confused453
Active Member
Why would the universe be created by one God, and not by a team of Gods?
I think team of Gods sounds more reasonable.
I think team of Gods sounds more reasonable.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God or team of Gods
- Thread starter confused453
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Teams seems logical, given the lack of communication at various levels and seeming lack of coordination.
I think it sounds more reasonable too, but I'm a Neopagan and thus a polytheist, so I'm obviously very biased on this.
On the other hand, I also feel playing the numbers game with the gods is sort of missing the point. Outside my window there is a forest. Or I can call it a bunch of trees. It's a singular entity if I call it a forest. It's a thing of many if I call it a bunch of trees. Whatever. It's a forest and a bunch of trees, yet neither of these capture what it really is.
On the other hand, I also feel playing the numbers game with the gods is sort of missing the point. Outside my window there is a forest. Or I can call it a bunch of trees. It's a singular entity if I call it a forest. It's a thing of many if I call it a bunch of trees. Whatever. It's a forest and a bunch of trees, yet neither of these capture what it really is.
I take more the eastern (Hindu) thinking, so I would agree and disagree with your team of Gods thought.
God can be viewed as a team of gods, but these gods are not independant entities. They are still all aspects of the one God.
I wouldn't think of it like a 'team' of Gods... more like just a species.
Well it wouldn't make sense to see a species with only one of its kind.
Maybe god's not a species. Maybe "species" is a biological term.
Possibly.
If a god is indeed supreme, it wouldn't be restrained by our own understanding of life. One god would suffice.
But gods are created by people, so in that regard, the more "gods" the better - the more it makes sense to us.
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
I take the pantheist view, but that part of God split off of his uncreated self before the larger part became creation... so no. it only makes sense to me that the Universe is god, and that his other pieces overlook creation. Hence one god that splits into others. Though there are lesser gods that are transcendent souls of once living creatures in that system.
Bob Dixon
>implying
What lack of coordination?
jasonwill2
Well-Known Member
The dystopian state of reality most likely.
outhouse
Atheistically
before Israelites monotheism was 600+ years of polytheism and a group or should I say family of gods
El the father of all gods, Yahweh his son the warrior god, Asherah at times a consort to both El and Yahweh depending on which culture and time. and Baal worshipped more in peaceful times.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
The ethics committee didn't consult the physics board and now we have tons of people thinking they have "free will".
The ethics committee didn't consult the physics board and now we have tons of people thinking they have "free will".
:biglaugh: :clap
confused453
Active Member
Yes, but it just doesn't sound "religious".