JAS said
Not all supernatural beings are necessarily deities (or gods). The distinction may be whether or not they are the objects of worship. (This is a theoretical statement, not meant to presume the existence or non-existence of such beings.)
We general think of many of the sidekicks as gods as well. Hermes, Mars, Loki.
FocusMyView said
JAS said
Not all supernatural beings are necessarily deities (or gods). The distinction may be whether or not they are the objects of worship. (This is a theoretical statement, not meant to presume the existence or non-existence of such beings.)
We general think of many of the sidekicks as gods as well. Hermes, Mars, Loki.
I don’t know that they are considered sidekicks if they actually have their own temples, which is at least true of Hermes and Mars. Avowedly polytheistic religions may have various levels or ranks of gods, but they are still gods. It becomes a tricky matter for Catholic churches that are named (arguably dedicated) to, for example, the Virgin Mary. Many Protestant churches may carry the names of the apostles (under the designation of saints) but as the role of saints in Protestant churches is very limited in application and not with the same role as Catholic saints, it does not necessarily present the same complication to monotheism.
Monotheism eats polytheism.
I wonder if a particular environment is needed for monotheism to develop in such a way to dominate. Such a culture would embrace many -isms. For example Stocism or Cynicism as subcategories of Hellenism. Sadducees and Essenes as subcategories of Judeanism.
Of course I think the variety of isms would be a Hellenistic trait of Judean culture.
The Roman Empire too seemed to relish this Greek value of differing opinions on reality.
Monotheism eats polytheism.
But does it really? All religions are full of saints and demiurges preoccupying much more of the spiritual attention of the devotee than the High God who is always too far up and too high off. Most supplicants are unwilling to approach the Absolute unmediated. As it has ever been.
Stephen said
Monotheism eats polytheism.But does it really? All religions are full of saints and demiurges preoccupying much more of the spiritual attention of the devotee than the High God who is always too far up and too high off. Most supplicants are unwilling to approach the Absolute unmediated. As it has ever been.
Noted, with a side helping of main gods for the rich and house gods for the poor.
Certainly though if you have to stone a villager who tries to get you to consider that Baal-Hadad or later Athena deserve attention, I think that is how monotheism eats polytheism. Perhaps demotion to “saints” is part of that process where the “healthier” meme of monotheism triumphs. Meaning that in a society of polytheisms, various monotheisms emerged and failed until this more contagious and virulent form eventually takes hold.
But does “monotheism” even exist outside some rarefied forms of Sunni Islamic practice? Seems to me that if you posit some other form of divinity, even if you stipulate that your God is the most powerful, you are still not a monotheist. Monotheism says, God is all there is. What Christian believes this? The doctrine of the Trinity was an accommodation to polytheism. The doctrine of Mary, Queen of Heaven was an accommodation to polytheism. Who ate who?
Stephen said
But does “monotheism” even exist outside some rarefied forms of Sunni Islamic practice? Seems to me that if you posit some other form of divinity, even if you stipulate that your God is the most powerful, you are still not a monotheist. Monotheism says, God is all there is. What Christian believes this? The doctrine of the Trinity was an accommodation to polytheism. The doctrine of Mary, Queen of Heaven was an accommodation to polytheism. Who ate who?
I suppose it works if you jump through enough hoops. Perhaps the measure should be that it is explicitly attempting to be monotheistic rather than actively embracing polytheism.
Perhaps the measure should be that it is explicitly attempting to be monotheistic rather than actively embracing polytheism.
Of course and I’m not trying to impose my definition. I simply look at it functionally. It would be an odd coincidence that the cultures who have a strong history of pagan goddess worship turn out to be just the ones who most heartedly embrace devotion to Mary, Dei Genitrix.
I may have resurrected an old topic, but unless I missed something, it would seem useful to at least state a passing reference here to Sigmund Freud’s last great monograph, “Moses and Monotheism”. 1939. Among some of his important points, he does mention that circumcision was an Egyptian practice that likely was inherited later by the Hebrews. Likewise with monotheism. Moses being an Egyptian name (like the four pharaohs named Thutmose, also Ahmose). As for 18th century dynasty intrigues, his assertion that Akhenaten was the major influence in Hebrew monotheism is a convincing argument to me. The date suggested in I Kings 6:1 that the ** you do not have permission to see this link **. This occurred in the fourth year of his reign, about 960 BCE; therefore, the Exodus would date about 1440 BCE. That’s close to the timeline of the Armana period when Aten worship was being implemented. All this is covered in Freud’s monograph.
JAS said
FocusMyView said
Allow me to propose an idea. monotheism by its very nature threatens polytheism.
This would seem to me a statement that is true by its very nature. In polytheism, one might wage battles as to which god or gods are better or stronger or whatever, but the idea that there is only one god necessarily means that there cannot be more than one. Thus, monotheism and polytheism are inherently incompatible, so it would be a battle between the followers of the one god proposed versus all of the followers of all other gods. What may be the surprising outcome is which more or less won that battle, at least in this context. (One might point out that in Catholicism, a form of polytheism still exists in the status granted to saints. Indeed, many of the supposed saints appear to be little more than local deities converted to a role that was more acceptable within the Church as it converted the “heathens.” Certain traditions concerning angels also convey them a sense of power and status that at least approaches them being lesser gods. The obvious complications do not seem to bother adherents. And in many circles there are still troubling debates about the nature of the tradition of the Trinity: God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.)
There must have been a lot of disgruntled and ticked off Roman polytheists-i wonder if any pointed out that Christianitys trinity was not SO different. Has multiple personalities, a father son empower relationship, redeem mankind etc etc
Distinguishing feature of Christianity to Roman paganism is most likely the sanctity of life to oppose infanticide and the super squeamish attitude towards sex. Beyond that at a distance they don’t look too different.
RM said
There must have been a lot of disgruntled and ticked off Roman polytheists-i wonder if any pointed out that Christianitys trinity was not SO different. Has multiple personalities, a father son empower relationship, redeem mankind etc etc
Distinguishing feature of Christianity to Roman paganism is most likely the sanctity of life to oppose infanticide and the super squeamish attitude towards sex. Beyond that at a distance they don’t look too different.
Another feature, as for Judaism, is the exclusivity. Roman paganism must have been a lot more like modern professional sports, where you can be a supporter of several teams, particularly across types of sport. There might be an overall sense of rivalry, but one does not deny the right of the other teams to exist.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)