Animal God

[Rival]

Are they all aspects of the one sun?

Yeah, I guess you could say so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Seriously, I'm discussing, the Bible says the consequences are dire for turning from God to beasts in idolatry. How much fruit of death does a marriage reap, for example, when a partner becomes a porn addict?

 

[Rival]

Seriously, I'm discussing, the Bible says the consequences are dire for turning from God to beasts in idolatry. How much fruit of death does a marriage reap, for example, when a partner becomes a porn addict?

This isn't a discussion. This is you telling me I'm just going straight to hell and I need to start worshipping the God of Israel again.

Not a discussion. Not very helpful and not welcome.

 

[Jainarayan]

Vishnu has four theriomorphic avatars... Matsya, fish; Kurma, turtle; Varaha, boar; Narasimha, lit. man-lion. Each avatar fulfilled a specific purpose. Matsya to warn Manu of a flood (yes, we have a flood story too); Kurma to support Mt. Meru for the Churning of the Ocean; Varaha to rescue Mother Earth with his tusks; Narasimha to fulfill a boon that a certain demon couldn't be killed by man nor god, by anything animate nor inanimate, by weapons, neither indoors nor outdoors, neither day nor night, nor on land or sea or in the air.

Narasimha was half man, half lion with lions claws; they were not a weapons, not animate nor inanimate; he was neither man nor god; he performed the execution on the threshold of the palace (neither in nor out); at twilight; he put the demon on his lap (neither on land, sea or in the air) and disemboweled him with his claws. Basically Vishnu closed all the loopholes of the boon given by Brahma to the demon Hiranyakashipu.

 

[an anarchist]

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

I believe that the conscious power of the human being is infinitely power. This is abstract but hypothetically, I believe if you were to combine all of the consciousness of every species of animal, the human consciousness would still be infinitely more enlightened than the combined animal consciousness.
I believe that the hypothesis that humans went from initially worshipping animal Gods first and then to human/monotheistic ones makes sense, if evolution is correct. Like, if we really are just smart monkeys, and not something else entirely different from all other animal species.
As a creationist, I believe monotheism was available to the first man. I believe that man went from that to worshipping animalistic deities.

 

[Rival]

I believe that the conscious power of the human being is infinitely power. This is abstract but hypothetically, I believe if you were to combine all of the consciousness of every species of animal, the human consciousness would still be infinitely more enlightened than the combined animal consciousness.
I believe that the hypothesis that humans went from initially worshipping animal Gods first and then to human/monotheistic ones makes sense, if evolution is correct. Like, if we really are just smart monkeys, and not something else entirely different from all other animal species.
As a creationist, I believe monotheism was available to the first man. I believe that man went from that to worshipping animalistic deities.

But these deities aren't animalistic in that sense. They're gods. They're not just base animals. A god would clearly have a higher consciousness than a human, whatever its form. Same with gods pictured as people. They're obviously not meant to be regular people, so I'm not sure why we're treating them as though this is the case. Really my OP is asking more about the actual physical depictions than anything else. People just seem overall more attracted to gods who look like them and that is what bothered me and made me think of it as hubristic self-worship. As I mentioned to Harel, I think an imageless god is best. But some folks deal better with imagery.

 

[Harel13]

But some folks deal better with imagery.

The other day I saw that Hillel Tzeitlin wrote that this was the exact reason that the original pagans, who worshiped both God and forces of nature, stopped worshiping God. This is of course merely a Jewish perspective on the matter.

 

[Rival]

This has been an interesting thread though. Maybe I will post some more stuff from that book. It's this one Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt

 

[Rival]

The other day I saw that Hillel Tzeitlin wrote that this was the exact reason that the original pagans, who worshiped both God and forces of nature, stopped worshiping God. This is of course merely a Jewish perspective on the matter.

'Merely'??!! You know I value it still

 

[Rival]

The other day I saw that Hillel Tzeitlin wrote that this was the exact reason that the original pagans, who worshiped both God and forces of nature, stopped worshiping God. This is of course merely a Jewish perspective on the matter.

Actually you reminded me of this post I made a while ago to Tumah. Seems relevant here:

I once read a book that I only recently gave away that went into a bit more detail about this; not a great deal, but enough to make its point. The book was about the history of deity/ies and the author wrote that (if I had it I could quote sources but unfortunately...) most polytheistic tribal societies on the African continent spoke about what is usually termed a Sky Father, this being defined as a head god or, more importantly to the book's point, the original deity. The tribesfolk had eventually turned to worshipping other gods saying that the Sky Father had 'gone away'. IOW what they were trying to say is that because the Sky Father god was so big and so all-mighty they didn't know how to reach him. They found him too distant, because he could not be visualised or conceptualised in any way.

 

[Harel13]

Yeah, I guess you could say so.

Would it be correct to say that within those aspects, when, say, Ra, takes upon an animalistic form - that form represents a certain aspect within him? And that fact that he is, from what I gather, more often than not, represented by this animalistic form, tell us that this form is central to his identity?

 

[Rival]

Would it be correct to say that within those aspects, when, say, Ra, takes upon an animalistic form - that form represents a certain aspect within him? And that fact that he is, from what I gather, more often than not, represented by this animalistic form, tell us that this form is central to his identity?

It is central, at least inasmuch as it represents his being associated with the sky/sun/beyond etc. I'm not sure that would make the falcon animal as a whole central to his actual meaningful identity anymore than it would for Sokar/Seker. OTOH I am sure there were falcon cults, which would obviously make it a sacred animal.

It's also possible for the animal symbol to change or be strange. E.g., Bast goes from being a lioness to a housecat. Hat-Hor can be a lioness, a cow or a cobra. Tawaret is a lion, hippo and crocodile mix, and no-one can identify the Set animal. Scholarly consensus appears to be that it's made up. So in cases like these I'm not sure how literally we could take the animal representation, given that it can change or apparently be wholly invented. That suggests to me it's more about the symbolism than the animal itself.

So I'd agree that it's central but perhaps not in the same way.

Unless I am somehow entirely misunderstanding what you are asking as I've not had my ritual cup of tea yet.

 

[Rival]

Nooo, it's that time when @Harel13 leaves again in a few hours

I like it when your prod me about this.

 

[Harel13]

It is central, at least inasmuch as it represents his being associated with the sky/sun/beyond etc. I'm not sure that would make the falcon animal as a whole central to his actual meaningful identity anymore than it would for Sokar/Seker. OTOH I am sure there were falcon cults, which would obviously make it a sacred animal.

It's also possible for the animal symbol to change or be strange. E.g., Bast goes from being a lioness to a housecat. Hat-Hor can be a lioness, a cow or a cobra. Tawaret is a lion, hippo and crocodile mix, and no-one can identify the Set animal. Scholarly consensus appears to be that it's made up. So in cases like these I'm not sure how literally we could take the animal representation, given that it can change or apparently be wholly invented. That suggests to me it's more about the symbolism than the animal itself.

So I'd agree that it's central but perhaps not in the same way.

Unless I am somehow entirely misunderstanding what you are asking as I've not had my ritual cup of tea yet.

Is it possible they were trying to rationalize the usage of as many animals as they could?

 

[Rival]

Is it possible they were trying to rationalize the usage of as many animals as they could?

It could well be!!