Global Polytheism?

[GUNWOUNDS]

This is some of the most arrogant Christian statements I've seen yet by you guns. I've been away for a few days out of town (work) and I come back and what do I see? Guns denouncing the Romans//Greeks for their weakness and primitive ignorance, all the while vaguely understanding the 'logic of monotheism'. You're just another zealot believing your religion to be superior to all, and your thinking to be superior to that of 'primitive' humans in the past. Yet the greeks have laid the foundations of philosophy to be studied for millenia, and the fact that we haven't improved much in that area leads a rational person (not a zealot) to believe that they were not primitive nor ignorant.

ignorance was not meant as an overzealous insult..... it is just stating fact.... there were few people like C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterson back in those days to fully explain morality or God's omnipotence as eloquently as they do....and if there were... they were fed to the lions, persecuted, or ignored.  The fact that the Romans attributed a god to every piece of wine, fruit, dirt, and major act such as dying , sex, or war... is pretty simplistic and outdated (hence primitive)  and shows that they were unaware of more refined theology (hence ignorant).  This is not meant to be an insult.. just an observation.  Your cries of "overzealous christian" are pretty pathetic when you dont even know what state my faith is in, or how seriously i exercise it. So stop it already.  I have said it once and i will say it again.... i am not some holy roller or bible beater... i am very much so a regular person and i like to debate things logically.  I think my above post you quoted made complete sense.  Angels are not gods, and Romans mistook things for "gods" just as the ancient hebrews mistook angels for gods.  I even showed gunner how his statement was illogical.  Dont try to ad hominem me as some zealot when you are unable to refute a point.  Show the flaws in logic or dont post. Stop the personal attacks.

Guns.

[nemafakei]

Classical scholarship, from what I gather, is divided over the interpretation of the Greco-Roman view of the gods. Some take Zeus' rule and other unifying aspects to support the idea that the Greeks and Romans were intentionally worshipping a single divinity 'Olympus', as it were, through shrines through the aspects of the divine. Others point to evidence of regionalism and fragmentation (perhaps including cthonic deities and hero-cults), and perhaps go so far as to claim that that there was no such unity, let alone monotheism, but outright conflict among the gods.

Personally, I'd say that it varied: some poeople were polytheists, some were monotheist, some where both or neither.

Note also that the NT uses the same word for god as Homer did, and the word for angel classically just meant messenger.

"but gave way to their human weakness (and primitive ignorance) of wanting polytheistic religion."

Finally, bear in mind the Romans held the same contempt for most other foreign religions of all kinds. They were particularly unimpressed with a certain cult that worshipped a convicted criminal and purported to gather regularly to drink blood and eat the flesh of their dead leader.

Any civilisation will look at any other and call it primitive, depraved, or just weird.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"but gave way to their human weakness (and primitive ignorance) of wanting polytheistic religion."

Finally, bear in mind the Romans held the same contempt for most other foreign religions of all kinds. They were particularly unimpressed with a certain cult that worshipped a convicted criminal and purported to gather regularly to drink blood and eat the flesh of their dead leader.

Any civilisation will look at any other and call it primitive, depraved, or just weird.

except that the romans were unimpressed for the wrong reasons... whereas modern people are unimpressed with roman mythology for the correct reasons.  Romans could not understand he concept of an innocent man being  sacrificed in place of another nor the symbolism of drinking wine and breaking bread.

Whereas i dont see any part of Roman mythology that i am misinterpreting or "going over my head". Their motives for their beliefs are well known, explaining unknown things with the creation of what is equivalent to a modern day superhero.   

Your point about worshipping "olympus" or a unifying "Zeus"  as a form of montheism supports my point that they had a vague idea of what was logically reasonably for the criteria of a Deity....even if they didnt believe in a unified "Olympus" they all believed in a superior "Zeus"...... however tradition, human weakness, and money (more gods meant a bigger shrine industry and more jobs for cultic high priests)... lead to the predominance of polytheism  in ancient times. Polytheism even attempted to make a comeback when the corrupt catholics wanted to sell "relics" from the saints.  Even in Biblical times it was obvious that the Jews were the minority in regards to monotheistic worshippers.

Even the Apostles in the Bible speak about how pagans loved their many gods.... they rather disliked the idea of one God.  When trying to explain montheism to some of the pagans.... one of the apostles had a hard time... because the pantheon of gods were so numerous.  However there was one "slot" so to speak that the pagans left "open" ... they worshipped it as the unknown "god".  This altar or shrine was dedicated to any "gods" they may have missed and so as not to offend these extra deities they worshipped the "unknown god" shrine to "cover their ass".

The apostle told them that God was the "unknown god" since it was the only way it was possible to explain it to the pagan who could not grasp the concept of "The One God".  I will try to find the exact apostle and scripture... cant think of it off the top of my head.  But i think you are downplaying how rampant polytheism was in those times Nema.  To believe in one true Deity was pretty novel and foreign back then.  Especially to an ancient greek.  However with such gods as Zeus i think they understood the logical need for the "all-powerful" god.

Guns

[Acriku]

You keep referring to the logic of monotheism, or the logical need for an all-powerful god. Can you explain this logic?

[nemafakei]

"Your point about worshipping "olympus" or a unifying "Zeus"  as a form of montheism supports my point that they had a vague idea of what was logically reasonably for the criteria of a Deity....even if they didnt believe in a unified "Olympus" they all believed in a superior "Zeus""

Actually, my point was that the issue is far too controversial to be able to claim that. But feel free to ignore that bit...

[GUNWOUNDS]

"Your point about worshipping "olympus" or a unifying "Zeus"  as a form of montheism supports my point that they had a vague idea of what was logically reasonably for the criteria of a Deity....even if they didnt believe in a unified "Olympus" they all believed in a superior "Zeus""

Actually, my point was that the issue is far too controversial to be able to claim that. But feel free to ignore that bit...

No i didnt ignore your points... i said that even the sects who did not believe in the "Olympus Monotheism"  were still believers in Zeus.... the most powerful God.... and he himself has connotations of monotheism.  So my point is that whether you believed in a unified Olympus or a divided Olympus.... you still believed in and acknowledged Zeus nonetheless which has hints of monotheistic flavor there.

[GUNWOUNDS]

You keep referring to the logic of monotheism, or the logical need for an all-powerful god. Can you explain this logic?

Best way to describe it is to refer to the story/analogy of flatland.  Dunno if you have ever heard of it.  Basically imagine a 2D universe.  A flat plane.  Like the surface of a lake.  You happen upon it one day.  You see little organisms swimming around within this plane... in all different shapes.  Each shape is a different entity.  You decide to step into the plane. Lets say it cross-sections you at your ankle.  The creatures of this 2D land would see you as a circle.  Lets say they got angry at you and surrounded you. You want to get away so you pull one foot up ... and place it back outside of their mob.  To them they would see your circle cross-section of your ankle disappear and then reappear somewhere else.  Basically they would see what they consider to be a "person" disappear and reappear.  The same way an angel could appear here and then disappear.  Simple cross-section manifestation.

Now these creatures would consider you a god....powerful... able to teleport... heck you could stick your arms and legs and head in the plane and be cross-sectioned in all different places.  And appear as if you were in several places at once. (omnipresent anyone?)...but a "4th dimensional creature" would have the same power over you that you have over the 2D plane people.  Similar to how an angel is more powerful than we are.  However we can keep making these dimensional comparisons... but each entity will be replaced with a higher and higher creature as we go up in dimensions.  Therefore God would have to be infinitely dimensional, So that none could manipulate him or have power over Him.  And being infinitely dimensional would give you:

Omnipotent -> infinte power (manipulation of creature and material within each lower dimension)

Omnipresent -> infinite presence (infinite cross-sections among all dimensions)

Omniscience -> infinite knowledge (infinite information available if you are able to view infinite lower dimensions...i.e. you can see a 2-D man inside and out.  4th dimensional Angels may be able to see us 3-D creatures inside and out as well.  And an infinitely dimensional creature would have so much knowledge about you that reading your thoughts would become possible.

*Note*- I know time is a 4th dimension etc, etc, so dont nit pick... i am just trying to illustrate a point thru a story. Perhaps God works this way.. perhaps not... but in human terms this is the only way to really describe Godly powers in a logical way.

Anything less than an infinitely dimnesional God IMO is just playing with SEMANTICS  i.e. you are calling something what it is not... like calling an angel a god.

Guns

[Acriku]

Saying it has hints of monotheism is a long stretch. A heirarchy of gods is often going to produce a most powerful god, much like the christian god and its angels/arch-angels. You said it yourself when you mentioned that angels could be gods, they just wouldn't be God - in other words they wouldn't be the highest on the heirarchy, which is held by YHWH.

Speaking of angels, are they eternal/immortal, too? These lesser gods seem to have all the attributes of YHWH, just to a lesser degree (however a difference must less than that between humans and YHWH).

[GUNWOUNDS]

see above post.

[Acriku]

...

Now these creatures would consider you a god....powerful... able to teleport... heck you could stick your arms and legs and head in the plane and be cross-sectioned in all different places.  And appear as if you were in several places at once. (omnipresent anyone?)...but a "4th dimensional creature" would have the same power over you that you have over the 2D plane people.  Similar to how an angel is more powerful than we are.  However we can keep making these dimensional comparisons... but each entity will be replaced with a higher and higher creature as we go up in dimensions.  Therefore God would have to be infinitely dimensional, So that none could manipulate him or have power over Him.  And being infinitely dimensional would give you:

Omnipotent -> infinte power (manipulation of creature and material within each lower dimension)

Omnipresent -> infinite presence (infinite cross-sections among all dimensions)

Omniscience -> infinite knowledge (infinite information available if you are able to view infinite lower dimensions...i.e. you can see a 2-D man inside and out.  4th dimensional Angels may be able to see us 3-D creatures inside and out as well.  And an infinitely dimensional creature would have so much knowledge about you that reading your thoughts would become possible.

*Note*- I know time is a 4th dimension etc, etc, so dont nit pick... i am just trying to illustrate a point thru a story. Perhaps God works this way.. perhaps not... but in human terms this is the only way to really describe Godly powers in a logical way.

Anything less than an infinitely dimnesional God IMO is just playing with SEMANTICS  i.e. you are calling something what it is not... like calling an angel a god.

Guns

I was asking for your explanation of the logic within monotheism. You're explaining the workings of God, whereas I asked for the logic behind monotheism that is superior of that over polytheism. If you can, put it in premises and conclusions. Stories of how God interacts with us is not demonstrating the logic of monotheism.

Also, your above post does not cover what I my post covers below, so don't pass it aside with "see above post".

[nemafakei]

"you still believed in and acknowledged Zeus nonetheless which has hints of monotheistic flavor there."

Not really, no.

I mean, what hints are you talking about?

If it's merely that he's the king of the gods, then I'd say that's no more monotheistic than saying that the population of Great Britain is one.

I would agree that from a modern perspective, it looks like "hints of monotheistic flavor", but that's probably more to do with our modern imagery having hints of Zeus' 'flavour'.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I was asking for your explanation of the logic within monotheism. You're explaining the workings of God, whereas I asked for the logic behind monotheism that is superior of that over polytheism. If you can, put it in premises and conclusions. Stories of how God interacts with us is not demonstrating the logic of monotheism.

Also, your above post does not cover what I my post covers below, so don't pass it aside with "see above post".

You're a bossy little thing arent you?....

Basically polytheism is illogical because all of the higher dimensional creatures in my examples could be considered "gods" to the lower dimensional creatures... when in reality they are something else. The 2-D creatures mistook the man for a god.. the man mistook the angel for a god.  Yet the man is a man.. the angel is an angel.  Neither are gods.  Only the infinitely dimensionaly creature is a Deity.  God and god are not equal.  God is the only logical creature than can be called a Divine Being.. and a "god" is merely a semantical misnomer such as calling a dog a cat.. or perhaps a slang-like misnomer like calling a person a dog.  YOu know... like whats up dog?  A human is not really a canine and not really a dog... yet you just called him a dog.

So when you adopt the idea of polytheism you are illogical from the onset because you are basically referring to something by the incorrect name.  Polytheism is the worship of many gods.. but if there is only one God then only one of your "gods" can possibly be a god and therefore you are worshipping excessive entities.  Thus you are inefficient in your worship and erroneous in your belief.  Secondly, Your counter arguement would be that monotheism could be incorrect due to there being many gods... but the problem there is that if the monotheistic God is infinitely dimensional then he is unique as you cannot mathematically add or multiply infinities.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Speaking of angels, are they eternal/immortal, too? These lesser gods seem to have all the attributes of YHWH, just to a lesser degree (however a difference must less than that between humans and YHWH).

This is what i was referring to when i said "see above post"  .. you were asking me "what about angels?" ... and i went into detail about their atttributes in comparison to YHWH... so dont think i am dismissing you... lose the attitude and debate like a reasonable person and maybe.. just maybe ...this'll be a thread that doesnt get dungeonized.

Guns

[nemafakei]

"Only the infinitely dimensionaly creature is a Deity."

Perhaps the Greeks and Romans worshipped such creatures.

[Acriku]

You're a bossy little thing arent you?....

Basically polytheism is illogical because all of the higher dimensional creatures in my examples could be considered "gods" to the lower dimensional creatures... when in reality they are something else. The 2-D creatures mistook the man for a god.. the man mistook the angel for a god.  Yet the man is a man.. the angel is an angel.  Neither are gods.  Only the infinitely dimensionaly creature is a Deity.  God and god are not equal.  God is the only logical creature than can be called a Divine Being.. and a "god" is merely a semantical misnomer such as calling a dog a cat.. or perhaps a slang-like misnomer like calling a person a dog.  YOu know... like whats up dog?  A human is not really a canine and not really a dog... yet you just called him a dog.

So when you adopt the idea of polytheism you are illogical from the onset because you are basically referring to something by the incorrect name.  Polytheism is the worship of many gods.. but if there is only one God then only one of your "gods" can possibly be a god and therefore you are worshipping excessive entities.  Thus you are inefficient in your worship and erroneous in your belief.  Secondly, Your counter arguement would be that monotheism could be incorrect due to there being many gods... but the problem there is that if the monotheistic God is infinitely dimensional then he is unique as you cannot mathematically add or multiply infinities.

Guns

So basically, you're right because of your definition of god, which you set up to be in the first place! Under your definition of a god, I would agree. However, I dispute your definition of a god, and it remains highly controversial. In other words of the 'logical context', I dispute your premise that defines a god as X (which is what your argument relies on). 

[GUNWOUNDS]

So basically, you're right because of your definition of god, which you set up to be in the first place! Under your definition of a god, I would agree. However, I dispute your definition of a god, and it remains highly controversial. In other words of the 'logical context', I dispute your premise that defines a god as X (which is what your argument relies on). 

fair enough... obviously we cant go any further if you disagree with the fundamental definition of an entity in question.  All arguements depend on a fundamental definition being agreed upon.  I dont believe that god is something than can be tiered... you do... that pretty much ends the convo.  Someone can say that Pluto is a Planet.  But i could argue that the premise that defines a planet as X is unacceptable to me.  And many experts have claimed that Pluto isnt a planet.  So what can you do?  All arguements are base don man-made definitions upon which premises are made.  But the point i am trying to make is that if you dont define God as a unique singular entity.... then you end up with the fallacy that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be a Deity.  Which is clearly not the case as i can prove that by saying you and I and my dog are not Deities.

Guns

[Anathema]

Finally, bear in mind the Romans held the same contempt for most other foreign religions of all kinds.

What is your basis for saying this? You are no doubt aware of the many foreign deities that eventually made their way into Roman religion, (ie Mithras and Isis). Judaism was the obvious exception because it didn't accept the existence of other gods and refused to worship the emperor, wich was treason in their eyes.

[GUNWOUNDS]

What is your basis for saying this? You are no doubt aware of the many foreign deities that eventually made their way into Roman religion, (ie Mithras and Isis). Judaism was the obvious exception because it didn't accept the existence of other gods and refused to worship the emperor, wich was treason in their eyes.

the part about not worshipping the emperor is a damn good point... a regulation was established that you had to put the emperor right above your god (basically make the emperor your zeus over you other gods).  Which most pagans had no problem doing... but no christian would agree to such a thing. Hence monotheistic faiths were more persecuted than polytheistic faiths.  Good job catching that Anathema.

Guns

[Acriku]

While early Christians would not conduct in religious worship of the emperors, they did honor the emperors (as said even in 1Peter). But I'm not really seeing the point you're trying to make with the persecution of christians.

[GUNWOUNDS]

While early Christians would not conduct in religious worship of the emperors, they did honor the emperors (as said even in 1Peter). But I'm not really seeing the point you're trying to make with the persecution of christians.

the point is nema said the romans were equal opportunity persecuters (as shown in anathemas post)... but in reality their regulations seemed more geared towards persecuting monotheistic faiths... (re-read the posts before that to get an idea of what the main idea was about).

[nemafakei]

I was actually saying that there's no point sneering at the barbarism of Roman polytheism: the Romans sneered at the barbarism of other religions - Judaism and Christianity in particular.

So, Anathema is correct in his history - but "Finally, bear in mind the Romans held the same contempt for most other foreign religions of all kinds." Not the same contempt for Christianity as for the Egyptian pantheon, but Gunwounds is as contemptuous about the roman gods as they were aabout his.

Take Tacitus (the translation doesn't quite give the Latin justice), here writing about 100AD: even when portraying their torture, he has virtually no sympathy for them.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I was actually saying that there's no point sneering at the barbarism of Roman polytheism: the Romans sneered at the barbarism of other religions - Judaism and Christianity in particular.

So, Anathema is correct in his history - but "Finally, bear in mind the Romans held the same contempt for most other foreign religions of all kinds." Not the same contempt for Christianity as for the Egyptian pantheon, but Gunwounds is as contemptuous about the roman gods as they were aabout his.

Take Tacitus (the translation doesn't quite give the Latin justice), here writing about 100AD: even when portraying their torture, he has virtually no sympathy for them.

i dont hold their gods in personal contempt... its not their gods per say that i am criticizing but rather the fundamental aspect of the faith... polytheism vs monotheism.  And its not so much "sneering"  or "contempt"  It just a matter of sensical attributes.  I simply view their gods as misnomers and that is that....I hold no malice... i merely am stating that polytheism is illogical and outdated.  The point i clearly stated is that if you dont define God as a unique singular entity.... then you end up with the fallacy that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be a Deity.  Which is clearly not the case as i can demonstrate that by stating you , myself, and my dog are not deities.

When i said  "Only the infinitely dimensionaly creature is a Deity" , and Nema said perhaps the greeks and romans worshipped such creatures... if you are referring to possibility of roman citizens converting despite persecution... akin to the christians who secretly worship in China, then i could see that.

[nemafakei]

Apologies: "but gave way to their human weakness (and primitive ignorance) of wanting polytheistic religion" (and other dismissive 'outdated'-type statements) seemed a little condescending, and I was merely saying not to judge, lest your youself be; you hadn't by then made the 'polydimensional' analogy, so I hadn't really much of an argument to debate at that point.

"When i said  "Only the infinitely dimensionaly creature is a Deity" , and Nema said perhaps the greeks and romans worshipped such creatures... if you are referring to possibility of roman citizens converting despite persecution... akin to the christians who secretly worship in China, then i could see that."

No, I'm saying that perhaps the Olympian gods were beings of infinite 'dimensions'.