What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

Polytheism came first as the earliest known spirituality was animistic and shamanic. monotheism evolved was correspondences where flushed out and nature was understood as inter-connected and unified. This was not the Monotheism of today however but rather, "soft-polytheism". There was the notion that you couldn't understand the one without the many and vice versa. To our ancestors, the distinction between monotheistic and polytheistic was redundant.

Don Richardson wrote a book, Eternity in Their Hearts, which shows evidence for a belief in a supreme Deity even in animistic cultures. He argues that cultures slowly evolved away from monotheism, which was the original belief.

LinkH said:

Don Richardson wrote a book, Eternity in Their Hearts, which shows evidence for a belief in a supreme Deity even in animistic cultures. He argues that cultures slowly evolved away from monotheism, which was the original belief.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical since he's a Christian missionary, and not a historian.

It's more likely that polytheism came first, then there was henotheism (worship one god but believed in the existence of other gods) then there's monotheism.

I'm prone to think that polytheism developed first. With divine representations of natural and cultural phenomena; e.g. if one desires rain one appeals to that power which controls the rain.

Some of the earliest layers of the Old Testament seem to indicate henotheism/monolatry rather than pure monotheism, though pure monotheism does come to the forefront and outweighs anything else following the Babylonian Exile where the worship of YHVH becomes a central matter of Jewish identity as a people in exile and a people maintaining themselves under the occupation of successive foreign powers.

-CryptoLutheran

LinkH said:

Don Richardson wrote a book, Eternity in Their Hearts, which shows evidence for a belief in a supreme Deity even in animistic cultures. He argues that cultures slowly evolved away from monotheism, which was the original belief.

Click to expand...

Ha! I was just re-reading some of that book yesterday.

awitch said:

I'm skeptical since he's a Christian missionary, and not a historian.

Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with missionaries? <glare>

If you don't trust him, you could always check his references.

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:

What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism? What is the logical choice?

Click to expand...

Monotheism, obviously!


Why? Because:

1. If the Bible is true, then Adam first believed in the One God who revealed Himself to him in the Garden of Eden.

2. If the gods evolved, then it is only logical that one god would have achieved godhood before the others. The possibility that more than one was born/made at the exact same moment, is considerably less than it happening one at a time.

3. If the gods are just constructs of human imagination, then once again, they would have been invented one at a time. The first monkey with an active enough imagination would have looked up at the sky and worshiped the sun god, several hours before realizing he also needed a moon goddess for at night after the sun goes down!

Tobias said:

Do you have a problem with missionaries? <glare>

Click to expand...

Sometimes.

If you don't trust him, you could always check his references.

Click to expand...

I did. That's why I don't trust him.

Tobias said:

Ha! I was just re-reading some of that book yesterday.



Do you have a problem with missionaries? <glare>

If you don't trust him, you could always check his references.




Monotheism, obviously!


Why? Because:

1. If the Bible is true, then Adam first believed in the One God who revealed Himself to him in the Garden of Eden.

2. If the gods evolved, then it is only logical that one god would have achieved godhood before the others. The possibility that more than one was born/made at the exact same moment, is considerably less than it happening one at a time.

3. If the gods are just constructs of human imagination, then once again, they would have been invented one at a time. The first monkey with an active enough imagination would have looked up at the sky and worshiped the sun god, several hours before realizing he also needed a moon goddess for at night after the sun goes down!

Click to expand...

It's entirely possible that the notion of "gods" is a product of human development; this doesn't reject or exclude the existence of God or that He has revealed Himself.

I come from the position that in some sense one of the most core confessions those of us from the broad Abrahamic tradition affirm is that the One we are calling God is nothing like all these other gods. We're not talking about simply a super-powerful being, we're talking about an Existence that is fundamentally other and fundamentally before and beyond everything that is. In some sense when we say "God" we are appropriating language to describe that which is ultimately ineffable, and this ultimately ineffable though Being that which He is is also intimate and immanent. God/Allah/'o Theos/Deus/Eloha/et al are appropriated terms, and as such an ultimately pale description of that Ultimate Essence which we believe made Himself known to Abraham and called him out from Ur.

-CryptoLutheran

awitch said:

Sometimes.

I did. That's why I don't trust him.

Click to expand...

I didn't get too far into the book yesterday, and it's been a long time since I read it before. I was starting to get real curious about his references, and how accurate his research is. This was after reading the bit about Athens and the history behind altar to the unknown god.

It seems that a good portion of the rest of the book has to do with missionary work though. Indigenous beliefs from around the world -- who better to research this than another missionary?

But as long as you roll your eyes with disdain every time a missionary speaks, I'm ok with that. I grew up as a missionary kid myself, and actually went to school with some of Richardson's children.

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:

What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism? What is the logical choice?

Click to expand...

I voted Monotheism. Which was and is the intention, Gen 2:4."Lord God"
But doubt came in, Gen 3:1, "Did God indeed say?"

monotheism.... because in order to have more than one god you would have to start with one god first, then add another god and then another.....

Re: OP

My guess is monotheism, but more accurately this should be termed henotheism.

Henotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I base this guess on the idea that polytheisms are monotheisms (or henotheisms) that have coalesed into pantheons of deities for political purposes, such as when one community is conquered by another.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Monotheism, obviously!


Why? Because:

1. If the Bible is true, then Adam first believed in the One God who revealed Himself to him in the Garden of Eden.

2. If the gods evolved, then it is only logical that one god would have achieved godhood before the others. The possibility that more than one was born/made at the exact same moment, is considerably less than it happening one at a time.

3. If the gods are just constructs of human imagination, then once again, they would have been invented one at a time. The first monkey with an active enough imagination would have looked up at the sky and worshiped the sun god, several hours before realizing he also needed a moon goddess for at night after the sun goes down!

Click to expand...

I. There are three problems I see with your first point.

A) Symbolism vs Literalism - I'm under the impression that is a literal interpretation. This leads to point B.

B) Using the Bible as a trump card, the highest source of authority. If this is the case than the discussion becomes crippled, allowing only the Bible as a discussion point. This leads me to point C.

C) The first name of God used in the Bible is Elohim, which is the masculine and feminine creative aspect of God. These names represents different roles and aspects of God representing various operations and emanations of the Logos. This indicates a soft-polytheistic nature even if an exclusive one.

II. It would be a good Idea I think to define just what the attributes of a god/ess are? Gods, whatever their definition are often seen to be outside of space and time as we know it. Still others who are seen as representing the cycles of nature are often seen as eternal. Also keep in mind many people, including myself, see specific deities as cultural god-forms, expressed through an archetype as old as consciousness itself.

III. Much of this point I've already mentioned in my second point. Monotheism doesn't just mean that you are aware of one God, it means theologically you believe that there is only one God in either an inclusive or exclusive sense.

Just because you know only one or worship only one god doesn't make you a monotheist. Taking a stance that there is only one or that God is One makes you a monotheist. So it doesn't really matter which deity comes first. Just like unless you make a theological statement on the division of Divinity you aren't really a polytheist either. For communications sake you are, I mean obviously if you worship for than two you are taking the stance that there are two (or more) gods whether you take that literally or symbolically. It's harder to not be a polytheist than a monotheist using those definitions.

I personally find monotheism and polytheism limiting terms but then I'm what you would call a soft-polytheist.... which means that I believe in many who are part of a whole. It's like an orange containing many slices. There is more than one slice or piece but still only one orange.

That aside, Animism is the earliest ism- well with Pantheism and Panentheism aside (Shamanism just covers it all really). Animism basically sees the forces of nature as divine forces- really once one force of nature became an entity/deity, they all did by nature of the belief.

These forces aslo reflect the forces of the mind and spiritual discipline. This is symbolically (to give an example) reflected in the triumph of Zues over the Titans and thus becoming a god... (along with his relations). So Zues represents the awareness, balance and triumph of nature and the dynamic equilibrium found within. This is why he is symbolically represented with storms and lightning bolts..

Eudaimonist said:

Re: OP

My guess is monotheism, but more accurately this should be termed henotheism.

Henotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I base this guess on the idea that polytheisms are monotheisms (or henotheisms) that have coalesed into pantheons of deities for political purposes, such as when one community is conquered by another.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Re Hawai,
Wow, have a nice time.
can I sit on the wings?
Oh you have already been and come back.

MichaelTheeArchAngel said:

So then, do pagans believe that upon one day over a hundred deities were reveled to someone? Come on Pagans, get out and vote. What do you believe about that?

Click to expand...

No, *points to other post* Also, Pagans are very diverse in their beliefs.

It's not that simple... and just because you are unaware of something doesn't exist. Also you don't name a baby so that it exist, you name it to be in relation with it.

monotheism.... because in order to have more than one god you would have to start with one god first, then add another god and then another.....

Click to expand...

Monotheism is a theological statement on the quantifiable division of Divinity... saying either there is only one or that divinity by nature is one.

For example, somebody could worship a deity named Bob and only worship them. Just because that person is only aware of or even only worships Bob does not mean that they say "well, no other deities exist" it simply means the don't have a relationship with another deity.

Someone may believe in many deities but only be working on a relationship with a few or even one exclusively. It all depends on the spiritual seeker. Being exclusive to one doesn't mean they are monotheist unless that sate their belief says there is only one entity.

It's not as simple as a numbers game- rather it depends on hat attributes you ascribe to the divine.

My guess is monotheism, but more accurately this should be termed henotheism.

Henotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I base this guess on the idea that polytheisms are monotheisms (or henotheisms) that have coalesed into pantheons of deities for political purposes, such as when one community is conquered by another.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

Well most polytheistic systems, especially those in more modern eras are henotheistc. In all fairness it probably wan't too long before polytheism started to evolve and toward the complexities henotheism or soft-polytheism. Look at which route a culture took can tell one quite a bit how they view relations.

There are a few things worth mentioning here: I) henotheism is still polytheism, II) Henotheism designates an authoritarian hierarchy more so than a hierarchy by nature/attributes in relation to the whole which is more "soft-polytheism" - the two have often been confused. III) Political reasons do happen but it can be a number of reasons other than political. For example, many local deities of ancient Egypt ascended and descended in power on regional and national levels based simply on how the attributes of the deities were seen to reflect Egyptian life. As cultural and social factors changed, so did the importance of many deities.

Animism came first.

JesiJones said:

There are a few things worth mentioning here: I) henotheism is still polytheism

Click to expand...

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.

III) Political reasons do happen but it can be a number of reasons other than political. For example, many local deities of ancient Egypt ascended and descended in power on regional and national levels based simply on how the attributes of the deities were seen to reflect Egyptian life. As cultural and social factors changed, so did the importance of many deities.

Click to expand...

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


eudaimonia,

Mark