Polytheistic reality in Monotheism
Jul 28, '07 12:57 PMfor everyone
There are many Monotheistic faiths which hold only one God. Those feature is similar. He is absolute and omnipotent being. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. Are they all the same God whose names only differ or are they all different Gods who claim to be only one God?
Tags: monotheism
Prev: Repent, the end is nigh
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28First, are any of these REALLY monotheistic to begin with? Just about all of these recognize angels and saints. What Christians call an angel another (polytheistic) religion might refer to as a "lesser" god, a saint would be called a demi-god. It's just a matter of semantics.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Michael, Gabriel, Lucifer, Azazel, Seraphim, Cherubim...
I meant many monotheistic Gods in the title 'polytheistic reality' , but in fact there are many supernatural beings in a description of Bible and their relationship to only one God is very obscure. Some are called God in Bible.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidSome are called God in Bible. I believe you will find that Satan for example, is called "god" - Only the Father - at least in the Bibles I have, is called "God", with a capital "G". :)

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's not important as to whether we use capital G or not in God. God in Bible is a proper noun, though 'god' might be an ordinary noun.
So could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? Basically I use NIV and in there for example Genesis 32:22-31, it says Jacob struggles with God. this God is not YHWH, but some supernatural being like an Angel.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28
mercedo saidSo could you kindly tell me which version of Bible you use? New King James, Jerusalem, Goodspeed, New World, King James - Czech translation, King James - Romanian translation.In the account you give, true, it was an angel - some believe it was Jesus in his heavenly form but that is beside the point.There are many instances where there is a representative of God - but is spoken of as "God", since he fully stands in for him.The G-g is an important difference, not merely grammatically but it gives the sense of whether this particular one is a "true" or "false" god.Therefore, Satan is "a god of this world", not "God of this world".Forgot Moffatt's translation :)

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It largely depends on your particular interpretation of what angels and saints are and what their relationship is to us and to God.Some Catholics or other Christians would certainly pray to saints or even angels (or invoke them in some way), and you would have a point. However, many others would be horrified at the idea because of the injunction of the commandment to not have any other gods before God, and would also vehemently deny that saints or angels are divine themselves. So praying to a saint or invoking them would be blasphemous or heretical -- or at the very least theologically iffy.This is, for example, one bone of contention between most Christians and Roman Catholics -- the Marian cult, where the Virgin Mary is in effect treated as virtually godlike in her own right (from our non-Roman Catholic point of view). From the point of view of most Christians, she was a mere human being -- a particularly blessed and chosen human being, but still a human being more or less like the rest of us. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has elevated her to near-divine status, such as claiming she was born without sin, etc.Cheers,Ethelred

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I wonder how the interpretation is very similar however vary the denominations the Protestant has. You used to make a comment that Nietzsche's criticism was done in Protestant's understanding of Bible. If he knew Roman Catholicism, did he stop criticising Christianity in general?

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28I don't know if Nietzsche would have stopped criticizing Christianity had be been more familiar with Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican thinking, but certainly the basis for the criticism he leveled at it wouldn't have been there or wouldn't have been anywhere as strong. Whether he would have had other things to criticize is open to speculation.Cheers,Ethelred

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28, edited on Jul 28During the Mughal Empire in India, Emperor Akbar (who was of course a Muslim) held Hinduism to be basically monotheistic, because all divinities and all creatures were held to exist within one ultimate reality. And as the Sufi Muslims say, "It's not that there is no God but Allah; it's that there is nothing except Allah".How could Akbar be wrong?

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28It's interesting to see he thought one ultimate reality is monotheistic God as if everything depends on interpretation.

reply
controlgroup wrote on Jul 28I like the sufi muslim saying. If you're gonna be religious, that's the way to go. It's kinda zen like.But I'm an atheist, so I'd ask a different question. I'd ask how mankind constructs these images and what the similarities say about that construction. Do we always choose certain concepts? Or is it that we plagiarise? The bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts, and christianity is stolen from mithraism. All the judeo-Xtian religions are the same, but they don't look at all like (say) the hindu gods. But the Hindu gods do look somewhat similar to the Ancient Thai and Chinese gods, and China happens to be only a thousand miles or so away.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28
controlgroup saidThe bible is mostly stolen from earlier babylonian texts This is very correct, you knew that? Basically today many Hebrew Scriptures were thought to be edited around the period of Babylonian captivity. I'm not sure as to the latter part of your comment. I am not well versed in those beliefs, but I think Chinese gods are directly adopted from Hinduism.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28OK, I am a bit puzzled by the "Zeus in Catholicism" - last I knew, Zeus was a Greek god and Jesus was venerated by the Catholics almost over His Father ..??

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Traditionally the name of monotheistic God in Judaism was YHWH, but since Jewsish states were ruled under both Ptlemaic 323 -198 and Selucid 198 - 166, they started calling their only one God as Zeus, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid king 175 -163 forced Jewish people to worship Greek God Zeus in Jewish temple. 63 BC, Jewish states were finally annexed by Romans. Roman Catholicism adopted the name of Greek highest God as Jewish monotheistic God. Zeus was changed phonetically in Deus, and later it came to the origin of Theos, God in Greek, and Deitas, God in Latin. Theism and deity are from Zeus etymologically.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 28
mercedo saidTheism and deity are from Zeus etymologically. May it ever be so - you just try to go into a Catholic church and start praying and worshiping Zeus! That - to me - is comparable to call your friends "Monkey" or "Chimp" - because a theory has it we evolved from them.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 8:18 AMIndeed I haven't got a friend who are called monkey, etc..anyway..aside from the joke..You see God is an absolute being, but when it comes to his name it's not absolute.We usually think Yahweh is the name of God in Judaism, Lord is the name of God in Christianity, Allah is the name of God in Islam, Zeus is the name of God in Greek mythology and all are true.
Allah means only one God so in Islamic countries there's no only one God other than Allah, probably therefore Christians in Islamic countries call their God Allah, did you know that? Allah is the name of God for Muslims and for Christians in Islamic countries. Likewise the case of the use of Zeus is similar to it.
Francisco Xavier along with Ignatius Loyola formed Jesuit Order in 1534 and started a missionary worldwide. Xavier came to Japan in 1549 and started preaching work there. He is Roman Catholic and the name of God called among Japanese Catholic those days is Deus, phonetically changed but apparently derived from the word Zeus. In 1614, the preaching work of Catholic in Japan was totally banned but till that time the number of Catholic believers are 650,000, more than today's Catholic believers in Japan that is 450,000.
The name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though.

reply
paji2 wrote today at 9:28 AM
mercedo saidThe name of God in Roman Catholic in Japan is Deus. I dare not call Deus in front of Catholic Church in Serbia, though. I do not know why you would hesitate. Not too long ago - some 40 years - Latin was used exclusively in Roman Catholic churches world wide. We had to learn many phrases to be able to respond to the priest. And, since "deus" is Latin word meaning "god" - it would be quite proper to use it.I think that we - that is people, Christians, believers etc - are getting too hung up on the name. If (a biggie!) we accept the Bible as the "Word of God", then by far more important is doing what it says - and "Lord" (the Hebrews used "Adonoi") should be permitted.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Zeus comes from *diwos pitar = father of gods (in Latin it became Jupiter). Theos and deus are related to *diwos, which is Sanskrit (Hindi devi/deva). Deus is NOT derived from Zeus, and neither is theos or deity or theism or anything. Theos and deus both mean (a) god. Linguistically speaking - and this has nothing to do with the age of the texts - deus is the older form. You got it totally wrong.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Thanks, Ullangoo....Here I accept a linguist's commentary.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28You're welcome.Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This three-in-one God is the only non-created being and therefore the only one worshipped. Whatever you call angels and blah-blah, they are parts of creation and essentially different from God.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28I see. There is an optimal interpretation in understanding the description of Bible. your understanding seems to be so, so I embrace this most acceptable one. God refers to only one monotheistic absolute being, and 'god' includes many other spirits.

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28At least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots.As for other religions, arguably yes, they do worship the same Godhead in differing ways. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian churches in the Catholic tradition essentially argue as much in between the lines (though you have to pick apart the teachings to get the meaning, but it is definitely there in Dominus Iesus -- other belief systems are described as "defective", but they are also clearly described as being possible ways to salvation, i.e. they "point" to the same Godhead, if you will).Cheers,Ethelred

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 28Ok, I value your idea. But many believers think very differently. They hardly imagined all Gods are the same. How can you persuade them? Are you going to say, ' If we've got only one God, it must be the same.' ?

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28It just depends on the believer. Some people are going to be bigoted pinheads no matter what you do.But actually many are quite happy with the idea. Indeed it is the basis of a lot of the dialog between religions, such as that with the Pope and Anglican Church or other interfaith dialog. And Islam, for example, explicitly recognizes monotheistic faiths as being more legitimate than others, particularly those from the Judeo-Christian tradition, so they don't need much convincing, either (though they get annoyed by the concept of the Holy Trinity, which they view as contradicting their strict interpretation of monotheism).Cheers,Ethelred

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. While I understand each of these religions proclaims to worship the God of Abraham, as an outside observer looking in it's no so clear to me that is actually the case :P

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28You could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidYou could say the same even just observing members of individual churches. :-PCheers,Ethelred Indeed. What is up with those Mormons? ;-P

reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28
infinitemonkey saidAt least in the case of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yes, they are definitely the same God, though they differ over the specifics. They evolved from the same roots. I prefers to say it not because they evolved from the same roots. But as a consequences of monotheism it self.If we say there only one God, -- one and only one -- and others people say it too. Then there is a consequences that, It is the same God.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28I think we can rest assured that Chinese religion evolved independently of Hinduism. For one thing, the former is considerably older. There is, I think, some fairly late influence via Buddhism.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:14 AMAs far as I know, there are three streams in Chinese religions. Taoism and Confucianism are very Chinese proper but Chinese Buddhism is of course from India. Buddhism is derived from Hinduism. Laozi, Confucious, Gautama had lived almost the same period circa 5 BC. The history of Hinduism is much older than them.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Ethelred, your thoughts are interesting.I think we have three possibilities. 1) we believe that there's only one God and that people who haven't received the true revelation nevertheless seek Him, hence worship Him as well as they can; 2) people without the revelation worship demons; 3) there may or may not be one God, but all religions are made by humans, and which you follow makes no difference. I opt for 3) - being fairly sure there is a God.

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Jul 28In ancient times, polytheism was the overwhelming way of understanding of the heavens, only rarely and sometimes very briefly did true monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, perhaps around the 10th century BC. Vast portions of the world's population today, on the order of 1/3 of them, still adhere to polytheistic traditions - Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Daoism, Animism, the folk religions of Asia (especially China), etc. Billions of people still follow polytheistic religions, they never ever went away.Given that the vast majority of the human experience, historically, is polytheism, and a significant portion of the human experience today remains so, why should we believe monotheism to be correct? The only basis for it is that nations that adopted monotheism conquered, crushed and vanquished polytheistic religions - might made right. Was their ability to conquer aided by divine grace, a sort of White Man's Burden? Then how to explain the collapse and retreat of these same conquering nations? What happened to Britain and France to cause them to lose their Empire, if God gave it to them in the first place? Casting might makes right in the light of religion leads to all sorts of ugly questions...To say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call.Personally I have to go with either the polytheistic world view, or the view that there are no gods at all and it's all a big hoax.

reply
infinitemonkey wrote on Jul 28Actually, a number of apparently "polythestic" religions are actually arguably ultimately monotheistic. Hinduism, for example, has one Godhead, and all its gods proceed from that one Godhead. It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. So while Hinduism is technically "polytheistic", it is also just as well monotheistic because all its gods ultimately had one origin. Other religions have a similar framework.The mere fact that they now have multiple gods doesn't mean much. You have to look at their background stories to understand them and see the commonalities.Cheers,Ethelred

reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:37 AM
infinitemonkey said It also has a Trinity of sorts -- Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma -- from whom all the other gods come. I hadn't noticed the similarity to Catholic Trinity.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28
eglamkowski saidTo say that a monotheistic ordering of the universe is more "correct" is a ridiculously arbitrary statement, as there's no way to prove or disprove anything at all regarding religion. It's an arbitrary judgment call everybody makes, whether the polytheistic view is more satisfying to them, or the monotheistic view is. Granted, most people just go with whatever religion their parents had, but if they cared to they could reconsider and adopt so other religion, so I maintain it is purely a judgment call. This is right on. We are just hypocrites when we say both that people should realize they can't know the ultimate, and at the same time we insist they believe certain concepts about the ultimate. Actually only one of these statements is true -- that we don't know. My fellow Muslims should get this: Belief that God is beyond anything we can comprehend means we do not know. So, we cannot presume to to have "the right" ideas about God, or dictate "God's will" to anybody. It's just our own will, and we are just pretending that we are the voice of the ultimate. What could be more sacrilegious than that?

reply
mercedo wrote today at 10:16 AM
eglamkowski saidtrue monotheism appear in ancient times - the cult of Aten in Egypt 14th century BC; Zoroaster in Persia, Ra the God of Sun, Ahura Mazda were the first attempt to monotheism probably prior to Moses. It might be easier to believe one God in the sun, because there's only sun in the sky. It might be harder to conceptualise the notion of God in Ahura Mazda type, which characterise goodness in more ideological way.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Personally, I see all the different gods as different aspects of Someone greater than my understanding. I've no quarrel with those who see them as actually different "persons". Just a matter of opinion. It's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:30 AM
ullangoo saidIt's those who say "we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth" that piss me off. Agreed.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 28Do you think it went that way historically speaking? I'd say they started with several gods (totemism, animism) and that the unity or origin is religious philosophy. Of course, if we're talking about how they think NOW, it doesn't make any difference how they got there.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Jul 28Hey, we're all only part way to realizing how all of life is interrelated, that our acts have consequences for every creature, that we all have a common origen and destiny, etc. We're just a little ways toward waking up.

reply
rzks wrote on Jul 28Mer...Do god and God have deferent meaning to you? If we believe just in One GOD then it could be just matter of language. In my native language god mean 'dewa-dewi' -- it's include Zeus, Apollo, Venus, Vishnu (Wisnu), Shiva (Shiwa) and Brahma (Brahmana), etc, etc. It vary by culture and language.By my understanding, there is only one God. Allah is my only God.I should presume YHWH, Lord God, as the same person, if we may personalize Him. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him.Trinity is an absurd concept for me. I thinks it's too agnostics. It is Hard to understand, just too hard.Salaam,

reply
mercedo wrote today at 9:19 AM
rzks said. It's monotheistic consequences for me, to understand other theism or religion as long as there is no any god beside Him. So you think if there's only one God, it must be one. Correct? How do you think about this -if there's only one truth, it must be one?