Polytheism vs. Monotheism + Omnipotence

[Flintlock]

Polytheism vs. Monotheism + Omnipotence
While learning about classical mythology at school, I was taught that these pagan religions are "primitive" (compared to our modern monotheistic religions).

But are they?

This question has always kind of bugged me. It's my impression that the pagan polytheistic beliefs had a certain logic to them that was lost in the transition to monotheism.

Monotheism seems to go hand-in-hand with belief that God is omnipotent, so to simplify things I'll group monotheism and God's omnipotence as a single belief. Feel free to dispute this connection in the comments.

Right off the bat, true omnipotence is as self-contradictory as "the set of all sets" (in Mathematics). However, most believers agree that God doesn't really need to create an immovable object (that is so immovable that it can't even be moved by God). So I assume the solution to this conundrum is to say "it's not that God can do anything at all, just anything within reason..."

But even if we ignore this paradox, the idea that there might be a bunch of different supernatural beings -- with different spheres of influence and different goals -- seems to correspond to our chaotic world a lot better than the idea that the world is run by one guy who can do anything (within reason) and actually has some sort of plan...

Then there's the question of followers. If I understand correctly, the pagan gods liked to have followers give them sacrifices because, well, sacrifices are tasty and/or they increase the particular god's strength or something like that.

On the other hand, the unique, omnipotent God likes to have followers worshiping Him because...... ?????

(A tangent for the Christians: Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus in order to forgive His children/creations of the flaws He created in them? Did He just want to do it that way? If not, is He omnipotent or what?)

My goal here isn't to offend people or mock people's beliefs. I am completely serious when I say that as a Mathematician (sort of), I see more logic and internal consistency to a polytheistic system than to a monotheistic/omnipotent system. However it's very possible that it's just that I haven't heard or considered all of the arguments in monotheism's favor.

If any of you monotheists have an argument I haven't heard or an alternate take on any of what I've said above, please post a comment.

p.s. to LDS readers: I realize that Mormonism has a system that isn't quite monotheistic yet is also different from pagan-style polytheism. I am particularly interested in getting a (faithful) LDS perspective on monotheism-vs-polytheism, and not to mock it or shoot it down. I'm genuinely curious as to what is a typical current LDS take on this subject might be.

Letters from a broad...: Polytheism vs. Monotheism + Omnipotence

 

[Flintlock]

Monotheism vs Polytheism

In the case of Monotheism, which worships one absolute god, it seems that the concept of the absolute truth dominates. If there is any conflict between two people or groups, one of them is considered to be right and the other is wrong and untrue. On the other hand, polytheism, which is based on pluralism, does not consider the existence of the absolute truth, and accordingly there is distinctive difference between the two.� If there are two things which contradict each other or cause a conflict between the two, both of them are wrong and right at the same time. any quarrels or disputes are not judged by the one-value orientation. As the result, both sides will be punished equally. Also it can be said that people who believe the absolute truth tend to think that coexistence is possible only among those who share the same value. People who stand on the pluralism, on the other hand, consider that coexistence is possible even among those who have different opinions or ideas because each individual has a truth in its individuality, so they have to give tribute to each other. It is coexistence by harmony.

from Jinja Shinto

Montheism vs Polytheism

 

[Flintlock]

Here are a few thoughts of mine:

The modern United States of America, has several kinds of people who worship several gods. There are Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists etc.

Infact, most modern secular states, barring the form of government, very closely mirror ancient Hindu society. Many different sects, many different gods, constant debate and intellectual oneupmanship, and a huge outpouring of new ideas and philosophies.

Aryan, Agno, Logic, what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Awesome]

Basically the Christians have contributed a lot to losing all Pagan sciences.

You have to understand during the transition of Rome from Paganism to Christianity there was a head on collision with the Jews. Constantine tried to prevent this by mixing some Paganism with Judaism and gave us some form of Christianity 300 years after Christ.

But in the latter years Christianity really got a hold of things. Paganism was demonized for political reasons which brought in the dark ages as well, because even the Pagan Sciences were not looked at.

Muslims changed all of this. Even though we are bigger rejecters of Paganism, but we fell in love with their sciences. We took up their maths, their medicine, their sea maps, etc.

The biggest instance of this happened when we reached China and we mainly picked up their paper tech and when we conquered Alexandria which had the Ancient Egyptian Library documenting all of their sciences.

 

[Flintlock]

Basically the Christians have contributed a lot to losing all Pagan sciences.

You have to understand during the transition of Rome from Paganism to Christianity there was a head on collision with the Jews. Constantine tried to prevent this by mixing some Paganism with Judaism and gave us some form of Christianity 300 years after Christ.

But in the latter years Christianity really got a hold of things. Paganism was demonized for political reasons which brought in the dark ages as well, because even the Pagan Sciences were not looked at.

Muslims changed all of this. Even though we are bigger rejecters of Paganism, but we fell in love with their sciences. We took up their maths, their medicine, their sea maps, etc.

The biggest instance of this happened when we reached China and we mainly picked up their paper tech and when we conquered Alexandria which had the Ancient Egyptian Library documenting all of their sciences.

Yes, the Islamic empires did a remarkable job of preserving and adding to the earlier greco-roman and hindu, chinese texts and furthering that knowledge.

Infact, it can be argued that Christianity was the biggest enemy of free thinking during the middle ages. Thankfully, they've emerged from that period and Christianity has lost its hold on power.

I'd like to further add that societies that encourage multiplicity of thought, like the classical indic, greek, roman civilization or the modern secular european states, tend to make astonishing progress in various intellectual endeavors simply because of the lack of universal taboos, and the absence of a central control over thought and speech.

Of course, such societies often suffer from certain crippling weaknesses like a lack of consensus, unity, and direction which leaves them vulnerable to invaders.

But notable exceptions are the Vikings,Romans,Macedonians who inspite of their paganism, were a formidable military force. So it is possible for pagan societies to be politically strong as well, provided the same pagan theology is adopted by one and all.

 

[Awesome]

Yes, the Islamic empires did a remarkable job of preserving and adding to the earlier greco-roman and hindu, chinese texts and furthering that knowledge.

Infact, it can be argued that Christianity was the biggest enemy of free thinking during the middle ages. Thankfully, they've emerged from that period and Christianity has lost its hold on power.

I'd like to further add that societies that encourage multiplicity of thought, like the classical indic, greek, roman civilization or the modern secular european states, tend to make astonishing progress in various intellectual endeavors simply because of the lack of universal taboos, and the absence of a central control over thought and speech.

Of course, such societies often suffer from certain crippling weaknesses like a lack of consensus, unity, and direction which leaves them vulnerable to invaders.

But notable exceptions are the Vikings,Romans,Macedonians who inspite of their paganism, were a formidable military force. So it is possible for pagan societies to be politically strong as well, provided the same pagan theology is adopted by one and all.

If religious texts can be taken in some form of historical context, Polytheism and Monotheism has been at odds since forever.

Polytheism to me is something people put their faith in out of natural causes.

The oldest 'God'-like figure known is the Horus, the Sun God - Egyptian version. Worshiping the sun was obvious as it gave them light, during the day it protected them predators and then night came when Horus left and along came all the dangers.

Hence forever cementing the fight of Good vs Evil.

The interesting thing is how many themes in monotheistic religions are borrowed from Polytheistic religions. Again starting with the example of Christianity, The 'God Sun', was born on Dec. 25th, was of a Virgin birth and died and resurrected and was raised to the heavens and would return one day.

Sounds familiar? Jewish Messiah, Jesus, Imam Mahdi, and I believe one Hindu person too.

This theme was taken and repeated, rehashed a million times.

Both do have the claim on the original truth. Islam explains that in the beginning everyone believed in the ONE God, till the concept got confusing and difficult for people and as the Prophets died their coming generations kept modifying things and always sought after natural deities.

 

[Logic note]

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

If religious texts can be taken in some form of historical context, Polytheism and Monotheism has been at odds since forever.

Polytheism to me is something people put their faith in out of natural causes.

The oldest 'God'-like figure known is the Horus, the Sun God - Egyptian version. Worshiping the sun was obvious as it gave them light, during the day it protected them predators and then night came when Horus left and along came all the dangers.

Hence forever cementing the fight of Good vs Evil.

The interesting thing is how many themes in monotheistic religions are borrowed from Polytheistic religions. Again starting with the example of Christianity, The 'God Sun', was born on Dec. 25th, was of a Virgin birth and died and resurrected and was raised to the heavens and would return one day.

Sounds familiar? Jewish Messiah, Jesus, Imam Mahdi, and I believe one Hindu person too.

This theme was taken and repeated, rehashed a million times.

Both do have the claim on the original truth. Islam explains that in the beginning everyone believed in the ONE God, till the concept got confusing and difficult for people and as the Prophets died their coming generations kept modifying things and always sought after natural deities.

I think the confusion is in understanding the Polytheism- its not necessarily many gods. there are two things
1 . its is acceptence of Omnipresence of One god - in a sense that creation of god is as revered as creator it self and he menifest it self in everything.
2. you have to harness the feeling of devotion in your heart and you can do that by directing it towards anything after all , a Muslim praying for Allah and pagan devoted for his Sun god have same effect of bliss.

 

[Flintlock]

If religious texts can be taken in some form of historical context, Polytheism and Monotheism has been at odds since forever.

Without a doubt....

Polytheism to me is something people put their faith in out of natural causes.

The oldest 'God'-like figure known is the Horus, the Sun God - Egyptian version. Worshiping the sun was obvious as it gave them light, during the day it protected them predators and then night came when Horus left and along came all the dangers.

Even Hinduism has its own sun god "Surya"...though nobody worships him any more. I had posted pictures of the Sun Temple in Konark....which unforunately were removed, but its interesting how the sun god is depicted as a male riding on a chariot.
The temple itself is built as a giant chariot or "ratha".

However, isn't all religion built to explain natural phonomena? If you notice, all religions have their own model of the universe.

I'm not sure what the Islamic model of the universe is (or if it has one at all).

To me Islam seems simply a set of rules and regulations on living the ideal life.
I"m not sure if there's a spiritual side to islam (other than sufism).

As far as Paganism is concerned,I think that the idea that multiple gods play havoc with the natural world is a more plausible explanation than an omnipotent god who knows everthing in advance (which tends to be self-contradictory).

Of course, both Paganism and Monotheism fail in front of objective scrutiny.....

Hence forever cementing the fight of Good vs Evil.

The interesting thing is how many themes in monotheistic religions are borrowed from Polytheistic religions. Again starting with the example of Christianity, The 'God Sun', was born on Dec. 25th, was of a Virgin birth and died and resurrected and was raised to the heavens and would return one day.


Sounds familiar? Jewish Messiah, Jesus, Imam Mahdi, and I believe one Hindu person too.

Yeah, when a religion is established, the missionaries tend to borrow rituals from the preexisting ones in order to avoid alienating the followers.
An interesting example are the muslims and christians of kerela.
Another one is sufism as practiced in India....its a very interesting mix of Hindu and Muslim beliefs.

Christianity also has this history, which of course, the Christians won't admit to.

This theme was taken and repeated, rehashed a million times.

Both do have the claim on the original truth. Islam explains that in the beginning everyone believed in the ONE God, till the concept got confusing and difficult for people and as the Prophets died their coming generations kept modifying things and always sought after natural deities.

Interesting...

 

[Flintlock]

I think the confusion is in understanding the Polytheism- its not necessarily many gods. there are two things
1 . its is acceptence of Omnipresence of One god - in a sense that creation of god is as revered as creator it self and he menifest it self in everything.
2. you have to harness the feeling of devotion in your heart and you can do that by directing it towards anything after all , a Muslim praying for Allah and pagan devoted for his Sun god have same effect of bliss.

I think this kind of explanation is only restricted to hinduism, where there is a unversal god and then there are various superhuman gods below him.

Most pagan ideologies like African ones or Viking or Greek don't have the essentially hindu concept of "brahman".

They simply consider each force of nature to be a different god, and then these gods interact with each other like any other humans would.

 

[Awesome]

This is a stark point of deviation for all monotheistic beliefs.

Essentially what you're saying is the Creator is his own Creation, and thus gives birth the a whole web of such creations and creators.

Logically this makes no sense.

Islam doesn't really address Omnipotence, but it simplifies the matter. It simply says it is IMPOSSIBLE for the human kind to figure out what God is. How he was made, was he made? How does he exist, what is he made of?

All we know about God are 99 characteristics. These are 99 ways he has interacted with the human kind.

This is exactly where if you study everyone starts changing their beliefs according to Islam. Christianity made God's son, and started describing God as part of some big extended family.

The Quran was the only message of God that is said to have God's protection and it still hasn't changed. I think Islam's concept of Shirk (associating with God or trying to match up with God) really contributed to this factor of keeping the message intact. We didn't bother giving God a shape. To give God a shape limits him in that form and us as human beings cannot even fathom a limitation of God.

So goes the Islamic belief.

 

[Awesome]

I think this kind of explanation is only restricted to hinduism, where there is a unversal god and then there are various superhuman gods below him.

Most pagan ideologies like African ones or Viking or Greek don't have the essentially hindu concept of "brahman".

They simply consider each force of nature to be a different god, and then these gods interact with each other like any other humans would.

Take Greek Gods for example.

Judaism as it exists today borrows a lot from there (obviously since they lived with the Greeks, and Egyptians all their lives).

The story goes there was one Father God and 12 of his children, the Titans. Super human beings. Zeus was the elder Titan. Btw, Zeus was also born of virgin birth on Dec. 25, died and resurrected to heaven and will return one day. Heck he even looks like Jesus . They say at the council of Nicae, when Rome turned Christian from the Greek religion, Jesus was reshaped borrowing heavily from Zeus.

Anyway going on, he defeated the Father God who had banished them to Earth.

Each Titan became a God to the human beings due to their super powers and at times created a lot of havoc on Earth and exhibited a lot of human like qualities.

Judaism also has a concept of the 12 tribes of Israel, who left Egypt with Moses in an exodus.

 

[Logic note]

Dear Asim

In Hindusim there is the concept of Brahman which is different from God

Brahman is the supreme being - there is no other supreme being
while God = Brahman + (Individuals or societies perception about god)
hence your concept of god is your extension .
for eg - Allah and the christian god is god who is creator and who judges
but then
creation means he has a purpose and reason
( purpose and reason is human attribute)

For eg Mother Teresa was a good human but she will be punished to go to hell because she is not muslim . or Mr Edhi (I hope spelling is right) is a good human being but according to christians he will go to hell because he is not christian

so god (ishvar) is different fromt he concept of Brahman
anyone can have his god given the pre condition that it doesnt effect or harm others
hence there can be as many concept of god as you wish ( just that it shall be Ethical and doesnt involve hurting others)

Brahman is not a creator - This universe in which we exist is brahman ( a Universal Conciousness)

 

[Awesome]

Dear Asim

In Hindusim there is the concept of Brahman which is different from God

Brahman is the supreme being - there is no other supreme being
while God = Brahman + (Individuals or societies perception about god)
hence your concept of god is your extension .
for eg - Allah and the christian god is god who is creator and who judges
but then
creation means he has a purpose and reason
( purpose and reason is human attribute)

For eg Mother Teresa was a good human but she will be punished to go to hell because she is not muslim . or Mr Edhi (I hope spelling is right) is a good human being but according to christians he will go to hell because he is not christian

so god (ishvar) is different fromt he concept of Brahman
anyone can have his god given the pre condition that it doesnt effect or harm others
hence there can be as many concept of god as you wish ( just that it shall be Ethical and doesnt involve hurting others)

Brahman is not a creator - This universe in which we exist is brahman ( a Universal Conciousness)

Hindu gods have no one definition which would've been okay since you can't really understand God, but on the flip side they have MANY definitions.

Brahman is universe.

Yet he was a man too, with relationships.

He has an image. He has many images.

He has human failings. Correct me if I'm wrong, I mean if we are to take this Hindu version of creation then almost every other thing was created out of his incessant admiration for Shatarupa (or someone with an S). Since she kept becoming one creature after the other to avoid him and he became the male variant of that creature chasing her.

Then of course there is the fact that he is the universe and we are in him.

Then of course the more Monotheistic like Creator, big God. But his job is over and now its upto Vishnu to preserve and Shiv to Destroy and reincarnate. But he went to war with the other two too. Or may be just Shiv. One would thing they are subordinates to him since he made em!

Basically the third one, the trimurti, the trinity makes the most sense. Basically it's ONE Monotheistic God and people kept changing him into how he interacted with the humans.

 

[Logic note]

Hindu gods have no one definition which would've been okay since you can't really understand God, but on the flip side they have MANY definitions.

Brahman is universe.

Yet he was a man too, with relationships.

He has an image. He has many images.

He has human failings. Correct me if I'm wrong,

No Brahman Has no Shape color or Size .

I think you didnt read my earlier Post properly or may be my language wasnt right
Brahman and God are diffrent

Brahman is Shapeless its Universal conciousness
Brahman is Truth

God is your perception about that Truth
Some Ppl percieve it with a shape - Like Some Hindues and Pagans
Some PPl percieve it shapeless but with Human attributes like Judgement and Punishement - Like Muslims and Christians

The Main aim of Human life is to realise that universe ( which you are part of Brahmn

I mean if we are to take this Hindu version of creation then almost every other thing was created out of his incessant admiration for Shatarupa (or someone with an S). Since she kept becoming one creature after the other to avoid him and he became the male variant of that creature chasing her.

No Wrong - there is no creation - because Creation means Brahman has a Purpose or reason ( but as I said purpose and reason is a human attribute)
Brahman is the Universe itself

Then of course the more Monotheistic like Creator, big God. But his job is over and now its upto Vishnu to preserve and Shiv to Destroy and reincarnate. But he went to war with the other two too. Or may be just Shiv. One would thing they are subordinates to him since he made em!

Basically the third one, the trimurti, the trinity makes the most sense. Basically it's ONE Monotheistic God and people kept changing him into how he interacted with the humans.

The Concept of Trinity is again the Percpetion of SOme Ppl about Brahmn - their Idea of brahman
It depicts the qualities of God ( not brahman )
Brahma - Creation - Positive
Vishnu - Preservation - Neutal
Shiva - Destruction - Negative

 

[Awesome]

Wait are Brahman and Brahma two different words or a typo?