God vs god AND... polytheism

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's the problem with Pagans. There's almost never a universally agreed upon position on anything.

That's not a problem, though, that's an advantage!

 

[JRMcC]

Just because you want to believe that your specific deity is special, that does not mean that the concept will change because you want it to.

Nice try buddy but I don't believe in any deity/ies.

Here is how I use god vs God.

I use the word god/goddess/gods/goddesses when referring to no deity in particular.
Example: Most cultures have had a mother goddess.

I use the word God/Goddess when referring to a specific deity.
Example: The Goddess Aradia forbids animal sacrifices.

What can you say about my comments on why I think a distinction needs to be drawn? (Not the kind of distinction you draw, though I'm not trying to say you can't use God vs god in the way you do)

 

[Quintessence]

Can you please clarify so we can have a more meaningful discussion?

I don't know if I can. What you wrote in the OP was so foreign and nonsensical to me that I had (and still have) no idea how to come up with a cogent response. I don't even know what to make of this, for example:

Yes gods can, in some ways be compared to fairies or whatever. But the concept of God cannot.

Or this... (which basically reads to me as a dismissal of the validity of polytheistic theology):

1. Having multiple Gods is like having a square circle.

To which the only reply I can come up with is to be a smart $#@% and say something like "having only one god is like saying a semi truck is the same thing as a potato."

Or this, which just plain contradicts the commonly accepted understanding of what atheism means:

2. One can believe in gods and be a non-theist or an atheist.

There is so much weird in that post I don't know how to make a cogent response.

 

[JRMcC]

Thorbjorn -

I'm talking about polytheism in the way that I am because I'm speaking the language of the kind of person I'm mainly addressing. Namely those self-proclaimed atheist types who dismiss any and everything "god" related concept because they don't believe in "any kind of god."

Like I said, I do have an idea of how you understand the polytheism and the world, and I must say it does make a lot of sense! I don't personally think of it that way, but maybe I should give it more thought....

Hey, I heard there was a book published a while back that claimed that ancient greeks didn't "believe" in the gods the way we usually assume they did. Do you think the same could be true of the ancient norse? New thread??

 

[Riverwolf]

The fact that you can (and in the OP did) differentiate by capitalization in the one case and lowercase otherwise is one way of specifying these differences of category.
In my initial response, I tried to highlight how they can exist in one category (deity) while having different degrees of the traits that are used to define the category.

I typically capitalize "God" even in reference to polytheistic deities for two reasons: acknowledging it as (roughly) an occupational title, and out of respect. It's technically incorrect, though, so I try to specify when I'm talking about a monotheistic God.

 

[JRMcC]

There is so much weird in that post I don't know how to make a cogent response.

Like I said earlier, certain types of Buddhism.

I'm sorry you are upset and don;t understand where I'm coming from. Look at my convo with thorbjorn and you might understand better

 

[JRMcC]

I suggest A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism by John Michael Greer to understand why polytheism makes more sense than monotheism.

Thorbjorn -

I'm talking about polytheism in the way that I am because I'm speaking the language of the kind of person I'm mainly addressing. Namely those self-proclaimed atheist types who dismiss any and everything "god" related concept because they don't believe in "any kind of god."

Like I said, I do have an idea of how you understand the polytheism and the world, and I must say it does make a lot of sense! I don't personally think of it that way, but maybe I should give it more thought....

Hey, I heard there was a book published a while back that claimed that ancient greeks didn't "believe" in the gods the way we usually assume they did. Do you think the same could be true of the ancient norse? New thread??

 

[JRMcC]

To which the only reply I can come up with is to be a smart $#@% and say something like "having only one god is like saying a semi truck is the same thing as a potato."

There can't be more than one ground of existence. There can't be more than one all-knowing and all-powerful being. If there were they would be able to have different desires and could compete with one another, and they would no longer be all knowing or all powerful.

Having more than one big G God is like having a square circle. Illogical. And that doesn't mean that polytheism is wrong, it just means that a distinction should be drawn between God and god/s.

Or this, which just plain contradicts the commonly accepted understanding of what atheism means:

I said nothing about atheism. That's a different conversation and I've actually posted about that before.

 

[Quintessence]

There can't be more than one ground of existence.

I disagree, but that is neither here nor there.

There can't be more than one all-knowing and all-powerful being. If there were they would be able to have different desires and could compete with one another, and they would no longer be all knowing or all powerful.

So it would seem. The notion of gods needing to be omni-max is unique to classical monotheism, and not found in other types of theism.

Having more than one big G God is like having a square circle. Illogical. And that doesn't mean that polytheism is wrong, it just means that a distinction should be drawn between God and god/s.

A distinction should be made between all types of theism and all god-concepts instead of lumping them all together and presuming they are somehow the same... when they're not. I think that attempting to make the distinction with capitalization isn't going to be enough to convey that to many people.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I disagree, but that is neither here nor there.



So it would seem. The notion of gods needing to be omni-max is unique to classical monotheism, and not found in other types of theism.



A distinction should be made between all types of theism and all god-concepts instead of lumping them all together and presuming they are somehow the same... when they're not. I think that attempting to make the distinction with capitalization isn't going to be enough to convey that to many people.

I agree, having also witnessed some of the problems with the distinction between Pagan and pagan...

 

[JRMcC]

I disagree, but that is neither here nor there.

That's interesting. (And I don't mean that in a "that's silly" way)

So it would seem. The notion of gods needing to be omni-max is unique to classical monotheism, and not found in other types of theism.

True! But that's part of my point. For most people who understand in terms of God, the non-existence of an "omni-max god" is inconceivable. For those people it makes no sense that there could be more than one God. They might believe in things like Satan and say it's blasphemy to worship Satan as another god. But remember, THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, and that's not just a matter of belief, this idea is founded in logic and metaphysical understanding.

And yes we're getting down to what we both would like "God" and "theism" to mean.

A distinction should be made between all types of theism and all god-concepts instead of lumping them all together and presuming they are somehow the same... when they're not. I think that attempting to make the distinction with capitalization isn't going to be enough to convey that to many people.

I agree. But I like to start small and work up from there.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't know how the Greeks viewed their gods but I daresay the philosophers probably thought of them as metaphors and archetypes, while the rural people and villagers probably saw them as quite literal. I think the ancient Norse saw them as literal beings. They didn't have a whole lot of time for philosophy. At least that's what the texts seem to indicate.

I'm somewhere in between. I think they are real beings inasmuch as thunder, justice, love, rain, etc. are real. But I don't think Thor is really a big red-haired powerlifter.

 

[AlchemicalSoul]

Nice try buddy but I don't believe in any deity/ies.



What can you say about my comments on why I think a distinction needs to be drawn? (Not the kind of distinction you draw, though I'm not trying to say you can't use God vs god in the way you do)

No I do not think a distinction needs to be drawn. I do not think that the word God/Goddess or god/goddess is a measure of power. (Or else Satan would be a God,) I beilieve that it means a being that is worshipped by humans. The power of such a being is irrelevant. There are Omnipotent Monotheistic gods/goddesses (Yahweh) but there are also Omnipotent Polytheistic gods/goddeses (Isis).

 

[AlchemicalSoul]

I disagree, but that is neither here nor there.



So it would seem. The notion of gods needing to be omni-max is unique to classical monotheism, and not found in other types of theism.



A distinction should be made between all types of theism and all god-concepts instead of lumping them all together and presuming they are somehow the same... when they're not. I think that attempting to make the distinction with capitalization isn't going to be enough to convey that to many people.

In the Dynastic Egyptian Pantheon Isis (Aset) was all powerful, she had power over the essence of magick and had the true name of the "ruler" of the cosmos Hamon-Ra.

 

[Aštra’el]

1. Having multiple Gods is like having a square circle.

Well, it kind of is, actually, when I consider the image above. I get what you mean though. You are defining "God" (with a capitol G) as "supreme god". Except you seem to be combining the belief in a supreme God with the idea that this particular God is so powerful and impossible to fathom that all other Celestial or Infernal beings are not recognized as gods in comparison... a view which does not always occur in cultures that incorporate supreme Gods into their pantheons.

This view is particularly common in monotheistic cultures... where, early on, a deity achieved hyperapotheosis in the spiritual-religious system(s) it is worshipped in, and the culture evolved to become theistic exclusively towards their own God and atheistic towards all other gods. However, there have been many instances where such is not the case. For example... there are cultures where the supreme God is worshipped above many less powerful gods, who may or may not be worshipped (such as Marduk of the Babylonian pantheon, worshipped alongside Anu, Enlil, Enki, Ishtar, etc).

Yet... to explore the idea that there can be more than one supreme God, you are going to have to wander outside the common monotheistic Weltanschauung. Some cultures believe(d) in two supreme Gods- usually of opposing Nature (sometimes not)- that preside over many lesser gods (sometimes it's just the two). Some believe(d) in three supreme Gods who reign over many lesser gods. Etc. Open your mind and perhaps you might see that there are many, many ways to worship and incorporate concepts of gods and/ or supreme Gods into one's pantheon.

2. One can believe in gods and be a non-theist or an atheist.

I completely agree with this. Some atheistic ways that one can "believe in" gods-

-Energy patterns within the collective human subconscious

-Deific archetypes embodying powerful aspects of human Nature

-Expressions of one's "higher self"

-Tulpas/ Thoughtforms/ unreal mind generated apparitions that embody one's subjective impressions of a deity

And of course, believing in the ability of these things to motivate and inspire you... and believing in your own ability to gain strength, power, wisdom and beauty from these gods without believing in their existence as actual sentient life forms.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand you but I kinda don't get you, if that makes sense?

I think that the belief in God is at its core a way of understanding the human experience, not a belief that some guy exists.

That's an interesting (and more understanding) definition of god. I've always defined god as life; because, if I put all the definitions together, it describes to some a personification of what you're saying human experience among other things. It is also a means to relate to the unknown (making god a person) while maintaining it's mystery (by making god higher or equal to us in relation)

1. Having multiple Gods is like having a square circle.

Can you expand on that?

I was having a chat earlier about gods and deities being the same thing. I revere spirits so they are gods to me. If they both are the same, then I believe in deities. So, technically, I'm a polytheist. However, if I'd compare it to a shape, it would probably be a trapezoid only because there are interconnections (the joints), outside uniqueness (the points unconnected), the likeness (all one shape), and the relation underlining it all (the lines that make the shape).

Square?

2. One can believe in gods and be a non-theist or an atheist.

Non-theist, true. Someone who doesn't believe in god(s). Atheist, no. Strict definition, one who does not believe god(s) exist. If one doesn't believe god(s) exist, how can one believe that god(s) do exist at the same time?

Oh I forgot.

I'm pretty technical with definitions unless someone described it in context. God is a proper noun and god is a noun. g- od is an object or person of worship. Calling this object or person G- od is signifying the respect you have for this object or person more than just calling it a thing or human being.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Namely those self-proclaimed atheist types who dismiss any and everything "god" related concept because they don't believe in "any kind of god."
.. but maybe I should give it more thought....
Hey, I heard there was a book published a while back that claimed that ancient greeks didn't "believe" in the gods the way we usually assume they did.

Still non-sensical as Qunitessence said. We all declare our labels.
Go ahead, give it a thought. A whole lot of people are polytheists in the world.
You did not mention in what way Greeks believed in their Gods.

If there were they would be able to have different desires and could compete with one another, and they would no longer be all knowing or all powerful.
Having more than one big G God is like having a square circle. Illogical. And that doesn't mean that polytheism is wrong, it just means that a distinction should be drawn between God and god/s.
I said nothing about atheism. That's a different conversation and I've actually posted about that before.

They are Gods and Goddesses. They are wiser than us.
The distinction is already there, one or many.
You did.
What exactly you want to say? I do not think people have understood what you want to say.

THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, and that's not just a matter of belief, this idea is founded in logic and metaphysical understanding.

So it was that. Why did it take so long for you to say that? For logic, we will look somewhere else. We understand the Islamic logic very well.

 

[Whiterain]

Wow, I'm so glad I'm over religion... There is relatively no universally accepted basis for creation by pagans because they represent dozens of folk tales and poetic, metaphoric literature and heroic legends.

Monotheism was created taking a single deity and making it dedicated to that deity with a complete decimation of the former pantheon, like the Abraham belief in Judaism. Like the Genesis story is a complete fabrication of other myths and legends from the regions, Assyria, Egypt, Sumeria, and their prophets and all were essentially various scribes high on hallucinogenic drugs as celebrated back in the day until they were systematically banned in all cultures.


Then you can have a UPG like mine which is deranged and mortifying being oriented around a Pagan War God that really didn't pick favorites as well as all of religion being a very cruel masquerade, names changed, low liability deities.


It really helped me grasp how absolutely indifferent the Gods are towards mortal suffering. You're either the best of the best or they "like" you... They broke me of contemporary ideals of "humanity' and "pity" and that immortality can be in flesh as well as soul, but dying isn't an escape.

Spiritual enlightenment folks, I hope your nirvana is better than my nirvana.