• 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!

polytheism to monotheism

steelblue75

Member
ok just curious... i have my own opinion about this but am interested in what your thoughts are about how we went from believing in many gods to there is only one true god.... now that doesnt mean quote scripture at me that says it is so.... i mean what other factors might have led to the change other than "god says so" could it have been economic? sacrificing your best stock to many gods started to affect the quality of that stock so only having to give one up was better? was the one god easier to relate to? what do you think?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I've never really studied the question and this thread ought to be interesting. For starters, here's the Wikipedia article on Early Monotheism:

The religions that are monotheistic today are often thought of as having been of relatively recent historical origin — although efforts at comparison are usually beset by claims of most religions to being very ancient or eternal. Eastern religions, especially in China and India, that have concepts of panentheism, are notably difficult to classify along Western notions of monotheism vs. polytheism. Attempting to compare the two is much like asking how many sides a circle has when comparing to a square, in that it makes no sense.


The earliest examples of monotheism include two Rigvedic (1500 - 1200 BCE) hymns (10.129,130) to a Panentheistic creator God; the Shri Rudram, a Vedic hymn to Rudra, an earlier aspect of Hinduism's Shiva often referred to by the ancient Brahmans as Stiva, a masculine fertility god, expressed monistic theism, and is still chanted today; the Zoroastrian Ahuramazda and Chinese Shang Ti.


In the Ancient Orient, many cities had their own local god, though this henotheistic worship of a single god did not imply denial of the existence of other gods. The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant is supposed (by some scholars) to have adapted this practice to a nomadic lifestyle, paving their way for a singular God. Yet, many scholars now believe that it may have been the Zoroastrian religion of the Persian Empire that was the first monotheistic religion, and the Jews were influenced by such notions (this controversy is still in debate)[2].


The iconoclastic cult of the Egyptian solar god Aten was promoted by the pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenophis IV), who ruled between 1358 and 1340 BC. The Aten cult is often cited as the earliest known example of monotheism, and is sometimes claimed to have been a formative influence on early Judaism, due to the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. But even though Akhenaten's hymn to Aten offers strong evidence that Akhenaten considered Aten to be the sole, omnipotent creator, Akhenaten's program to enforce this monotheistic world-view ended with his death; the worship of other gods beside Aten never ceased outside his court, and the older polytheistic cults soon regained precedence.


The worship of polytheistic gods, on the other hand, is seen by many to predate monotheism, reaching back as far as the Paleolithic. Today, monotheistic religions are dominant, though other systems of belief still exist.
 

steelblue75

Member
Sunstone said:
I've never really studied the question and this thread ought to be interesting. I do know that monotheism arose in a specific place and time. It was invented by the Ancient Jews perhaps sometime around 1500 - 1000 B.C., but I could be wrong about those dates.

I might speculate that it arose as a preference of the priestly caste, but again I'm don't know.

I'll be interested in everyone else's opinions.

ty sun for the reply i was beginning to think i might have started a dead thread..... ok that sounded sooooooo cheezy but i really didnt mean to rhyme there lol
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Zeus was the Greek name of the supreme god over the others. Vedic Jupiter. Then there was Tyr. Odin. Thor. Ra.

In human history there has always been the Supreme God and lesser gods. Even now we have the Creator, Jesus, and the angels.

I think an interesting question might be this: When ancient man worshipped Zeus did he worship God?


 

bunny1ohio

Active Member
Super Universe said:
Zeus was the Greek name of the supreme god over the others. Vedic Jupiter. Then there was Tyr. Odin. Thor. Ra.

In human history there has always been the Supreme God and lesser gods. Even now we have the Creator, Jesus, and the angels.

I think an interesting question might be this: When ancient man worshipped Zeus did he worship God?



Or was a pantheon of gods simply a logical way of dividing different traits of a single god to make it easier to cope with? Hence the "head" god and lesser gods.... lower or less important aspects of the same god but all with importance to the culture...

The "leader" must always be the head god or decision maker... the lesser gods such as wisdom... war... love... all are aspects of human nature and man's attempt to "mortalize" god into an understandable format... did that make sense? lol
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
steelblue75 said:
ok just curious... i have my own opinion about this but am interested in what your thoughts are about how we went from believing in many gods to there is only one true god.... now that doesnt mean quote scripture at me that says it is so.... i mean what other factors might have led to the change other than "god says so" could it have been economic? sacrificing your best stock to many gods started to affect the quality of that stock so only having to give one up was better? was the one god easier to relate to? what do you think?

I think the most likely answer is drawn from a parallel of political 'set ups'.

Sure, there may be many ministers, each in charge of different departments, but when it comes down to it, there is always some poor guy at the top (and in England, once a woman) who just couldn't pass the buck on further.:biglaugh:
 

d.

_______
Sunstone said:
The iconoclastic cult of the Egyptian solar god Aten was promoted by the pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenophis IV), who ruled between 1358 and 1340 BC. The Aten cult is often cited as the earliest known example of monotheism, and is sometimes claimed to have been a formative influence on early Judaism, due to the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. But even though Akhenaten's hymn to Aten offers strong evidence that Akhenaten considered Aten to be the sole, omnipotent creator, Akhenaten's program to enforce this monotheistic world-view ended with his death; the worship of other gods beside Aten never ceased outside his court, and the older polytheistic cults soon regained precedence.

this story always suggested to me that the idea of monotheism corresponded well to particular political interests at the time - and the idea that the other monotheistic trends at the time could have started as more or less purely political (which would be today's terms, i'm not sure religion and politics was separate arenas at the time) interests doesn't seem so far-fetched.

there's a distinct difference between odins role in old norse religion and someone like allah or yehowah - odin was the 'chief' of the gods, like someone was chief or king over a people. the abrahamic gods say 'there are no other gods, period. they are demons or manifestations of satan. i am the only god.'

(although it could be argued that catholicism is a form of polytheism in disguise...)
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
In human history there has always been the Supreme God and lesser gods. Even now we have the Creator, Jesus, and the angels.

I think an interesting question might be this: When ancient man worshipped Zeus did he worship God?

Always? I think there are many cases with animism (the first belief systems that we know of) where they did not have a supreme god. I need to look this up, but I also believe Mesopotamian mythology (interesting enough, the flood story was already done way before the 'Old Testament' came to be) believed the entire family of gods was whole (like a trinity, I would guess).

My personal opinion is that since in polytheism individuals usually devote themselves to one certain god, groups of people who had similiar allegiances gathered, thus promoting a more monotheistic atmosphere. Certain Greeks would pray to Athena only; others would pray to Zeus... Soon enough you forget about the other gods and yours starts to "morph".
 

d.

_______
mr.guy said:
Do you mean as practiced by santeria and voodoo?

i mean that the worship of the multitude of saints, the virgin, the authority of the pope etc. look very similar to polytheistic practices from the outside. i know catholics don't agree, and i'm not sure i do either - but it could be argued.

i guess you could say that religions could be understood as not either polytheistic or monotheistic, but more or less monotheistic. the prophets worshipped in christianity and islam can be seen as stand-ins for the lesser gods of polytheistic practices - the principle and their roles are the same in practice, but in theory they're defined differently.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
divine said:
i guess you could say that religions could be understood as not either polytheistic or monotheistic, but more or less monotheistic.
I'm not so sure about that; while monotheists may hold god as supreme, they're not obliged to consider him as entirety or a summary. When put into a pantheist framework, the polytheist and monotheist are just arguing semantics and relative attributes within ultimate, futile totality. It seems to me sometimes left out are certain creation factors (chronos to greek pantheon) to more material, relative polytheism.

Can't monotheism also acknowledge a big, bad god with a "word to yo mother" to the "fronting" deities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: d.

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
steelblue75 said:
ok just curious... i have my own opinion about this but am interested in what your thoughts are about how we went from believing in many gods to there is only one true god.... now that doesnt mean quote scripture at me that says it is so.... i mean what other factors might have led to the change other than "god says so" could it have been economic? sacrificing your best stock to many gods started to affect the quality of that stock so only having to give one up was better? was the one god easier to relate to? what do you think?

A study of the spread of monotheistic religion would probably be the best way to start.
But please keep in mind that there are plenty of polytheistic religions still out there. :)
 

telecino

Member
Ok, so we wont dare say the christians pray multiple Gods, we'll just say the there is only one God, and we pary a multitude of saints, angels, the Christ, the mother of the Christ, the Holy Spirit,...

The hindu say: there is only one Guru, the one and Only Creator of all, and Bramah is his first faces, followed by vishnu and shiva, and a few masters that made it, so we're gonna pray them....

Egyptian: same thing. One source of all light, and the Gods that came from there, that show the way to this original light,... then the guys who made it, Hermes Thot, and a bunch of pharos who had a bit of science and compassion... same story.

My opinion: Poly/mono-theism was invented by the monotheists to define yet another judgemental tool to unsacralize and punish the other religions, and put fear in their ranks, threathening to punish those who would pray more than one God. My opinion again, and i'm not alone to think it.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
telecino said:
...Poly/mono-theism was invented by the monotheists to define yet another judgemental tool to unsacralize and punish the other religions, and put fear in their ranks, threathening to punish those who would pray more than one God.
Or perhaps just a selling point to a new worshipping product (new and improved!). I tend to imagine it like the introduction of new World Wrestling Federation wrestlers; to make a new champion often the story lines try to demonstrate how the previous champ was really no champ at all. If i watched more wrestling, i'm convinced i could make a water-tight analogy here.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Human socities began as a multitude of bands that had some contact with one another, but did not have a huge body of customs in common. The religious organization of bands usually involve shamanism and animism. Individuals are usually dealing with spirits rather than gods, although some of the spirits may attain something like god-like status.


When the population of a society increases from under 100 to over 1000 people and a band becomes a tribe, the religious organization tends to change. Spirits will often become more powerful, and the concept of a Creator Spirit often emerges as a more concrete idea. Animism and shamanism usually will still exist, but mixed into the religious organization are elements of true polytheism.


When the population of a society increases from 1000 to 10,000 people and a tribe becomes a chiefdom, again there are changes to the religious organization of the society. Gods become more powerful and spirits take on a lesser role. Religious specialists now serve as intermediaries between the society and the gods, rather than between society and spirits.


When the population of a society increases from 10,000 people to over 20,000 and a chiefdom becomes a state, you begin to see the development of montheism.

Thus, there are coorelations between the size of a society and its religious organization. My educated guess is that polytheism evolved into monothesism because human societies have increased in population over time.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
My educated guess is that polytheism evolved into monothesism because human societies have increased in population over time.
I still don't understand how monotheism is such a "natural" conclusion to set population (densities?). May i ask if you reconcile Hinduism as either:

a)effective monotheism
or
b)fractured socialization prohibiting a central godhead.

In truth, it's pretty easy to work around both of those options, but can your numbers hold up to more ancient and populous civilizations?
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Mr. Guy said:
still don't understand how monotheism is such a "natural" conclusion to set population (densities?). May i ask if you reconcile Hinduism as either:

a)effective monotheism
or
b)fractured socialization prohibiting a central godhead.

In truth, it's pretty easy to work around both of those options, but can your numbers hold up to more ancient and populous civilizations?
Hinduism does have some monotheistic elements. Take, for example, the concept of Brahman. I admit that this is monism rather than actual monotheism, but it shows that there was some development during the time of the Upanishads in the direction of monotheism that has survived until today.

Another practice today is that of Kathenotheism. A devotee of Shiva doesn't negate the existence of Vishnu or the Devi, but rather holds that Shiva is Brahman and all other gods are aspects of Shiva/Brahman.

Take, for example, the Shiva Puranas (Note, the following is paraphrased): "When Parvati, the 'Mountain's Daughter,' child of Himalaya and his wife Mena, fell in love with the yogi Shiva, she subjected herself to severe and difficult austerities in order to win him as her husband. The ascetic Parvati is tested to see if she knows who Shiva really is. In one instance, the seven sages come to her to attempt to change her mind. They explain to Parvati that Shiva is too inauspicious and ugly to be her husband. He had no clothing, no home, no lineage, and he associates with ghouls and goblins. She should marry Vishnu, a more fitting bridegroom--auspicious, wealthy, and with many excellent and lordly attributes. Parvati responds with true understanding. Yes, she says, the Supreme Shiva is without the valued attributes of this world. Why? Because Shiva is Brahman and transcends the display of worldly lordship and wealth. The embellishments and ornaments the world adores are not to be found in him, for he is beyond what is merely beautiful and merely auspicious."
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Runt said:
Hinduism does have some monotheistic elements. Take, for example, the concept of Brahman. I admit that this is monism rather than actual monotheism, but it shows that there was some development during the time of the Upanishads in the direction of monotheism that has survived until today.
The only reason i resist this is it seems to broad a definition of monotheism, as you say. I'm still a little curious why the monotheist is optimal (right word?) to perhaps the panentheist? Even so, the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.
A devotee of Shiva doesn't negate the existence of Vishnu or the Devi, but rather holds that Shiva is Brahman and all other gods are aspects of Shiva/Brahman.
Some of how the Hindu "trinity" has been explained to me is that some hindus might even "evolve" to appropriate godheads as their life "positioning" demands as most appropriate to their current spiritual development or station (in the instance of caste).

Because Shiva is Brahman and transcends the display of worldly lordship and wealth. The embellishments and ornaments the world adores are not to be found in him, for he is beyond what is merely beautiful and merely auspicious."
I've heard some tales that would put Brahma as the "shunned" aspect; no matter. The last line jumped out at me, recollecting this afternoon's bathroom read:
"Since the world points up beauty as such, There is ugliness too"
Reciprocally, (to paraphrase from an abysmal memory)
"Where that all the oceans are ink, yet you'd find there to be a shortage when describing the greatness (or vastness) that is god."
 

d.

_______
Jayhawker Soule said:
Where, precisely, do they say this?

granted, it was a bit of a sloppy generalization - my apologies - what i meant to say was the gods of the islamic and judeo-christian traditions, (or at least their followers' perception of them) :


Isaiah 43 : 10

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.


Isaiah 44 : 6

"This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.


44 :8

[...]You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

9 All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.
10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
which can profit him nothing?

11 He and his kind will be put to shame;
craftsmen are nothing but men.
Let them all come together and take their stand;
they will be brought down to terror and infamy.




from the koran :

112: The Unity


112:1 Say: He is Allah, the One!
112:2 Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
112:3 He begetteth not nor was begotten.
112:4 And there is none comparable unto Him.
i'm sure there are other examples.
 
Top