Which is Older? Polytheism or Monotheism?

[Josh]

9/11/06:

Often you'll hear the claim that Polytheism is older or more fundamental than Monotheism, which seems to undermine the Judeo-Christian story.

What's missing in this analysis is that although most ancient cultures were polytheistic, almost all of them actually make mention of an original god (or first one), with whom some kind of separation occurred. The separation was either that the god was killed (as in the Greek's original god, Uranus) or got angry with man and left him alone. It is only after this original god leaves the scene that all the other gods (or more appropriately, demigods) were introduced.

This is actually quite biblical, in that the Biblical story says essentially the same thing: most humans traded in their relationship with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God for some kind of nefarious relationship with lesser gods (ie, demons or other humans).

Almost no ancient cultures spoke of a consistently loving God- but of a capricious array of demigods who needed to be appeased- gods who could turn on you at any moment- gods who must be manipulated to get what you want (that's the basic idea of magic), except of course the unique witness of the Hebrews as found in Holy Scripture.

[moritz]

Feb 18, 2007 21:32:56 GMT -8 Josh said:

9/11/06:

Often you'll hear the claim that Polytheism is older or more fundamental than Monotheism, which seems to undermine the Judeo-Christian story.

What's missing in this analysis is that although most ancient cultures were polytheistic, almost all of them actually make mention of an original god (or first one), with whom some kind of separation occurred. The separation was either that the god was killed (as in the Greek's original god, Uranus) or got angry with man and left him alone. It is only after this original god leaves the scene that all the other gods (or more appropriately, demigods) were introduced.

This is actually quite biblical, in that the Biblical story says essentially the same thing: most humans traded in their relationship with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God for some kind of nefarious relationship with lesser gods (ie, demons or other humans).

Almost no ancient cultures spoke of a consistently loving God- but of a capricious array of demigods who needed to be appeased- gods who could turn on you at any moment- gods who must be manipulated to get what you want (that's the basic idea of magic), except of course the unique witness of the Hebrews as found in Holy Scripture.

Holy cow, what have we got here???

1. you can't make a point that monotheism is older than polytheism just by pointing out that polytheistic religions started with a single Headman-God. Even if you could point out that there has always been a single, most powerful God in the beginning (that this doesn't work for Greek Mythology will be pointed out in 2.), that wouldn't make a religion monotheistic.

2. there are different sources of greek mythology. Some say that at the beginning there was chaos and this chaos separated into the female and the male, Gaia and Uranus. Others say Uranus is the son of Gaia, hence Gaia must have been there before. Uranus didn't leave the scene before other Gods appeared*, neither did he die. Haha. Anyway, there are so many different sources, it makes no sense to pick out a particular one. However you wanna put it, Greek Mythology can't be taken as an example of monotheism. That's hilarious.

3. the idea that those polytheistic cults and the bible share the main idea indicates how much the Judeo-Christian religion roots in ancient cults. There are many different motifs from the virgin birth to the resurrection that christians might have picked up somewhere else.

4. Jahwe is just as capricious and in need of appeasement as the array of Gods you referred to. Again it appears as if Jahwe is the reformed product of already existing ideas.

5. Trinity is regarded by religions such as Jewdaism and Islam as mere polytheism. To the present day, I haven't heard a single, logical explanation of why it's not. The emphasis is to be put on the word logical. To say that 3=1 isn't logical. It's idiotic. Let's hear from you.

6. Conclusion: the whole point you're trying to make is invalid. Whether a religion is monotheistic or polytheistic isn't determined by an episode of the religion. The story must be regarded as an ensamble. Similarities between Christianity and ancient cults only weaken the stand of Christianity because they stress that it's a patchwork religion.


*if you need further substantiation on this, read about the birth of Aphrodite.

[Josh]

OK, MO, really, slow down a bit. Did you read my post thoroughly?

you can't make a point that monotheism is older than polytheism just by pointing out that polytheistic religions started with a single Headman-God.

I didn't say that "monotheism" is older and that wasn't my point. My point was that most ancient belief systems, though polytheistic in their final outlook, did start with some kind of unity (god or first being)*. This is only natural cause-and-effect thinking anyway.

The gist of where I'm going with this is that monotheism's insistence that there was only one "top deity" was not a new concept, it was a hearkening back to the original monism.

A great example of this is in Hinduism, btw.

the idea that those polytheistic cults and the bible share the main idea indicates how much the Judeo-Christian religion roots in ancient cults. There are many different motifs from the virgin birth to the resurrection that christians might have picked up somewhere else.

That's a huge subject which we have tapped into elsewhere on this same sub-forum:

Did Pagan Mythology Influence Christian Belief?

You might be surprised at my position on that.

For trinity stuff, visit here: What about the Trinity?

Conclusion: the whole point you're trying to make is invalid. Whether a religion is monotheistic or polytheistic isn't determined by an episode of the religion. The story must be regarded as an ensamble.

Again, I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to say that polytheistic religions were really monotheistic. I was trying to say that most polytheistic religions harken back to an original unity.



* whether chaos, gaia, or uranus, it doesn't matter. What matters is that most ancient cultures extrapolated backwards to some single causal agent. It's only logical. That's even what modern scientists do with their "singularity".

[moritz]

Jul 22, 2008 13:18:07 GMT -8 Josh said:

OK, MO, really, slow down a bit. Did you read my post thoroughly?

you can't make a point that monotheism is older than polytheism just by pointing out that polytheistic religions started with a single Headman-God.

I didn't say that "monotheism" is older and that wasn't my point. My point was that most ancient belief systems, though polytheistic in their final outlook, did start with some kind of unity (god or first being)*. This is only natural cause-and-effect thinking anyway.

The gist of where I'm going with this is that monotheism's insistence that there was only one "top deity" was not a new concept, it was a hearkening back to the original monism.

A great example of this is in Hinduism, btw.



That's a huge subject which we have tapped into elsewhere on this same sub-forum:

Did Pagan Mythology Influence Christian Belief?

You might be surprised at my position on that.

For trinity stuff, visit here: What about the Trinity?

Conclusion: the whole point you're trying to make is invalid. Whether a religion is monotheistic or polytheistic isn't determined by an episode of the religion. The story must be regarded as an ensamble.

Again, I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't trying to say that polytheistic religions were really monotheistic. I was trying to say that most polytheistic religions harken back to an original unity.



* whether chaos, gaia, or uranus, it doesn't matter. What matters is that most ancient cultures extrapolated backwards to some single causal agent. It's only logical. That's even what modern scientists do with their "singularity".

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought the title of this thread (what is older, polytheism or monotheism) indicated, that you wanted to answer this question. The argumentation you used then sounded as if you wanted to claim that monotheistic beginnings of polytheistic religions justify the conclusion that monotheism has actually come before polytheism.
I got you wrong. But I don’t think this is an important issue for the truth or falsehood of biblical claims anyway. It may only be important for the rationality of Max Weber, who linked the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism to the replacement of polytheism by monotheism.