Animal God

[Harel13]

Yeah well as a pagan I don't see animals as lesser. In some ways they are more advance. While humans value reason animals seem more in tune to me at least with instinct. They are more intuitive it seems with some things.

My point exactly.

 

[VoidCat]

My point exactly.

I guess it's cuz I don't see being instinctive and intuitive as a bad thing. Or less then

 

[Sirona]

How did the Hindus and the Egyptians begin worshiping animalistic deities? My guess is that it was a gradual process.

Animals were probably the first thing humans worshipped altogether. Probably to be granted a successful hunt. Later, because these animals are essential to agriculture, like the cow in Hinduism.

Lascaux - Wikipedia

 

[Harel13]

I guess it's cuz I don't see being instinctive and intuitive as a bad thing. Or less then

Neither do I. But I don't worship animals for being naturally gifted with instincts, or for any other reason.

 

[Harel13]

Animals were probably the first thing humans worshipped altogether. Probably to be granted a successful hunt. Later, because these animals are essential to agriculture, like the cow in Hinduism.

Lascaux - Wikipedia

I disagree.

 

[Sirona]

This is interesting and I don't necessarily disagree. I just wonder at the apparent disgust in which non-human deities are held. Clearly the animals are meant to be symbolic. Would the horses' gods be disgusted at human gods? We'll never know!

Oddly, Zeus was a shape-shifter, impregnating Europa while he was a bull and Leda as a swan.

 

[VoidCat]

Neither do I. But I don't worship animals for being naturally gifted with instincts, or for any other reason.

I don't worship animals either. Just natural forces that according to myth could be animals or human. In my opinion the gods are natural forces that you don't have to personify. They are real beings but the myths about them may not be true and are lessons.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It just seems to me this disgust at animal gods comes from the Hellenic obsession with perfect human bodies and similar Greek ideas that were then passed onto the Romans.

I know that in marcus aurelius, the opening of book 5 of meditations gives commendation to different animals, and implicates us to join them in harmony. I think this done as well in either ecclesiastes or ecclesiasticus. So it kind of depends on how the ancient world viewed the human form. Probably it wasn't so much like us, as we see humans as some kind of artificial, arbitrary objective observer

 

[Rival]

A parable I can offer is from when religious Jews attempt to explain why they're bothered by people dressed immodestly. Generally, along will come a guy and say: Hey, I go to the beach all the time and I don't even notice all of the women there.
To which the response is: Yeah, because you're used to it. Too much of a bad thing, and you get used to it.
How did the Hindus and the Egyptians begin worshiping animalistic deities? My guess is that it was a gradual process.

This particularly makes sense with the Greeks, who were especially great lovers of the self. However, in some sense, in my understanding, it is more respectful to yourself as a human to worship your equal rather than worshiping your lesser.

I would point out here that, whilst I don't know much if anything about the Dharmic stuff, the Egyptians often gave their gods animal heads based on location/area rather than any qualities of the animals per se. For instance, gods with falcon heads are generally representative of the sky or beyond-ness, and can be found on gods associated therewith. Lion heads are given for representation of the sun and so on. I think that's slightly different than just 'this animal has these qualities'. Although that exists.

I can again see your point but I think if I were to argue (which I'm more just hashing this out with myself and asking what others think than really seeking a debate) I'd say that animals have qualities humans can learn from without being all instinct of food, play, procreation and fighting. Dogs are known for being loyal, ready to defend their masters, and incredibly forgiving. Some dogs have been known to die by their old master's grave. Surely we can look beyond animals only eating, sleeping and mating to see better qualities?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's been suggested by scholars of religion that there's a general trend where folks go from zoolatry and zoomorphism (animal gods) to worship of God or gods that look like humans in essentially every detail. In a book I have it relates that,

'In Classical Antiquity the seemingly abstruse deities of Egypt already aroused reactions of antipathy and scornful rejection. For some people the bewildering array of strange forms and unfamiliar mixtures of human body and animal head were the symbolic garb of deep mysteries, but others found them an offensive contradiction of their ideas of what a god or a pantheon should be. In the 2nd century C.E., Lucian placed the two attitudes in opposing sides in a dialogue; Momos, "Blame", is the spokesman for rejection:

MOMOS: But you, you dog-faced Egyptian, dressed up in linen, who do you think you are, my friend? How do you expect to pass for a god, when you howl as you do? [...]'

Momos goes on in like fashion.

But I disagree with the idea that folks went from animals to human deities. Both the Kemetic and Dharmic faiths seem to contradict this; certainly the Kemetic path has animals wholesale, men/women with animal heads and also complete humans. All three forms can be the same god at one time. I dislike this simple hierarchy that really seems to be a slightly snobbish Greco-Roman sneer against the God or Gods of other people because they don't look human enough. So I have several questions:

Why is the human form considered the best form for a deity? Isn't this a little hubristic?

Do you agree with the notion that humanity went from animal gods to human ones?

It just seems to me this disgust at animal gods comes from the Hellenic obsession with perfect human bodies and similar Greek ideas that were then passed onto the Romans.

I'd especially like a Dharmic take on this.

Discuss.

The Bible's book of Romans describes the opposite path. People degenerated from an incorporeal spirit God to animals, then to themselves and other idols. The consequences can be dire.

 

[Rival]

The Bible's book of Romans describes the opposite path. People degenerated from an incorporeal spirit God to animals, then to themselves and other idols. The consequences can be dire.

I don't think I've become a terrible person since my change.

My wardrobe is too short for how long my dresses are! Constant ironing to be done!!

Although seriously, I get that you have strong feelings about this but I'd appreciate a discussion rather than this kind of preachiness.

 

[Harel13]

I would point out here that, whilst I don't know much if anything about the Dharmic stuff, the Egyptians often gave their gods animal heads based on location/area rather than any qualities of the animals per se. For instance, gods with falcon heads are generally representative of the sky or beyond-ness, and can be found on gods associated therewith. Lion heads are given for representation of the sun and so on. I think that's slightly different than just 'this animal has these qualities'. Although that exists.

I read this sentence in a book earlier this week. Tell me if you find this correct (translated from Hebrew): "...the vague "consubstantial" terminology of the Egyptian pantheon (i.e. the vague understanding that different realities - divine, humanistic and natural ones - are all joined into one object, and as such, are interchangeable)..."

I can again see your point but I think if I were to argue (which I'm more just hashing this out with myself and asking what others think than really seeking a debate) I'd say that animals have qualities humans can learn from without being all instinct of food, play, procreation and fighting. Dogs are known for being loyal, ready to defend their masters, and incredibly forgiving. Some dogs have been known to die by their old master's grave. Surely we can look beyond animals only eating,

We could, but that's not a reason to worship them.

 

[Rival]

I read this sentence in a book earlier this week. Tell me if you find this correct (translated from Hebrew): "...the vague "consubstantial" terminology of the Egyptian pantheon (i.e. the vague understanding that different realities - divine, humanistic and natural ones - are all joined into one object, and as such, are interchangeable)..."

Hmm, I have had to think about this a while. I don't think my answer can be simple. That is a very interesting and thought provoking quote though, so I'll do my best.

First I would say that as a disclaimer, despite the language I use, I am still a monotheist and my current religion obviously will differ from the common Egyptian one.

Second, what the Egyptians termed 'Netjeru' ('gods', as usually translated) is a very loose term, and can also refer to dead people generally, as well as what we'd typically call a God or gods, or Pharaoh being called a god and so on. In the same book I quoted in my OP this is discussed at length, so I think the first issue here is going to be 'What did Ancient Egyptians think of as 'Netjeru' that wouldn't fit our own 'God/gods' paradigm and where do we go from there?' This could well fit your quote, thinking about it, but obviously I want to dig a little deeper than this.

A counterpoint to that might be the nuance which can be seen. For instance, the gods Ra, Khepri, Atum, and Aten are often seen as essentially the same. They are all 'the sun', so to speak. Except that's not quite the case. 'Ra' isn't literally the sun. 'Aten' was the name given to the sun-disc visible in the sky and not really worshipped until the time of Akhenaten - and this new cult didn't outlive him, strongly suggesting that worship of the actual sun-disc wasn't conducted otherwise, and that while Ra was obviously associated with the sun, he wasn't literally it and was clearly venerated as separate from it.

So the reality there for most, it would seem, is that there is a clear separation between the object and the netjer.

So I would say I disagree but that's with a whole lot of 'although...' Because to say they're totally interchangeable I think is wrong.

 

[firedragon]

In the original Buddhist canon there are 31 planes of existence. I reckon the cat is straight in at number 25 (a beautiful deva) although, rather worryingly, Donald Trump appears to be at number 22 (mindless beings).

Whats the original buddhist canon you speak of?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's been suggested by scholars of religion that there's a general trend where folks go from zoolatry and zoomorphism (animal gods) to worship of God or gods that look like humans in essentially every detail. In a book I have it relates that,

We feel a connection between us and beasts. I know I do. When a person kills an animal, as in a hunt, there can be guilt and also remorse. We may even feel as if the animal is watching us in a ghost form. Beasts have senses that we don't, such as their ability to predict earthquakes. Perhaps we feel that the animal is a guide or aids us with some form of wisdom. When animals die we wonder if they have a ghost, because we feel like they are still here. We may wonder if they have died in anger, in pain, happily etc. and what they think of us. If angry can they cause us trouble? If happy can they bring us comfort? Opposite there are other animals which we don't hunt and who may be fellow hunters, hunting fowls and beasts.

Some indigenous American tribes have apology prayers they use after killing an animal. They apologize to the creature, explaining why it has been hunted. In Africa the people often talk about animals as neighbors. This seems quite reasonable in the sense that we do live among the animals. Ants are considered neighbors, as are all creatures.

I also feel a connection with nature: with forests and oceans, etc. Why would I naturally gravitate away from this towards a kinship with an abstract and invisible all knowing being? This is what the scholars must explain.

 

[Rival]

I also feel a connection with nature: with forests and oceans, etc. Why would I naturally gravitate away from this towards a kinship with an abstract and invisible all knowing being? This is what the scholars must explain.

This is the part I don't really get. I like hiking and walking in the woods as much as anyone, but I'm not a nature-worshippy kind of 'mother earth' Pagan. I connect better with the abstract God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is the part I don't really get. I like hiking and walking in the woods as much as anyone, but I'm not a nature-worshippy kind of 'mother earth' Pagan. I connect better with the abstract God.

Yes, but that is not a humanoid God. I mistakenly said 'Abstract and invisible' in that paragraph. The book in the OP is about people going from animal to humanoid gods. They'd need to demonstrate an overwhelming human tendency to make that into a solid argument.

 

[Rival]

Yes, but that is not a humanoid God. I mistakenly said 'Abstract and invisible' in that paragraph. The book in the OP is about people going from animal to humanoid gods. They'd need to demonstrate an overwhelming human tendency to make that into a solid argument.

An abstract God is neither human nor animal so I'm not sure it has a place on this thread.

 

[Brickjectivity]

An abstract God is neither human nor animal so I'm not sure it has a place on this thread.

Yes, I mistakenly said that.

 

[Harel13]

A counterpoint to that might be the nuance which can be seen. For instance, the gods Ra, Khepri, Atum, and Aten are often seen as essentially the same. They are all 'the sun', so to speak. Except that's not quite the case. 'Ra' isn't literally the sun. 'Aten' was the name given to the sun-disc visible in the sky and not really worshipped until the time of Akhenaten - and this new cult didn't outlive him, strongly suggesting that worship of the actual sun-disc wasn't conducted otherwise, and that while Ra was obviously associated with the sun, he wasn't literally it and was clearly venerated as separate from it.

Are they all aspects of the one sun?