How can there be more than One God?

[Tyho]

If anything, an entity claiming to be omnipotent and omniscient seems a lot more fishy to me. Don't you ever watch Star Trek? The arrogant ones always turn out to be not as powerful as they claim to be. Except the Q, but if they want to claim godly status it is sort of justified given their powers.

Unless 'God' is the totality of everything and not a specific anthropomorphic entity. Universes, dimensions, realities ect. could be modes of this Being.

That certainly doesn't exlude the idea of advanced lifeforms (Gods or Aliens, depending on the terminology used) and various entities (spirits, elementals ect.) as well as physical beings like us living on the 'lower planes'.

if the Ultimate Reality is an impersonal, yet encompassing and immanent force, it could make sense to worship advanced intelligent lifeforms (Gods) as they can potentially help us understand our fundamental existences better. They are like guides and creators (I don't dismiss the idea that the Earth might have been seeded on purpose) But they are finite beings themselves and their powers limited, subject to change, evolution and perhaps even death.

So I suspect 'Hard Polytheism' is only a way to emphasize even more the importance of the role played by Higher Entities in one's life but that there is still this (maybe awkward for some) pantheistic Reality in the background though it is either ignored or not given a central role in the Hard Polytheist's beliefs.

 

[Politesse]

Unless 'God' is the totality of everything and not a specific anthropomorphic entity. Universes, dimensions, realities ect. could be modes of this Being.

That certainly doesn't exlude the idea of advanced lifeforms (Gods or Aliens, depending on the terminology used) and various entities (spirits, elementals ect.) as well as physical beings like us living on the 'lower planes'.

if the Ultimate Reality is an impersonal, yet encompassing and immanent force, it could make sense to worship advanced intelligent lifeforms (Gods) as they can potentially help us understand our fundamental existences better. They are like guides and creators (I don't dismiss the idea that the Earth might have been seeded on purpose) But they are finite beings themselves and their powers limited, subject to change, evolution and perhaps even death.

So I suspect 'Hard Polytheism' is only a way to emphasize even more the importance of the role played by Higher Entities in one's life but that there is still this (maybe awkward for some) pantheistic Reality in the background though it is either ignored or not given a central role in the Hard Polytheist's beliefs.

Comparing "hard polytheism" to "soft monotheism" seems like comparing apples and oranges to me. There are plenty of pagans and others who have a belief in just such an ultimate reality, etc. I wouldn't consider them to be "hard polytheists", though. I certainly don't think that everyone is a closet monotheist/universalist; that's a vulnerable assumption waiting to crack under your first real and honest conversation with a conservative polytheist. Yes, they exist, and no, there isn't a great chain of being in every pantheon. There are alos, I note, monotheisms that very much anthropomorphize and personalize God, not as a vague principle but as a very distinct character.

 

[wizanda]

I like this idea but then where does these Aliens-Gods came from?

They're not gods, though more than half the world follows them as being.

 

[Quintessence]

To put some perspective on this, which may or may not be helpful, consider that "gods" are basically that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Worship expresses itself in many different ways depending on the religion being discussed, but generally can be thought of as gratitude and thankfulness which indicate one holds something in high esteem or in a position of honor and worth. Put another way, something we designate as a god is a reflection of values, and is a value statement. It is us saying "this is sacred and valuable to me, this thing is worthy of high regard and of honor to me."

I don't understand monotheism because I cannot comprehend valuing only one thing.

Further, as my gods are quite literally things like the sun and storms, it is very obvious to me that Sun Spirit is not the same as Storm Spirit.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Unless 'God' is the totality of everything and not a specific anthropomorphic entity. Universes, dimensions, realities ect. could be modes of this Being.

That certainly doesn't exlude the idea of advanced lifeforms (Gods or Aliens, depending on the terminology used) and various entities (spirits, elementals ect.) as well as physical beings like us living on the 'lower planes'.

if the Ultimate Reality is an impersonal, yet encompassing and immanent force, it could make sense to worship advanced intelligent lifeforms (Gods) as they can potentially help us understand our fundamental existences better. They are like guides and creators (I don't dismiss the idea that the Earth might have been seeded on purpose) But they are finite beings themselves and their powers limited, subject to change, evolution and perhaps even death.

So I suspect 'Hard Polytheism' is only a way to emphasize even more the importance of the role played by Higher Entities in one's life but that there is still this (maybe awkward for some) pantheistic Reality in the background though it is either ignored or not given a central role in the Hard Polytheist's beliefs.

For me, at least, it comes down to practicality: if there is some Truly Universal Conscious Deity that omni everything, I just can't comprehend that. Even if it is aware of me and wants to communicate with me, it's going to have to tone it down to the level I can understand, which is quite a few orders of magnitude smaller than infinite. Entities that exist on earth, such as a storm, or a mountain, I can at least see, even if the details and parts are still murky to me, or I can only be aware of them one at a time, in one place.

Likewise, if I want to communicate with the higher powers about what's going on in my life (say, wanting good health, a successful hunt, or luck in the lottery) should I appeal to the TUCD (who regardless of being omni-everything, still has a lot to do and be concerned about) or should I try asking one of the lesser "Gods" that operates on a level that might actually care and still be able to make it happen, if they see fit? They obviously have less on their plates than does the TUC, after all, and might be able to more easily work it into what they're doing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Unless 'God' is the totality of everything and not a specific anthropomorphic entity. Universes, dimensions, realities ect. could be modes of this Being.

That certainly doesn't exlude the idea of advanced lifeforms (Gods or Aliens, depending on the terminology used) and various entities (spirits, elementals ect.) as well as physical beings like us living on the 'lower planes'.

if the Ultimate Reality is an impersonal, yet encompassing and immanent force, it could make sense to worship advanced intelligent lifeforms (Gods) as they can potentially help us understand our fundamental existences better. They are like guides and creators (I don't dismiss the idea that the Earth might have been seeded on purpose) But they are finite beings themselves and their powers limited, subject to change, evolution and perhaps even death.

None of that removes their status as Gods.

So I suspect 'Hard Polytheism' is only a way to emphasize even more the importance of the role played by Higher Entities in one's life but that there is still this (maybe awkward for some) pantheistic Reality in the background though it is either ignored or not given a central role in the Hard Polytheist's beliefs.

I'm going to direct you to a very articulate article about the topic of polytheism, specifically as it relates to theology (which seems to be what you're most interested in), as well as ethics. There's also articles on animism, pantheism, totemism, and other aspects common in pre-Christian beliefs.

Polytheistic Theology and Ethics - Norse Mythology for Smart People

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are various things to be done, therefore, many Gods are necessary. For creation, sustenance, dissolution, death, sex, learning, helping people to overcome obstacles, mothering, bodily power, destruction of evil, providing food, water, air, fire, riches, etc., and Hinduism has Gods or Goddesses for each of these things. As per my knowledge, there are two Goddesses for the third gender also (one in North and the other in South - Bahuchara and Yelamma).

Deities for the purposes mentioned above: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Yama, Kama, Saraswati, Ganesha, Durga and her forms, Hanuman, Skanda, Annapoorna, Indra, Vayu, Agni, Lakshmi, etc.

 

[Baladas]

Hi,

I am trying to get more perspective and more information on what some Pagans refer to as 'Hard Polytheism'.

How could there be more than One God? I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that there should be more than One divine source.

I've come to grip with notion of 'Soft Polytheism', that All Gods are ultimately One God, as the Hindus view it and which makes sense I think but how can there be multiple divine sources, distinct form of beings and not actually part of a Whole?

I think I see what you are saying here. As I have come to realize, it is all in your particular definition of what a "god" is.
I do not personally consider Ultimate Reality to be a god at all, but more of a Source or Ground of Being.

Ultimately, my view could be considered panentheistic and possibly polytheistic.
So in my eyes, yes all gods arise from the same source - but so does everything else.
I still honor each being's individuality, and I can understand the position of the hard polytheist.
Why shouldn't these beings be honored, when I still honor my fellow humans as individuals?

Are gods in this understanding the "Ultimate Reality"? No, and they aren't meant to be. They are beings that share the universe with us (though I am admittedly agnostic to the existence of "higher" spiritual beings in the usual understanding).

To put some perspective on this, which may or may not be helpful, consider that "gods" are basically that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Worship expresses itself in many different ways depending on the religion being discussed, but generally can be thought of as gratitude and thankfulness which indicate one holds something in high esteem or in a position of honor and worth. Put another way, something we designate as a god is a reflection of values, and is a value statement. It is us saying "this is sacred and valuable to me, this thing is worthy of high regard and of honor to me."

I don't understand monotheism because I cannot comprehend valuing only one thing.

Further, as my gods are quite literally things like the sun and storms, it is very obvious to me that Sun Spirit is not the same as Storm Spirit.

I always enjoy the fresh perspective you bring to these types of talks.
Gods are what we decide they are.
I too honor Nature:
The Sun, the Moon and the Storms.
Plants and animals, rivers and streams.
I rarely use the "god" or even "spirit" language, but I certainly give thanks and honor all of these.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even in an office if many things are to be done, they are delegated to different people. There is no reason to think that the deities do not know this. For example, the 'karmas' of dead are judged immediately in Hinduism, there being an office and a God incharge of the system (Yama). It works smoothly. In Abrahmic religions it will be a mad rush, crowd control will be necessary with billions of people in the line, multiple Johns, Josephs and Marys, mistakes will be made, and even then, years will lapse before the work is completed. I do not know why they have this primitive system and why their God should be sitting idle for all this time letting the work pile up?

 

[Tyho]

Even in an office if many things are to be done, they are delegated to different people. There is no reason to think that the deities do not know this. For example, the 'karmas' of dead are judged immediately in Hinduism, there being an office and a God incharge of the system (Yama). It works smoothly. In Abrahmic religions it will be a mad rush, crowd control will be necessary with billions of people in the line, multiple Johns, Josephs and Marys, mistakes will be made, and even then, years will lapse before the work is completed. I do not know why they have this primitive system and why their God should be sitting idle for all this time letting the work pile up?

Yet in Hinduism it all comes down to Brahman. The "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world" or ''that which cannot exactly be described''. The Gods are manifestations of Brahman. I don't have any difficulty grasping this concept. It makes sense.

As for the Arbrahmic religion, it seems they have created a whole system of angels (and demons) to do God's biding, the office work you are refering to. Are they Deities? Not really according to the scriptures, but higher life forms than Human beings.

Another problem I have with Hard Polytheism is that it doesn't seems to be able to recognize that there could be advanced lifeforms in the cosmos without them being necesserely 'Gods'. We are not alone out there but that doesn't make every entity that may baffle us a God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, some (not all) believe like that in Hinduism. Oh, sure, there could be beings more evolved than humans as in 21st Century at the present moment. It is supposed to be a big-big universe (80 billion galaxies and 400 million stars in each galaxy on an average).

Wikipedia mentions just seven Christian angels, Islam mentions more, but the judging will be done by God or Allah only. They are not advanced form of humans but different species though hybridization happened. Was any human ever taken up as an angel?

 

[Riverwolf]

Yet in Hinduism it all comes down to Brahman. The "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world" or ''that which cannot exactly be described''. The Gods are manifestations of Brahman. I don't have any difficulty grasping this concept. It makes sense.

As for the Arbrahmic religion, it seems they have created a whole system of angels (and demons) to do God's biding, the office work you are refering to. Are they Deities? Not really according to the scriptures, but higher life forms than Human beings.

Another problem I have with Hard Polytheism is that it doesn't seems to be able to recognize that there could be advanced lifeforms in the cosmos without them being necesserely 'Gods'. We are not alone out there but that doesn't make every entity that may baffle us a God.

And not every entity that baffles us are Gods. The others we (in Northern/Northwestern European culture, anyway) call Elves, Giants, Dwarves, Trolls, politicians, etc.

What, exactly, do you mean when you say the word "God"?

 

[Jainarayan]

Trolls, politicians,...

You're being redundant.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You're being redundant.

I wasn't going to say that...

 

[Tyho]

What, exactly, do you mean when you say the word "God"?

I usually try to avoid the word 'God' if possible because it has because so enmesched with Abrahamic religions and it's teachings that people don't always understand what I mean. To many people, a concept of 'God' that is not external from the Universe is nonesensical.

'God' is to me the totality of everything. It is the Universe or Multiverse and all it's dimensions, realities and realms. There is no ''Creation'' per see, but the purpose and evolution of everything which composes an encompassing , immanent 'God'. It is beyond my comprehension. I don't view It as an anthropomorphic being(s) but I do believe that we can connect with the Higher Reality and that It can manifest to us as distinct Entities, 'Gods' if you wish, to faciliate communication and visualization in forms we can relate to as physical beings living in this reality. That explains the large varity of Gods in many cultures.

 

[Riverwolf]

I usually try to avoid the word 'God' if possible because it has because so enmesched with Abrahamic religions and it's teachings that people don't always understand what I mean. To many people, a concept of 'God' that is not external from the Universe is nonesensical.

Whereas to me, the entire concept of "external from the Universe" is oxymoronic (or at best paradoxical), because "Universe" refers to "everything that is".

'God' is to me the totality of everything. It is the Universe or Multiverse and all it's dimensions, realities and realms. There is no ''Creation'' per see, but the purpose and evolution of everything which composes an encompassing , immanent 'God'. It is beyond my comprehension. I don't view It as an anthropomorphic being(s) but I do believe that we can connect with the Higher Reality and that It can manifest to us as distinct Entities, 'Gods' if you wish, to faciliate communication and visualization in forms we can relate to as physical beings living in this reality. That explains the large varity of Gods in many cultures.

Gotcha. This is pretty consistent with modern mystic views, as well as that famous Rig Veda verse: "The Wise refer to what is One with Many Names." I certainly understand the aversion to calling it "God" if at all avoidable; when I practiced Saiva Hinduism (I was a more panentheistic polytheist then), I tried to use Brahman/Siva whenever I could, though I think I slipped up rather frequently.

However, it doesn't really account for the various other beings that have been called Gods, including flesh-and-blood humans (such as the Pharaohs). ...also, quick side note, I capitalize Gods all the time as a show of respect, but in Standard American English, you're supposed to use a lowercase "g" unless talking about a monotheistic deity. I wanted to make that clear in case it was causing confusion.

A more concise definition of a "God" (or, properly rendered, "god") that I've come up with is actually just "anything that's been deified", making it a subjective status rather than an objective quality. A God is a God so long as a group agrees it's a God, much like a President is a President so long as the country as a whole agrees. Incidentally, as agreeing a person is a President says nothing about the quality of the person, being called a God says nothing about personal quality. It's more an indication of how something/someone is treated, rather than an indication of how something/someone intrinsically is. So those "aliens with highly advanced technologies" you referred to actually can be Gods if people agree they are, without losing or adding anything new to their status as "aliens with highly advanced technologies".

Worth noting, however, is one major implication of the aforementioned stated fact that the English word "god/God", though still Germanic (and by extension Indo-European) in origin, came apparently out of nowhere to replace the word "Tiw", which is Tyr in Old Norse and *Tiwaz in Proto-Germanic. One of Woden's Old Norse names is Hangatyr, which translates to Hanged God (referring to His time speared on the World Tree). Tiw the God Himself was a Sky God, and likely the original Allfather if comparative mythology is anything to go by, as His name is cognate with Zeus. Heck, the name is cognate with the Vedic Dyaus Pita, which literally means "Sky Father". The very name "Tiw", going off of etymology, refers to the Daytime Sky (but in case you decide to look into this, the word "day" is, as far as linguists can tell, an unrelated word). Hence why the Gods are conceived of as "in the sky", and why "in the sight of Gods and Men" refers to being outside. This could also be the source of the term "Higher Reality", since the sky is physically higher than us. The Tiwaz Rune is literally an arrow pointing up. Also, the word "Heaven" originally just referred to the sky; the latter word came to English via the Old Norse word for cloud.

And then remember that Tiw is no longer the Allfather; Woden is.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Whereas to me, the entire concept of "external from the Universe" is oxymoronic (or at best paradoxical), because "Universe" refers to "everything that is".



Gotcha. This is pretty consistent with modern mystic views, as well as that famous Rig Veda verse: "The Wise refer to what is One with Many Names." I certainly understand the aversion to calling it "God" if at all avoidable; when I practiced Saiva Hinduism (I was a more panentheistic polytheist then), I tried to use Brahman/Siva whenever I could, though I think I slipped up rather frequently.

However, it doesn't really account for the various other beings that have been called Gods, including flesh-and-blood humans (such as the Pharaohs). ...also, quick side note, I capitalize Gods all the time as a show of respect, but in Standard American English, you're supposed to use a lowercase "g" unless talking about a monotheistic deity. I wanted to make that clear in case it was causing confusion.

A more concise definition of a "God" (or, properly rendered, "god") that I've come up with is actually just "anything that's been deified", making it a subjective status rather than an objective quality. A God is a God so long as a group agrees it's a God, much like a President is a President so long as the country as a whole agrees. Incidentally, as agreeing a person is a President says nothing about the quality of the person, being called a God says nothing about personal quality. It's more an indication of how something/someone is treated, rather than an indication of how something/someone intrinsically is. So those "aliens with highly advanced technologies" you referred to actually can be Gods if people agree they are, without losing or adding anything new to their status as "aliens with highly advanced technologies".

Worth noting, however, is one major implication of the aforementioned stated fact that the English word "god/God", though still Germanic (and by extension Indo-European) in origin, came apparently out of nowhere to replace the word "Tiw", which is Tyr in Old Norse and *Tiwaz in Proto-Germanic. One of Woden's Old Norse names is Hangatyr, which translates to Hanged God (referring to His time speared on the World Tree). Tiw the God Himself was a Sky God, and likely the original Allfather if comparative mythology is anything to go by, as His name is cognate with Zeus. Heck, the name is cognate with the Vedic Dyaus Pita, which literally means "Sky Father". The very name "Tiw", going off of etymology, refers to the Daytime Sky (but in case you decide to look into this, the word "day" is, as far as linguists can tell, an unrelated word). Hence why the Gods are conceived of as "in the sky", and why "in the sight of Gods and Men" refers to being outside. This could also be the source of the term "Higher Reality", since the sky is physically higher than us. The Tiwaz Rune is literally an arrow pointing up. Also, the word "Heaven" originally just referred to the sky; the latter word came to English via the Old Norse word for cloud.

And then remember that Tiw is no longer the Allfather; Woden is.

Excellent post, Riverwolf! Very informative!

 

[VargDrakon]

This is getting close to going off-topic, but I felt I should address it:

Wikipedia mentions just seven Christian angels, Islam mentions more, but the judging will be done by God or Allah only. They are not advanced form of humans but different species though hybridization happened. Was any human ever taken up as an angel?

There are more Christian angels than seven, even if only a few of them are important enough to be mentioned by name. Hebrews 12:22 speaks of "an innumerable company of angels", Dante (in Paradiso Canto XXXI) refer to angels by the thousands. The same goes for Islam (and Judaism), but I don't remember any specific quotes to point to.

The Abrahamic God is also described as omniscient, all-knowing, and not limited by human-like mental capacities. He could decide the judgment of every being in existence in an instance if he so choose. Some groups of Christians believes that he has already decided his judgements as they think he should know how everything will turn out anyways.

There is a folk-belief among at-least Lutheran Christians that humans can become angels upon death, but I as far as I know this is not reflected in professional theology. Some Christians (Catholics most notably) have the concept of sainthood, which is similar to, but not quite the same as, becoming an angel. It is closer to Boddhisatvas found in some types of Buddhism, if you are more familiar with that.
As for Islam there is a strict "no", humans can not become angels. In Islam humans have free-will while angels do not and God will not take humans' free-will away. I think the same is true of Judaism, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, VargDrakon for various points in your post. As you know we have thousands of Gods and Goddesses. They all live in peace taking care of their spheres. Sometimes there is friction, clash of interests, but either they settle on their own or some of our thousands of sages intervene to settle it. There are many errand-runners for Gods and Goddesses, or they can create them at will.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

For me, I have trouble coming to grips with the opposite: how in the world can there be only one when scientifically speaking, this is a universe of multiple physical forces working together?

I was looking for a way to express my own view and this is basically it; worded to perfection.