Monotheism < Polytheism

loverofhumanity said:

I believe that there is only God who is unknowable in essence but that we can know His attributes Attributes and if you look closely I believe you will find that a lot of polytheists are worshipping those Attributes as separate Gods but in fact they are attributes of the one God.

It’s like a woman can be a mother, daughter, sister, niece, granddaughter yet she is the same one and only person. So there are Gods Of Love and heaven, gods of peace and bounty and spirit, of knowledge and wisdom.and so on that polytheists worship. But these are mostly God’s attributes.

But admittedly they have added some of their own worldly qualities which may or may not be an attribute of God upon examining.

My point here is that polytheists I believe although denying that there is only one God are in actual fact worshipping that one God’s attributes albeit separately perhaps having separate statues for each quality.

Click to expand...

While I understand what you are explaining, the "God" that you explain, is not a god to me, but the ultimate experience of the Universe and Reality (monistic view). I do not subscribe attributes to this Creative Force of the universe, because it does not have attributes, intelligence, or intentions; it is the Wyrd and Orlog of the Universe that you are describing. This is what gives life to the Gods, and through which they weave their magics, and why they are bound to fate as much as any living being on Midgard.

Vinayaka said:

Has this debate forgotten the middle path, including both, that of henotheism? One Supreme God, many 'helper' Gods?

Click to expand...

Forgotten, No; purposely excluded: yes. I personally subscribe to a form of Polytheistic Monism.

The Hammer said:

Forgotten, No; purposely excluded: yes. I personally subscribe to a form of Polytheistic Monism.

Click to expand...

I'm a monist as well, but with Gods, I'm a henotheist. Not into only 2 choices. Shucks.

Vinayaka said:

I'm a monist as well, but with Gods, I'm a henotheist. Not into only 2 choices. Shucks.

Click to expand...

My personal view, I don't think has an actual term. I don't disbelieve in any one God, they are all equally real/important to those who believe in them.

The Hammer said:

Forgotten, No; purposely excluded: yes. I personally subscribe to a form of Polytheistic Monism.

Click to expand...

Same.

The question should be, what makes a particular faith, this or that. I'm quite sure of my beliefs

The Lord God,

Even though 'other g-ds ' may be real, that's just going to vary.

So the idea isn't really about whether other g-ds exist.

The Hammer said:

With that in mind, what makes Polytheism the better/more accurate of these two views? What makes the belief in multiple conceptions of Deity, superior to that of only One deity. What advantages does this bring to the spiritual table? Any disadvantages?

Click to expand...

The disadvantage, as I roughly see it, is that paganism did not grow with western society into modernity and thus lacks domestication. Christianity did (through the slow evolution of its traditions) to the degree that at least it has the respect to be at least theoretically compatible with technology, higher education, and modern philosophy and morality. To put it frankly, when I read about the last western polytheists they have very little moral wisdom that we would want to directly take into the present. There is a little there to work with, but much that should be left in history. The modern western polytheist will have to dispose of gods of war or gods who want human sacrifices, but those are the gods they had at the last stages of their part in history.

ideogenous_mover said:

The disadvantage, as I roughly see it, is that paganism did not grow with western society into modernity and thus lacks domestication. Christianity did (through the slow evolution of its traditions) to the degree that at least it has the respect to be at least theoretically compatible with technology, higher education, and modern philosophy and morality. To put it frankly, when I read about the last western polytheists they have very little moral wisdom that we would want to directly take into the present. There is a little there to work with, but much that should be left in history. The modern western polytheist will have to dispose of gods of war or gods who want human sacrifices, but those are the gods they had at the last stages of their part in history.

Click to expand...

The point of polytheistic reconstruction is to carry the spirit of a culture and its worldview into the current era, not to be reenactors. And why get rid of war deities? Humans are still warlike. America rivals the Roman Empire in its militancy. Human sacrifice? That could be as simple as dedicating an execution or combat kill to a deity. Same as with animal offerings. It doesn't have to be some cliched "throwing a virgin into a volcano" silly scenario.

Saint Frankenstein said:

And why get rid of war deities? Humans are still warlike. America rivals the Roman Empire in its militancy. Human sacrifice? That could be as simple as dedicating an execution or combat kill to a deity. Same as with animal offerings. It doesn't have to be some cliched "throwing a virgin into a volcano" silly scenario.

Click to expand...

Why get rid of war deities? Well I'd sharply disagree on keeping those. Iron age peoples of all kinds were militaristic, both christian and pagan. To me its a mindset that can stay in the ages past. Modernity is possible because science and ethics were able to eventually have a conversation with Christianity over the last millennia, and that's a conversation that would need to happen with paganism, but it never seemed to have a chance to. Yahweh seemed to be at one time a war deity, but the evolution of tradition processed much of that out of it

ideogenous_mover said:

Why get rid of war deities? Well I'd sharply disagree on keeping those. Iron age peoples of all kinds were militaristic, both christian and pagan. To me its a mindset that can stay in the ages past. Modernity is possible because science and ethics were able to eventually have a conversation with Christianity over the last millennia, and that's a conversation that would need to happen with paganism, but it never seemed to have a chance to. Yahweh seemed to be at one time a war deity, but the evolution of tradition processed much of that out of it

Click to expand...

Yahweh is still a war deity and Christian societies are still violent and militant, so not much has changed. The 20th century was the bloodiest and most destructive century in human history. The Enlightenment notion of "progress" (which is a Christian idea) is mythological. Human nature remains the same. The key is to recognize and accept it.

Saint Frankenstein said:

Yahweh is still a war deity and Christian societies are still violent and militant, so not much has changed. The 20th century was the bloodiest and most destructive century in human history. The Enlightenment notion of "progress" (which is a Christian idea) is mythological. Human nature remains the same. The key is to recognize and accept it.

Click to expand...

It's possible the 20th century ranks pretty high in that regard, but I'm pro evolution in regards to our situation, and religion and philosophy I view as things can be formed into tools to help us instead of mere reflections of the worse side of human nature.

ideogenous_mover said:

It's possible the 20th century ranks pretty high in that regard, but I'm pro evolution in regards to our situation, and religion and philosophy I view as things can be formed into tools to help us instead of mere reflections of the worse side of human nature.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to biological evolution, that doesn't posit a notion of "progress". Actually our brains are still the same as they were in prehistoric times. It's just that our technology keeps advancing.

I just strive to have my worldview and religion to reflect reality and not idealism.

ideogenous_mover said:

The disadvantage, as I roughly see it, is that paganism did not grow with western society into modernity and thus lacks domestication. Christianity did (through the slow evolution of its traditions) to the degree that at least it has the respect to be at least theoretically compatible with technology, higher education, and modern philosophy and morality. To put it frankly, when I read about the last western polytheists they have very little moral wisdom that we would want to directly take into the present. There is a little there to work with, but much that should be left in history. The modern western polytheist will have to dispose of gods of war or gods who want human sacrifices, but those are the gods they had at the last stages of their part in history.

Click to expand...

This is a very narrow view of the Gods IMO. There are enough morals, parables, stories and lessons in the myths of the past, as there are in any current Christian text, if only one has the eyes to see them.

The Hammer said:

This is a very narrow view of the Gods IMO. There are enough morals, parables, stories and lessons in the myths of the past, as there are in any current Christian text, if only one has the eyes to see them.

Click to expand...

Alright, I'm looking, but you're talking to someone who has read large historical volumes and studies folklore (I have undertaken a serious study of western folk song composition, which is highly pertinent).. and I see the iron age / middle age christians and pagans as having various qualities about them that I would rather see remain in the iron age, one not being much better than the other. Modern christian wisdom is not christian wisdom from the middle ages, for the most part. They still read those texts, but they read about things they will never act out, who goes to martyr themselves to lions or become a stylite? Or goes down to the local river to live off of locusts, raving at dozens of baptized followers. A good deal of that crystallizes into mere stories over the course of time. The issue is that paganism cuts out in our history before some of the gods seem to become more domestic, unless I am mistaken. If I am not, then some better evolution ought to be worked upon those ideas. And perhaps you can draw those things out of it more than I currently can, or have put my mind toward doing

ideogenous_mover said:

Alright, I'm looking, but you're talking to someone who has read large historical volumes and studies folklore (I have undertaken a serious study of western folk song composition, which is highly pertinent).. and I see the iron age / middle age christians and pagans as having various qualities about them that I would rather see remain in the iron age, one not being much better than the other. Modern christian wisdom is not christian wisdom from the middle ages, for the most part. They still read those texts, but they read about things they will never act out, who goes to martyr themselves to lions or become a stylite? Or goes down to the local river to live off of locusts, raving at dozens of baptized followers. A good deal of that crystallizes into mere stories over the course of time. The issue is that paganism cuts out in our history before some of the gods seem to become more domestic, unless I am mistaken. If I am not, then some better evolution ought to be worked upon those ideas. And perhaps you can draw those things out of it more than I currently can, or have put my mind toward doing

Click to expand...

I've been reading and studying various "pagan" myth cycles (and some cultural aspects) for the better part of the last 10 years. And while I am by no means an expert, these aren't stagnant stories either. And just like there are things we would not do or act out in the OT (stoning children), there are things in the Saga's that would not get performed today (Blood Eagles). The Gods of the past were domestic first and foremost, they never left that realm, because the Tribe was one's family/safety, so those were the domestic societal affairs of the day.

Now as far as "large histrocal volumes" goes, who are you reading, what accounts? Snorri Sturluson? Saxo Grammaticus? We have to keep in mind the veracity of our sources and how much their own society colored the histories they wrote about.

The Hammer said:

I've been reading and studying various "pagan" myth cycles (and some cultural aspects) for the better part of the last 10 years. And while I am by no means an expert, these aren't stagnant stories either. And just like there are things we would not do or act out in the OT (stoning children), there are things in the Saga's that would not get performed today (Blood Eagles). The Gods of the past were domestic first and foremost, they never left that realm, because the Tribe was one's family/safety, so those were the domestic societal affairs of the day.

Click to expand...

By domestic I think meant tame. Those moments of paganism we have a mainstream historical snapshot of fit in with what one would expect from their times, I guess my concern deals with how modern people might like to translate that to the present. For example I had read the complete works of Tacitus and Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. In Tacitus we read that the rite of passage for a Germanic youth was a ceremonial presentation of a shield and spear, and Caesar quotes the statement of a chief whereby he declares that his tribe is never allowed to back down in the face of conflict. Anecdotes about extolling war and weapons being not uncommon, it seems like one could specialize merely on the weapons of ancient gods and not lack for material. Why did they amass them in bogs ritualistically? Is it true that some of them used the bones (that have spirits as iron age people would think) of their ancestors as a carbon source to produce crucible steel blades? When I read the Táin Bó Cuailnge and books of commentary on Irish mythology, mostly it seems constant wars and battles

I think when you read about the diffusion of people who were divided at that time in being highly 'tribal,' and possibly upholding sharp divisions of ethnic status unlike we'd even know now, it could present problems. Like if I was a Celtic Briton and you were a Saxon, and someone else on thread was a Cherusci and another a Pict, and another a Jute, well that might mean that we might all sort of see each other as quite alien.

I had read Gary Jennings 900 page book entitled Raptor twice, which basically describes the period just before the dark ages. Aztec I had also read. I like to listen to the Poetic Eddas sometimes before bed. I had read the whole Catholic biblical cannon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.. Saxo Grammaticus I should put on the list. I am by no means an expert either

ideogenous_mover said:

By domestic I think meant tame. Those moments of paganism we have a mainstream historical snapshot of fit in with what one would expect from their times, I guess my concern deals with how modern people might like to translate that to the present. For example I had read the complete works of Tacitus and Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars. In Tacitus we read that the rite of passage for a Germanic youth was a ceremonial presentation of a shield and spear, and Caesar quotes the statement of a chief whereby he declares that his tribe is never allowed to back down in the face of conflict. Anecdotes about extolling war and weapons being not uncommon, it seems like one could specialize merely on the weapons of ancient gods and not lack for material. Why did they amass them in bogs ritualistically? Is it true that some of them used the bones (that have spirits as iron age people would think) of their ancestors as a carbon source to produce crucible steel blades? When I read the Táin Bó Cuailnge and books of commentary on Irish mythology, mostly it seems constant wars and battles.

I had read Gary Jennings 900 page book entitled Raptor twice, which basically describes the period just before the dark ages. Aztec I had also read. I like to listen to the Poetic Eddas sometimes before bed. I had read the whole Catholic biblical cannon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.. Saxo Grammaticus I should put on the list. I am by no means an expert either

Click to expand...

I really don't understand what rambling about ancient ritual grave sites, and commentaries has to do with the actual experience of One or Many deities. Also, I really do not think "historical fiction," of which Raptor and Aztec fall under, as particularly good sources of information. Maybe read something written by an anthropologist, archaeologist, or actual historian.

As far as extolling warfare and battle, that is because violence has always been a part of human existence, to deny that is to deny our own histories. Now instead of looking at it as "fighting/warfare" look at it as extolling the 'virtues' of battle: Not backing down in the face of adversity(Strength), Standing for what one believes in(Courage), Protecting ones Kin(Honor).

9-10ths_Penguin said:

If a sort of god has no limits, then there's no limit on its numbers.

Click to expand...

The one God limits Himself to being the only God.

“God witnesseth that there is no God but Him, the Gracious, the Best-Beloved. All grace and bounty are His. To whomsoever He will He giveth whatsoever is His wish. He, verily, is the All-Powerful, the Almighty, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 73

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The same logic applies: if one god can always have existed uncreated, then why not two? Why not many? If God #10, say, is omnipotent, then surely he would have the power to do this.

Click to expand...

AGAIN, why would we need many Gods that fit the description below? Think about it.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I think many versions of monotheistic gods are contradictory themselves, but why would multiple gods be contradictory?

Click to expand...

It is the human conceptions (versions) of the monotheistic God that contradict each other; God remains forever the same.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

As I've already alluded to, I don't think that assuming many omnimax gods creates any logical problems that weren't already inherent in a single omnimax god. However, omnimax gods aren't the only gods proposed by humanity.

Click to expand...

You just hit the nail on the head when you said “gods proposed by humanity.” The thing is that humans do not determine what God is, God does.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Take Thor: you do agree that if Thor existed, Thor would be a god, right?

Why wouldn't your God be able to play nicely with Thor? Why would it be the case that your God and Thor can't exist at the same time?

Click to expand...

IF Thor existed, but Thor does not exist, he is an imaginary god.

Thor cannot exist alongside the Abrahamic God because that God said there is no other God. Some people think the following verse means there are other gods that God is competing with, but that is not what it means. It means we should not worship false gods because there is only one true God.

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The New Testament further clarifies that there is only one God.

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

9-10ths_Penguin said:

And something else occurs to me: if it's logically contradictory for your god and some other god to exist at the same time, then if we can't exclude the possibility that some other god might exist, then we can't exclude the possibility that your God is impossible.

Click to expand...

That is why we have scriptures of religions, to know the truth about God.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

To use Thor again: if your God and Thor can't both exist together, then if Thor exists, then your God cannot exist. This means that unless I can 100% prove that Thor does not exist, there will always be a chance that Thor might exist... which would mean that there's always a chance that your God is impossible.

That is why we have scriptures of religions, to know the truth about God. Show me where Thor has scriptures attributed to him, like Jesus has.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I do not evaluate God on His merits, that is backwards. God is the one who evaluates humans.

Any time we become convinced of an idea, we evaluated the idea and accepted it as true. You're convinced that God exists, aren't you?

Click to expand...

I evaluated the Baha’i Faith but I never evaluated God. I was convinced that God exists after I evaluated the Baha’i Faith.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

But all this is beside the point. Set aside the fact that you don't believe gods besides yours exist; do you acknowledge that if, say, the Greek pantheon existed, then there would be a whole bunch of gods even though none of them are omnimax deities?

Click to expand...

IF the Greek pantheon existed in reality.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I cannot prove monotheism but I could make a good argument for it if I had time.

Seeing how you thought that "only God exists because only God exists" was an argument, I won't count on you being able to do this.

Click to expand...

I guess you mean what I said “only one God exists because only one God exists. That was not an argument, it was a statement of my belief.

Jainarayan said:

What makes you think they are correct, or tell the whole tale?

Click to expand...

For one thing, Baha’u’llah wrote His own scriptures so we know they are authentic. Such cannot be said for scriptures of any of the other major religions. I believe it is the latest revelation from God, the one that is current. It is congruent with the other Abrahamic religions say about one God. I also believe that the Buddha and Krishna taught one God, but I believe that the followers have misinterpreted and changed their scriptures over time.

There is either one God or there are many Gods. Both cannot be true because they are logically contradictory. I think it would be impossible to disprove Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith, because there is too much evidence that indicates they were all revealed by the one God.

The Hammer said:

And I could not put my trust and faith in the words of any living man. For men are proven time and time again to be fallible.

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah was not just a man, He was a Manifestation of God.

A Manifestation of God is not an ordinary human being although he has a human nature. Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station, and one the spiritual. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. Every Manifestation of God is a mirror of God, reflecting His Self, His Beauty, His Might and Glory. All else besides them are to be regarded as mirrors capable of reflecting the glory of these Manifestations Who are themselves the Primary Mirrors of the Divine Being,

The Manifestations of God are another order of creation above an ordinary man. Their souls had pre-existence in the spiritual world before their bodies were born in this world, whereas the souls of all humans come into being at the moment of conception. The spiritual world is where They get their special powers from God. They possess a universal divine mind that is different than ours and that is why God only speaks to them directly and through Them God communicates to humanity.

Anyhow, this is the Baha'i belief about Manifestations of God, what I usually refer to as Messengers of God.

So who do you put your trust and faith in?.