Hellenic Polytheism

[Glorthac]

Well, there is the problem that such a statement is not substantiated. You can say all you want "He cannot... unless my god allows so." but it is unsubstantiated so it's sort of entirely meaningless.

Let me give an example to substantiate it: Thor drank an ocean of beer and because of that he is a god. But could he have drank the ocean of beer if there was no beer? No, then the glory goes to the earth, which created the beer.

But then who created the earth? Well, either the earth has a Creator or it is eternal. If it has a Creator, the glory goes from Thor to the earth to the Creator. If it is eternal, the glory goes from Thor to the earth and also to the universe, which has an equal claim to the glory because the earth is part of the universe.

Therefore, we count up glory of Thor, the earth, and the earth's source, and ask ourselves, why should I worship something with less glory? Why should I worship something that owes its glory to something else?

And these are the questions I'm asking. And I'm not saying so much "who allows..." but "how could they without..."?

 

[Deukal]

Let me give an example to substantiate it: Thor drank an ocean of beer and because of that he is a god. But could he have drank the ocean of beer if there was no beer? No, then the glory goes to the earth, which created the beer.

But then who created the earth? Well, either the earth has a Creator or it is eternal. If it has a Creator, the glory goes from Thor to the earth to the Creator. If it is eternal, the glory goes from Thor to the earth and also to the universe, which has an equal claim to the glory because the earth is part of the universe.

Therefore, we count up glory of Thor, the earth, and the earth's source, and ask ourselves, why should I worship something with less glory? Why should I worship something that owes its glory to something else?

And these are the questions I'm asking. And I'm not saying so much "who allows..." but "how could they without..."?

Or perhaps, all of those entities could have the glory and be worshipped for their godliness and extraordinary abilities and accomplishments.

 

[Fuzzy]

Let me give an example to substantiate it: Thor drank an ocean of beer and because of that he is a god. But could he have drank the ocean of beer if there was no beer? No, then the glory goes to the earth, which created the beer.

Not because of that. One of the things he was capable of, because he's a god, is drinking an ocean of beer. Though I may be misremembering the legend, it may be mead, or it may be that an ocean was linked to the horn Thor was drinking from. There was a trick, and Thor defeated the trick.

The point is that gods can do phenomenal things, not that doing phenomenal things make one a god.

Therefore, we count up glory of Thor, the earth, and the earth's source, and ask ourselves, why should I worship something with less glory? Why should I worship something that owes its glory to something else?

And these are the questions I'm asking. And I'm not saying so much "who allows..." but "how could they without..."?

A lot of creation stories go back to a Nothing, while others simply don't talk about it. The world/universe is, or sprang out of something else without addressing whatever the something else came from.

As far as worshiping something of "less" glory, that's up to the worshiper. And most of the hard polytheists I know give homage to at least two gods.
In the case of Thor, I know people who worship Thor, and Thor's father Odin.

 

[Glorthac]

Or perhaps, all of those entities could have the glory and be worshipped for their extraordinary abilities and accomplishments.

The question isn't could but why worship. Of course I can worship whoever I want, my arms aren't tied behind my back so I can't prostrate, but why worship Thor instead of the Universe he got the beer from? Ask why!


But if you are saying that multiple beings could all have all the glory, is this possible? Well, we've been speaking of glory as worthiness of worship, and deeds (drinking an ocean of beer) are what produces that worthiness, so to make your theory work, I would summarize it as:
1) Each being gathers its glory.
2) These beings pool together their glory, and share their glory.

But then aren't these gods dependent upon their ability to pool and gather the glory? And then its their energy which allows them to pool and gather the glory which is worthy of worship!

Of course, I deny you can pool glory together, I can't imagine how glory can be pooled together, its not a material object.

So I must ask, how can multiple beings all share all the glory? If they pool it, isn't there energy the God, because it allows them to have access to the glory?

 

[Glorthac]

Not because of that. One of the things he was capable of, because he's a god, is drinking an ocean of beer. Though I may be misremembering the legend, it may be mead, or it may be that an ocean was linked to the horn Thor was drinking from. There was a trick, and Thor defeated the trick.

The point is that gods can do phenomenal things, not that doing phenomenal things make one a god.



A lot of creation stories go back to a Nothing, while others simply don't talk about it. The world/universe is, or sprang out of something else without addressing whatever the something else came from.

As far as worshiping something of "less" glory, that's up to the worshiper. And most of the hard polytheists I know give homage to at least two gods.
In the case of Thor, I know people who worship Thor, and Thor's father Odin.

Even still, doesn't Thor owe the glory to whereever he gets his capability from to drink the beer (or whatever reason he is considered a god).

And ya, I can understand gods coming from nothing, I just think it didn't happen. But if it did, I'd worship the nothing. But since I don't think it happened, I worship the "One".

And I absolutely agree its up to the worshipper, do whatever, but I ask why.

 

[sidhe]

I guess if you define Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc. the way we define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then we're not discussing Hellenic polytheism anymore but Hellenic Polytarian Monotheism. And in that case, I'm cool, I'm only arguing against polytheism.

After all, we believe the 3 persons are consubstantial with the 1 divine nature that is the only G-d, so if the parallel exists, then there are multiple persons (Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc.) within the 1 divine nature that is the only G-d, and then its no longer polytheism, but Hellenic Polytarian Monotheism.

But if you are supporting Hellenic polytheism, then the parallel is invalid, and my argument continues: "Wouldn't the true G-d be the Being that contains the certain "pieces" each of the g-ds have?"

And thus, my 1 G-d can be the one who contains everything, but the multiple g-ds cannot contain everything, they being contained by their surroundings.

But I don't know, why is it wrong to say "This is the nothing" (although I deny my G-d is "nothing", I don't believe there is a "nothing" from whence the One came from, as you said)?

And I don' think I've denied that G-d can also be Thor, Freyja, Zeus, etc. I've only said there cannot be polytheism due to the greatest is always superior to the parts in which it contains. And this is so because of logic (which we can go over its self-evidence). So surely, G-d can destroy logic, He being omnipotent, but the fact that He didn't shows He supports it for a point, to lead us to truth, which leads us to my main argument again: "Wouldn't the true G-d be the Being that contains the certain "pieces" each of the g-ds have?"

And I'd like to hear about your Quadrinity of archetypal deities thing, it intrigues me.

I believe you just shot yourself in the foot, because I haven't discussed Hellenic polytheism once, and that you think my discussion has had a thing to do with it rather shows where you're falling short.

I'm not arguing in support of polytheism, I'm arguing that your argument is invalid because perception of deity varies. Thus, monotheism of the type you're describing and polytheism are only two ways of viewing the same whole. Qabalistically speaking, at any point on the Tree, you can see that as being the source of the rest of the Tree, because everything contains the image (or DNA, to relate it to modern science) of everything else. Observe my signature - I am created in the image of G-d, with all the associated rights and responsibilities. That includes that I can be the prophet of my own religion, and I am. I just don't expect anyone to agree with me. However, as I'm human, I'm rather terrestrial rather than celestial or aethyric - so I'd be Malkuth; the crystallization of deity. But, Malkuth is the direct reflection of Kether, so I look exactly like G-d. So do you, actually..."Love your neighbor as yourself, and love G-d before all things," and you can't do one without doing the other. I'm totally fine with being saved by Jesus, and Mithra, and Lugh, and Dionysus, and Balder, etc. etc. But I'm way happier when I place my trust in She who Rules Saturn and Binah.

The archetypal quadrinity is the sensible explanation of Christian doctrine, and why I'm ultimately pagan - and a Thelemite at that. The tetragrammaton (or, rather, one of them) is YHVH. "Yod" is, by gematria, the supreme creative force - the hand. It's kind of masculine, but ultimately gender neutral. When it links with "Heh Premiere" - the window or opening (koff...there's a double entendre here) - the result is "Vav." "Vav" means "pin", and there's another double entendre there, which when it links back up with Heh Premiere yields Heh Finale, which is another...opening.

Interestingly, "Heh" implies the opening you wouldn't normally go through. "Daleth" is a door...just sayin', G-d is kinky.

So, that'd be the Father, the Mother, the Son, and the Daughter. Incestuous? Yes, but that was at one time a sign of royalty. Christianity lacks the Daughter, unless one considers the Church to be that Daughter. However, also YHVH is only one four-letter name for deity...AShRH is another one (Air feeds Holy Fire of the Sun that lights the Window), LYLTh would be another (The Goad in the Hand drives the Hand to the Cross), or LYLT (The Goad in the Hand drives the Hand to the Serpent), ALLA, etc., etc.

But none of that really matters, because you're totally right that - in monotheism - your view is correct. In polytheism, your view is incorrect. Unless you have perfect knowledge of G-d, then you have no idea if you're 100% correct, and thus cannot say that others are incorrect...only that you feel they are. Their worldview is quite different, and the argument is totally pointless unless you can fully grasp and identify with their worldview...in which case, you would see their point of view.

Everyone in this thread is both totally correct, and completely wrong, and that's totally fine.

/drunk posting...and you can tell I did grad school, because my spelling is perfect while tipsy. Win.

 

[Deukal]

The question isn't could but why worship. Of course I can worship whoever I want, my arms aren't tied behind my back so I can't prostrate, but why worship Thor instead of the Universe he got the beer from? Ask why!

Why not honor all the deities? Honor the creator of beer, Honor Thor,Honor Zeus, Honor them all, who each have independent glory and control with awesome power and influence.

But if you are saying that multiple beings could all have all the glory, is this possible? Well, we've been speaking of glory as worthiness of worship, and deeds (drinking an ocean of beer) are what produces that worthiness, so to make your theory work, I would summarize it as:
1) Each being gathers its glory.
2) These beings pool together their glory, and share their glory.

But then aren't these gods dependent upon their ability to pool and gather the glory? And then its their energy which allows them to pool and gather the glory which is worthy of worship!

Of course, I deny you can pool glory together, I can't imagine how glory can be pooled together, its not a material object.

So I must ask, how can multiple beings all share all the glory? If they pool it, isn't there energy the God, because it allows them to have access to the glory?

Is glory an aura of energy of Godliness, or an awe of the God's power?

Even if all of their energies pooled into The God, why only worship THAT God? Why not honor all of them for their individual awesome power? A little why for you

 

[Glorthac]

I believe you just shot yourself in the foot, because I haven't discussed Hellenic polytheism once, and that you think my discussion has had a thing to do with it rather shows where you're falling short.

I'm not arguing in support of polytheism, I'm arguing that your argument is invalid because perception of deity varies. Thus, monotheism of the type you're describing and polytheism are only two ways of viewing the same whole. Qabalistically speaking, at any point on the Tree, you can see that as being the source of the rest of the Tree, because everything contains the image (or DNA, to relate it to modern science) of everything else. Observe my signature - I am created in the image of G-d, with all the associated rights and responsibilities. That includes that I can be the prophet of my own religion, and I am. I just don't expect anyone to agree with me. However, as I'm human, I'm rather terrestrial rather than celestial or aethyric - so I'd be Malkuth; the crystallization of deity. But, Malkuth is the direct reflection of Kether, so I look exactly like G-d. So do you, actually..."Love your neighbor as yourself, and love G-d before all things," and you can't do one without doing the other. I'm totally fine with being saved by Jesus, and Mithra, and Lugh, and Dionysus, and Balder, etc. etc. But I'm way happier when I place my trust in She who Rules Saturn and Binah.

The archetypal quadrinity is the sensible explanation of Christian doctrine, and why I'm ultimately pagan - and a Thelemite at that. The tetragrammaton (or, rather, one of them) is YHVH. "Yod" is, by gematria, the supreme creative force - the hand. It's kind of masculine, but ultimately gender neutral. When it links with "Heh Premiere" - the window or opening (koff...there's a double entendre here) - the result is "Vav." "Vav" means "pin", and there's another double entendre there, which when it links back up with Heh Premiere yields Heh Finale, which is another...opening.

Interestingly, "Heh" implies the opening you wouldn't normally go through. "Daleth" is a door...just sayin', G-d is kinky.

So, that'd be the Father, the Mother, the Son, and the Daughter. Incestuous? Yes, but that was at one time a sign of royalty. Christianity lacks the Daughter, unless one considers the Church to be that Daughter. However, also YHVH is only one four-letter name for deity...AShRH is another one (Air feeds Holy Fire of the Sun that lights the Window), LYLTh would be another (The Goad in the Hand drives the Hand to the Cross), or LYLT (The Goad in the Hand drives the Hand to the Serpent), ALLA, etc., etc.

But none of that really matters, because you're totally right that - in monotheism - your view is correct. In polytheism, your view is incorrect. Unless you have perfect knowledge of G-d, then you have no idea if you're 100% correct, and thus cannot say that others are incorrect...only that you feel they are. Their worldview is quite different, and the argument is totally pointless unless you can fully grasp and identify with their worldview...in which case, you would see their point of view.

Everyone in this thread is both totally correct, and completely wrong, and that's totally fine.

/drunk posting...and you can tell I did grad school, because my spelling is perfect while tipsy. Win.

I thought you weren't supporting polytheism! Haha. Why show up and talk on a forum about Hellenic polytheism if you're not going to be for or against it?

Anyway, what do you mean by "the same whole"? I can agree that we need to figure out why we should worship something, that's the big question right now, but once we figure that out, then we will see there is no "same whole", or "Tree" as you also put it.

Concerning the Quadrinity, you said God is insestuous with Herself. What do you mean? Is this closer to Modalism, the Trinity, or Oneness in purpose?

 

[Glorthac]

Why not honor all the deities? Honor the creator of beer, Honor Thor,Honor Zeus, Honor them all, who each have independent glory and control with awesome power and influence.



Is glory an aura of energy of Godliness, or an awe of the God's power?

Even if all of their energies pooled into The God, why only worship THAT God? Why not honor all of them for their individual awesome power? A little why for you

Deukal, that is the question! We're so close. As for "Is glory an aura of energy of Godliness, or an awe of the God's power?", that was my last question for you.

If it is an aura, then all the gods can share it, but if its an awe of the god's power, then they cannot share it. For if its an aura, you can pool it together, and share it.

But if its an awe, then the awe cannot be given to another, because the awe is to the awesome god. And then, we go back to the Thor is less glorious than the Universe, for without the Universe Thor wouldn't have had the ability to drink the beer (or w/e He has that makes him a god).

So I'd like to re-give my 2 questions, in a slightly modified form:
1) Why should we worship something?
2) Is glory a material object or not (Feel free to use the above thoughts to form your opinion)?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In a way, yes. They, or a member of any other polytheistic concept of divinity, have reportedly done remarkable, or 'godly' things. Those acts are conveyed to mortals or non-gods via revelatory acts (oracles, stories, direct conversation with a god).

Even God mentions there being other gods.

My bro, the Apostle Saul/ Paul also mentions that in the NT book of 1 Corinthians 8:5

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Exodus 20:1 And Elohiym is speaking all of the words, these, to say:
2 I, YHWH, Elohiym of thee, who brought forth thee from land of Egypt, from house of servants.
3 Not shall become to thee Gods/Elohiym, other ones, on face of Me.

1 Corin 8:5 For even if-ever there are ones saying to be gods, whether in heaven or on land, even as there are gods many, and lords many,
6 but to us, there is one God the Father, out of whom the all-things and we into Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ thru whom the all-things, and we thru Him.

 

[sidhe]

I thought you weren't supporting polytheism! Haha. Why show up and talk on a forum about Hellenic polytheism if you're not going to be for or against it?

Anyway, what do you mean by "the same whole"? I can agree that we need to figure out why we should worship something, that's the big question right now, but once we figure that out, then we will see there is no "same whole", or "Tree" as you also put it.

Concerning the Quadrinity, you said God is insestuous with Herself. What do you mean? Is this closer to Modalism, the Trinity, or Oneness in purpose?

Your second paragraph constitutes your entire issue in this discussion - your assumption is that your view is ultimately correct, and that further examination would lead others to your conclusion. The level of comprehension you've displayed of others' points in this thread seems to me to indicate that you haven't fully examined your own view yet, let alone those of others. It's pretty vexingly arrogant, honestly.

What do I mean by "the same whole?" Monism - "There is no difference between one thing and its opposite." Part of the issue here is that you aren't familiarizing yourself with the terms used by those you're talking to, only assuming that they have a flaw in their argument. I've examined Christian theology, and am of the opinion it only makes sense within a Qabalistic framework. However, once you've begun that examination, the validity of other views of theology becomes apparent as well.

You're less presenting an argument than assurances that the rest of us would agree with you if we thought about it. Personally, I don't agree with you, and I have thought about it.

And when I say "incestuous", I mean that the various familial aspects of deity are involved in having sex with one another. That's the pretty straightforward definition of "incestuous." Sex is equivalent to creation, joy is the basic state of being. Mother + Father = Son. Son + Mother = Daughter. Daughter + Son = Father. Father + Daughter = Mother. Pretty straightforward, imho. Or, for a convoluted family tree, read the Nag Hammadi scripture "Thunder, Perfect Mind."

Overall, my point here is that you could very easily be wrong...all discussion of the nature of deity is completely speculative. Stating that people would agree with you if they really thought about it is hopelessly arrogant.

 

[sidhe]

Which is defined as anything you spend or dedicate wholy to or put before him. Those are your gods. Not other supreme beings.

Only in the Christian interpretation. In the Torah, it's pretty clear that G-d means "other powerful supernatural entities of other peoples." G-d was just the god of the Hebrews and extremely powerful.

 

[Supreme]

My views on 'Hellenic Polytheism' are virtually non existant, partially because I know nothing about it, and partially because I've never heard or thought about it before.

 

[Penumbra]

Hi! Id like to ask members of this forum about their opinions or questions about Hellenic Polytheism (Greek Polytheism)

Thanks,
Deukal

My opinion/question with all polytheists, and I suppose especially Hellenic polytheists, is that I have trouble discerning in what way they believe in their deities. There seem to be different levels of belief that people have regarding their deities. With the highest level of belief, polytheists view their deities as literal, conscious entities. Under this view, Zeus is a god with a personality and powers, and so is Athena and so forth. Under a different level, the deities are not believed to be literal, conscious beings, but more like forces that control nature. Under the least type of belief, the deities are viewed as mere metaphors, or ways of interpreting nature.

Which type of belief do you have in your gods? Do you believe that these deities are conscious somewhere and controlling things? Or no? If so, what makes you believe this? Personal experience, reading about it, or something different?

So a god is a god if he does something extraordinarily moral? I guess you can define god however you want, but I refuse to worship someone just because he's done something good.

I worship my God because He's the greatest. Because my God is the greatest, even if your gods existed, they wouldn't be able to do their moral deed without His permission, and therefore, my God deserves the honor, not yours.

(And I hope you understand why I'm coming down so hard on yall, I want you to realize where I'm coming from)

How do you define greatness?

With using words like "permission", you seem to define greatness as being basically equal to power. Your claim is that your god is the most powerful, the most encompassing, and therefore the only one truly worthy of worship. Is that how you define greatness?

-Lyn

 

[Aesjn]

Let me give an example to substantiate it

You can't because there is no supporting evidence that Thor even exists to begin with, much less that he is subordinate to anything.

 

[Deukal]

Deukal, that is the question! We're so close. As for "Is glory an aura of energy of Godliness, or an awe of the God's power?", that was my last question for you.

If it is an aura, then all the gods can share it, but if its an awe of the god's power, then they cannot share it. For if its an aura, you can pool it together, and share it.

But if its an awe, then the awe cannot be given to another, because the awe is to the awesome god. And then, we go back to the Thor is less glorious than the Universe, for without the Universe Thor wouldn't have had the ability to drink the beer (or w/e He has that makes him a god).

So I'd like to re-give my 2 questions, in a slightly modified form:
1) Why should we worship something?
2) Is glory a material object or not (Feel free to use the above thoughts to form your opinion)?

To me,Glory is an abstract object, a sense of awe felt by the human mind. Esentialy, its a human emotion. But the awe can be to each of the gods in my belief.

Why do you worship God and Jesus?
I believe my reason will be similar to yours, and that reason is due to belief.

 

[Deukal]

My opinion/question with all polytheists, and I suppose especially Hellenic polytheists, is that I have trouble discerning in what way they believe in their deities. There seem to be different levels of belief that people have regarding their deities. With the highest level of belief, polytheists view their deities as literal, conscious entities. Under this view, Zeus is a god with a personality and powers, and so is Athena and so forth. Under a different level, the deities are not believed to be literal, conscious beings, but more like forces that control nature. Under the least type of belief, the deities are viewed as mere metaphors, or ways of interpreting nature.

Which type of belief do you have in your gods? Do you believe that these deities are conscious somewhere and controlling things? Or no? If so, what makes you believe this? Personal experience, reading about it, or something different?


How do you define greatness?

With using words like "permission", you seem to define greatness as being basically equal to power. Your claim is that your god is the most powerful, the most encompassing, and therefore the only one truly worthy of worship. Is that how you define greatness?

-Lyn

It is my belief that The Gods can be in both forms- As a force in nature or as conscious beings, though both are open to human interpretation.

 

[Glorthac]

To me,Glory is an abstract object, a sense of awe felt by the human mind. Esentialy, its a human emotion. But the awe can be to each of the gods in my belief.

Why do you worship God and Jesus?
I believe my reason will be similar to yours, and that reason is due to belief.

If glory is a sense of awe felt by the human mind, the glory is self-evidently only relevant to the deity the person is awe-full about. Therefore, the awe can't be shared to each god.

And therefore, each deity has a higher or lower degree of glory, and therefore, the greatest and most glorious is the one which contains all the deities, and not the deities themselves. And therefore, the deities only have their glory because of what the greatest has given them (Thor cannot drink the sea of beer without the ocean of beer, so the ocean of beer deserves as much glory as Thor and more for being an ocean of beer).

The point is, I can always find a Being that your gods owe everything to, a Being that is always greater than your gods. So even if your gods existed, they still wouldn't be worthy of worship, only the Being which they get their glory from is worthy of worship.

Why do I worship "God and Jesus"? First, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are consubstantial to the one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God. I worship this one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God because He is self-evidently all-encompassing. If He was not, I wouldn't worship Him.

Now, if your reason is the same as mine, you're not a polytheist, but a monotheist.

 

[sidhe]

If glory is a sense of awe felt by the human mind, the glory is self-evidently only relevant to the deity the person is awe-full about. Therefore, the awe can't be shared to each god.

And therefore, each deity has a higher or lower degree of glory, and therefore, the greatest and most glorious is the one which contains all the deities, and not the deities themselves. And therefore, the deities only have their glory because of what the greatest has given them (Thor cannot drink the sea of beer without the ocean of beer, so the ocean of beer deserves as much glory as Thor and more for being an ocean of beer).

These two paragraphs, they do not make sense. Your "therefore" is not implied by the previous statements - the "greatest and most glorious" does not, by default, contain all other deities. It could simply be the most impressive. Drinking an ocean of beer is impressive. Creating Thor? More impressive. Managing to exist while not existing? Even more impressive. But I don't choose on "glory," I choose by love.

The point is, I can always find a Being that your gods owe everything to, a Being that is always greater than your gods. So even if your gods existed, they still wouldn't be worthy of worship, only the Being which they get their glory from is worthy of worship.

...and if you argue that glory is a byproduct of human awe, then they only have glory because of mankind, and therefor only mankind is worthy of worship. Your logic is not working.

Why do I worship "God and Jesus"? First, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are consubstantial to the one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God. I worship this one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God because He is self-evidently all-encompassing. If He was not, I wouldn't worship Him.

"Self-evidently" means "circular argument," in my opinion. You say that this is "self-evident," yet clearly it is not, because several people disagree with you.

Now, if your reason is the same as mine, you're not a polytheist, but a monotheist.

I am devoted to Medb, not because she's the greatest or most glorious, but because she chose me. She's petty, cruel, arbitrary, and alien. She has no comprehension of modern human morality. She's the Queen of Intoxication, Magic, and Sexuality, and a sovereign ruler of her own territory. She does not justify her behavior with anything more than that she is able to do it. I love her madly.

Other deities exist. They just, in my view, don't compare. Love, not logic, determines my devotion.

 

[Deukal]

If glory is a sense of awe felt by the human mind, the glory is self-evidently only relevant to the deity the person is awe-full about. Therefore, the awe can't be shared to each god.

And therefore, each deity has a higher or lower degree of glory, and therefore, the greatest and most glorious is the one which contains all the deities, and not the deities themselves. And therefore, the deities only have their glory because of what the greatest has given them (Thor cannot drink the sea of beer without the ocean of beer, so the ocean of beer deserves as much glory as Thor and more for being an ocean of beer).

The point is, I can always find a Being that your gods owe everything to, a Being that is always greater than your gods. So even if your gods existed, they still wouldn't be worthy of worship, only the Being which they get their glory from is worthy of worship.

Why do I worship "God and Jesus"? First, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are consubstantial to the one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God. I worship this one all-encompassing Being that is the only true God because He is self-evidently all-encompassing. If He was not, I wouldn't worship Him.

Now, if your reason is the same as mine, you're not a polytheist, but a monotheist.

Well, the same in the sense of devotion and worship.

And just because a deity is less in power doesnt mean they are encompassing or not worthy of worship.