polytheism to monotheism (Jesus, priest, Creator, theist, eternal)

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by divine

i guess you could say that religions could be understood as not either polytheistic or monotheistic, but more or less monotheistic.

I'm not so sure about that; while monotheists may hold god as supreme, they're not obliged to consider him as entirety or a summary. When put into a pantheist framework, the polytheist and monotheist are just arguing semantics and relative attributes within ultimate, futile totality. It seems to me sometimes left out are certain creation factors (chronos to greek pantheon) to more material, relative polytheism.

Can't monotheism also acknowledge a big, bad god with a "word to yo mother" to the "fronting" deities?

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by steelblue75

ok just curious... i have my own opinion about this but am interested in what your thoughts are about how we went from believing in many gods to there is only one true god.... now that doesnt mean quote scripture at me that says it is so.... i mean what other factors might have led to the change other than "god says so" could it have been economic? sacrificing your best stock to many gods started to affect the quality of that stock so only having to give one up was better? was the one god easier to relate to? what do you think?

A study of the spread of monotheistic religion would probably be the best way to start.
But please keep in mind that there are plenty of polytheistic religions still out there.

[telecino]

Ok, so we wont dare say the christians pray multiple Gods, we'll just say the there is only one God, and we pary a multitude of saints, angels, the Christ, the mother of the Christ, the Holy Spirit,...

The hindu say: there is only one Guru, the one and Only Creator of all, and Bramah is his first faces, followed by vishnu and shiva, and a few masters that made it, so we're gonna pray them....

Egyptian: same thing. One source of all light, and the Gods that came from there, that show the way to this original light,... then the guys who made it, Hermes Thot, and a bunch of pharos who had a bit of science and compassion... same story.

My opinion: Poly/mono-theism was invented by the monotheists to define yet another judgemental tool to unsacralize and punish the other religions, and put fear in their ranks, threathening to punish those who would pray more than one God. My opinion again, and i'm not alone to think it.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by telecino

...Poly/mono-theism was invented by the monotheists to define yet another judgemental tool to unsacralize and punish the other religions, and put fear in their ranks, threathening to punish those who would pray more than one God.

Or perhaps just a selling point to a new worshipping product (new and improved!). I tend to imagine it like the introduction of new World Wrestling Federation wrestlers; to make a new champion often the story lines try to demonstrate how the previous champ was really no champ at all. If i watched more wrestling, i'm convinced i could make a water-tight analogy here.

[Runt]

Human socities began as a multitude of bands that had some contact with one another, but did not have a huge body of customs in common. The religious organization of bands usually involve shamanism and animism. Individuals are usually dealing with spirits rather than gods, although some of the spirits may attain something like god-like status.


When the population of a society increases from under 100 to over 1000 people and a band becomes a tribe, the religious organization tends to change. Spirits will often become more powerful, and the concept of a Creator Spirit often emerges as a more concrete idea. Animism and shamanism usually will still exist, but mixed into the religious organization are elements of true polytheism.


When the population of a society increases from 1000 to 10,000 people and a tribe becomes a chiefdom, again there are changes to the religious organization of the society. Gods become more powerful and spirits take on a lesser role. Religious specialists now serve as intermediaries between the society and the gods, rather than between society and spirits.


When the population of a society increases from 10,000 people to over 20,000 and a chiefdom becomes a state, you begin to see the development of montheism.

Thus, there are coorelations between the size of a society and its religious organization. My educated guess is that polytheism evolved into monothesism because human societies have increased in population over time.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by divine

the abrahamic gods say 'there are no other gods, period. they are demons or manifestations of satan. i am the only god.'

Where, precisely, do they say this?

[mr.guy]

My educated guess is that polytheism evolved into monothesism because human societies have increased in population over time.

I still don't understand how monotheism is such a "natural" conclusion to set population (densities?). May i ask if you reconcile Hinduism as either:

a)effective monotheism
or
b)fractured socialization prohibiting a central godhead.

In truth, it's pretty easy to work around both of those options, but can your numbers hold up to more ancient and populous civilizations?

[Runt]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guy

still don't understand how monotheism is such a "natural" conclusion to set population (densities?). May i ask if you reconcile Hinduism as either:

a)effective monotheism
or
b)fractured socialization prohibiting a central godhead.

In truth, it's pretty easy to work around both of those options, but can your numbers hold up to more ancient and populous civilizations?

Hinduism does have some monotheistic elements. Take, for example, the concept of Brahman. I admit that this is monism rather than actual monotheism, but it shows that there was some development during the time of the Upanishads in the direction of monotheism that has survived until today.

Another practice today is that of Kathenotheism. A devotee of Shiva doesn't negate the existence of Vishnu or the Devi, but rather holds that Shiva is Brahman and all other gods are aspects of Shiva/Brahman.

Take, for example, the Shiva Puranas (Note, the following is paraphrased): "When Parvati, the 'Mountain's Daughter,' child of Himalaya and his wife Mena, fell in love with the yogi Shiva, she subjected herself to severe and difficult austerities in order to win him as her husband. The ascetic Parvati is tested to see if she knows who Shiva really is. In one instance, the seven sages come to her to attempt to change her mind. They explain to Parvati that Shiva is too inauspicious and ugly to be her husband. He had no clothing, no home, no lineage, and he associates with ghouls and goblins. She should marry Vishnu, a more fitting bridegroom--auspicious, wealthy, and with many excellent and lordly attributes. Parvati responds with true understanding. Yes, she says, the Supreme Shiva is without the valued attributes of this world. Why? Because Shiva is Brahman and transcends the display of worldly lordship and wealth. The embellishments and ornaments the world adores are not to be found in him, for he is beyond what is merely beautiful and merely auspicious."

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Runt

Hinduism does have some monotheistic elements. Take, for example, the concept of Brahman. I admit that this is monism rather than actual monotheism, but it shows that there was some development during the time of the Upanishads in the direction of monotheism that has survived until today.

The only reason i resist this is it seems to broad a definition of monotheism, as you say. I'm still a little curious why the monotheist is optimal (right word?) to perhaps the panentheist? Even so, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.

A devotee of Shiva doesn't negate the existence of Vishnu or the Devi, but rather holds that Shiva is Brahman and all other gods are aspects of Shiva/Brahman.

Some of how the Hindu "trinity" has been explained to me is that some hindus might even "evolve" to appropriate godheads as their life "positioning" demands as most appropriate to their current spiritual development or station (in the instance of caste).

Because Shiva is Brahman and transcends the display of worldly lordship and wealth. The embellishments and ornaments the world adores are not to be found in him, for he is beyond what is merely beautiful and merely auspicious."

I've heard some tales that would put Brahma as the "shunned" aspect; no matter. The last line jumped out at me, recollecting this afternoon's bathroom read:
"Since the world points up beauty as such, There is ugliness too"
Reciprocally, (to paraphrase from an abysmal memory)
"Where that all the oceans are ink, yet you'd find there to be a shortage when describing the greatness (or vastness) that is god."