• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Gods Rarely Depicted

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
I am reading a paper about Ancient Egyptian religion and I came across this:

In contrast, even the most cursory examination of the many world religions, past and present, major or small-scale, refutes any notion that divinity, particularly cosmic or supreme divinity, is always embodied in some material form. For the Nuer, their highest divinity, Kwoth Nhial, is only suggested by the majestic spread of the horns of the ox. The Nuer are very careful to distinguish between a divine cosmic power which is suggested rather than embodied or represented by the ox horns, and a lesser power which takes tangible form. Kwoth Nhial is non-locatable – too ubiquitous and too powerful to be constrained by material form. For the Nuer, only the "spirits of the below", the totems, and fetishes take on a material aspect. The "spirits of the above" have a remote and omnipresent quality which cannot be "trapped" within localised and limited forms. African tribal people, in particular, are loath to embody their higher deities in material form.

Despite the rich iconography of African religion, these icons are invariably representations of ancestors, spirits, and demons rather than supreme divinities. In fact, John S. Mbiti (1969) in his exposition of African religions implicitly responded to the common prejudice of African "idol" worship with the statement, "... no idols have been reported in African traditional societies" (Mbiti 1969: 71). Yet non-represented deities are often mentally conceived as anthropomorphic and mediated by human agents such as "priests, rainmakers, elders, diviners, medicine-men, Kings, chiefs and the living dead" (ibid 71).


[...]

Aside from being too powerful or omnipresent, the cosmic deities are often conceived as being too remote to warrant representation. In the case of Sumerian Mesopotamia, among the most frequently represented deities on cylinder seals are Inanna and Enki. Both are far from supreme, but both take an active role in the activities of humankind. Inanna (later as Ishtar) performs an annual sacred marriage with the king in order to ensure agricultural fecundity. Enki is famous for his interventions on behalf of humankind when a higher god, Enlil, threatens to destroy it. But the most supreme deity of all, An, is rarely depicted, rarely petitioned, and features in myths infrequently.56


[...]

Purely anthropomorphic forms are particularly avoided, even though worshippers might mentally conceive these deities in human terms and approach them, through mediation, as superior human-like beings. Only in centralised, state-based religions does iconography of higher deities tend to become important, as in the case of the sedentary, centrally-ruled Shilluk culture of the Sudan. The following section applies these observations to specific Egyptian deities, especially Osiris.

SOURCE07.pdf (une.edu.au)


This is not dissimilar to something I wrote before on RF, that generally the 'Sky Father' is too high and holy to be depicted, and in polytheistic systems many of those that become Gods start off as what we'd now call spirits - water spirits, spirits of the dead, etc. and are not seen as Gods in the way we now understand this word.
 
Last edited:

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
This is also intriguing:

Because of the belief in the "invisibility" of the major deities and the need to make these deities tangible to the Egyptian population, the priests created a representation which combined and reconciled these two conflicting concepts. They placed the anthropomorphic image within a dark sanctuary and restricted access only to those officiating priests who looked after it (ibid 135). Even during public processions, they retained the concept of "invisibility" by concealing the image in a shrine, which was paraded before the public. The general population knew the statue was there and could focus their worship on it, but it remained invisible, hidden in its portable shrine (ibid 136; Baines 1991: 148).


The embodiment of cosmic divine power is dangerous, hence the reluctance to create and display imagery of the most powerful divine forces. Embodied deities in Dynastic Egypt, as elsewhere, were surrounded by the limiting controlling factors of ritual, special priesthoods, sanctuaries, and inaccessibility. In a less complex culture, to simply not embody cosmic forces would protect the people from their dangerous intrusion. Tradition, handed down orally, and rituals practised by succeeding generations of shamans, priests, and prophets, as in Nuer and Dinka culture, sustain the knowledge of the deities and their powers and provide the necessary focus for communal worship and continuance of tradition.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
That's interesting.

But I would argue that even if those lesser Gods started out as spirits that were later elevated to Godhood, doesn't negate the fact that they are still worshipped as Gods.

I kind of tried it touch on this in a thread I made about "hidden Gods", mentioning that many societies had a God who was considered "hidden, or unreachable"; even Odin is known as the "One who is Many". Referencing the myriad forms he takes to interact with others. I think this is also why we have deities that shapeshift in mythology as well. To bridge the material/supernatural planes of existence.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
That's interesting.

But I would argue that even if those lesser Gods started out as spirits that were later elevated to Godhood, doesn't negate the fact that they are still worshipped as Gods.

I kind of tried it touch on this in a thread I made about "hidden Gods", mentioning that many societies had a God who was considered "hidden, or unreachable"; even Odin is known as the "One who is Many". Referencing the myriad forms he takes to interact with others. I think this is also why we have deities that shapeshift in mythology as well. To bridge the material/supernatural planes of existence.
I do think there is something distinguishing these depicted Gods and non-depicted Gods though, a distinction we have lost in modern culture, and the closest such class would be angels/demons/daemons etc., with the main difference being most Abrahamic religions forbid worshipping these lesser higher beings.
 
Last edited:

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I do think there is something distinguishing these depicted Gods and non-depicted Gods though, a distinction we have lost in modern culture, and the closest such class would be angels/demons/daemons etc., with the only difference being most Abrahamic religions forbid worshipping these lesser higher beings.

I think what I'm having a hard time with is equating these "lesser" Deities, with demons, mostly due to the negative connotation it evokes.

A supreme deity that is hidden, ever present, and distributed throughout reality is unapproachable to the mind of a human. We need these other Deities in order to give us aspects of Godhood we can relate to, and learn from. Same reason Jesus is so popular.

This is why I think the Abrahamics got it wrong. Trying to eradicate these Deities (angels, etc), instead of incorporating them into their fold.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think what I'm having a hard time with is equating these "lesser" Deities, with demons, mostly due to the negative connotation it evokes.

A supreme deity that is hidden, ever present, and distributed throughout reality is unapproachable to the mind of a human. We need these other Deities in order to give us aspects of Godhood we can relate to, and learn from. Same reason Jesus is so popular.

This is why I think the Abrahamics got it wrong. Trying to eradicate these Deities (angels, etc), instead of incorporating them into their fold.
I meant that demons would come under the category of lesser beings; a category that includes many kinds of beings.

Yes, it's a system I confess to not really understanding. I see no reason one can't just go directly to the supreme God, but evidently my culture has reinforced this one God belief that I just go direct.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Yes, it's a system I confess to not really understanding. I see no reason one can't just go directly to the supreme God, but evidently my culture has reinforced this one God belief that I just go direct

I find it helpful to think of these other Deities as personalities or avatars of the Supreme (in my case Odin).

It's certainly not the case in all Christianity that God is appealed to directly. Eastern Orthodox venerates the Saints and other biblical holy figures through iconographic depictions, and asking them to intervene on their behalf. Catholicism also venerates saints a bit differently, but does nonetheless.

I think that is to make it easier to worship, again because of the spiritual distance between God™ and humanity.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that is to make it easier to worship, again because of the spiritual distance between God™ and humanity.

I agree.

In Hinduism, there is the concept of Brahman, but Brahman is abstract, and difficult to imagine. Its easier for many to relate to a figure, as to build an emotional relationship to God as they see it.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree.

In Hinduism, there is the concept of Brahman, but Brahman is abstract, and difficult to imagine. Its easier for many to relate to a figure, as to build an emotional relationship to God as they see it.
This is just not something I've ever really had an issue with, so this is likely why this seems foreign to me. Each to their own.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
This is just not something I've ever really had an issue with, so this is likely why this seems foreign to me. Each to their own.

I also love hearing the stories of 'God'(in his/her many manifestations) on earth. It delights me and makes the world seem so beautifully divine.
 

Gargovic Malkav

Well-Known Member
I agree.

In Hinduism, there is the concept of Brahman, but Brahman is abstract, and difficult to imagine. Its easier for many to relate to a figure, as to build an emotional relationship to God as they see it.

Back when I was an atheist I remember often saying that polytheistic religions were more appealing to me than monotheistic ones for that very reason.
Such gods are more "human-like" and therefore more relatable, I guess this is what made them more attractive to me.

Ever since I was a child I liked the myths and legends from polytheistic cultures, and I still do.
But when I read about them now with a monotheistic doctrine in mind, and try to look for a supreme deity that may be the equivalent of the God I worship, I can't find it because it always feels like they're part of the "play" we call creation.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Such gods are more "human-like" and therefore more relatable, I guess this is what made them more attractive to me.
This is more or less what put me off most non-Abrahamic Gods; they just seemed too petty and human, yet those who weren't this way are too distant.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
This is more or less what put me off most non-Abrahamic Gods; they just seemed too petty and human, yet those who weren't this way are too distant.

That's how we learn to be better humans through seeing their foibles, and how to be and do better. And sometimes the Gods themselves were acting in the right, and not just "human/flawed".

Who wants their Deity to be absolute perfection? Why should they embody something (perfection) that I can never aspire to Be?

Edit: I can be as Wise as Odin, Brave as Heimdallr, compassionate like Freya, or as Brash as Thor.

But I can never be as Perfect as Creation.
 
Last edited:

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
That's how we learn to be better humans through seeing their foibles, and how to be and do better. And sometimes the Gods themselves were acting in the right, and not just "human/flawed".

Who wants their Deity to be absolute perfection? Why should they embody something (perfection) that I can never aspire to Be?

Perfection seems to be a human construct, anyways.
 
Top