What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

[durangodawood]

Everyone knows that reality has a liberal bias.

It does these days, for sure. That pendulum swings back and forth
..

 

[JesiJones]

Animism cannot precede God since animism, polytheism and all forms of diversification are simply the dissection of the whole into its principalities, properties and natures (what you call "deities"). The cells and organs (deities) which make up the man (God)

And yet cells are seen to organize into one being.

There are two ways to look at this:

I. From an evolution of nature

and

II An evolution of our perception of nature.

If the first, then yes you can say you have to have a unit of measurement before you can have diversification. However, nature it itself is mysterious that all diversification exist within the monad and the monad in diversification. This is entanglement. Temporal thinking leads to a chicken or the egg mentality. At this point you start dealing with singularities and quantum reality... whereby there is no time but the expression of probability that creates time and space.

That you have two poles, on one end you have one concept and the other end you have another.... and that we could not have this discussion unless both concepts existed because neither state (the many coming together to form the one and the one diversifying into the many) would be possible without the other. What happens is that the finished entity is reflected in seed and vice versa. You reap what you sow.

Hence, "I am the Alpha and the Omega"

If we are talking about point number II, none of that is relevant as we are talking simply about how our ancestors viewed divinity and not the nature of divinity itself.

 

[JesiJones]

It can be, but I think it can also be monotheistic, but a very "open" monotheism that doesn't declare itself to have the only god in existence. All that is required for such a henotheism to become vaguely polytheistic is to recognize the existence of nearby cultures that also have their own gods.

However, in the early stages, I would imagine that those other gods belong to different mythologies. In other words, the mythologies haven't become integrated yet (which they will in due time largely for political reasons). When they become integrated, then you have a pantheon of deities, and thus have polytheism proper.



How is that not political? Culture and politics are related.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well polytheism may arise out of the merging of other mythologies but often tribal mythologies have multiple deities just as any story would have several and/or supporting characters. So yes that is a likely scenario but not a requirement for formation of polytheism.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Polytheism does not equal a Pantheon. A Pantheon denotes some kind of categorization among the deities even if it's just grouping into a pantheon.

Think of hard polytheist who not only see the deities as completely separate but also the hard polytheist that don't work within any given pantheon or even recognize such pantheons for anything other than cultural charts (if that).

Henotheism has more to do with authoritarian structure than number god so... a Henotheistic system can be monotheistic but one of the following would be true.

I. The Henotheistic system is soft-polytheistic so it can be also be considered monotheistic. (either several gods are one or one god as several modes of operation)
II. The Henotheistic doesn't simply account for god but other entities and principalities.
II. There is only one God but many lesser god-like entities who may be referred to as gods.

Remember that Monotheism doesn't simply mean you worship one God but that you make a theological statement as to the Oneness of god... whether or not that oneness is inclusive or exclusive is another matter. There actually is a term for the worship of one deity while recognizing the deities of others but I forget what it's called. Though your main deities(s) are your Patron (if a god) and Matron (if a goddess) deities.

It isn't simply about the number of gods but how number defines God (and God defines number). So first we really need to define whether we are using a modern interpretation of the term or not.

Of course politics and culture are related, and politics has allot to do with it... I was simply pointing out that not all reasons for it are political.

 

[GuardianShua]

It has everything to do with it actually. Both idealism and materialism start from a point and it's the starting point which determines the nature of the present and outlines the direction of progression.

They don't see natural progression as a starting point, because they do not want to. What we have learned here is that we are 100% wrong, 100% of the time, and that the bible is not respected as a historical document. In other words, we our wasting our time. Thank you for your in-put, I see that you are a deep thinker.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What we have learned here is that we are 100% wrong, 100% of the time

Are you 100% wrong about that?

and that the bible is not respected as a historical document.

That's only because it isn't an historical document. We have examples of historical documents from the past, and they aren't written in any way like the Bible. They read like historical texts written by historians.

There may be historical events covered at times in the Bible, but it isn't a history text any more than it is a science text.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JesiJones]

Are you 100% wrong about that?

That's only because it isn't an historical document. We have examples of historical documents from the past, and they aren't written in any way like the Bible. They read like historical texts written by historians.

There may be historical events covered at times in the Bible, but it isn't a history text any more than it is a science text.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Exactly. There is a difference between a document that is historical and a document that was written to be a historical account.

Here's one of the main issues though: You really can't make a claim like that about the Bible as a whole. The reason being that the Bible is a compiled work of several books so you have to go and look at each individually.

Some were written for historical purposes however many of those are testimonies and not historical records as such. Now to be fair, that doesn't mean that those other documents are foolproof - it may very well be that we come to find out some of them are biased... who knows?

Other books were correspondences between people and were never meant for public eyes. One books that his a historical document is Leviticus as it was written to preserve Jewish identity and gives us an insight into the priesthood and culture.

On the other hand, Genesis and Ezekiel are symbolic, full of mysticism and were never intended to be taken literally.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

[...]the bible is not respected as a historical document.

Quite the contrary. It is treated in exactly the same way as any other historical text, and nobody denies that it contains valuable information on the history of the ancient middle east, even if seen through the lense of myth.

Likewise, its creation myths are treated exactly the same way as corresponding passages in other accounts: as testimony of an ancient civilization's religious beliefs.

A good contrasting point here is the life of Augustus: we can learn much about him from historical documents (and archaeology besides), yet some of these accounts also contain supernatural claims that are linked to the Roman state cult and the deified Emperor.
Suetonius, for example, wrote the following:

"When Atia [Augustus's mother] had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. Atia too, before she gave him birth, dreamed that her vitals were borne up to the stars and spread over the whole extent of land and sea, while Octavius dreamed that the sun rose from Atia's womb.

The day he was born the conspiracy of Catiline was before the House, and Octavius came late because of his wife's confinement; then Publius Nigidius, as everyone knows, learning the reason for his tardiness and being informed also of the hour of the birth, declared that the ruler of the world had been born."

Now, depending on just how superstitious you are, you might actually believe that all of this happened (and then give it a negative slant by attributing it to the devil, for example).
But as far as history is concerned, such accounts are regarded as myth-making - and rightly so.

 

[Greg1234]

Well polytheism may arise out of the merging of other mythologies but often tribal mythologies have multiple deities just as any story would have several and/or supporting characters. So yes that is a likely scenario but not a requirement for formation of polytheism.

All religious are simultaneously polytheistic and monotheistic. The fruits of the spirit in Christianity are the virtuous constituents of God while Paul outlines the false gods in Eph 5:5, Phil 3:19, Col 3:5. It may appear to be polytheistic due to the range of the onlookers perception but enphasis on one aspect or the other is what gives rise to designations such as polytheism, panentheism, deism, etc.

 

[JesiJones]

All religious are simultaneously polytheistic and monotheistic. The fruits of the spirit in Christianity are the virtuous constituents of God while Paul outlines the false gods in Eph 5:5, Phil 3:19, Col 3:5. It may appear to be polytheistic due to the range of the onlookers perception but enphasis on one aspect or the other is what gives rise to designations such as polytheism, panentheism, deism, etc.

I would agree with you that most religious are both when you go back to their roots... however I wouldn't be so quick to say all- you know, for liability purposes.

 

[Greg1234]

Quite the contrary. It is treated in exactly the same way as any other historical text, and nobody denies that it contains valuable information on the history of the ancient middle east, even if seen through the lense of myth.

Likewise, its creation myths are treated exactly the same way as corresponding passages in other accounts: as testimony of an ancient civilization's religious beliefs.

A good contrasting point here is the life of Augustus: we can learn much about him from historical documents (and archaeology besides), yet some of these accounts also contain supernatural claims that are linked to the Roman state cult and the deified Emperor.
Suetonius, for example, wrote the following:

"When Atia [Augustus's mother] had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. Atia too, before she gave him birth, dreamed that her vitals were borne up to the stars and spread over the whole extent of land and sea, while Octavius dreamed that the sun rose from Atia's womb.

The day he was born the conspiracy of Catiline was before the House, and Octavius came late because of his wife's confinement; then Publius Nigidius, as everyone knows, learning the reason for his tardiness and being informed also of the hour of the birth, declared that the ruler of the world had been born."

Now, depending on just how superstitious you are, you might actually believe that all of this happened (and then give it a negative slant by attributing it to the devil, for example).
But as far as history is concerned, such accounts are regarded as myth-making - and rightly so.

1. Superstition is a term that isn't defined to bear synonymity with "theism." Hence the reason why Darwinism wasnt spared.

2. A mystery reveals that there is an increase in the supernatural elements within the historical event.

3. In the same way an encoded message from WWI dilutes neither the authenticity of that document nor the occurrences it reveals, the historical merit of ancient mysteries (summarized and consolidated in the parables with no call to Christian redundancy) retains its veracity as an historical documentation of [even more supernatural] events.

4. The encoding as a mystery does not dismiss an occurrence. There are many Prodigal Son scenarios occurring today, there are many farmers who sow seeds in the fields, there are many harvests. While one can simply use the Prodigal parable of Jesus as a mystery qualifier for all historical documents (and if one does not believe in Fathers and Sons, as a qualifier for falsehoods), it simply does not work that way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1. Superstition is a term that isn't defined to bear synonymity with "theism." Hence the reason why Darwinism wasnt spared.

You clearly never did have a good English teacher, so I will rewrite your statements in readable language, which believe me is a greater sign of intelligence than this convoluted prose.

1. Superstition and theism aren't synonyms, which is why I didn't spare Darwinism.

Notice that I cut the number of words almost in half, and spared the reader several seconds trying to unpack your meaning.

2. A mystery reveals that there is an increase in the supernatural elements within the historical event.

2. When an historical event is mysterious, this reveals an increase in supernatural events.

This is almost the same number of words, but one doesn't have to wade through an entire sentence to see that the mystery relates to an historical event.

My philosophical reply to this is simply that mysteries don't necessarily reveal anything supernatural. They may reveal political propaganda, or perhaps just a traditional way of deifying great political figures. The genius of Augustus (his guiding "spirit") was venerated for many years after his death, but that doesn't mean that anyone had good scientific reasons to think that geniuses exist.

3. In the same way an encoded message from WWI dilutes neither the authenticity of that document nor the occurrences it reveals, the historical merit of ancient mysteries (summarized and consolidated in the parables with no call to Christian redundancy) retains its veracity as an historical documentation of [even more supernatural] events.

3. Even encoded messages, like those from WWI, have merit. Ancient mysteries may be considered historical events.

I made essentially the same point, but with an economy of words. Be clear. Be clear. Be clear.

My philosophical response: bad analogy. Mysteries aren't necessarily like coded documents in WWI. The purpose isn't necessarily the same.

4. The encoding as a mystery does not dismiss an occurrence. There are many Prodigal Son scenarios occurring today, there are many farmers who sow seeds in the fields, there are many harvests. While one can simply use the Prodigal parable of Jesus as a mystery qualifier for all historical documents (and if one does not believe in Fathers and Sons, as a qualifier for falsehoods), it simply does not work that way.

This quote defies my ability to translate. You seem to be saying that the stories in the parables of Jesus happen in everyday life, so we must take mysteries at face value. Of course, we don't have to do this, especially when we are considering mysteries that don't happen in everyday life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Greg1234]

You clearly never did have a good English teacher, so I will rewrite your statements in readable language, which believe me is a greater sign of intelligence than this convoluted prose.

Ok.

1. Superstition and theism aren't synonyms,

We already know that. That's not the point. The emphasis is on the definitions of terms. It is the definitions which are played upon by the Darwinist in order to inconspicuously further his agenda, (see hypocrisy where the def. of science is materialism while at the same time being "unbiased inquiry" to the public eye). The statement, as it was originally given, intercepts attacks from the redefinition front, while yours is simply an invitation for one to leisurely continue with the redefinition rampage. Dalliance and your defeat ensues.

which is why I didn't spare Darwinism.

Darwinism's demise was due to a concerted rather than individual effort. There is no need to confine it to a single person in order to facilitate an ad hominem attack, nor is there a need to conveniently siphon the argument into a pre-stigmatized individual. Your statement only reduces your range and invites the trademark inflammatory tantrums of the Darwinist. Not much else.

Notice that I cut the number of words almost in half, and spared the reader several seconds trying to unpack your meaning.

Not without consequence. Leave as is.

2. When an historical event is mysterious, this reveals an increase in supernatural events.

"Mysterious" is a broadly defined word. Many mysterious events of antiquity dont need decryption. A "mystery" however has its specialized application and applies more specifically to events with a deeper metaphysical meaning; the surface of the mystery valued as a platform for metaphysical extractions.

This is almost the same number of words, but one doesn't have to wade through an entire sentence to see that the mystery relates to an historical event.

Not without negative consequences, such as the revelation of unfamiliarity.

My philosophical reply to this is simply that mysteries don't necessarily reveal anything supernatural. They may reveal political propaganda, or perhaps just a traditional way of deifying great political figures.

You redefined mystery to include all mysterious events. Note that the door wasn't opened for you by me, but by you. A mystery as defined cannot reveal "political propaganda" since the labeling as a mystery excludes such perceptions. Saying that it is in fact not a mystery, then advancing your case (with the retention of definitions), is a much more worthwhile endeavor.

The genius of Augustus (his guiding "spirit") was venerated for many years after his death, but that doesn't mean that anyone had good scientific reasons to think that geniuses exist.

Under the definition of science today. Materialism btw is an extremely poor platform for analyzing metaphysical deliniations.

3. Even encoded messages, like those from WWI, have merit. Ancient mysteries may be considered historical events.[

Saying "even encoded messages have merit" does no service to the comparisons of encrypted documents, specifically those in parabolic formats viz., Prodigal Son, Sower and the Seeds.

Your statements leave out the line of interpretation (which is an inclusion of more metaphysical events) thus sacrificing emphasis for brevity.

Your statement leaves out the disposability of Christian redundancy which is another point.

Essentially, instead of embedding multiple points within the context of a single address, you now need a point 4, 5, 6, 7 in order to the retain emphasis or for freshly making the points given. Hence, the seemingly compressional state of your heavily truncated address is illusory at best.

I made essentially the same point, but with an economy of words. Be clear. Be clear. Be clear.

Not really.

My philosophical response: bad analogy. Mysteries aren't necessarily like coded documents in WWI. The purpose isn't necessarily the same.

You're saying here "bad analogy" because the purpose of encrypting a motar strike is different from an encryption for a metaphysical deliverance.

This quote defies my ability to translate. You seem to be saying that the stories in the parables of Jesus happen in everyday life, so we must take mysteries at face value. Of course, we don't have to do this, especially when we are considering mysteries that don't happen in everyday life.

Actual events may double as an encryption device. See examples given. See use of mystery.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Greg1234, your unhealthy monomania with Darwinism notwithstanding, I'd like to ask you a question:

What kind of approach would make it possible to integrate non-falsifiable, untestable claims into science? How do you propose to formulate viable models that are based on the "supernatural", yet allow us to understand and predict phenomena?

In short: how does "God did it and the Bible says so" allow us to understand and learn more about the nature of lightning, or germs, or continental drift?
How does it allow us to develop vaccines or build bridges or construct sensors that warn us of an impeding earthquake?

What *you* seemingly fail to understand is that the only way to understand natural phenomena is to treat them as such to begin with, rather than attributing them to an ineffable cause that can never be tested or falsified.

But of course, none of that pits science against religion as such. Only against a narrowly defined, anti-modernist literalism.

 

[hikersong]

You clearly never did have a good English teacher, so I will rewrite your statements in readable language, which believe me is a greater sign of intelligence than this convoluted prose.

Sorry Mark, but this whole post made me chuckle. You've usually got the patience of a saint when faced with poorly expressed comments, or ones that simply don't seem to have any coherent thinking attached. And also with posts that contain rudeness and, what I would call, intentional ignorance. It was funny (for me anyway) to witness your feet of clay.

And I'm going to be extra careful to be succinct and clear in the future, just in case I too should unwittingly unleash your keyboard wrath!

 

[razeontherock]

According to our scriptures God came into being upon His own accord in the other heaven.

Sorry Michael, our Scriptures say nothing about G-d "coming into being." Ever. the very suggestion defies His basic Nature!

 

[razeontherock]

All religious are simultaneously polytheistic and monotheistic. The fruits of the spirit in Christianity are the virtuous constituents of God while Paul outlines the false gods in Eph 5:5, Phil 3:19, Col 3:5. It may appear to be polytheistic due to the range of the onlookers perception but enphasis on one aspect or the other is what gives rise to designations such as polytheism, panentheism, deism, etc.

This is better described by the term henotheism.

 

[razeontherock]

3. Even encoded messages, like those from WWI, have merit. Ancient mysteries may be considered historical events.

My philosophical response: bad analogy. Mysteries aren't necessarily like coded documents in WWI. The purpose isn't necessarily the same.

But it is!

This quote defies my ability to translate. You seem to be saying that the stories in the parables of Jesus happen in everyday life, so we must take mysteries at face value. Of course, we don't have to do this, especially when we are considering mysteries that don't happen in everyday life.

You just explained why you don't find the Bible to be relevant; you brush it off in haste, instead of seeking applicable meaning.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg1234, your unhealthy monomania with Darwinism notwithstanding, I'd like to ask you a question:

Materialistic conjectures stream primarily from Darwinism. Highlighting its role in the argument rather than allowing its passive perseverance is far from "unhealthy".

What kind of approach would make it possible to integrate non-falsifiable, untestable claims into science?

Science is materialism, see Judge Jones and kitzmiller trial.

How do you propose to formulate viable models that are based on the "supernatural", yet allow us to understand and predict phenomena?

They would have to be brought down to be understood with the instrumentation within physical science (similar to the way you would attempt to explain DNA activity with a seismograph).

In short: how does "God did it and the Bible says so" allow us to understand and learn more about the nature of lightning, or germs, or continental drift?
How does it allow us to develop vaccines or build bridges or construct sensors that warn us of an impeding earthquake?

The primary cause of lightning is not the movement of atoms. Primary discordance in the body doesn't arise through bacteria, fault lines don't cause earthquakes.

Physical science is exalted through reductionism. When mind is realized to be over matter on the grand scale, the bible replaces physical science.

What *you* seemingly fail to understand is that the only way to understand natural phenomena is to treat them as such to begin with, rather than attributing them to an ineffable cause that can never be tested or falsified.

Physical science only attributes causes to the level it's on.

But of course, none of that pits science against religion as such. Only against a narrowly defined, anti-modernist literalism.

If you want to harmonize materialism with theism then God doesn't tread beneath the feet of materialism.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The origins of such things go back beyond recorded history so it's hard to tell. Someone needs to build a time machine and do a survey.

 

[razeontherock]

The origins of such things go back beyond recorded history so it's hard to tell. Someone needs to build a time machine and do a survey.

As apt as that observation is, allow me to point out a survey could still provide useless data. It is quite possible that a very select few had direct contact with G-d, while the masses created their own religions and god concepts. I would say that scenario is most likely, and that both mindsets co-existed.

Those that follow the flesh always persecute (read: kill and oppress) the other when it arises, because those that follow the Spirit would never think to do such a thing.