Polytheism to Monotheism?

[mystic64]

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been doing some research on the origin of the God of the Old Testament of the Protestant Christian Bible, and in the beginning was Canaanite Polytheism with the supreme God being named "El". El was the creator and the father of all of the gods. And the very early Israel folks worshiped at least three gods with the main God being El.

Wikipedia:
"Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan and may have been brought north to Israel by the Kenites and Midianites at an early stage.[81] After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East.[82]"

Yahweh was the third god in their pantheon of gods. And generally he was considered "a divine warrior". Now if one believes that Moses actually existed, which evidence seems to indicate that he did, then the story goes that Moses made a covenant with Yahweh and that covenant was that if Yahweh would protect the Israelites that they then would worship only Yahweh and no other god. Which then makes the god of Abraham "El" (the creator), and the god of Moses Yahweh (the divine warior).

Polytheism to monotheism because one fellow (Moses) made a covenant with a warrior god (Yahweh) for the protection of his people. And from there the rest is history with Yahweh having His hands full with making Moses' people keep their part of the covenant.

So what do you guys think about this? Poloytheism seems to be the normal state of things and monotheist seems to be something that is artificially created (with the understanding that if a burning bush talks to you that you should probably listen ).

As a mystic I have met other gods, so I know that they are real (and the Protestant Christian Bible does not say that they are not). And I do totally respect them even though as a Christian (my version) I do not worship them.

Polytheism to monotheism and back to polytheism. Humm? Now in India there are folks that believe that Lord Shiva is the one and only God and there are folks that believe that Vishnu is the one and only God, even though India is polytheist as a culture. And these folks are considered monotheists.

Does anybody have any comments about Polytheism to monotheism and back again? If one is unhappy about the god that they are worshipping as the "Absolute" (monotheism) is it ok to switch ? This is with the understanding that you do not switch if Yahweh is your God becuse He... well you guys know why .

 

[Quintessence]

I've been trying to figure out how to respond to this topic for a while now, but I think I'll take a stab at it tonight.

I think it's worth noting that strict monotheism is not only a recent idea in human cultures, but seems tenuous in general. It seems that in many cases what gets called monotheism is either henotheism (which is what I think might be the case with Hindus honoring Lord Shiva to exclusion, but I imagine our Hindu membership could clarify this far better than I) or soft monotheism/polytheism (which is where you have multiple aspects identified with a single deity, which is how I interpret the trinity of Christianity or the possibility of a mortal being a literal son of a one-god).

It seems to me we inherently recognize multiplicity in the world around us, and we understand reality in terms of differences and contrasts. The way we perceive things lends itself more readily to the idea of multiple deities or sacred aspects than it does a single one. I think that when you talk immanent god-concepts it gets even harder to justify monotheism, but that could be my bias as a non-monotheist and my dislike of New Age talk like "we are all one." Yes, but no, not really. I really, really hope that I am not you and that my mother is not your mother. That would be very awkward. XD

 

[GoodbyeDave]

On the subject of early Israelite religion, to avoid yet more cyberclutter, see post 22 here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...164585-judaism-originally-henotheistic-3.html

The terms monotheism and polytheism are a bit ambiguous.
1. The majority view: a supreme being and lesser gods, as with the early Israelites, later Greeks, most Indians and Africans, etc.
2. A minority view (pure polytheism): no supreme being, as with the Germans, Mesopotamians, early Greeks, Aztecs, etc. I assume that the supreme being just got forgotten, since this is a minority position.
3. A minority view (pure monotheism): no lesser gods, as in Islam, modern Judaism, etc. This only results from the teachings of "prophets" like Isiah and Muhammad. Would you buy a used religion from these people?

 

[mystic64]

On the subject of early Israelite religion, to avoid yet more cyberclutter, see post 22 here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...164585-judaism-originally-henotheistic-3.html

The terms monotheism and polytheism are a bit ambiguous.
1. The majority view: a supreme being and lesser gods, as with the early Israelites, later Greeks, most Indians and Africans, etc.
2. A minority view (pure polytheism): no supreme being, as with the Germans, Mesopotamians, early Greeks, Aztecs, etc. I assume that the supreme being just got forgotten, since this is a minority position.
3. A minority view (pure monotheism): no lesser gods, as in Islam, modern Judaism, etc. This only results from the teachings of "prophets" like Isiah and Muhammad. Would you buy a used religion from these people?

Would you buy a used religion from these people? The question that you have posted is extremely much food for thought . And your question hits, generally speaking, the literal foundation of "religion" itself whether they are selling a new car or an old one . And religion is a concept that one person talks through spoken word and/or written word one or more other folks into believing, with, for the most part, the difference between someone selling a religion and someone selling a car getting pretty thin .

Polytheism versus Monotheism based on my experience as a mystic is like exploring nuclear physics. And the more/closer that you look at things the more they become a dynamic interplay of a wonderment of idividual pieces. Then from that point simple becomes looking at the pieces as a whole and labling the whole "God", just for the sake of simplicity . I do suspect though that considering the nature of Humankind as a group that that would be a car that one could not sell .

 

[mystic64]

I've been trying to figure out how to respond to this topic for a while now, but I think I'll take a stab at it tonight.

I think it's worth noting that strict monotheism is not only a recent idea in human cultures, but seems tenuous in general. It seems that in many cases what gets called monotheism is either henotheism (which is what I think might be the case with Hindus honoring Lord Shiva to exclusion, but I imagine our Hindu membership could clarify this far better than I) or soft monotheism/polytheism (which is where you have multiple aspects identified with a single deity, which is how I interpret the trinity of Christianity or the possibility of a mortal being a literal son of a one-god).

It seems to me we inherently recognize multiplicity in the world around us, and we understand reality in terms of differences and contrasts. The way we perceive things lends itself more readily to the idea of multiple deities or sacred aspects than it does a single one. I think that when you talk immanent god-concepts it gets even harder to justify monotheism, but that could be my bias as a non-monotheist and my dislike of New Age talk like "we are all one." Yes, but no, not really. I really, really hope that I am not you and that my mother is not your mother. That would be very awkward. XD

Thank you Quintessense for posting in my topic! And personally I do not think that your "bias" is coming into play. Polytheism based on my experience as a mystic is the natural order of things, and monotheism is an artificially created reality . To me the question as a mystic is, "Are there individual conscious entities that one can appeal to/connect with?" Based on my experience as a mystic the answer is, "yes". And that there is a multitude of them. Some you wouldn't want to connect with because they are, in my opinion, not at all fun. Others, in my opinion are fun and they can also be very helpful. But when it comes to Humankind, generally speaking, the concept of worship becomes involved which then defines one's relationship with any given conscious entity for the recieving of one or more rewards. And what is funny is that the worship part is not necessary. They are just one or more guys that you hang out with and you are just one of the guys. Basically you love everybody and everbody loves you and the concept of worship doesn't come into play. Rewards? Well they just seem to happen because you are one of the guys. Monotheism? The guys can act as a group with one mind if that is how you would like to approach things.

Yes you can single out one particular conscious entity and make it the ultimate or only entity, but that is an artificial reality. The closest that you can come to a single one all present mind/conscious entity is the guys functioning as a single mind. And at that point you are hanging out with "The Guy" and any form of ritual worship is not necessary. Morality? Morality becomes something that is based on knowledge and the more you know about things the less you do the stupid stuff .

 

[mystic64]

There is also this if one wants to look at things from the angle of evolution. All life started with one simple single cell living entity/oganism. From that one simple single cell living entity/organism sprang a mutitude of living entities/oganisms both simple and complex with everything in between. In the beginning God started as a single simple noncomplex mind consciousness from which sprang a multitude of consciousnesses that worked together as a complex whole. When we attempt to approach God the Supreme, we are not attempting to approach the original simple single consciousness . What we are attempting to approach is the evolutional result of that one simple single consciousness.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

And what is funny is that the worship part is not necessary... Yes you can single out one particular conscious entity and make it the ultimate or only entity, but that is an artificial reality...

I don't know that monotheism is necessarily artificial, if the god not restricted to a category of conscious entity, though the assertion that there can be only one deity is rare in history. The earliest notable case is the mature phases of Judaism, a religion of a people who wished to set themselves apart from the rest of the world. As you've noticed, monotheism among the Hebrews didn't burst up fully formed in one swoop - it's nearly certain the Hebrew tribes also started out with many gods, and even when Yahweh was singled out, the other gods weren't ejected until Deuteronomistic redaction of Israel's sacred history was advanced.

The problem with polytheism for an exclusive people is its flexibility, importing new gods and fusing them together in various combinations. Most often in the ancient world, a conquering empire respected the gods of the society it had annexed, and maintained temples, like Alexander the Great did in Egypt. But the Israelites, a confederation of Canaanite tribes, wanted to be separate from, and dominate, Canaanite neighbors who had blood ties within Israel's polity itself, a fact which threatened to dilute their ethnic identity. So, Israel elevated Yahweh to make penile circumcision and sole loyalty to this God the mark of their difference.

At least for me, there's nothing wrong with monotheism per se, except all the moral and legal baggage that accompanies it in the form of Abrahimic religions and their historical intolerance toward other religions. With Jews, intolerant faith wasn't so bad since they didn't seek to convert anyone else very often, but the later religions of Christianity and Islam added conversion of outsiders to exclusivity of truth possession to get a volatile mix, still combusting today. The question I have is, if there is only one omnipotent being, then why would this being demand that people even worship it? After all, the being already has everything and doesn't need humans in proskynesis to stroke its ego.

With "used religions," better kick the tires, but monotheism is a concept, not a specific religion.