What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

[Eudaimonist]

But it is!

Please defend this view. What leads you to think that mysteries are something that require people to get out their secret decoder rings for the specific purpose that the "wrong people" don't get the message? I mean, I can understand this for Revelation, but not many other mysteries.

Mysteries to me are ways of expressing meaning in a concise and easy to remember way. It has nothing to do with secrecy.

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

I don't get how you are concluding this. Please explain how you arrive at these sorts of observations instead of just making them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tobias]

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.

Which is exactly why I take the approach that I do, which is mystical in nature.

If something is testable and repeatable, then it is quite likely true. If for example the Bible claims that the preaching of the Gospel is accompanied with signs and wonders, then the true Gospel can be defined by those times when something is preached and miracles have followed. Or, if believing in the Bible can be known to produce a mystical relationship with Jesus, then there is an actual truth behind that claim. If it can be proven however, that someone not believing in the Bible can produce the same results, then there must be some other factor that contributes to the relationship besides the one which is commonly believed.

 

[Sister of Faith]

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: " No babe is born but upon Fitra (a innocent Muslim.) It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
Fitra= is an Arabic word meaning ‘disposition’, ‘nature’, ‘constitution’, or ‘instinct’.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: " No babe is born but upon Fitra (a innocent Muslim.) It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
Fitra= is an Arabic word meaning ‘disposition’, ‘nature’, ‘constitution’, or ‘instinct’.

I think it's fairly obvious that this is utter nonsense. People aren't born muslims or even theists - upon being born, they lack the mental capacity to even remotely hold such concepts; and when they gain that ability, external influences have already kicked in.

 

[JJWhite]

I think it's fairly obvious that this is utter nonsense. People aren't born muslims or even theists - upon being born, they lack the mental capacity to even remotely hold such concepts; and when they gain that ability, external influences have already kicked in.

The hadith doesn't say that people are born Muslims... just that they are born with certain natural inclinations. Society and upbringing then shape the person as told in the remaining part of the hadith. Natural inclinations may be fostered or the opposite.

What is a person inclined to naturally? One of our scholars, Ibn Al-Qayyim, came up with three characteristics that he believes are sort of ingrained in our genes... I guess he just came to this conclusion through observation and reflection on texts, though nothing states it outright. The three he mentioned were: God, Compassion, and Justice. He felt that a person innately seeks these things... but that society shapes how that manifests itself, or doesn't.

Muslims can insert (Muslims) between parenthesis into the hadith all they want... but that's not what the hadith says from what I can see... unless there is some narration somewhere that I am not aware of.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As I said, I think it extremely unlikely that human beings are born (mono-)theists - or atheists for that matter.

I guess we are naturally inclined to tackle the "big questions" of life, and thus disposed towards *some* sort of spirituality, but whether we end up with "God(s)" as an answer to those questions or end up with something else entirely is not determined by nature, but by other factors.

 

[Tobias]

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: " No babe is born but upon Fitra (a innocent Muslim.) It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
Fitra= is an Arabic word meaning ‘disposition’, ‘nature’, ‘constitution’, or ‘instinct’.

So it seems we can agree that I wasn't born this way.


But I really don't think I was born that way either!

 

[GrayAngel]

I believe in the Bible, so I say that monotheism was first. However, I expect that even with the early polytheistic religions, monotheism came first. Each society had their own versions of God, but when those societies tied in with with one another, they adopted foreign gods and began polytheistic. The Greeks, for example, had accepted the gods of the Egyptians.

I think it's more logical to think that people started with one god and expanded their beliefs to encompass multiple gods rather than the other way around.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I believe in the Bible, so I say that monotheism was first. However, I expect that even with the early polytheistic religions, monotheism came first. Each society had their own versions of God, but when those societies tied in with with one another, they adopted foreign gods and began polytheistic. The Greeks, for example, had accepted the gods of the Egyptians.

I think it's more logical to think that people started with one god and expanded their beliefs to encompass multiple gods rather than the other way around.

Yeah I'll stick to animism....

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The Greeks, for example, had accepted the gods of the Egyptians.

Wait, what? Where did you learn that?
There was certainly *some* exchange of ideas between separate cultures in the Mediterranean, and the Interpretatio Romana certainly contributed to the notion that all of these separate culture essentially worshipped the same deities under different names - but it is nevertheless perfectly clear that the Greek pantheon is directly descended from the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, NOT from Egyptian religion.

I think it's more logical to think that people started with one god and expanded their beliefs to encompass multiple gods rather than the other way around.

Why would you think that it's more "logical"?
I can see how the development might very well go both ways, but I don't think it's necessarily more logical to start out with but one universal deity. Why would it be?

 

[razeontherock]

Please defend this view. What leads you to think that mysteries are something that require people to get out their secret decoder rings for the specific purpose that the "wrong people" don't get the message? I mean, I can understand this for Revelation, but not many other mysteries.

Well first of all, please don't separate my thoughts and comments from others here that add insight to it. For example post #62 immediately following this quote. Not only does he mention there things that I myself have adhered to for 3 decades, but Tobias generally seems to be my long lost twin, born a few months later.

I'm not prepared to say "defending this view" is 100% mystical, but maybe I should because no Scripture immediately comes to mind that makes this point clear. I will say that Lucifer had knowledge of only 9 out of 12 characteristics G-d defines for us as being valuable, and the 3 satan has no knowledge of are highly valuable to us since satan has no counterfeit for them. This is the most direct "defense" of the concept that comes to mind at the moment.

Mysteries to me are ways of expressing meaning in a concise and easy to remember way. It has nothing to do with secrecy.

Yet again language falls short. How is a mystery that concisely expresses meaning still a mystery? This is not how I use the word mystery, and yet the EO do, so I suspect others might as well. OTOH, if Truth is deeper than can be conveyed by words, it remains hidden, at least to some:

Luke 10:21 "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

So it seems my point is directly supported. Also:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast [day], many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (John 2:24) But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all [men],
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man."

There are also portions of the book of Enoch, that were quite literally written specifically to only be understood with the use of a "secret decoder ring." Long before plastic toys in cereal boxes

 

[Tobias]

I think it's more logical to think that people started with one god and expanded their beliefs to encompass multiple gods rather than the other way around.

Why would you think that it's more "logical"?
I can see how the development might very well go both ways, but I don't think it's necessarily more logical to start out with but one universal deity. Why would it be?

Just a thought:

The Jews started out with one God YHWH, and from that we can see from recent history many different Gods have developed.

YHWH
Allah
The Christian God
Jesus
and perhaps the Bahai version of God too? (I'm unfamiliar with their faith.)


Evangelical Christians believe that other denominations and cults worship a different Jesus. As in the Mormon Jesus and the Jehovah's Witness' one. Also the New Age version and the Spiritualist's version. That's four different Jesus' right there!

Granted, the debate persists as to whether this is all one God or many. But that could be the same argument as soft polytheism vs. hard polytheism.

All it takes is for two different people groups to worship the same god but call him/her by their own language's name, and over time the deity could be seen as two distinct beings. i.e. God ~ Allah

 

[Tobias]

... but Tobias generally seems to be my long lost twin, born a few months later.

I don't care what you think, but I am not coming over for Thanksgiving!

 

[Robban]

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) said: " No babe is born but upon Fitra (a innocent Muslim.) It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist."
Fitra= is an Arabic word meaning ‘disposition’, ‘nature’, ‘constitution’, or ‘instinct’.

Well for there to be either monotheism or polytheism, there has to be people first.
What I can make of it is, after God had made man He became Lord God, in and with man,s disobidience man was shown out of the garden, leaving behind God,s Glory. In this they felt very lost, one would suspect, however God,s Glory did return gradually to those who sought Him. Others settled for worshiping sticks, stones,bugs and you name it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just a thought:

The Jews started out with one God YHWH, and from that we can see from recent history many different Gods have developed.

Actually, the Israelites started out as polytheists who only gradually became devoted to their exclusive tribal deity YHVH, and the earliest books of the Bible are henotheistic (in spite of intense redaction and "retconning" by later generations).
Even as late as the 7th century BCE, YHVH was not a monotheistic deity, even though he was worshipped as without peer and above all other gods.

By means of etymology, we can reconstruct a Proto-Semitic pantheon that included *Ilu, who received Abraham's exclusive devotion under the name El. The Tetragrammaton was only retroactively identified with that deity.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe the Ptolemaic Greeks adopted certain Egyptian deities, in certain ways....?
.

 

[GrayAngel]

Wait, what? Where did you learn that?
There was certainly *some* exchange of ideas between separate cultures in the Mediterranean, and the Interpretatio Romana certainly contributed to the notion that all of these separate culture essentially worshipped the same deities under different names - but it is nevertheless perfectly clear that the Greek pantheon is directly descended from the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, NOT from Egyptian religion.

I'm currently taking a class in Greek mythology. The Greeks accepted the Egyptian gods, even if those gods weren't important in their myths. When I say "accepted" I don't mean that they fully grafted the gods into their own religions, but that they acknowledged the existence of the foreign gods.

Even the story of Zeus' origin is thought to reflect on the history of the Greeks and their mingling with other world religions.

Why would you think that it's more "logical"?
I can see how the development might very well go both ways, but I don't think it's necessarily more logical to start out with but one universal deity. Why would it be?

When I try to imagine the beginning of the idea of god (assuming God himself didn't outright introduce Himself from the start), starting off with one seems the easiest.

Say one man looks up at the sky and sees the lightning. Then he asks himself, where is the lightning coming from? What causes it? Then he formulates the idea of a man in the sky who controls the lightning.

Later on, someone else expands on that idea. Hey, if the lightning is commanded by a god, what controls the harvest?

You start with one, then you start thinking of others. It seems odd to me that someone could spontaneously think: Hey, I bet there is a whole family of gods, each with their own powers and responsibilities.

Actually, the Israelites started out as polytheists who only gradually became devoted to their exclusive tribal deity YHVH, and the earliest books of the Bible are henotheistic (in spite of intense redaction and "retconning" by later generations).
Even as late as the 7th century BCE, YHVH was not a monotheistic deity, even though he was worshipped as without peer and above all other gods.

By means of etymology, we can reconstruct a Proto-Semitic pantheon that included *Ilu, who received Abraham's exclusive devotion under the name El. The Tetragrammaton was only retroactively identified with that deity.

You're inferring your own meaning into the scriptures. Christians believe in the Trinity, which is evidenced in the Old Testament referrals to God in plural form. There's nothing in scripture to show otherwise. This plural God has always been acting on one accord, as opposed to the Greek gods who could never agree on anything.

 

[Robban]

I'm currently taking a class in Greek mythology. The Greeks accepted the Egyptian gods, even if those gods weren't important in their myths. When I say "accepted" I don't mean that they fully grafted the gods into their own religions, but that they acknowledged the existence of the foreign gods.

Even the story of Zeus' origin is thought to reflect on the history of the Greeks and their mingling with other world religions.



When I try to imagine the beginning of the idea of god (assuming God himself didn't outright introduce Himself from the start), starting off with one seems the easiest.

Say one man looks up at the sky and sees the lightning. Then he asks himself, where is the lightning coming from? What causes it? Then he formulates the idea of a man in the sky who controls the lightning.

Later on, someone else expands on that idea. Hey, if the lightning is commanded by a god, what controls the harvest?

You start with one, then you start thinking of others. It seems odd to me that someone could spontaneously think: Hey, I bet there is a whole family of gods, each with their own powers and responsibilities.



You're inferring your own meaning into the scriptures. Christians believe in the Trinity, which is evidenced in the Old Testament referrals to God in plural form. There's nothing in scripture to show otherwise. This plural God has always been acting on one accord, as opposed to the Greek gods who could never agree on anything.

The plural God you are referring to, where do you find that?

 

[GrayAngel]

The plural God you are referring to, where do you find that?

The word referring to God in the early OT books in its original language could be either feminine or plural. Christians prefer the latter option, because we don't believe God has a gender.

Also, our English translations still uses the "we" and "our" language when referring to God in some places.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

 

[Robban]

The word referring to God in the early OT books in its original language could be either feminine or plural. Christians prefer the latter option, because we don't believe God has a gender.

Also, our English translations still uses the "we" and "our" language when referring to God in some places.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

First, "Lord God" put simply means, Ruler and Judge over the entire world.
"Let us make man in our image"
(Rashi)
Here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He.
Since man was created in the likeness of the Angels, and they would envy him. He consulted them, and when He judges Kings, He consults with His Heavenly household, for so find we regarding Ahab, that Mikah said to him,
(1 Kings 22:19) I saw the Lord seated on His throne...etc.