Why did Monotheism replace Polytheism?

[Thermo]

What is the advantage of worshiping one god over several? Why did humans historically chose to move to monotheism?

[YardGnome]

There was a great political battle in the heavens thousands of years ago. The democratic, polytheistic regime was overthrown and GOD (GREATEST OF DICTATORS) established his/her montheistic dictatorship.

This was the birth of monotheism...

[Crazy]

Monotheism is more logical than polytheism. One all powerful diety makes more sense than many weaker beings that fight amongst each other.

It is essentially the same as stand alone printers, scanners, copiers, and fax machines being slowly replaced by the more efficient (cost, space, etc) all in one units.

[Hypnos]

Read the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" from a good translation of Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazon -- it will be clear.

[mgb]

What is the advantage of worshiping one god over several? Why did humans historically chose to move to monotheism?

Fanaticism.

[Lee]

The problem polytheism is that it is to easy for people to pick thier favorite God and then start fighting over it.

[YardGnome]

"Monotheism exhibits what is essentially a pathological personality pattern projected onto the ideal of God: the pattern of the paranoid, possessive, power-obseessed male ego. This God is not someone you would care to invite to a garden party."
--Terence McKenna

[Trolsk]

Zoroastrianism is a Persian religion which dates some 3-4000 years and is known for its early, monotheistic belief and for its influence on the Judeo-Christian system. If I'm not too far off, Zoroastrianism sprung where there were several polytheistic beliefs: It could have been a simple matter of synthesis and creativity on behalf of its prophet, Zarathushtra.

[misutii]

the reason christianity overtook the pagan religion in the Roman Empire and thus changed western europe forever was because Rome was going through an economic decline.... the peasants were living such shitty lives that they would believe in anything just to have something to hope for (christianity offered them an afterlife in heaven, making their hardships bearable).

As Christianity Spread the Roman Emperor Constantine used it politically by claiming the Sun God was the Christian God and using the religion to stabalize the empire and unite the peasants. Of course Christianity was MUCH more intolerant than paganism. Thus Rome went from being one of the most tolerant Empires in history to one of the most intolerant. it's all because economics and ignorant peasants.

[Claverhouse]

Monotheism implies not the God-Figure of the Old Testament, but the Creative Force that purposes things --- although it may be easier for us to correctly approach Him as a Person, since he can aspect as a Person.

Polytheism cannot account for the creating, and the first cause of that creating; unless you postulate that each God is an avatar of the one Diety, in which case you may as well concentrate on that Diety. Creation was not done by committee, anymore than anything else worthwhile.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

The Hebrew (monotheistic) tribes originally came from Sumeria where multiple gods were worshipped. On the path to what is now Israel they developed monotheism under Abraham. Here is an interesting discussion of how and why this process occurred:

"In his newest book, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Smith tries to address this question, but from a different angle in regards to monotheism and polytheism. Beginning with the Ugaritic texts, Smith asks what is monistic about polytheism and how the answer to this question might help make the emergence of Israelite monotheism more intelligible. Ugaritic polytheism is expressed as a monism through the concepts of the divine council or assembly and in the divine family. The two structures are essentially understood as a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El and Asherah); the seventy divine children (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak) evidently characterized as the stars of El; the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, who include what the Bible understands to be "angels" (in other words, messenger-gods).

This four-tiered model of the divine family and council apparently went through a number of changes in early Israel. In the earliest stage, it would appear that Yahweh was one of these seventy children, each of whom was the patron deity of the seventy nations. This idea appears behind the Dead Sea Scrolls reading and the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In this passage, El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation of hi s own: Israel is the portion of Yahweh. The Masoretic Text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed in the phrase "according to the number of the divine sons," altered the reading to "according to the number of the children of Israel" (also thought to be seventy). Psalm 82 also presents the god El presiding in a divine assembly at which Yahweh stands up and makes his accusation against the other gods. Here the text shows the older religious worldview which the passage is denouncing.

By some point in the late monarchy, it is evident that the god El was identified with Yahweh, and as a result, Yahweh-El is the husband of the goddess, Asherah. This is the situation represented by biblical condemnations of her cult symbol in the Jerusalem temple (evidently) and in the inscriptions mentioned above. In this form, the religious devotion to Yahweh casts him in the role of the Divine King ruling over all the other deities. This religious outlook appears, for example, in Psalm 29:2, where the "sons of God" or really divine sons or children are called upon to worship Yahweh, the Divine King. The Temple, with its various expressions of polytheism, also assumed that this place was Yahweh's palace which was populated by those under his power. The tour given by Ezekiel 8-10 suggests such a picture. This picture of royal power was further developed with the monotheism of the eighth to the sixth centuries. The other gods became mere expressions of Yahweh's power, and the divine messengers became understood as little more than minor divine beings expressive of Yahweh's power. In other words, the head god became the godhead. Why at this time?

Two major sets of conditions can be suggested. The first involves the changes in Israel's social structure of the family. At Ugarit, social identity was strongest at the level of the family. Legal documents were often made between the sons of one family and the sons of another. The divine situation followed suit. The divine family was expressive of Ugarit's social structure. The same was true in ancient Israel through most of the monarchy. Hence, the story of Achan in Joshua 8 suggests a picture of the extended family as the major social unit. However, the family lineages went through traumatic changes beginning already in the eighth century with major social stratification, followed by Assyrian incursions. In the seventh and sixth centuries, we begin to see expressions of individual identity (Deuteronomy 26:16; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18). A culture with a diminished lineage system (deteriorating over a long period from the ninth or eighth century onward), one less embedded in traditional family patrimonies, might be more predisposed both to hold to individual human accountability for behavior (as suggested by the passages just cited) and to see an individual deity accountable for the cosmos (as suggested by monotheistic statements in this period). In short, the rise of the individual as a social unit next to the traditional family unit provided intelligibility to the rise of a single god rather than a divine family.

The second major set of conditions apparent in forming this change involved the rise of the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. As long as Israel was, from its own perspective, on par with the other nations, it made sense to have a religious outlook that saw Israel on par with the other nations, each one with its own patron god. (This is the basic picture described above with Deuteronomy 32:8-9.) The assumption behind this worldview was that each nation was as powerful as its patron god. However, the neo-Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in ca. 722 altered this religious way of looking at the world, for, if the neo-Assyrian empire were so powerful, so must be its god; and conversely, if Israel could be conquered (and later Judah ca. 586), it would imply that its god in turn is hardly as powerful as Israel had traditionally taught. As a result, new thinking separated the correlation of heavenly power and earthly kingdoms. Even though Assyria and later Babylon were so powerful, the new monotheistic thinking in Israel reasoned that despite its own weakness, its god was not weak. Moreover, just as Israel's fortunes fell, those of Assyria and then Babylon rose; inversely, Israel's monotheists now reasoned that Yahweh stood at the top of divine power, and correspondingly, the gods of Mesopotamia were reckoned to be nothing. As a result, Assyria had not succeeded because of the power of its god; instead, it was Yahweh now directing all the nations. In short, the conditions of human empires provided the model for divine empire; the Assyrian and Babylonian empires pointed now not to their own power and the power of their divine patrons but to Yahweh’s guiding all the events of Israel's life. Their exile was not their shame from the power of other nations and their deities, but rather was seen now as Yahweh's plan to punish and purify the one nation which Yahweh had chosen. Accordingly, the notion arose that the new king who might help redeem Israel might not be a Judean as traditionally thought in older biblical literature (see Psalm 2). Now, even a foreigner such as Cyrus the Persian could serve as the Lord's anointed (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1). One god stood behind all these world-shaking
events."

[booyalab]

Romans were extremely accepting of gods from other polytheistic religions.
This open-mindedness towards spirituality in the culture made it easier for Constantine to single-handedly convert the entire empire to Christianity. (edit: I know that Christians were persecuted prior to the mass conversion, but I'm talking about the fact that the Emperor's will was more important than spirituality..as opposed to the grip that the catholic church had on the thrones of the middle ages) Christianity is popular in Western Civilization because of Constantine and because polytheism is based on a topological understanding of nature that most of us no longer have. It takes another kind of leap of faith (in either direction)to come to the conclusion that God and science are incompatible.

[songbird36]

Actually if you believe Dan Brown in the "Da Vinci Code", Constantine united the Roman Empire under Christianity for political reasons (in order to preserve the Empire and consolidate his own power base). That makes perfect sense of course as at the time there were a number of different religions being observed throughout the Empire and there was essentially no uniting force.

Brown also hypothesises that it was at this point that "myths" crept into the Christian religion, such as that Mary Magdelene was a whore.

[booyalab]

Actually if you believe Dan Brown in the "Da Vinci Code", Constantine united the Roman Empire under Christianity for political reasons (in order to preserve the Empire and consolidate his own power base). That makes perfect sense of course as at the time there were a number of different religions being observed throughout the Empire and there was essentially no uniting force.

Brown also hypothesises that it was at this point that "myths" crept into the Christian religion, such as that Mary Magdelene was a whore.

As opposed to the cold hard fact that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover.

BTW, everyone just thinks Brown's ideas are his own....he's a slave to gnosticism.

[songbird36]

There is quite a bit of other evidence (apart from Monsieur Brown's views) pointing towards Mary Magdelene being both a disciple and the lover of Jesus. I can post some if you're interested.

And it certainly makes sense that the early Christian church would seek to suppress the reverence of women by Christ, in order to reinforce the patriarchal direction the church was taking under early apostles such as Paul.

[Sackanaka]

Aside from the stories of God, the reason I believe God as a single entity is considered more valid than polytheism (and I think it's related to Claverhouse's post) is that it relies on God being the most perfectly conceivable being. If there are two Gods equally perfect that presents a paradox, for if they are perfect then one ought to be stronger than the other.
Why then, not two equally perfect, perhaps codependent Gods?
And if two, why not many?
This could easily lead to a chaotic nature of the world, one that does not allow for consistency (in kindness, order, stability, relationship with supernatural and with reality), or at least as consistant as a world under a unified God.
Why then, not many Gods with the same agenda?
Then what's the difference between that and monotheism, except you have a God split up in distinct essences,
say, three?

Given that humans tend to like hoping for the best, monotheism is curently my logical solution given that a God exists in the first place.

Of course, the problem is solved if one can accept God as not being all powerful or perfect, but then we would be dealing with a separate issue altogether irrelevant to the topic.

[Geoff]

The Hebrew (monotheistic) tribes originally came from Sumeria where multiple gods were worshipped. On the path to what is now Israel they developed monotheism under Abraham. Here is an interesting discussion of how and why this process occurred:

"In his newest book, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Smith tries to address this question, but from a different angle in regards to monotheism and polytheism. Beginning with the Ugaritic texts, Smith asks what is monistic about polytheism and how the answer to this question might help make the emergence of Israelite monotheism more intelligible. Ugaritic polytheism is expressed as a monism through the concepts of the divine council or assembly and in the divine family. The two structures are essentially understood as a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El and Asherah); the seventy divine children (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak) evidently characterized as the stars of El; the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, who include what the Bible understands to be "angels" (in other words, messenger-gods).

This four-tiered model of the divine family and council apparently went through a number of changes in early Israel. In the earliest stage, it would appear that Yahweh was one of these seventy children, each of whom was the patron deity of the seventy nations. This idea appears behind the Dead Sea Scrolls reading and the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In this passage, El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation of hi s own: Israel is the portion of Yahweh. The Masoretic Text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed in the phrase "according to the number of the divine sons," altered the reading to "according to the number of the children of Israel" (also thought to be seventy). Psalm 82 also presents the god El presiding in a divine assembly at which Yahweh stands up and makes his accusation against the other gods. Here the text shows the older religious worldview which the passage is denouncing.

By some point in the late monarchy, it is evident that the god El was identified with Yahweh, and as a result, Yahweh-El is the husband of the goddess, Asherah. This is the situation represented by biblical condemnations of her cult symbol in the Jerusalem temple (evidently) and in the inscriptions mentioned above. In this form, the religious devotion to Yahweh casts him in the role of the Divine King ruling over all the other deities. This religious outlook appears, for example, in Psalm 29:2, where the "sons of God" or really divine sons or children are called upon to worship Yahweh, the Divine King. The Temple, with its various expressions of polytheism, also assumed that this place was Yahweh's palace which was populated by those under his power. The tour given by Ezekiel 8-10 suggests such a picture. This picture of royal power was further developed with the monotheism of the eighth to the sixth centuries. The other gods became mere expressions of Yahweh's power, and the divine messengers became understood as little more than minor divine beings expressive of Yahweh's power. In other words, the head god became the godhead. Why at this time?

Two major sets of conditions can be suggested. The first involves the changes in Israel's social structure of the family. At Ugarit, social identity was strongest at the level of the family. Legal documents were often made between the sons of one family and the sons of another. The divine situation followed suit. The divine family was expressive of Ugarit's social structure. The same was true in ancient Israel through most of the monarchy. Hence, the story of Achan in Joshua 8 suggests a picture of the extended family as the major social unit. However, the family lineages went through traumatic changes beginning already in the eighth century with major social stratification, followed by Assyrian incursions. In the seventh and sixth centuries, we begin to see expressions of individual identity (Deuteronomy 26:16; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18). A culture with a diminished lineage system (deteriorating over a long period from the ninth or eighth century onward), one less embedded in traditional family patrimonies, might be more predisposed both to hold to individual human accountability for behavior (as suggested by the passages just cited) and to see an individual deity accountable for the cosmos (as suggested by monotheistic statements in this period). In short, the rise of the individual as a social unit next to the traditional family unit provided intelligibility to the rise of a single god rather than a divine family.

The second major set of conditions apparent in forming this change involved the rise of the neo-Assyrian and neo-Babylonian empires. As long as Israel was, from its own perspective, on par with the other nations, it made sense to have a religious outlook that saw Israel on par with the other nations, each one with its own patron god. (This is the basic picture described above with Deuteronomy 32:8-9.) The assumption behind this worldview was that each nation was as powerful as its patron god. However, the neo-Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in ca. 722 altered this religious way of looking at the world, for, if the neo-Assyrian empire were so powerful, so must be its god; and conversely, if Israel could be conquered (and later Judah ca. 586), it would imply that its god in turn is hardly as powerful as Israel had traditionally taught. As a result, new thinking separated the correlation of heavenly power and earthly kingdoms. Even though Assyria and later Babylon were so powerful, the new monotheistic thinking in Israel reasoned that despite its own weakness, its god was not weak. Moreover, just as Israel's fortunes fell, those of Assyria and then Babylon rose; inversely, Israel's monotheists now reasoned that Yahweh stood at the top of divine power, and correspondingly, the gods of Mesopotamia were reckoned to be nothing. As a result, Assyria had not succeeded because of the power of its god; instead, it was Yahweh now directing all the nations. In short, the conditions of human empires provided the model for divine empire; the Assyrian and Babylonian empires pointed now not to their own power and the power of their divine patrons but to Yahweh’s guiding all the events of Israel's life. Their exile was not their shame from the power of other nations and their deities, but rather was seen now as Yahweh's plan to punish and purify the one nation which Yahweh had chosen. Accordingly, the notion arose that the new king who might help redeem Israel might not be a Judean as traditionally thought in older biblical literature (see Psalm 2). Now, even a foreigner such as Cyrus the Persian could serve as the Lord's anointed (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1). One god stood behind all these world-shaking
events."


Can I recommend at this point a read of Genesis (the second Test of Time book) that takes a look at the whole migration out of Sumer from the biblical Eden area and follows the trail through religious stories/archaelogical facts in the direction of Egypt. It is quite interesting and I am in the middle of it at the moment!
Christianity has swallowed up a number of Gods over the years, and related mythos (take, for example, Yule... and Halloween).

Something we are taking for granted here is that we actually have a monotheistic religion. In a way we still have a pantheon, to varying degrees, depending upon the flavour.

Traditional Catholicism has a multitude of divine beings, and the holy trinity - it is not a monotheism in reality, it is a cult based pantheon (cult of the Holy Mother, cult of the Son, cult of the Holy ghost, worship of saints, pseudo-deification of the Pope) with one overriding head.

Even other flavours of Judaism inspired religions usually have more than one divine being, or a head that has become modernised with a saviour that is also divine.

So maybe we should be discussing why we have not yet ended up with monotheism. Is it a process that is en route to a final result? Will we one day see people worshipping Jesus as the True God, and dispensing with the Biblical Old Testament God and all his friends (the saints, dead popes, holy ghost, Satan the destroyer) etc?

-Geoff

[songbird36]

What is also quite interesting for those who are interested in Biblical history is the extent to which events in the Bible (such as the great flood) mirror events which are documented to have occurred in Sumerian or Babylonian civilisation many centuries before.

It is clear that the early Jews were aware of the folklore and mythology of the civilisations that spawned them, and that they wove this mythology into the Judaic faith in a way which makes it very hard to differentiate what occurred *after* the tribes left Sumeria, from what occurred before.

[Claverhouse]

Of course, there can be demiurges ( looks modest ).



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Many believe that this particular world was assembled by one such, and that the Supreme is only lightly involved in our affairs. Here we enter the dubious world-view of the cathars, the satanists, the Illuminatists, the Freemasons and the devotees of the Talmud and such negligible persons. I think they are wrong, but it keeps them out of mischief. ]

[Crazy]

but it keeps them out of mischief. ]


I wouldn't be so sure of that.

[CreativeChaos]

Wow! Songbird! What a dissertation! Very interesting reading.

I'm not sure that we could decipher from history why the Jews belived in one God.

Most cultures, until the spread of Christianity and Islam, belived in many gods. Actuall, even today, monotheism is prevelant only in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism, Buddism have well...something else. (won't get into all that).

The Jews as far as I am aware, were the only culture that was monotheisitc for thousands of years. Most of the world does not accept Judaism. Except the "Chosen Ones" that were born into the faith.

It is in very recent history that Christianity, born of Judaism, began to spread. This, in my understanding began in earnest, once Constantine, a Roman Emporer converted to Christianity (?? A.D)

Isalm, the other monotheistic belief, began with Mohammad, of course, around 700 A.D. These two religions began to spread, mostly with the Ottoman Turks, conquering major portions of the world, and the Romans having conqured major portions of the world.

Then of course there is the Roman Catholic church and it's Crusaders, that fought against the Ottoman Turks, in their Holy Jihad.

That is why the majority of the world is monotheistic today.

The interesting question to me is "How did the Jews remian monotheistic for all of those thousands of years, when surrounded by polythiesitc cultures.?" Did they decide this was their "trademark?" I have an incinling that the Jews accepted this because they then had their own god (vs. the Eqyptian gods, where they were slaves) and this god, who was the only god, had "chosen" them as "his people". This is really a very good way for the Jews to "elevate" thier status above the Egyptians and the Egyptian gods.

The Egyptians could not claim this Jewish god as one of thier own. This god was THE god and he "chose" the Jews.

[songbird36]

Well my dissertation partly explains why they became monotheistic but does not totally account for why they remained that way (especially after enslavement in Egypt and then in Babylonia later on).

Perhaps their faith was strengthened by repeated persecution.

[heeroyuy]

In reality it isn't monotheistic, if you read the bible it wasn't so much that yahweh was "the god", but rather "the best god" :) It was a matter of "my gods can do all this neat stuff!" "oh yea, well my god can do EVERYTHING" "wow! that's neat! my gods must cower in fear" "yea, that's right, respect fool."

[Niflheimian]

You're mistaken. Regardless of my religious affiliation (or lack thereof), there is only one God described in the Bible (unless you're referring to the Trinity, which is "3 in 1"). When it mentions other gods, it is actually speaking of false gods. I did some research to support this:
Isaiah 43:10 - ". . . Before Me [YHWH] there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."
Colossians 1:16-17- “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Isaiah 44:6 - ". . . there is no God besides Me."

[Dunearhp]

In polytheism it is possible to interact with other religions. The other religion just has the names wrong, that's all. They are still the same gods.

Monotheism is exclusionary. By being stricter and less open minded, monotheists are harder to convert.

I think that it is easier to move from polytheism to monotheism. Many polytheistic hierarchies contained a primary god, the one in charge. There was a centre of power, helping to stave off chaos. In monotheism the centre is just more concentrated.

The polytheistic pantheons sort of dilute divine authority. For a good hunt you may pray to Diana, for victory in battle, Mars. It is hard to be fanatical about a divine bureaucracy.

[Boneca]

Very interesting songbird! I've no idea if what you say is correct or not (and really, can we ever know?), but it's at least a possible explanation.

And Geoff's ideas too...it's true that there is a diffuse border between monotheism and polytheism. It's really a matter of what you call "god" and "other divine being" respectively.

[Mr. Good Beats]

"Monotheism exhibits what is essentially a pathological personality pattern projected onto the ideal of God: the pattern of the paranoid, possessive, power-obseessed male ego. This God is not someone you would care to invite to a garden party."
--Terence McKenna

yes. for some reason this is also what i would have wrote.

monotheism also lends itself to being more manipuable (is that a word, well it is now) by man. i would figure it would be easier to control people with one omnipotent god then a few that rule only a certain aspect of life. i think polytheism was a good way of explaining natural phonomena that has been replaced by science, whereas monotheism is a good way of manipulating man.

[songbird36]

yes. for some reason this is also what i would have wrote.

monotheism also lends itself to being more manipuable (is that a word, well it is now) by man. i would figure it would be easier to control people with one omnipotent god then a few that rule only a certain aspect of life. i think polytheism was a good way of explaining natural phonomena that has been replaced by science, whereas monotheism is a good way of manipulating man.

You could look on it rather cynically as manipulation, or you could regard it as man understanding his place in the cosmos, and his (or her) relationship to a creator. I don't see anything terribly manipulative about this. It's rather liberating in fact to realise that we are not alone.

[Mr. Good Beats]

You could look on it rather cynically as manipulation, or you could regard it as man understanding his place in the cosmos, and his (or her) relationship to a creator. I don't see anything terribly manipulative about this. It's rather liberating in fact to realise that we are not alone.

Perhaps this is how it started, but through the dark ages on, the church (that which is representing monotheism) has used 'god' to control the masses in acting in such a manner. these controls would be everything from the ten commandments to editing the bible. i've had discussions with a religious aquaintance at school before that believes that bible has not been changed much at all. i say that's a bunch of hooey. when the masses are supressed from reading the bible for so many years, how do we know what the original untranslated text really says? maybe there was a disclaimer at the beginning. perhaps stating that all views held within are subjective and are to be taken as allegory and a general rule as to how one should live ones life. then it got changed and now 'god' is the all powerful ruler of the world, disobey it's word and you go to hell. you must admit it would be a good way to control the ignorant masses.

[YardGnome]

yes. for some reason this is also what i would have wrote.

Sorry...

[CreativeChaos]

Perhaps this is how it started, but through the dark ages on, the church (that which is representing monotheism) has used 'god' to control the masses in acting in such a manner. these controls would be everything from the ten commandments to editing the bible. i've had discussions with a religious aquaintance at school before that believes that bible has not been changed much at all. i say that's a bunch of hooey. when the masses are supressed from reading the bible for so many years, how do we know what the original untranslated text really says? maybe there was a disclaimer at the beginning. perhaps stating that all views held within are subjective and are to be taken as allegory and a general rule as to how one should live ones life. then it got changed and now 'god' is the all powerful ruler of the world, disobey it's word and you go to hell. you must admit it would be a good way to control the ignorant masses.

Frankly, from what I've read of ploytheism, the Egyptians, the Mayans, Greeks, etc., used their gods to control the masses also. Gods were used in the same way. Their were preists in anceint Egypt for example, and were in direct political coflict with the pharoh. That is why one Pharoh decided to call himself the human carnation of the greatest sun god Rah. So the Pharoh was in fact God. In polytheism, in many cultures there was always a Greatest God. Like Zeus, in Greek polytheism.

[cjs55]

Dammit, I have a greek philosophy book in which one of the earlier philosophers talks about the development and eventual abandonment of the Gods. But his argument was something like: People are anthrocentric. They put personas on nature because they don't understand it (Gods). But once we do understand it, those personas are no longer needed to come to terms with natural phenomena. Thus the more we understand about the world, the less Gods we need. However, that doesn't really talk about Monotheism. Really only the fall of polytheism.

[Mr. Good Beats]

Sorry...
nothing to be sorry about, just pointing out it was a good answer.

[Claverhouse]

I'm not quite sure why people believe that organised religion was a conscious tool to keep the masses down. Apart from the fact that without religion the masses are still grossly superstitious and stupid, and the withdrawal of christian precepts such as 'Love your neighbour' and 'Thou shalt not kill' does not automatically increase the quality of life, most religious, including Popes, priests and secular rulers, actually believed themselves in the religion they promulgated. It is Custom which needfully continues any religion or any particular religious belief or practice: just as it rules most of our beliefs and lives.

Certainly, there's a rumour one of the Medici Popes referred to 'This useful Jesus-Myth', but that doesn't actually mean he didn't believe in God, nor that most other Popes would have agreed with him. Anymore than that back in Egypt the priests and priestesses rubbed their hands and smirked, saying 'Another Sucker', whenever any person brought a gift of food or gold. Generally, to get a really good persecution going, you really need absolute belief on the part of the persecutors. Whether of their own rightness ( 'This is for God/Democracy/The Truth' ), and/or the wickedness of the victims and their conscious evil ( eg: 'They are witches/nazis/terrorists and they know this to be evil, choosing evil over good ( us )' ).


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Mr. Good Beats]

alright lets see of i can explain myself a bit better. first off i believe all egyptian pharoahs were considered 'god incarnate', thus why they were the rulers of the land, priests had a problem with this because they 'knew' other wise and pharoahs tended to abuse thier power. it makes sense to use gods to control and manipulate the masses in both poly and mono (who would wanna mess with something that can throw a lighting bolt at your ass), only in poly, as has been said a couple of times, the gods were more 'explanatory gods'. beings that make the natural occurences on earth make sense, but when philosophers and scientists started explaining these occurances without the need for any gods then i would imagine it got harder to control through these means. a single omnipotent god that is everywhere and everything is much harder to refute, thus being more easy to control with.

an example of how the church manipulated would be how it tends to change certain aspects of its teaching through the ages. at one time did the church not say that the earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe? i believe it did, but that was because that was the common thinking of the time, and if one 'preached' otherwise, well i hope you like the smell of burnt flesh. if the church teaches the bible and the bible is the word of god then wouldn't that word be ultimate and final, or did those preaching just interpret wrong? i have not read the whole bible. but, the parts that i have read i can twist into meaning what i want it too mean. this makes it an even better tool to control with. it is not straight forward and there are hundreds of different interpretations for even single passages.

i really don't think that was any more clear, but i gave er the ol college try.

[songbird36]

I'm not quite sure why people believe that organised religion was a conscious tool to keep the masses down. Apart from the fact that without religion the masses are still grossly superstitious and stupid, and the withdrawal of christian precepts such as 'Love your neighbour' and 'Thou shalt not kill' does not automatically increase the quality of life, most religious, including Popes, priests and secular rulers, actually believed themselves in the religion they promulgated. It is Custom which needfully continues any religion or any particular religious belief or practice: just as it rules most of our beliefs and lives.

Certainly, there's a rumour one of the Medici Popes referred to 'This useful Jesus-Myth', but that doesn't actually mean he didn't believe in God, nor that most other Popes would have agreed with him. Anymore than that back in Egypt the priests and priestesses rubbed their hands and smirked, saying 'Another Sucker', whenever any person brought a gift of food or gold. Generally, to get a really good persecution going, you really need absolute belief on the part of the persecutors. Whether of their own rightness ( 'This is for God/Democracy/The Truth' ), and/or the wickedness of the victims and their conscious evil ( eg: 'They are witches/nazis/terrorists and they know this to be evil, choosing evil over good ( us )' ).


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Well it comes partly from Marx who you seem to be so fond of citing. He said that religion is the "Opiate of the masses".

I'm not quite sure where the manipulation allegations come from, however.

[Claverhouse]

Well it comes partly from Marx who you seem to be so fond of citing. He said that religion is the "Opiate of the masses".

I'm not quite sure where the manipulation allegations come from, however.

Nope.

a/ I have never quoted Marx, despite the fact that he was an extremely influential and apparently persuasive philosopher.

b/ I very much doubt if Marx converted people to this odd belief: atheism was around long before he was, and that belief is more redolent of the Enlightenment than the 19th century. People who were already atheists from their own opinion were more likely to agree with it rather than suddenly see the light just because the old nutter gave it out.

c/ I would suggest that people ( even those who remained superstitious and still demonstrated a tepid understanding of the universe after becoming atheist ) had a great distrust of authorities and powers, and confounded the belief in religion with the establishment of religion ( I have even met ex-catholics who are under the impression that the RC hierarchy are all in it for the wealth and power that the practice of both 'confession' and guilt allegedly bestows upon them ): therefore the understanding that priestly castes exist to keep down the multitude is but a step.

Carlyle referred to the black-coated troopers that Kings kept in pulpits to monitor the masses; but the idea was best formulated by the utterly repulsive and despicable Thomas Paine. [ We need a vomiting smilie. ]



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

Yes points taken but I think Marx and Engels contributed to the view that religious belief is some sort of conspiracy (or perhaps mass delusion is a better term) perpetuated in order to keep the masses happy and subserviant.

I think it pays to remember that serfdom was abolished in Russia very late (1861). The orthodox religion was used partly as a tool by the church and the nobility in Russia to persuade the serf classes of their rightful place.

[Claverhouse]

I think it pays to remember that serfdom was abolished in Russia very late (1861). The orthodox religion was used partly as a tool by the church and the nobility in Russia to persuade the serf classes of their rightful place.
We never did ! Our serfs were all extremely happy and delighted with their lives and the care given by their adored master and the family.

It was those vile nihilists who persuaded them there was something wrong...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Jacque]

In reality it isn't monotheistic, if you read the bible it wasn't so much that yahweh was "the god", but rather "the best god" :) It was a matter of "my gods can do all this neat stuff!" "oh yea, well my god can do EVERYTHING" "wow! that's neat! my gods must cower in fear" "yea, that's right, respect fool."

Henotheism was their natural transition from polytheism to monotheism. Elohim (Yaweh of the northern kingdom), which I think meant god of the mountain, was term reserved not for the one god, but other high gods, Olympians. Of course, it's a natural rational progression from questioning the good of worshiping all gods to simply denying their existence...for any doubts that may linger when one goes on the strict regime or investing one's fate in one deity, especially when Yaweh was but a war god and therefore no good in times of peace and prosperity as were the concerns of the ancient Hebrews. He could kill, but could he sustain.

Obviously, they got over that hump, but I'd like to think that divisions between gods would be superficial...that it only exists in language. In our image, but in our numbers? One or two, does it matter. Can only one god be responsible for creation. After all, it's their universe and we don't write the rules when it comes to those things. Then what if its the same thing, in that God just has multiple personalities, in which case he is many gods, but also one which is close to what I'm trying to say in that with no physical boundaries, only spiritual, can we differentiate, especially where there's no emtpy space and it exist as a continuum? One God or many depending on how you slice the spectrum as if blue could very well become violet if our mind simply saw no reason to distinguish it on the spectrum. Or if it thought it important, more colors could be added to mix, yet without disturbing the entire constitution of being light, or in this case divine.

Hmmm...that reminded me of how my philosophy professor described - or tried to - Atman. But that one he approached from the denying one's sense of self as an illusion, which of course, isn't where I'm coming from at all.

Jacque

[songbird36]

Henotheism was their natural transition from polytheism to monotheism. Elohim (Yaweh of the northern kingdom), which I think meant god of the mountain, was term reserved not for the one god, but other high gods, Olympians. Of course, it's a natural rational progression from questioning the good of worshiping all gods to simply denying their existence...for any doubts that may linger when one goes on the strict regime or investing one's fate in one deity, especially when Yaweh was but a war god and therefore no good in times of peace and prosperity as were the concerns of the ancient Hebrews. He could kill, but could he sustain.


Jacque

Have you read my earlier post regarding the origins of Yahweh from the Sumerian polytheistic tradition and the way this is likely to evolved?

Then there is the question of how (and why) monotheism was sustained by the Jews. This is explained (in my view) by their history of persecution and enslavement (first by the Egyptians and then in Babylonia).

Not only that but at the time Jesus lives, Israel was divided into 3 kingdoms - Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Samaria, the middle kingdom, had been invaded by the Assyrians shortly before Jesus, and the Assyrians had raped, pillaged, and ethnically intermingled with the Jews. The Jews in that kingdom lived in a climate of fear and repression, and were not allowed to travel freely throughout the other kingdoms.

It is easy to see I think how a climate of hate, fear, and repression, can strengthen faith, as when present life becomes harsh or intolerable, the idea of eternity is infinitely seductive.

[Geoff]

Have you read my earlier post regarding the origins of Yahweh from the Sumerian polytheistic tradition and the way this is likely to evolved?

Then there is the question of how (and why) monotheism was sustained by the Jews. This is explained (in my view) by their history of persecution and enslavement (first by the Egyptians and then in Babylonia).

Not only that but at the time Jesus lives, Israel was divided into 3 kingdoms - Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Samaria, the middle kingdom, had been invaded by the Assyrians shortly before Jesus, and the Assyrians had raped, pillaged, and ethnically intermingled with the Jews. The Jews in that kingdom lived in a climate of fear and repression, and were not allowed to travel freely throughout the other kingdoms.

It is easy to see I think how a climate of hate, fear, and repression, can strengthen faith, as when present life becomes harsh or intolerable, the idea of eternity is infinitely seductive.

As has been pointed out in more than one text. Yahweh is actually polytheistic. He is actually more than one God, which is why he uses 'we' very early on. He is a clear development of the Sumer Pantheon. Only over time does the we (and the multitude of powers such as lightning, war etc) subsume into the more modern ideal.

I strongly urge a read of Legend - Genesis by Dohl which I am reading at the moment. I am right in the middle of the chapter analysing this very point. And there are some quite amusing pieces - like for example that there is a line where God says "I am the god that is know as I am" which makes little sense. it is actually a classic pun on words in ancient sumer on the meaning of "I am" actually being the same as the name of God, completely missed by the translators into ancient hebrew. it is these reasons that clearly show the development from sumer/uruk.

The work in this book on the multitude of 'noahs' in the different Middle East civilisations, and the remarked similarity between them that also suggests that the Genesis version is also a translation of the original, and the prose is nowhere near as entertaining.

Biblical story telling at its best.

Oh and the book doesnt talk about faith or myth, purely linguistics, real records and the archaelogical facts. it leaves the 'big questions' to the reader.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

And if you read my post you will see that the book referred to argues precisely that point.

However at some point (and I'm not familiar enough with the scriptures to tell you exactly when) Yahweh as a multiple god morphed into Yahweh as a single God.

And if you read the post before that you will see that I acknowledged that a large proportion of the OT is based loosely on documented events from the Sumerian/Babylonian civilisations from whence the Jews came.

[Sackanaka]

hmm.. no one else took my approach :/
maybe my reasoning was too flawed?
or are we all more interested at the historical/social implications rather than philosophical?

[songbird36]

hmm.. no one else took my approach :/
maybe my reasoning was too flawed?
or are we all more interested at the historical/social implications rather than philosophical?

It is necessary to understand the historical/social context to the development of Jewish nationhood and religious belief, in order to understand why Judaism emerged so clearly and irrevocably as a monotheistic faith.

[Geoff]

And if you read my post you will see that the book referred to argues precisely that point.

However at some point (and I'm not familiar enough with the scriptures to tell you exactly when) Yahweh as a multiple god morphed into Yahweh as a single God.

And if you read the post before that you will see that I acknowledged that a large proportion of the OT is based loosely on documented events from the Sumerian/Babylonian civilisations from whence the Jews came.

Well, yes. funnily enough I wasnt disagreeing with you. I had read your post!

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Damn you I want you to disagree with me!

Take some lessons from Boo..

[Geoff]

Damn you I want you to disagree with me!

Take some lessons from Boo..

Aww she is just too lovely to disagree with anyone.. :whistle:

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Bollocks she's highly premenstrual today...

[Jacque]

Have you read my earlier post regarding the origins of Yahweh from the Sumerian polytheistic tradition and the way this is likely to evolved?

Then there is the question of how (and why) monotheism was sustained by the Jews. This is explained (in my view) by their history of persecution and enslavement (first by the Egyptians and then in Babylonia).

Not only that but at the time Jesus lives, Israel was divided into 3 kingdoms - Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Samaria, the middle kingdom, had been invaded by the Assyrians shortly before Jesus, and the Assyrians had raped, pillaged, and ethnically intermingled with the Jews. The Jews in that kingdom lived in a climate of fear and repression, and were not allowed to travel freely throughout the other kingdoms.

It is easy to see I think how a climate of hate, fear, and repression, can strengthen faith, as when present life becomes harsh or intolerable, the idea of eternity is infinitely seductive.

Or...the Jews needed a more universal god, which could protect as they expanded their settlements. A god without borders for a nation without borders...

[songbird36]

Yes indeed.

Very astute observation - I agree.

[Lee]

I find it strange that we seem to have created monotheism, nature always creates specialists, the body has arms, legs, ears, fingers etc. all specialists for tasks. Society creates lawyers, police, mechanics, scientists, authors etc. each specialists in there fields. The brain is divided with the limbic system, frontal lobes, two hemisphere etc. all specialised for different tasks. Religion once took this form as polythiesm and yet has slowly moved away to a monothiestic scoiety which oddly is at odds with most of human nature.

One correlation that I can see is that of a shared leadership, I am reminded of those old pyramid diagrams that are supposed to display a hierachal societal structure, we have all seen them, presidents/royals/primeministers at the top tier, go a tier down and you have big business/the higher echelons of goverment, another tier down etc. you get the picture, the specifics are unimportant and I realise societal structure is far more complex than a simple pyramid diagram but it works for the point I am going to try to make.

With lower population counts and densities of early civilisation and hunter gathering society's there were many small societal pyramids, hardly pyramids at all in fact as leadership would be a vague concept as the skills of the group as a whole were more important, this would create what could be described as a quater finished pyramid. I do not know whether you are following this so far but what I am trying to say is that as communication improved, as population and population densities increased, as the amount of mini societal pyramids in the world shrunk as they were eaten up and assimilated by bigger ones the pyramid takes a more pointed tip, slowly but surely the pyramid turns almost from a semi-circle to an pyramid with a defined point, this focusing point is the cause of monothiec religion.

Now did any of that make sense, it did to me but I am notoriously bad at putting my thoughts into words.

[songbird36]

You're just being precocious Lee..

:lol:

[Jacque]

[QUOTE=Lee]I do not know whether you are following this so far but what I am trying to say is that as communication improved, as population and population densities increased, as the amount of mini societal pyramids in the world shrunk as they were eaten up and assimilated by bigger ones the pyramid takes a more pointed tip, slowly but surely the pyramid turns almost from a semi-circle to an pyramid with a defined point, this focusing point is the cause of monothiec religion.[QUOTE]

Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is reserved in petty individual forms, we are experiences to say the least, but when He thinks, or "omni-thinks", it is done collectively, drawn from us all in one breath. In a universe where you are the first thing to exist, you are the only thing to exist. If it does not end with you then it never began with you. You could never really escape yourself if it did. And when you exercise power over all as though it were a limb, can we not call all our body. When we hear thoughts as clearly as our own, can we also not call them our own.

[Lee]

Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is reserved in petty individual forms, we are experiences to say the least, but when He thinks, or "omni-thinks", it is done collectively, drawn from us all in one breath. In a universe where you are the first thing to exist, you are the only thing to exist. If it does not end with you then it never began with you. You could never really escape yourself if it did. And when you exercise power over all as though it were a limb, can we not call all our body. When we hear thoughts as clearly as our own, can we also not call them our own.

heh, I find your response amusing, not in a negative way, infact quite the contrary, it's just not the response I was expecting to my dodgy sociology theory (unless it was understood less than I had feared, jk).

You certainly have a way with words.

I do not think we are at the pinacle of our religious evolution, evolution by it's nature allows no such situation to arise, bound as we are through the limitations of being human.


When we hear thoughts as clearly as our own, can we also not call them our own.
Maybe thier is no difference.

[songbird36]

[QUOTE=Lee]I do not know whether you are following this so far but what I am trying to say is that as communication improved, as population and population densities increased, as the amount of mini societal pyramids in the world shrunk as they were eaten up and assimilated by bigger ones the pyramid takes a more pointed tip, slowly but surely the pyramid turns almost from a semi-circle to an pyramid with a defined point, this focusing point is the cause of monothiec religion.[QUOTE]

Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is reserved in petty individual forms, we are experiences to say the least, but when He thinks, or "omni-thinks", it is done collectively, drawn from us all in one breath. In a universe where you are the first thing to exist, you are the only thing to exist. If it does not end with you then it never began with you. You could never really escape yourself if it did. And when you exercise power over all as though it were a limb, can we not call all our body. When we hear thoughts as clearly as our own, can we also not call them our own.

Sorry to be such an INTJ but could you please explain in a few key points exactly what you are trying to say? I can't interpret this at all.

[Lee]

Sorry to be such an INTJ but could you please explain in a few key points exactly what you are trying to say? I can't interpret this at all.

I think I interpreted it, but could do with some clarification now you mention it.

[songbird36]

I'll get the Rosetta Stone out then, shall I?

[Jacque]

Sorry to be such an INTJ but could you please explain in a few key points exactly what you are trying to say? I can't interpret this at all.


Point 1: Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is.... :whistle:

...and I thought that was the short version. Anyway, I was more addressing Lee's key points if that helps at all. But you are welcome to pick, and I could slice any other way if you could provide me with an organizational format of some kind, but then it was only meant to be a response to Lee, not a dissertation.

[Lee]

Point 1: Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is.... :whistle:

...and I thought that was the short version. Anyway, I was more addressing Lee's key points if that helps at all. But you are welcome to pick, and I could slice any other way if you could provide me with an organizational format of some kind, but then it was only meant to be a response to Lee, not a dissertation.

There are no pinnacle's in evolution, there are no tops and bottoms, higher or lower, rights or wrongs there just is a process.

I am unsure what you mean by assimilate God? you then go on to say that we are part of God, aren't these two things contradictory?, how can a segment of the whole, assimilate the whole, that would simply collapse in on itself forever. I am also confused as to your final words "where judgement is" I am unsure what you mean by this, Are you suggesting we help make Gods decisions by our presence as part of God, we influence God because he thinks through us. I think I understand and your point about our thoughts not being our own but infact a contribution to a greater consciousness that is God.

I might be way of the mark here, but what you say sounds interesting, so could you clarify please. :)

If I indeed understnd your post, I do not understand how it answers the question of why mankind has moved away from polythiesm to monothiesm.

[floid]

What is the advantage of worshiping one god over several? Why did humans historically chose to move to monotheism?

It is much simpler to blame a single god than a bureaucracy of many gods for the vicissitudes one encounters.

Somebody needs to be responsible and in polytheism they all just keep pointing the finger at each other with nobody taking the final blame.

Either, however, tend to divert the blame from it's rightful source -- the complaining human.

[songbird36]

Point 1: Can we be so brave as to declare ourselves to be at the pinnacle of our religious evolution when there is one thing left to assimilate...God, as in Spinozan pantheism - more holism. Are we not part of God? That is, in the dark recess of his mind, where judgment is.... :whistle:

...and I thought that was the short version. Anyway, I was more addressing Lee's key points if that helps at all. But you are welcome to pick, and I could slice any other way if you could provide me with an organizational format of some kind, but then it was only meant to be a response to Lee, not a dissertation.

I'm not sure how we can "assimilate" God when people don't even agree on whether He exists. How do you address this problem?

[Geoff]

I am a bit confused. Why should we 'assimilate' God? And judgement is in the dark of his mind? When we have assimilated him? Or before?

Sorry, but this just sounds like pseudo-mystical mumbo-jumbo. The sort of woolly thinking that bugs me. Can I have it translated into words for the hard of understanding please :-)

-Geoff

[Mr. Good Beats]

I am a bit confused. Why should we 'assimilate' God?
-Geoff

because resistance is futile

[ApeTheDog]

What is the advantage of worshipping one God over many? Well, first of all, it depends on your point of view. Is there any benefit at all in worshipping God(s)? Is a population better of believing in a perfect ideal, or should it strive to find truth instead, and live with the knowledge that perfection may never be achieved?

Assuming that it is in the populations best interest to believe in God(s), I think one God is better. Suppose there are two Gods, one for everything that is blue, and one for everything that is red. One day, somebody invents something new that is purple. Which God does it belong to? Somebody will have to make a decision on this, but since he is human and thereby not flawless, he may make the wrong decision. With only one God, there is no margin for error in what belongs where.

[Jacque]

Suppose there are two Gods, one for everything that is blue, and one for everything that is red. One day, somebody invents something new that is purple. Which God does it belong to? Somebody will have to make a decision on this, but since he is human and thereby not flawless, he may make the wrong decision. With only one God, there is no margin for error in what belongs where.

Like God, who deals with all things earthly, giving us special attention since the beginning time, Here. Then we meet an ancient race of aliens and wonder how or to which God they belong to...our beliefs colored purple.

Translation: God is as relative to us as two gods are to colors.

...applying Occam's Razor to polytheism is rather silly..."Deī non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

Translation: Occam's Razor: Gods (Entities) should not be multiplied without necessity.

[Lee]

I could argue that there is no such thing as monothiesm, there is only polythiesm as no two people can have the exact same interpretation of what what God is or means, we are all essentially running around worshiping our own personal God, or are we just worshiping ourselves, worshiping a construct of our own mind.

Or...

Are we as a species conscious?, just like the neurons of our brain that are seperate and going about thier own business yet conspire to create consciouness (whatever that is). Is the human species creating a consciouness we cannot individually percieve?, just as the neurons individually cannot percieve our consciouness, are we simply contributing to a greater mind?, our thoughts not our own but a contribution to a greater intelligence that encompasses us all. Are we part of God? and is God not just a reflection of the ingredients (us) that God is made of?

(Are those who say "God is perfect" just being extremely narcissistic?)

[Jacque]

There are no pinnacle's in evolution, there are no tops and bottoms, higher or lower, rights or wrongs there just is a process..

I'm not the one who described it as the pyramid...that was you. :P


I am unsure what you mean by assimilate God? you then go on to say that we are part of God, aren't these two things contradictory?, how can a segment of the whole, assimilate the whole, that would simply collapse in on itself forever.

Assimilate monotheism into pantheism, not physically assimilate God. Chnages in awareness or spirituality is seldom physical...but that's shallow positivism and ugly naturalism.


I am also confused as to your final words "where judgement is" I am unsure what you mean by this, Are you suggesting we help make Gods decisions by our presence as part of God, we influence God because he thinks through us.

...uh-huh, through society and politics, interactions.


I think I understand and your point about our thoughts not being our own but infact a contribution to a greater consciousness that is God.

No...that's crazy mumbo-jumbo stuff. You clearly misunderstood. ;)
Actually, they are our own in the sense that we function collectively.


I might be way of the mark here, but what you say sounds interesting, so could you clarify please. :)

If I indeed understnd your post, I do not understand how it answers the question of why mankind has moved away from polythiesm to monothiesm.

You answered that. I was merely elaborating on where this process may take us. Polytheism to montheism is a step...though with others in between. You outlined it as process...which seeks a pattern - your intuitive analysis. I merely extended the thought to the next step, in the continuous process of human reconciliation over religion and philosophy - never satisfied with a fixed state of beliefs, in this case our current fascination with densities, hierarchies, and numbers in regard to our superstitions.

[Lee]

Yikes! I did misunderstand didn't I....although I found my misunderstood version interesting to think about so I guess I lost nothing.


I'm not the one who described it as the pyramid...that was you. :P
The pyramid does not imply anything to do with stages of evolution, only the population spread across different power bases and at which level, to be honest the pyramid is a slighly dodgy analogy nayway, I was just thinking up something easy to grasp.


Assimilate monotheism into pantheism, not physically assimilate God. Chnages in awareness or spirituality is seldom physical...but that's shallow positivism and ugly naturalism.
I still am confused on this I am afraid, why assimilate monothiesm into pantheism? is this what you want? how things are going? or do you think I mean this? and you say changes of awareness or spirituality are seldom physical.....huh? aren't they always physical on some level and if they are not when are they not? and finally why is naturalism or positivism shallow or ugly? if we assume for a moment they are true then they created the apparently not shallow or ugly beliefs that others hold.


No...that's crazy mumbo-jumbo stuff. You clearly misunderstood. ;)
Actually, they are our own in the sense that we function collectively.
Never mind, I quite liked my misunderstanding.


You answered that. I was merely elaborating on where this process may take us. Polytheism to montheism is a step...though with others in between. You outlined it as process...which seeks a pattern - your intuitive analysis. I merely extended the thought to the next step, in the continuous process of human reconciliation over religion and philosophy - never satisfied with a fixed state of beliefs, in this case our current fascination with densities, hierarchies, and numbers in regard to our superstitions.

oh, ok then, I was confused, be more specific in future ;)

If we are into refining my little sociology theory then I can write a more comprehensible thorough logical post on that.

although I am sure somebody has already thought about this before and I will be simply recreating a theory that aready existes.

[Jacque]

See, this is what I love about NPs. We speak of ideas as we mean it, when they are only fathomable alternatives. I think that's why Js like to corner us with these things...always an "I can't believe she said that". Alas, its our communication style, the same way we play chess. Lee, I see these same alternatives...so many with just God alone. You wonder then that society isn't doing the same. Only, unlike us, it has to take them seriously because it can't see things any other way, the most recent transformations always seem final only because we are lost as to where we go next...

Now for some fun...


I could argue that there is no such thing as monothiesm, there is only polythiesm as no two people can have the exact same interpretation of what what God is or means, we are all essentially running around worshiping our own personal God, or are we just worshiping ourselves, worshiping a construct of our own mind.

But doesn't God have power. What power is there if one's kingdom was but limited to one subject. I believed that my personal God influenced my neighbor, then he would not be a personal/private God. My misconception would be arrogant, and for my intrepretation to be false, my God would not exist since he is dependent upon what I believe.

Then you could say, that God is merely what gather from this existence as divine, unquestionable. Therefore, God is merely an anthropomorphization of my philosophical beliefs, simply the way you tell a story to share a conviction, an spiritual finger puppet.



Are we as a species conscious?, just like the neurons of our brain that are seperate and going about thier own business yet conspire to create consciouness (whatever that is). Is the human species creating a consciouness we cannot individually percieve?, just as the neurons individually cannot percieve our consciouness, are we simply contributing to a greater mind?, our thoughts not our own but a contribution to a greater intelligence that encompasses us all. Are we part of God? and is God not just a reflection of the ingredients (us) that God is made of?

Yes, and if the concept of God overlaps in anyway, that is, the human race shares a common perception of God, then it is evidence of a collective unconscious (Jung), the archetypal process. As an (un)conscious being that exists equally in all of us, can that not be God? :blink:



(Are those who say "God is perfect" just being extremely narcissistic?)

:) Isn't it impossible not to be self-centered when you are the only self or center around...there is no pool to fall into as the lesson goes.

[Lee]

In the beginning there were many

Polythiesm, the belief and worship of many gods has been a staple of human belief systems for many thousands of years and is still practised today, however in recent centuries human civilisation has been moving steadily towards monothiestic belief systems. Nature seems to prefer specialists which is very much the ploythiestic way, the laws of physics and natural selection seem to produce avareges but still have many specialists, the world is an almost infinitely complex place and so evolution has engineered many specialist systems for us to navigate through life. We have evolved hands, eyes, ears, genetalia, nuerological networks etc. we are comprised of "devices" that specialise at a given task and work together to conspire in the procreation of life and our own survival. Just like our bodies, society has engineered specialists, I would point you towards typology for evidence of this fact or even simply point out the two sexes and how they are created as specialists for given tasks.
Our attention is turned to religious beliefs and how they reflect this fact of nature and long ago they did eg. Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Hinduism and no doubt many more I cannot think of right now. They all shared the belief of many Gods, often these gods had thier own hierachal nature, in fact if you removed humans from the picture these Godly social orders were in fact monothiestic :blink:. The question is why society has veered towards monothiesm and what sociological and evolutionary pressures and events have caused this? what correlations and causations can be found during this passage of time?

I'll add part 2 soon....(I bet you are all wetting yourselves in anticipation...go on admit it ;) )

[Jacque]

I still am confused on this I am afraid, why assimilate monothiesm into pantheism? is this what you want? how things are going? or do you think I mean this?

It's the ways things would've went had you meant what I thought you said.


and you say changes of awareness or spirituality are seldom physical.....huh? aren't they always physical on some level and if they are not when are they not?

Change our ideas about God not God. Anyway...I haven't stumbled onto any physical equations explaining human spirituality, but I'm eager to learn.


and finally why is naturalism or positivism shallow or ugly? if we assume for a moment they are true then they created the apparently not shallow or ugly beliefs that others hold.

Cuz...pessimism rules and nature is ugly. :blush:

Positivism dismisses philosophy problems as nonexistent. (It kills intuition.)
Naturalism does the same, religious/phenomenal truth from empirical observations, not revelation, rationalism vs empiricism.

They don't create they're meant to DESTROY. :laser:

[Jacque]

They all shared the belief of many Gods, often these gods had thier own hierachal nature, in fact if you removed humans from the picture these Godly social orders were in fact monothiestic :blink:. The question is why society has veered towards monothiesm and what sociological and evolutionary pressures and events have caused this? what correlations and causations can be found during this passage of time?

I'll add part 2 soon....(I bet you are all wetting yourselves in anticipation...go on admit it :) )

Evolutionary pressures... In Plato's Republic, God was the policeman... Want to exercise unlawfulness into our gene pool. Eternal damnation is your ticket. ...no other purpose to him other than that...a tinted bubble on the ceiling of Wal-Mart.

Ooh! Maybe polytheism meant conforming to differing systems of law. Like extraditions, people were fleeing to another god to escape punishment. So people realized that they should combine the gods and form an international superstate of some kind. To do that they encroached upon the sovereignty of other god and eventually disbanded them, closing theological loopholes.

[Lee]

Then They Started Dropping Like Flies

I think the answer behind the question lies in the way human social groups organise themselves when in small tribal communities and then in large civilisations. Small tribal communities or hunter gathering groups, much like the human body rely on cooperation of the various parts to achieve thier goals, although there is a hierachal structure often with what might be considered an alpha male at the top, the balance of power is fairly spread because each member of the group is vital for the success of that group, alternatives may not be available. In a small community a centralised controlling mechanism is not that necasary as a small group can communicate quite adequatly without any one member devoting all recources to this role. Each member of a group would themselves have different wants, desires, needs (typology again) and would require there own spiritual fulfilment and as thier God would reflect them, I feel this is the root of Polythiesm. I do not just base this on theory as you can see for yourself how Gods in polythiestic faith systems frequently reflected the community's individuals and the roles they fulfilled, Gods of war, Gods of construction, Gods of love etc.

Humans in groups must share common goals and beliefs to function correctly, as social animals we need common goals to reach for, teamwork and altruism must be allowed to flourish for the good of the group and this requires as Freud might say, a shared super-ego, all striving for the same version of what is right. As human groups multiplied and population and population densities increased the need for a central controlling mechanism became more apparent, it manifested itself in monarchies and goverments, these institutions existed souly to manage the rest of the population. But common goals and group belonging are still of the utmost importance in human nature and so these new authorities required that they were trusted in thier roles and so the various polythiestic beliefs began to make way for monothiesm, a common all encompassing super-ego to which all can relate and which the new authorities could represent.

This is not explained great....I need writing classes I think, anyway I think I made my point.

[Lee]

Ooh! Maybe polytheism meant conforming to differing systems of law. Like extraditions, people were fleeing to another god to escape punishment. So people realized that they should combine the gods and form an international superstate of some kind. To do that they encroached upon the sovereignty of other god and eventually disbanded them, closing theological loopholes.

The human race is still practices polythiesm if you look at us from an aliens perspective, it is only within different society's that we find monotheism.

I also think the march of science has steadily being pushing polythiesm to monothiesm and ultimatley monothiesm to panthiesm is probably where we are going, thats provided we get there of course.

[coffeezombie]

If one reads Homeric epics, the gods basically act like petty humans except they have great powers. I don't think the human mind was capable of generating the idea of an "all-powerful, all-knowing deity" for a long time. Instead, gods were just essentially more powerful versions of humans.

Also, it's kind of the way ancient governments worked too. Different city-states had different "patron deities" and needed to learn to work together for common goals. With the formulation of a larger nationalistic sense, people became more accepting of the idea of one god for all people, not some kind of patchwork of specialized gods.

[Lee]

It's the ways things would've went had you meant what I thought you said.

Oh, I kinda meant that all along.


Change our ideas about God not God. Anyway...I haven't stumbled onto any physical equations explaining human spirituality, but I'm eager to learn.

It's all in the chemical reactions in your head :)


Cuz...pessimism rules and nature is ugly. :blush:

Positivism dismisses philosophy problems as nonexistent. (It kills intuition.)
Naturalism does the same, religious/phenomenal truth from empirical observations, not revelation, rationalism vs empiricism.

They don't create they're meant to DESTROY. :laser:

Eh...your'e probably right, I do not know enough of either philosophy to construct a firm opinion.