Why Only One? Poly- and Mono-theism

[Jquestionmark]

For some reason, monotheism has taken over a large amount of the world, and polytheism has shrank a lot since the olden times. There's a lot of ways to look at the two in relation to each other, and I find it a little odd that we don't have a thread in here to talk about it. So, why don't we fix that?

First, lets get a few basics for the conversation out of the way:
- This is poly and mono. It can be compare, contrast, versus, what have you, but there's not really a need to talk about atheism in here (though I think that finally having a straight up atheism versus theism thread would be good, this one isn't meant to be it. I will say, if there isn't one soon, I'll start one of those too).
- Wild speculation and playing the devil's advocate is encouraged. That being said, lets not assume anyone believes anything they say unless they explicitly say they do. We can offer up and attack ideas without attacking each other.
- This conversation will likely evolve dramatically as it goes on. If you look at this post, and look at the last post, I hope that eventually they are only connected by the topic in general. I'll offer up some questions to muse on in this first post, but I don't want them to be the only questions in this discussion. Answer some questions, and ask some of your own.

Alright, with that out of the way, I'll ask some questions:

1) Why only one god? Why not a whole bunch?
2) Judaism was originally henotheistic, how does that impact the meaning of a monotheistic god for religions derived from Judaism?
3) Are Aries and Mars the same god? What about other gods of war? What about gods of various occupation?
4) Much of modern christianity seems to focus on god versus Satan/Lucifer - is this really monotheism anymore?
5) Do you think there is a hierarchy to the divine (poly or mono)? What is it?

Okay, that's it for now. I've got more questions for later, but I'm curious to see what people say for now. Also, please challenge each other's answers. Ask for clarification, more information, reasoning, etc. That's how good discussion happens.

 

[Emyunoxious]

Christianity is not monotheist, and in fact has at least 4 gods in its pantheon.

Yahweh, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, and Satan.

All of these beings are supernatural entities that definitely fit the definition of what a god is. This doesn't include the Catholic saints, the Mormon angels, or the vanilla-edition Christianity figures of the Beast, the Antichrist, Gog and Magog, or the figures that appear to be other, malevolent gods.

If Norse mythology has taught us anything, it's that gods don't have to all be on the same side.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Christianity is not monotheist, and in fact has at least 4 gods in its pantheon.

Yahweh, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, and Satan.

Jesus, really? I can certainly see Satan, since he's been beefed up more and more over time. Even the Holy Ghost makes sense, with biblical verses like "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost."

I just dunno about Jesus in that pantheon, though. He seems like a demi-god tops.

All of these beings are supernatural entities that definitely fit the definition of what a god is. This doesn't include the Catholic saints, the Mormon angels, or the vanilla-edition Christianity figures of the Beast, the Antichrist, Gog and Magog, or the figures that appear to be other, malevolent gods.

Well, if we're going to count all of those things as proper "gods" and not just "spirits" or some lesser supernatural creatures, then Jesus would make the cut as well.

If Norse mythology has taught us anything, it's that gods don't have to all be on the same side.

It wouldn't make any sense if gods were all on the same side. Way I see it, that's part of the self-contradicting nature of christianity - you supposedly only have one god (and an all-powerful one at that) but you have more than one side. Just doesn't seem to add up.

 

[coffeecup]

Well, it'd be nice if OP could start the conversation by letting us know how he feels about the topic.

As for Christianity, despite the Trinity being quasi-distinct gods, in actuality they're supposed to all be of the exact same God. Jesus is the Son of God, yet he is God as well. I remember not really being able to wrap my mind around this ambiguity in the past, but today I can pretty much just brush it off since I've grown a bit to understand that not everything can be expounded in concrete detail. This is supposedly the mysterious and amorphous nature of God. You can't dissect and analyze religion like a natural science.

As for polytheism vs. monotheism, it's probably a bit arbitrary as to why one religion goes with polytheism and the other monotheism. Actually, history probably plays a large role. I'm guessing polytheism is the more common sense approach since it was the prevalent means of religion in the ancient past (i.e., you see something great, you stick a god to it, you see something else great, you stick another god to it, pretty simple); however, once future societies started seeing the problem of having multiple deities on the same level that govern different aspects of life, they probably thought about just subsuming all of them into a single entity, making things a bit easier and practical. For example the deity society in Greek mythology was a total mess. Would you take that bunch of bitching and moaning or just some heavenly all-powerful and all-knowing god? I'd take the latter if I had a choice.

As an fyi, this is just my unbiased approach under the assumption that all religions are on equal footing when it comes to the "right" one (i.e., there is no right religion). Just a disclaimer in case someone takes offense of my talking about people coming up with religion on their own rather than being divine providence or what not.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

As for Christianity, despite the Trinity being quasi-distinct gods, in actuality they're supposed to all be of the exact same God. Jesus is the Son of God, yet he is God as well.

Interestingly, if one considers the Trinity to be quasi-distinct but still one god, making Christianity monotheistic, then Hinduism would have to be monotheistic. Everything is Brahman and Brahman is everything. So even the other gods, spirits, and even material beings are only facets of Brahman. So by applying the same logic by which we consider Christianity monotheistic (whether it's because they're all aspects of one God, or because only the all-powerful is truly God), we could reason that Hinduism is monotheistic.

1) Why only one god? Why not a whole bunch?

The more you simplify anything while trying to seek a single truth, the more you'll be steered towards something simple. This isn't to say that I think monotheism is a sensical evolution or improvement on polytheism, as I believe having an all-powerful god (especially one attributed to be benevolent or all loving) raises more problems than it answers.

2) Judaism was originally henotheistic, how does that impact the meaning of a monotheistic god for religions derived from Judaism?

The only distinction between monotheistic religions like Judaism/Christianity/Islam and something like the Greek Dodekatheon is where the line is drawn between what a god is and isn't. The Dodekatheon has numerous gods of varying powers as well as spiritual and magical creatures that are not gods. The aforementioned monotheistic religions only consider something to be god if it is all-powerful.

3) Are Aries and Mars the same god? What about other gods of war? What about gods of various occupation?

They're as much the same gods as the demons found in Christianity are the same as the Babylonian gods. It's clear where the connections are, but they're distinct (even if only slightly).

4) Much of modern christianity seems to focus on god versus Satan/Lucifer - is this really monotheism anymore?

If God is all-powerful, then it is, regardless of what questions it raises. Then again, the god of Christianity could be a two-sided deity, similar to the Morrigan and other similar deities. Perhaps He is simultaneously good and evil, constantly in conflict, and perhaps also the Word, simply existence. Could be an interesting idea, but it does muddy up the whole "Pure good" thing if it's admitted evil must also exist.

5) Do you think there is a hierarchy to the divine (poly or mono)? What is it?

In what way? In a literal hierarchy, yes. In polytheism there is always a hierarchy of gods. Normally there is a leader or at least judge of the pantheon, or another god considered senior. In monotheism, God > Not God. I'm not sure if this type of hierarchy is what you meant, though.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Well, it'd be nice if OP could start the conversation by letting us know how he feels about the topic.

How does it matter how I feel? I specifically put up questions so that conversation could start regardless.

As for Christianity, despite the Trinity being quasi-distinct gods, in actuality they're supposed to all be of the exact same God. Jesus is the Son of God, yet he is God as well. I remember not really being able to wrap my mind around this ambiguity in the past, but today I can pretty much just brush it off since I've grown a bit to understand that not everything can be expounded in concrete detail. This is supposedly the mysterious and amorphous nature of God. You can't dissect and analyze religion like a natural science.

If it's immune to analysis, I don't see much point to it. If it's all arbitrary and follows no rules, it seems useless to me.

For example the deity society in Greek mythology was a total mess. Would you take that bunch of bitching and moaning or just some heavenly all-powerful and all-knowing god? I'd take the latter if I had a choice.

Your example (greek vs. monotheism) is actually a great example of why I'd choose poly over mono. If you mash the greek gods into one all-powerful and all-knowing god, then you have a crazy deity with limitless power. In the actual greek pantheon, there are checks and balances. If there's only one god, and he doesn't like you, you're fucked. If there's a large number of gods and one dislikes you, you still have a chance to making god-friends elsewhere. When there's only one god, there's only one chance that he's not terrible, and if the bible is to be believed, we missed out on that.

As an fyi, this is just my unbiased approach under the assumption that all religions are on equal footing when it comes to the "right" one (i.e., there is no right religion).

We're all biased on this topic, lets be honest about it.

Assuming religions actually correspond to reality, then they can't all be right. They can all be right if they are only imaginary and have no correspondence to the world that we live in, but then there's not any point to them, is there?

Just a disclaimer in case someone takes offense of my talking about people coming up with religion on their own rather than being divine providence or what not.

Why wouldn't we think that people have been making religion up all along?

The more you simplify anything while trying to seek a single truth, the more you'll be steered towards something simple. This isn't to say that I think monotheism is a sensical evolution or improvement on polytheism, as I believe having an all-powerful god (especially one attributed to be benevolent or all loving) raises more problems than it answers.

Second that.

The only distinction between monotheistic religions like Judaism/Christianity/Islam and something like the Greek Dodekatheon is where the line is drawn between what a god is and isn't. The Dodekatheon has numerous gods of varying powers as well as spiritual and magical creatures that are not gods. The aforementioned monotheistic religions only consider something to be god if it is all-powerful.

It seems odd to me that they'd go from a system where they only worshiped their one god, but acknowledged other gods, to a system where only all powerful creatures are a god. I wonder if this was an evolution of their view of their own spiritual system: did they initially think that other people had a grasp on religious truths, but as time went on they became so self confident that their religion seemed all powerful and could only be headed by an all-powerful creator god?

If God is all-powerful, then it is, regardless of what questions it raises. Then again, the god of Christianity could be a two-sided deity, similar to the Morrigan and other similar deities. Perhaps He is simultaneously good and evil, constantly in conflict, and perhaps also the Word, simply existence. Could be an interesting idea, but it does muddy up the whole "Pure good" thing if it's admitted evil must also exist.

This is why I seriously question the monotheistic state of modern christianity. If there's an "all-powerful" god that is good (or so people say, I have a hard time seeing it, but I'll play along for sake of this argument), but he's incapable of eliminating evil, it implies that there's an "all-powerful" (or at least equally all-powerful) creature heading up the evil side. If there's an equally powerful creature, then it would be classed as a god as well. And once you have two gods, you're not in monotheistic country anymore.

In what way? In a literal hierarchy, yes. In polytheism there is always a hierarchy of gods. Normally there is a leader or at least judge of the pantheon, or another god considered senior. In monotheism, God > Not God. I'm not sure if this type of hierarchy is what you meant, though.

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. The reason I ask this point is because of the way it effects the classifications of religions as monotheistic. As you said, the difference between gods and magical creatures is "where the line is drawn." In christianity, there's a huge hierarchy of the divine beyond just god. You have angels/demons (and their own confusing internal hierarchy), and all the saints.

To me, it seems a little silly to class certain spiritual/magical creatures as gods, and others as simply spirits (or what have you). It looks to me that there's a gradation of power among the creatures, but they're really all just the same stuff. The line between god and not should be drawn between human and the supernatural creatures, not at some arbitrary point in the supernatural hierarchy. That being said, christianity is not monotheistic, as it has a whole hierarchy of gods (some are weak, one or two are especially powerful, and a bunch are deified humans, but all of them are gods of a sort).

I could be way off though. Anyone see a reason it makes more sense to choose an arbitrary point in the hierarchy of the divine other than between mortals and the divine?