I always hate (and love) reading through several posts to see each idea of mine pop up here and there, leaving me with little to say when I finally get down to the text field. Anyway, as was earlier said, I’ve always thought of the old gods of mythology as more like powerful humans than the God of the Big 3. This goes along with a big theory of mine about how people interpret God into a human-like character and project their own attributes to it falsely. God is not a super-powerful human and it is not constrained by human aspects such as peronality, jealousy, etc.
Also, the idea of one God that controls everything is more efficient, going along with an advance in technology. What is the point of technology?-to make things faster, easier, and better, i.e. more efficient. When you say this God controls lightning, and this God is the God of song, etc., you’re weakening them. But if you have a God that controls everything, you’re not limited. It’s kind of like when I was a kid I used to say something important and end it with the disclaimer, “No take backs for ever and ever times infinity!” I covered all the bases and I didn’t have to worry.
One thing about monotheism is that it seems to make a bigger deal of people of other faiths. If you’re a monotheist, a god somebody else follows is just another god, but if your a monotheist, they’re evil/doomed/unsofisticated/pagan/slaves/fire-fodder/etc.
This may be a factor that leads to prostelytizing and forced spread of religion.
Hmm, once again I stand corrected. However, I was trying to make the point that it is posible that sophisticated, more psychologicallly “healthy” religions could exist. Maybe the God’s of many fantasy novels would be like this. There is a distinction between Good and Evil ussually. The Gods of many D&D worlds for example.
We could let this devolve into a semantic argument - I’m not even sure Hinduism is theistic - either way Hinduism is structurally and theologically very different from much of what Judaism, Christianity and Islam have in common.
Also, I had thought only Catholics were much interested in the trinity, is that incorrect?
I have a semi-related question I think some of you could have interesting answers for…
Given a lot of change in how religion is viewed these days, exactly what would you consider someone who held a belief in nature nature deities, but only as symbollic representations of a non-sentient… entity, for lack of a better term, necessitated by the lack of something to focus on?
In the various new age movements, this type of belief structure isn’t terribly uncommon, most publicly amongst the psuedo-Wiccan groups, which are often a confused muddle mixing beliefs, deities, and images from a dozen cultures at once. I suppose it is simple to box this off under “paganism,” but that term in itself means anything from a non-Christian or non-Christian/Muslim/Jew to someone having no religion to popular images of “Wiccans” and “Druids” (quotes to emphasize broad generalizations).
Secondly, does this fall under “polytheism,” based on the images of gods, or “monotheism,” based on the idea of one entity/spirit/force?
Thirdly, does this entire question belong in another forum? (most likely
I’m not bringing my beliefs in or targetting anyone else’s here, I’m just curious.
I’m not even sure Hinduism is theistic - either way Hinduism is structurally and theologically very different from much of what Judaism, Christianity and Islam have in common.
That’s true. A common refrain pushed in India by proponents of the Hindutva movement is that Hindiusm is a way of life and not a religion. The “Gods” in Hinduism like fandango said, are just personifications with a specific role. But idol worship is so much endearing to the uneducated masses than the abstract God.
Well, I am a hard polytheist… a practicing Asatruar to be specific and I believe that polytheism is More logical than a monotheism. The fact that my Gods are mortal finite infalible beings only makes it more possible to believe that they exist. I’ll address the ‘flaws’ of polytheism mentioned above one by one with my rebuttal.
Our Gods are merely an explanation for natural occurances. I disagree, I believe that they are a means to understand and grasp the character of the Gods. I’m a stay at home father, if you were to watch any childrearing you might better appreciate the work I do and and certain broad aspects of my personality. It is simplistic to say “Lighting comes from Thor smiting the giants”… it is as simplistic as saying that there are no dinosaurs because they couldn’t fit on the arc. On the other hand you may look at the story of noah’s arc and reflect on what it means… what it says about jehovah and his relationship with his people, what he expects and how best to serve him. When you look at lightning searing the sky you can appreciate the awe and majesty of Thor, reflect on the struggle we all face against evil and recognise that out of struggle comes blessings like rain from the storm.
Pagan gods were essentially selfish superhuman babies, monotheistic dieties are embodiments of peace love and understanding. First you must recognise that what stories we have about the old Gods and ALOT of polytheistic religions that were wiped out by the peace loving monotheists were recorded by those same monotheists… colored by their ideology and only after generations of oral storytelling by converts who told the stories merely to amuse. Recognising that it comes down to the fact that polytheists don’t try to pretend that our Gods are perfect beings while monotheists HAVE to. I have trouble believing that a perfect being (a perfect ANYTHING) can exist. If you further suggest that your god is perfect and all powerful then you have alot of explaining to do. You have to explain alot of the old hoary contradictions like “Could god make a rock so heavy…” “If God loves us so much why does he let X happen?” “If God is all perfect then did he decide what is good and what is evil? Is good and evil arbitrary?”. I don’t have to do this with my Gods. Yep, my Gods could probably make something so large that they could not influence it. Well, my Gods may or may not love you and what makes you think they could do anything about X, maybe they were busy? Ect. Seems much simpler to me.
If your Gods are mortal then how did they start? Who are your God’s Gods? I believe that my Gods are products of the universe not it’s creator, same as you and me. The universe exists independent of the Gods and is ruled by it’s own laws of existence (physics ect.). If you believe the universe had to be created you believe it had a begining… I tend to believe it did not… only an infinite state of being… unconscious… potentiality only. The spark that made the big bang perhaps… maybe made of the universe before it… who knows. The point is that after the Universe came my Gods who then had a hand in making me (I’m not a strict creationist either). You may ask “Why worship your Gods at all then?” well… I do it because I want to. I don’t have to. If I didn’t worship them a day in my life I don’t think they’d hold it particularly against me… of course they might not know me very well either. I worship my Gods and work on my relationship with them for the same reason you might love your parents, respect your teachers or get to know a friend or lover. I owe them and I like them and want them to know me. I’ve written a ton… if anybody wants a point clarified I’ll be happy to write more later.
I’d agree that the idea of one God is more philosophically satisfying than that of many gods. However, it is interesting that polytheism seems to retain it siren call and major monotheistic religions answer (perhaps not officially) with icons, saints, angels and devils, holy places and relics etc.
My wag would be that we aren’t pawns of gods, but more like children of God. Once gods are no longer throwing lighting bolts at us we ask waht are these things and science is invented.
Forgetting for a moment that some gods have powers that permit them to harness electricity or to breathe where there is no air, keep in mind that man created god(s) in his own image. All these entities have personality qualities that can be found in humans. The desires, motives, and behaviors of the god(s) are versions of what we understand human nature to consist of. Of course, it’s not demonstrable, but I’d say that without the gods, we would, and do, exist, but without us, the gods wouldn’t.
For me it’s not about history, or who’s god is stronger, or what culture has become dominant.
I’ll give a psychological perspective. Imagine that you lived all your life thinking there were many gods, or many separate scientific laws, or different types of people. Things are nicely discrete and compartmentalized.
Then, one day you have the experience of one god – everything appears related to everything else. Then you see people and plants as being the same but not identical, made up of the same stuff deep down. Rain and rocks come from god as much as the heathens in the next village. It is a profoundly inclusive perspective. And that is a radical change. Some people experience it as “love” because they see how all people and things are fundamentally connected.
Now if you think your one god is better than the other guy’s one god, then you don’t really believe in one god. You’re back to two gods. This mistake can happen when people have an idea about one god, but do not have a personal direct experience of it.
I don’t think you need to believe in god in order to have this experience, but “god” is a convenient term to describe the experience in this culture.
Okay, maybe that wasn’t a psychological explanation as much as a mystical or spiritual perspective.
When the last dog is hung and all of the theorists get down off of he boxes there were mundane reasons for the change.
Among the several reasions why the ancients had so many gods was because they had so many challenges in life.By thtime they were grown they had a god for everything fro hangnails to barber’s itch
Switching over to one god only was a lot like running a compressioon on the machine.
Once a year sacrificing to the one god saved a heck of a lot of resources that multiple offerings took out of the family pocket book.
Sacrifices cost the shepherd more sheep than all of the coyotes in old mexico
Sure—the old multiple system provided more reasons for successes AND failures-------but the “Lars and enitentes” were a cash flowproblem--------pile on Zeus and his roustabouts and it got pretty hairy.
With apologies to the theologians--------there was no great epiphany-------just a practical system that replaced a custom which had outdated itself.
Of course by instituting the “saint” system they really didnt move that far from the old one.
The saint system kept a lot of the “old shoe” factor in popular
belief.
no its not then tell me who created the one orginal god in the monothestic religon i dont see what is the problem with a family tree of gods and a god is a being with control over nature and or reality you are just too effected by the judeo-christian concept of “god” than anything else
Polytheistic gods tend to have limited control or powers over a specific role.
They therefore cannot be omniscient, the monotheistic god absolutely must be omnipotent - this surely represents a much more powerful being to worship.
In terms of societies, it means everyone involved with a particular mono god have a closer religious community compared to the poly god society.It certainly makes it easier to identify ‘them’ and ‘us’.
Effectively the only dividing lines that you get within mono god cultures are the differences in prophets, who may have such divisions that can lead to serious dispute, and in that sense you could argue that prophets take the place of poly gods.
Prophets have the interesting function of allowing a mono god culture an opportunity to update, develop and change - to move with the society and perform a religious evolutionary function.We might call that reinterpretation of the ‘original word’
Without prophets then the original terms set in the name of the mono god would be fixed, and without the ability to adapt there may be a likelihood that a fixed mono god culture would wither away, or at least not be exportable to other cultures.
