>>40640871
>If that is polytheism, then I am most certainly a polytheist.
That is at least the sense in which the philosphers were plotheists. There are pagans that disagree with this to be fair, but they tend to be either 1. "hard" polytheists 2. mythical literalists, or 3. crypto-materialists, which makes their opinions on anything theological worthless to begin with. Hard polytheism would imply either multiples independant grounds of reality (multiple Ones, basically), or a basically chaotic first principle. Both of which are untenable.
>although the difference between gods and angels can be a bit obscure
Absolutely. As far as I can tell this is basically up to christians, Pseudo-Dionysius in particular subsituting the word "Gods" with the word "angels" but keeping the same traditional metaphysical system of emanations by similarity. I will mention that I don't think that's a totally invalid move, but to me it's largely a semantic difference. In Dionysius in particular it's very clear that he simply corresponded the ranks of angels to Proclus' theological scheme (Seraphim, Ophanim and Cherubim I believe corresponding to the highest Noetic triad).
One actual difference between mono and polytheism would be that angels probably wouldn't be seen as being of any cosmogonic signifigance, as all is created directly by God. I think this is a point in favor of polytheism, since it retains the scheme of creation by similarity.
>In pagan faiths, I would probably say that any entity that is not an intermediary would also be more accurately referred to as a god than a daimon.
This is my view. I'm fairly certain both Daimon and Angelos mean "messenger" as well.

One potential meta