#steppingontoes

In Hellenic Polytheism and Mesopotamian Polytheism (and others but I don't want to speak for them) there is no sacred scripture where the words of a God are given to a myth writer and that writing is then declared holy by some form of religious authority.

The idea that myths are the literal actions of the Gods come from a concept of sacred scripture. Sacred meaning the words have holy implications or they have a fundamentally important connection to the divine. This understanding of religious writings is demonstrated in:

Protestant Christianity where the Bible is divinely inspired (usually derived from 1 Timothy 3:16 & 2 Peter 1:12). Additionally, in Trinitarian Christianity Jesus is God making his words in the Gospels the literal words of God.

Islam where the Quran are the words of God given to Mohammad via the angel Gabriel over the course of his life.

Judaism where traditionally the written Torah are the words of God given to Moses at Mt Sinai.

**There are more examples but I'm not going to try and talk about something I did not study.

This pervasive idea of scripture being the words of God embeds itself into a general view of what religion supposedly is because:

Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Christianity is the dominant religion in English speaking countries, so when we have these discussions in English it tends to have that cultural Christian viewpoint.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world.

Islam considers the Jewish and Christian scriptures to also be given from God, but they have been corrupted in one way or another. This combination can put a mistaken emphasis on sacred scripture being a fundamental aspect of religion.

Even though Judaism is a very small religion the written Torah is considered part of the Christian Old Testament (first five books). Christians interpret the scripture completely differently but the idea of Moses receiving the Word of God at Mt Sinai continues into Christianity from Judaism.

In many "dead religions" the closest you can come to the "words of the gods" might be the writings of ancient oracles or those who communed directly with spirits & gods. However, in Greece and Mesopotamia there was no centralized religion or continuous tradition to overview and canonize them into sacred scripture. Additionally, those are not usually what people are talking about when they refer to myth.

Myth is extremely important, but mythic literalism is a misstep people make, often due to our preconceived notions of sacred scriptures and their connection to the divine.

-dyslexic not audio proof read-

Hi Nik! I'm sorry this is all the way from October I simply haven't had the energy.

[Edit: Old post that I'm so sorry I didn't use sources for, so some info may be off 😓]

🍁 Definition 🍁

Well people view the English word "demigods," in different ways. The word in English comes from Greek "hemitheoi" (hemi meaning half, theoi meaning gods) and Latin "semideus" (semi meaning half, deus meaning god)

Again, English interpretations:

🔹This could include what a lot of literature labels "lesser gods" or "minor gods." For example: nymphs such as a Dryads (trees, forests, groves) or Naiads

🔹This could include what Homer & Hesoid both referred to people of "good character, family, strength, and power" as hemitheoi after death. This individual didn't need to be part immortal to make it into this category. They might be the people with hero worship cultus. They could be real people or legendary ancestors whose historicity is dubious.

🔹Related to the above, sometimes great rulers were considered Gods, such as Alexander the Great or various Roman emperors. Sometimes while alive sometimes posthumously.

🔹Some consider an individual with one mortal parent and one immortal parent to be demigods, Herakles perhaps: his father being the immortal Zeus & his mother being the mortal Alcmene. However, in some cases Dionysos was considered the son of the immortal Zeus and the mortal Semele.... and he was one of the 12 Olympians in some locations and even more important in various other cults so this categorization doesn't hold up well.

🍁 Other Pantheons? 🍁

The word comes from Latin and Greek thus it is most properly used in regards to the Roman and Greek pantheons (The semideus and hemitheoi); and possibly closely related ones. But of course people are going to plaster the term across any other pantheon as they see fit so lets talk about that for a second.

I find it difficult to use this term in regards to other pantheons because other pantheons have there own terms.

I'm a Sumerian polytheist so if I was to attempt to use these characteristics to pick out Mesopotamian demigods I might bring up these examples:

🔹It could be say, Lama/Lamassu goddesses & Alad/Šedu Gods, who were unnamed protective deities who might be regarded by modern eyes as "lesser divine" compared to the named city gods.

🔹Pazuzu a demon, not god, who was used in exorcism rituals, as protective talisman, and was considered to hold the much more evil Lamaštu and Lilû demons at bay. Is he a demigod? As a protective powerful being.

🔹Mortals who became immortals— Ziusudra, Ūt-napišti, (possibly) Atrahasis—but there is no term I know of for "half god" that could apply to them. They simply did a thing (build an ark) and were granted immortality.

🔹Deified rulers (while alive and posthumously) especially the kings of Ur III. Such as Narām-Suen or Samsuditāna, they claimed to be sons or brothers of various Gods, but I don't know if they would be seen on the exact same level as the Gods or a lesser level that could be labeled "demigod."

🔹Gilgameš (In Sumerian: Bilgames) is a mess when it comes to this idea. He was likely a historical king during the earliest part of Early Dynastic Period, if he was deified during his life is unknown. By the later part of the Early Dynastic period there was a deity being worshipped named Bilgames/Gilgameš that probably derived from this early king. He was a patron deity of King Utu-heĝal of Uruk, as a full divine being. Yet, the Gilgameš known in the most well known tales, is not a God, he is not even immortal. He is more akin to a hero going on adventures and destroying monsters. Some accounts say he is the son of the Goddess Ninsun and a mortal man which would also make him half mortal half immortal [edit: I think hes actually described as 2/3rds divine 1/3rd human]. The very few depictions we are certain show Gilgameš do not have him with a horned cap the sign of divinity. So is he a demigod? a deified king? a half mortal half immortal? a hero? a great ancestor? Most academics use the term hero for him based on the myths even though a much more ancient Bilgames/Gilgameš was possibly worshipped as a full fledged deity.

Updated info found in this post

It really does not make sense to try and parse out Mesopotamian religious figures using this word's conception (though I'm sure it appears in academia at some point) thus it doesn't make sense to use it elsewhere either. The term, like most, does not work well for pantheons that it does not derive from. I'm sure you'll see it used for pantheons and religions across the entire globe but I can't speak to any of them.

🍁 My Category Summary 🍁

Summary of English Usage

For the Roman & Greek traditions (and any surrounding similar ones that I'm not going to attempt to pretend I know such as Etruscan)

Category 1: "lesser divine beings"

Category 2: People of good character after death who eventually received honor and worship. Historicity aside. (Homer & Hesoids' "hemitheoi") However, many of these fall into "heroes."

Category 3: Rulers, Emperors

Category 4: Half mortal half immortal individuals

In these contexts worship of demigods in Greece & Rome has deeply entrenched historical precedent. I would see their worship as no different than worshipping other Gods or spirits from a revivalist standpoint. I love me some Dryads and have considered Herakles worship. I do find worshipping Roman emperors odd but they were deemed Gods and had cultus so I can't state that it's ahistorical or inherently bad. Basically: go right ahead! Honoring and worshiping these demigods.

🍁 Modern People 🍁

However, what about these categories in the modern world.

Category 1: Well that hasn't changed much "lesser divine beings" are still the same

Category 2: This could be construed as worshipping modern individuals who fall into this "good character, good family, strong, and powerful" idea described above. For example, idunno lets pretend Albert Einstein falls into that characterization in someone's opinion. I'd be deeply uncomfortable with someone declaring and worshipping him as a demigod. However, including him in ancestor worship seems to be a valid way to honor him, or so thats the consensus among most modern pagan and polytheists that I take no issue with.

Category 3: This might lead someone to the idea of worshipping "recent" powerful rulers. I mean Alexander the Great was a bloody conqueror who made a vast empire. ...So was Queen Victoria (albeit without going into battle) she ruled over the largest human empire in history. I'd be deeply uncomfortable and essentially offended to see her worshipped as a demigod considering the sheer brutality the colonies suffered under her reign. This idea also plays a role in white supremacist groups unfortunately, in some "Esoteric Hitlerism" where Hitler is essentially a divine figure, savior of humankind, deified as a demigod. Unlike the heros and ancestors of category 2 deified rulers tend to get their god status from their conquests and policies which should be looked at very critically. Its one reason I take pause when I see pagans whose primary Gods are Roman emperors.

Category 2/3 offshoot: Category 2 was defined by the person after death. While category 3 could include prior to their death. This could lead to worshipping [insert currently living person] as a demigod. Which makes me deeply uncomfortable, especially because that person probably hasn't consented.

Category 4: This is kind of up to the individual. Most mythical characters who are half/half have their own ancient cultus that will tell you what "category" they are

Modern communities: Godkin; Godshard; Demigod (as an identity); Offspring of God X (claiming to be literally part immortal); etc etc etc. No.

🍁 TL;DR🍁

The word has varying meanings. There is plenty of historical examples and definitions for demigod honor and worship in the Greek and Roman traditions (and probably extremely close or syncretic ones). The word should be avoided for beings outside those pantheons & traditions in my opinion. We should be very very careful when using it to talk about modern (or relatively modern) humans both living and dead.

I have read that the drinks should be poured out in the ground preferably, but the food ones are encouraged to be consumed ( since the gods take only the ' spiritual form ' of the food) , because food waste is not encouraged ( other sources mentioned that it is rude to throw the food ' touched by the gods ' in the trash instead of consuming it).

I might be mixing up what I read about kemetic practices, but I'm pretty sure both mention how food is ok to be consumed afterwards.

Hi 🤍

In Mesopotamian tradition you eat the food. It was offered before the God as a meal, and then spread among temple staff depending on position, role, and rank. As were non-food offerings such as objects and garments, if they did not go on the cult statue, remain near the cult statue, or be put in the temple treasury. There was also the sacrificial slaughter of animals, they were then prepared as a meal and served to the God; it seems that the meat was eaten by temple staff and the rest of the animal was burned. I haven't found any sacred meaning behind the temple staff eating the food (yet) so it might just be a way to avoid "wasting" the food or simply the way that temple staff were fed. Libations should be poured out but there were many ways and places to pour libations not just the ground, you don't drink any of the liquid. [Source: Gods Demon & Symbols by Black pp, 31-32, 117-118, 158-159— I'm sure I could dig deeper beyond Black's information but limited energy]

The idea surrounding the eating of offering food in Kemetic tradition has a lot more meaning behind it. The food is "reverted" I believe. I'd ring up @helvetica12point and @starsandepithets for the intricacies of that one.

I hope this answers your question!