Why Isn't monotheism the first form of spirituality?

[Liu]

Sure.

To do such - all gods are the reflection or shadow of one god - quite literally ignores everything that is known and believed of the gods. Significant elements are ignored; if Thor and Odin are the same deity, just different shadows, how is Thor the son of Odin? How could Thor be birthed by Jord, if they are the same? The inevitable answer of "Those are just stories" could be given, but at that point you might as well not be recognizing Thor, Odin and Jord. In fact, you wouldn't be; because to recognize those Gods is to recognize them as they are. Parentage and all.

That's essentially what pantheism is; the Universe is a manifestation of God, and all gods are permissible as "aspects" of that god. But the gods are not permitted in full, they're included in name only.

There are so many different myths, you simply cannot consider them all literally true. I wouldn't say all are "just stories" but rather use the term metaphors, some good and some less so at describing reality.

Also, I think at least some of human's encounters with deities might be encounters with spirits. I don't actively believe in them, but I'm read/heard enough of other people's experiences with them to not completely exclude the possibility. So, I guess we might be thinking in different concepts meaning the same - what you call deities I might call either spirits or simply parts of existence.

I don't think polytheism is that complex at all.

Yes, that's what I was saying - I think it's not complex enough to accurately describe reality, but rather oversimplifies things by putting them into categories, something that pantheism avoids.

 

[Quintessence]

Ironically I think that what you have stated here is the essence of the mystical tradition...Namely the essential unity underlying all distinctions.

Which mystical tradition? I could certainly see the monotheistic ones saying that. Not so much the non-monotheistic ones.

I've seen a lot of applications of "The Cave" that were bad, but that one's right up there. There are far too many problems presented if all polytheistic gods are "many shadows of one god".

Remember... your mother is my mother and everyone else's mother too.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

There are so many different myths, you simply cannot consider them all literally true.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Let's try an applicable example:

Thor and Zeus are two different Gods of Thunder. Without their cultural myths and identities, it could be said that they're the same deity. But what, then, makes them Thor and Zeus? How can they be the same when recognized as both Thor and Zeus?

I think at least some of human's encounters with deities might be encounters with spirits.

Many polytheistic religions recognize their gods as spirits. Technically, the term "god" - or even "goddess" - is too broad for people like we Heathens. It covers ás and ásynja (plurals æsir/ásynjur), vanr (plural vanir), vætir/wights, ancestors, and the álfar.

Yes, that's what I was saying - I think it's not complex enough to accurately describe reality,

Oh you mean in terms of structural complexity. No, there I think it is just so. I took you to mean complex as in difficult to grasp. So far as "oversimplifying by categorizing," I think this is backwards. It's far more oversimplified to say "everything is one" than to recognize that the sea is not the same as the earth.

 

[miodrag]

I’ve often wondered why monotheism isn’t the first form of religion we see historically if things like christianity are true.

You mean Bible is not historical? Adam and Eve were monotheists, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I’ve often wondered why monotheism isn’t the first form of religion we see historically if things like christianity are true. You would think if God only wanted us to worship him and would punish us otherwise he’d be sure to be the very first spiritual concept humans understood.

Of course this doesn’t really work against a Universalist god. One that isn’t overly concerned with how you worship but is more concerned with how you behave. After all this sort of God would be fine with our understanding evolving over time so he wouldn’t have to make sure he was the first one we thought of.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree and why?

All things have an origin. The concept and construction of god(s) is no different. Monotheism had to develop culturally and mentally before it could become a thing. It had to have a necessity before it could be invented.

The implications of that, as you're asking the question, will lead to what they may.

 

[Liu]

Oh you mean in terms of structural complexity. No, there I think it is just so. I took you to mean complex as in difficult to grasp. So far as "oversimplifying by categorizing," I think this is backwards. It's far more oversimplified to say "everything is one" than to recognize that the sea is not the same as the earth.

We seem to have very different approaches to theology. You focus on the world of phenomena, while I rather focus on consciousness and its aspects.
To me, there are ultimately only two things - the watcher (i.e. awareness), and the watched (all that one can be aware of), and since both influence each other and aren't completely separate, I consider them to belong to the same something.
That something is pretty complex, though, no question.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Let's try an applicable example:

Thor and Zeus are two different Gods of Thunder. Without their cultural myths and identities, it could be said that they're the same deity. But what, then, makes them Thor and Zeus? How can they be the same when recognized as both Thor and Zeus?

That depends a lot on what you consider the gods to be. I hope I don't recall it wrongly, but from what I remember from comments of you I read, you don't consider them to be mere metaphors, but actual conscious beings? But at the same time you consider them inseparably connected to the things they stand for?
So, no metaphors, no normal spirits - sounds most like a specific kind of egregore to me, to be honest, i.e. a spirit formed and given personality by belief, and one big enough to act independantly. That would probably also make it seem like they are what they stand for, as they would have a certain control over these things, and basically be them. And it would also make it possible to have more than one egregore with partly the same attributes and partly different ones simultaneously, like with Thor and Zeus.
I'm no expert on these matters, though - just, from all the theories on spirits I recall this seems like the best explanation.

 

[sealchan]

Which mystical tradition? I could certainly see the monotheistic ones saying that. Not so much the non-monotheistic ones.



Remember... your mother is my mother and everyone else's mother too.

Any mystical tradition. The experience of the unity of all things is one of the defining characteristics of mystical experience.

Mystical Experience
Mystical experience - Wikipedia

In the Jungian school of thought there are many ideas which have a kind of 'gravity' that goes well beyond their simple common definitions. One prominent Jungian, Erich Neumann did a study on The Great Mother which defined a broad association of typically motifs seen across all cultures that are shared in spiritual understandings about God(dess) as Mother. Individual mothers in matriarchal cultures could easily see themselves as servants of or vehicles for the one great spiritual creative power. So in that sense, again...

And how many mothers do you know who would readily accept non-biological children into their "fold" as readily as their biological children?

Of course, I am not trying to say that all mothers are literally the same and interchangable. I'm only saying what any mystic from any tradition can tell you...that there are deep connections between things that we usually don't sense in our everyday experience. This spiritual, mystical perspective is ALSO paradoxically true.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That depends a lot on what you consider the gods to be. I hope I don't recall it wrongly, but from what I remember from comments of you I read, you don't consider them to be mere metaphors, but actual conscious beings? But at the same time you consider them inseparably connected to the things they stand for?
So, no metaphors, no normal spirits - sounds most like a specific kind of egregore to me, to be honest, i.e. a spirit formed and given personality by belief, and one big enough to act independantly.

No, I do not hold the Gods to be a thoughtform creation. They exist whether there are humans around to recognize and give worship to them; even beasts heed their presence and know them.

Furthermore, being "more than one [god]" with similar-yet-different personalities and attributes is just what - I think - shoots Pantheism in the foot. Everything about those gods but a select attribute must be ignored for them to be "the same god." Furthermore everything about them but the classification of "god" must be ignored to make all gods reflections or shadows of the "greater whole." It's just not a theology that makes any sense to me at all.

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

...We perceive reality as composed of discrete, independent objects. ...

I'd argue against that point, but this is not the right thread. I'll just say that we BELIEVE that we experience independent objects, but they are not really independent objects.

 

[DeviChaaya]

I’ve often wondered why monotheism isn’t the first form of religion we see historically if things like christianity are true. You would think if God only wanted us to worship him and would punish us otherwise he’d be sure to be the very first spiritual concept humans understood.



Of course this doesn’t really work against a Universalist god. One that isn’t overly concerned with how you worship but is more concerned with how you behave. After all this sort of God would be fine with our understanding evolving over time so he wouldn’t have to make sure he was the first one we thought of.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Because monotheism is an aberration, a perversion of spirit and truth. All things right now that exist, exist, that we perceive some to be deserving of worship and others not does not truly reflect on their existence. They still exist no matter how much we admire them or despise them. Plurality is the nature of the game, not monotony

Polytheism is plurality; it accepts differences and embraces others. Monotheism starts wars because if there is only one then there is only one way to be right. Pantheism and Panentheism have never started wars because all are considered to be equal representations of the divine.

Curse monotheism and the destruction it causes in every possible way.

 

[Tabu]

I’ve often wondered why monotheism isn’t the first form of religion we see historically if things like christianity are true. You would think if God only wanted us to worship him and would punish us otherwise he’d be sure to be the very first spiritual concept humans understood.



Of course this doesn’t really work against a Universalist god. One that isn’t overly concerned with how you worship but is more concerned with how you behave. After all this sort of God would be fine with our understanding evolving over time so he wouldn’t have to make sure he was the first one we thought of.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree and why?

Brahma Kumaris believe that worship of One God was the first form of worship , and God is referred to as 'light' in all monotheistic religions.
Since people found it difficult to worship light they took an oval image for Him as an object of worship which is the 'lingam' and is still present in many ancient temples( places of worship) around the world.
Is Petra an ancient Shiva temple?
We also believe that images given to Supreme Father Shiv are symbolic , and that civilization started in greater India (Bharath) first and from there spread to the rest of the world and thus the worship of both the lingam and symbolic Shiv and the associated images.

 

[Liu]

No, I do not hold the Gods to be a thoughtform creation. They exist whether there are humans around to recognize and give worship to them; even beasts heed their presence and know them.

Furthermore, being "more than one [god]" with similar-yet-different personalities and attributes is just what - I think - shoots Pantheism in the foot. Everything about those gods but a select attribute must be ignored for them to be "the same god." Furthermore everything about them but the classification of "god" must be ignored to make all gods reflections or shadows of the "greater whole." It's just not a theology that makes any sense to me at all.

I wasn't saying that you consider them thoughtforms, but that this would be the explanation your experience of them would have in my worldview.
I guess we should just agree to disagree on this topic - it's something I need to really come to terms with myself before I can reasonably argue about it.

 

[Quintessence]

Any mystical tradition. The experience of the unity of all things is one of the defining characteristics of mystical experience.

Then you're not using the term "mystical tradition" like I do. To me, a "mystical tradition" is a tradition whereby adherents experience revelations about their gods directly, rather than through a third party like a priest or sacred text. They focus on communing with the gods directly instead of relying on intermediaries. Nothing about that requires an experience of "unity." What it demands is the individual doing the legwork instead of parroting an external authority. That's it. I understand that the language of "mystical traditions" in Western culture came out of monotheist cultures, and is therefore slanted towards monotheism. As a non-monotheist, I rather object to that and will not follow such usage.

I'm only saying what any mystic from any tradition can tell you...that there are deep connections between things that we usually don't sense in our everyday experience. This spiritual, mystical perspective is ALSO paradoxically true.

There's a difference between acknowledging that relationships exist (that there are connections) and then ignoring or downplaying that there are distinct entities that are having those relationships. This would be akin to a conservation biologist saying "nah, we're not going to bother working to preserve this specific endangered species because it's related to this other common species over here and it's all the same underneath " Bologna.

 

[sealchan]

Then you're not using the term "mystical tradition" like I do. To me, a "mystical tradition" is a tradition whereby adherents experience revelations about their gods directly, rather than through a third party like a priest or sacred text. They focus on communing with the gods directly instead of relying on intermediaries. Nothing about that requires an experience of "unity." What it demands is the individual doing the legwork instead of parroting an external authority. That's it. I understand that the language of "mystical traditions" in Western culture came out of monotheist cultures, and is therefore slanted towards monotheism. As a non-monotheist, I rather object to that and will not follow such usage.



There's a difference between acknowledging that relationships exist (that there are connections) and then ignoring or downplaying that there are distinct entities that are having those relationships. This would be akin to a conservation biologist saying "nah, we're not going to bother working to preserve this specific endangered species because it's related to this other common species over here and it's all the same underneath " Bologna.

Well I think you have a somewhat restricted sense of mysticism. Sure, a deep emphasis on personal experience of the divine is another aspect of the mystic tradition. But the knowledge of the transcendence of the duality of this experience of the reality of the world and it's underlying unifying presence is the core of Hinduism and Buddhism, two great mystic traditions. In the west we have Christian mystics seeking unity with God. It's hard for me to understand your resistance to what I am saying.

Also mystical knowledge always deals in paradox. Do you acknowledge this? Mystics don't get caught up in mere rational constructions of knowledge and worry about if we can be clear about whether or not mothers are all the same or all distinct. It is always both. The truth one speaks comes from a place of balance on both sides and anything said in particular is always in a context and not an absolute. Without being hypocritical a mystic can say one thing at one time and the opposite at another. Mystics know and expect this. Non-mystics shake their head at such non-practical nonsense.

It's all one. We are all different.

 

[Quintessence]

Well I think you have a somewhat restricted sense of mysticism. Sure, a deep emphasis on personal experience of the divine is another aspect of the mystic tradition. But the knowledge of the transcendence of the duality of this experience of the reality of the world and it's underlying unifying presence is the core of Hinduism and Buddhism, two great mystic traditions. In the west we have Christian mystics seeking unity with God. It's hard for me to understand your resistance to what I am saying.

You're not a polytheist - I think that probably explains it. I think it also explains why you'd consider my view to be "restricted." I could say the same about yours, but I'd prefer to use the word "different" or perhaps "exhibiting the typical bias."

Also mystical knowledge always deals in paradox. Do you acknowledge this?

No, I don't agree with that. I would grant "sometimes," but certainly not "always."

It's all one. We are all different.

That's not how I would put it. I'm tired of that rhetoric. It doesn't help that the majority of the time I encounter it, it's used as yet another tactic to put down and denigrate polytheism. It's made me a bit bitter.

 

[sealchan]

You're not a polytheist - I think that probably explains it. I think it also explains why you'd consider my view to be "restricted." I could say the same about yours, but I'd prefer to use the word "different" or perhaps "exhibiting the typical bias."



No, I don't agree with that. I would grant "sometimes," but certainly not "always."



That's not how I would put it. I'm tired of that rhetoric. It doesn't help that the majority of the time I encounter it, it's used as yet another tactic to put down and denigrate polytheism. It's made me a bit bitter.

I will admit that I am not following the argument as it pertains to polytheism. I would welcome further explanation. I'm willing to be enlightened in my bias. My own "philosophy" places a strong emphasis on identifying one's personal bias and coming to an understanding of it.

 

[Quintessence]

I will admit that I am not following the argument as it pertains to polytheism. I would welcome further explanation. I'm willing to be enlightened in my bias. My own "philosophy" places a strong emphasis on identifying one's personal bias and coming to an understanding of it.

That is certainly commendable! Knowing one's biases is another way of putting "knowing oneself" in many respects. Some biases are easier to examine than others. The toughest are those that are so culturally pervasive that they are barely recognized as present, and are thus not pointed out or scrutinized. Abrahamic (particularly Christian/Protestant/Catholic) narratives about religion and theology are almost certainly amongst the tougher-to-examine cultural biases amongst my kinfolk.

I'm not sure how much I can be of assistance here or what I can add beyond what I've already said. The whole "transcendence" bit you ascribe to mysticism is something that comes from theologies that emphasize a transcendent god, which polytheistic theologies by and large do not. Pagan paths are typically very embodied, with gods viewed as immanent (aka, they are the world - the sun is a god, for example). The whole matter-spirit duality kinda gives me a "404 - file not found" error.

Maybe someone else can pick up a flag here and explain some things too? My perspective certainly isn't some sort of cannon. We don't have cannons in Paganism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I’ve often wondered why monotheism isn’t the first form of religion we see historically if things like christianity are true. You would think if God only wanted us to worship him and would punish us otherwise he’d be sure to be the very first spiritual concept humans understood.



Of course this doesn’t really work against a Universalist god. One that isn’t overly concerned with how you worship but is more concerned with how you behave. After all this sort of God would be fine with our understanding evolving over time so he wouldn’t have to make sure he was the first one we thought of.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree and why?

learning process

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I believe it was.

What understanding does the current evidence obtain?

If the evidence reveals other than monotheism was first, that only demonstrates to me that not all the evidence has been discovered yet. Or it's been misinterpreted.

I'll wait for archaeology to enlighten us further, though conclusive proof may never be forthcoming.

Myself, I believe the Bible provides the correct answer.