
1. Zoroastrians can easily be considered monotheists. Most modern sources list them as monotheistic and despite some referring to them as dualist or polytheists the elements of those in their faith are pretty minuscule. It’s like calling Sikhs pantheists instead of monotheists: a few sources do, but a majority instead list them as a latter because their views better align with that.
2. Many Muslims consider Zarathustra to have possibly been a prophet of God, with Ahmadiyyas being certain he was. The guy was preaching a monotheistic religion and warning of hell and Ahriman.
3. The Qur’ân has verses referring to Magians (Yazidis and Zoroastrians) as being in the same category as Jews and Christians saying Muslims are to respect them.

[Lady Victory]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

"People of the Book" is just Islamic-speak for "Religions Muhammad took inspiration from when making his cult".

[Insaanistan]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

"People of the Book" is just Islamic-speak for "Religions Muhammad took inspiration from when making his cult".

“People of the Book” is “people we’re going to give extra respect to because they worship the same God.”

Unless of course you think Muhammad had a plane to get to India to study under Hindu monks, a time machine to study Sikhism, a secret vast library of the religious works of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, and a fluent comprehension of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, People of the Book means nothing close to what you said.

[Lady Victory]

"People of the Book" is just Islamic-speak for "Religions Muhammad took inspiration from when making his cult".

“People of the Book” is “people we’re going to give extra respect to because they worship the same God.”

Unless of course you think Muhammad had a plane to get to India to study under Hindu monks, a time machine to study Sikhism, a secret vast library of the religious works of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, and a fluent comprehension of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, People of the Book means nothing close to what you said.

You have a very warped understanding of Islamic history, you know.

[Insaanistan]

“People of the Book” is “people we’re going to give extra respect to because they worship the same God.”

Unless of course you think Muhammad had a plane to get to India to study under Hindu monks, a time machine to study Sikhism, a secret vast library of the religious works of Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians, and a fluent comprehension of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, People of the Book means nothing close to what you said.

You have a very warped understanding of Islamic history, you know.

The Quran uses the term in reference to Jews, Christians and Sabians in a variety of contexts, from religious polemics to passages emphasizing the community of faith among those who possess monotheistic scriptures. The term was later extended to other religious communities that fell under Muslim rule, including Sikhs and even Hindus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of ... r=c2598562

The Arab Muslim conquest of Persia meant the end of Zoroastrian control, but it did not immediately result in persecution. In fact, the early caliphs adhered to a general policy of religious tolerance. As dhimmī, or legally protected nonbelievers, Zoroastrians were free to worship Ahura Mazdā without punishment.

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-ha ... r=fdba31c5

If you’ll notice, when speaking of the religious tolerance of Muslim states, I’ll usually say “under the Rashidun”.

[Lady Victory]

You have a very warped understanding of Islamic history, you know.

The Quran uses the term in reference to Jews, Christians and Sabians in a variety of contexts, from religious polemics to passages emphasizing the community of faith among those who possess monotheistic scriptures. The term was later extended to other religious communities that fell under Muslim rule, including Sikhs and even Hindus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of ... r=c2598562

The Arab Muslim conquest of Persia meant the end of Zoroastrian control, but it did not immediately result in persecution. In fact, the early caliphs adhered to a general policy of religious tolerance. As dhimmī, or legally protected nonbelievers, Zoroastrians were free to worship Ahura Mazdā without punishment.

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-ha ... r=fdba31c5

If you’ll notice, when speaking of the religious tolerance of Muslim states, I’ll usually say “under the Rashidun”.

Yes, you've established before that the Rashidun were all saints who could do no wrong and everything after them was apostasy.

But this isn't the thread for it.

[Suriyanakhon]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

"People of the Book" is just Islamic-speak for "Religions Muhammad took inspiration from when making his cult".

... no. There's no evidence that Muhammad would have been influenced by Zoroastrianism. Islam was shaped by Judaism, Christianity, and pre-Islamic Arabic traditions, most similarities between the two are probably because Judaism had absorbed Zoroastrian ideas a few millennia before. “People of the Book” was historically a very abstract category and ended up including people that Muhammad couldn't have been shaped by.

[Insaanistan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of ... r=c2598562

https://www.britannica.com/story/how-ha ... r=fdba31c5

If you’ll notice, when speaking of the religious tolerance of Muslim states, I’ll usually say “under the Rashidun”.

Yes, you've established before that the Rashidun were all saints who could do no wrong and everything after them was apostasy.

But this isn't the thread for it.

No, not saints.

I’m not a Sufi, ya see.

[Insaanistan]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

"People of the Book" is just Islamic-speak for "Religions Muhammad took inspiration from when making his cult".

Wait, I just realized you called Islam a cult.
Lol, how?

[Muzehnaya]

Yes, you've established before that the Rashidun were all saints who could do no wrong and everything after them was apostasy.

But this isn't the thread for it.

No, not saints.

I’m not a Sufi, ya see.

While it's true that most of the saints are Sufis, saints as a concept have historically been accepted in orthodox Sunni Islam as well.

[Insaanistan]

No, not saints.

I’m not a Sufi, ya see.

While it's true that most of the saints are Sufis, saints as a concept have historically been accepted in orthodox Sunni Islam as well.

Interesting.
What are some examples of some Sunni saints? I’ve genuinely only heard them in the context of Sufis.

[Muzehnaya]

While it's true that most of the saints are Sufis, saints as a concept have historically been accepted in orthodox Sunni Islam as well.

Interesting.
What are some examples of some Sunni saints? I’ve genuinely only heard them in the context of Sufis.

Most Sufis (at least the ones who I've met and spoken with) are Sunni Muslims. Historically speaking, I believe that's the case as well, and off the top of my head there were people like Ahmad Ghazali & Muhammad al-Ghazali, al-Tirmidhi, (perhaps infamously) al-Hallaj, and countless others.

But in terms of accepting the concept of saints existing, that was done by many orthodox Sunni Muslims, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

While I'm not Pagan... Why did you feel the need to come into this thread and start saying people should believe in science?

That's like going into the Christian and Islam thread saying that everyone should believe in science for no reason.

yeah, and it's not like to be religious you have to sign some contract to never open a science textbook in your life or something. religion and science can coexist.

Yes, that is true, but the science is real. Gods in religions are as real as spider man, so we must understand that the best way to seek God is science.There is no point in obeying the rules of Christian and Islamic laws. but science protects you.

[Lady Victory]

Islam is not the topic of discussion here, people. This is not the IDT.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Afaik Zoroastrian are considered People of the Book for some odd reason.

For several reasons:
1. Zoroastrians can easily be considered monotheists. Most modern sources list them as monotheistic and despite some referring to them as dualist or polytheists the elements of those in their faith are pretty minuscule.

This is a very bad take, especially for the religion as it existed at Muhammad's time. Firstly in no way, shape or form are the dualist elements of Zoroastrianism "pretty miniscule", dualism is the foundation and core of the entire faith, you cannot separate dualism and Zoroastrianism. Likewise with polytheism, only a single group of Zoroastrians (the Parsis) moved away from a more openly polytheistic system, and it's a well understood historical fact that the only reason this occurred is because they wished to avoid Christian missionaries trying to forcefully convert them and that was much easier if they said they were monotheists. Iranian Zoroastrians and those in the US still openly pray to and worship the Yazata, and this is starting to become normalized amongst the Parsis again as younger people have been pushing to return to a more true form of the faith.

[Insaanistan]

For several reasons:
1. Zoroastrians can easily be considered monotheists. Most modern sources list them as monotheistic and despite some referring to them as dualist or polytheists the elements of those in their faith are pretty minuscule.

This is a very bad take, especially for the religion as it existed at Muhammad's time. Firstly in no way, shape or form are the dualist elements of Zoroastrianism "pretty miniscule", dualism is the foundation and core of the entire faith, you cannot separate dualism and Zoroastrianism. Likewise with polytheism, only a single group of Zoroastrians (the Parsis) moved away from a more openly polytheistic system, and it's a well understood historical fact that the only reason this occurred is because they wished to avoid Christian missionaries trying to forcefully convert them and that was much easier if they said they were monotheists. Iranian Zoroastrians and those in the US still openly pray to and worship the Yazata, and this is starting to become normalized amongst the Parsis again as younger people have been pushing to return to a more true form of the faith.

Yazata, in Zoroastrianism, member of an order of angels created by Ahura Mazdā to help him maintain the flow of the world order and quell the forces of Ahriman and his demons. They gather the light of the Sun and pour it on the Earth. Their help is indispensable in aiding man to purify and elevate himself. They teach him to dispel demons and free himself of the future torments of hell. Persons who remember the yazata through ritual offerings receive their favour and prosper. Zoroaster prayed to them to grant him strength for his mission.

The principal yazatas are mostly ancient Iranian deities reduced to auxiliary status: Ātar (Fire), Mithra, Anahita, Rashnu (The Righteous), Sraosha, and Verethraghna.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/yazata

Zoroastrianism has changed a great deal: the Yazidi faith, for example, is essentially Islamized and Christianized Zoroastrianism.
It’s unique history, forged by persecution, expulsion and relative isolation (as well as how widespread it initially was) leads it to like Hinduism take on many forms.

The Britannica article lists them as ancient Iranian deities who were given a much lower status under Zoroastrianism.

I do not doubt that more polytheistic approaches to the faith are likely popular in its diaspora (likely in response to the attempts forcibly to impose more monotheistic approaches by Muslims and Christians).
But like (to an extent) Hinduism and Sikhism, multiple labels have been applied to it but none are 100% perfect. There is, however, a reason most sources call Zoroastrianism the first monotheistic faith.