Thread requested by silveroak - the development of polytheism, monotheism, and the gap in between.

Some 'hybrid' models for discussion:
Egyptian- merging deities: each deity was a distinct entity, but Gods had the ability to merge and ebcoem a more powerfull God which had the power of all the Gods who were merged into it.
India: The Trickster Masks: In some forms of hinduism teh primary deity was the trickster- game player and most to all of the other Gods were different masks or manifestations he would take for whatever purpose he had.
The blind men/elephant analogy: this is more modern, but the idea being that whatever the singular deity is is complex beyond our ability to comprehend and as such we might observe it to be different or multiple things.
The Buddhist solution: This became it's own religion but seems like it may well have strted as a monotheism-ppolytheism hybrid, in which all of reality/deities were a single entity which decided to divide itself into multiple entities out of either a desire to diversify its experiences, out of a sense of isolation, or both.

I'm curious how these might relate to the idea of the trinity within monotheims in Christianity.

1. One God, not three distinct Gods.
2. One God, not three Masks
3. The most likely plausible explanation outside Christianity, but the fact remains that the Trinity is One God, three people. That's how it is, even though it looks confusing.
4. No.

Okay, but what does that mean?

The trinity is described as the mystery because, well, we don't have to explain it :P It sounds like a cop-out, but to a degree, I feel like if all of the answers regarding the nature of God were limited to second-grade understanding of reality, it would be a little odd.

The trinity describes the one God as three and one simultaneously - not masks, because they're actually different entities. Not three gods joined voltron-like, because they're actually one distinct entity (and always were).

The elephant idea works insofar that it's saying 'we don't have enough information/background experience to have an educated answer' - that is true. God isn't a guy up on the clouds with a white beard. He IS heaven, is life, is us and in everything. God is not an external thing. We don't have any real concept like this, so we just describe it in what terms we have.

Buddhism is perhaps the closest in that it accepts that our world as we understand it is a result of delusion, that God is outside of all, and encompasses all, and the goal is to join God (although the details clearly disagree, and many schools of Buddhism don't literally believe there is a God, so clearly that too is a point of contention). But comparing the two is extremely difficult, especially as you use smaller brush strokes. The specific idea you quoted is not held by Christianity - it is understood Jesus and the Holy Spirit existed prior to the creation of the universe, so if God decided to split, it was a decision well before anything else came around and outside of the scope of our belief.

So three persons sharing one godhead? Does that work like a triumverate where 2 out of 3 get majority rule?

What level of power indicates godhood for purposes of this topic? Could the Saints of the RCC constitute gods? I'm assuming not. They wield no power beyond attracting the attention of other powers. With Jesus/God/Holy Spirit as one (it's really not as complex as people make it out... like partitioning a hard drive) that leaves 3 other possibilities: angels, demons, and Satan. I don't recall any biblical backing for demons, but the argument for them would be pretty much the same as angels: While they do the bidding of a greater god, this is true in other mythologies regarding father-gods... so it isn't convincing.

1st test: Do people pray to them? Being recognized as a figure of power strikes me as important to being a god. The RCC recognizes them as having sway over certain spheres of influence... shaky ground. Frequently Jesus is recognized as a separate entity. While your mileage may vary, the concept of the trinity as one is apparently difficult to grasp. What do the confused believe? Satan is never depicted as part of God and has worshipers.

God the Father : Authority Figure
God the Son : Perfect Servant Of the Father
Holy Spirit: Perfect Servant of Jesus

God the Father makes the rules and laws
God the Son made the universe
God the Holy Spirit does the will of God the Son on Earth right now.

The Roman Catholic Church may be partially Christian, but it doesn't necessarily have to be Christian. There are many Catholics who are Christian but not all Catholics are. In other words, don't just go by the Roman Catholic Church, go by the Bible for discussions about God and the Trinity.

On Power Level:
God's Power is Infinite. God the Triity's Power is Infinite.
Angels are indescribably powerful. Possibly enough to destroy the whole world by themselves.
If Catholic versions of the Saints exist, they are doubtlessly limited in their "powers".

Really, the trinity is discussed in the Bible? that is interesting, I must have missed that part reading it cover to cover. From the words in the bible though it is pretty clear that God created the universe and Jesus didn't show up till the new Testement. But my queston is how you reconcile the questions about number of entities/deities raather than the historical orrigin of doctrine. If god is 3 entities and ne deity are those entities not trully seperate (which seems to be what Kat is suggesting), but instead different 'faces' of one being, or are they seperate but have some kind of power sharing situation over what ammounts to one seat of power (godhood)? Or do they shift back and forth between the two (Egyptian/'Voltron' style?)

Jesus was mentioned in the Old Testament as the "Angel of the Lord" and possibly "Melchizedek". So was the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely not. The Saints are basically just God's groupies.



This is a fantastic metaphor. Definitely better than the clover illustration I grew up with.



These are all described in the Bible and associated Canon. They were all originally angels (Lucifer included), and were all created by God to be servants for God (and later, humans). They all fall into the category of supernatural creatures, but not gods. I don't think even Satan/Lucifer calls himself a god.



I would not use this as a test. The RCC believes you can pray to anyone, regardless of godhood. On the flip side, God acknowledges in the Old Testament the existence of other gods, and tells us not to pray to them. So there seems to be little or no correlation between being the subject of prayer and godhood.

In reply to katisara (msg #11):


Actually the Hebrew is that God stated that you were to worship no other Gods, the term being beings other then him.  The important word being “Xetrium, “being to place higher.  The possible, and most common Jewish interpretation, is that one isn’t supposed to place a being above God, meaning elevating something to that greater than God.  This would include the worshiping of angels, with greater focus of your worship being them, or deifying some other entity.  For a good argument on this see Millard Brandon, “the original Language of the Bible,” 1998.

Granted, and you can argue that even if it did mean gods, it was referring to false gods. But regardless, it still proves my point - worship and prayer are not indicators of godhood.

It certainly does support it, just throwing a possibly tantalizing tidbit in.

I don't recall Lucifer being described as an Angel or fallen Angel in the Bible. I know that this one is frequently considered true amongst the general populace, but I'd like to have some sort of Canon reference for it...



It is the first test. I certainly wouldn't use it to have the result be final regarding godhood, merely that it's an indicator.  The second test is: Effect on the material world. Saints cannot directly effect the physical world, whereas demons/angels/Satan/God can. Here though, we might be able to rule angels/demons as errand boys for the big guys. Other mythologies have messengers of the gods, so Christianity could be no different.

I don't think it matters whether Satan refers to himself as a god. He could still be one. However, if he only effects the souls of people, he might be deemed a spirit (albeit powerful). If Satan has direct power over elements of the physical world and has worshippers that pray to him, I don't know why we couldn't swing the pendulum of godhood his way.



 On the flip side, God acknowledges in the Old Testament the existence of other gods, and tells us not to pray to them. So there seems to be little or no correlation between being the subject of prayer and godhood.
</quote>

</quote>

The word is used interchangeably with the morning lord, Janvigia, in Hebrew, see Job for instant, which interestingly enough there is no indication that Satan can’t still come into the presence of God, only that he can’t seem to stay there.  The term is also used interchangeably in the both the testing of Christ and in Revelations.  In genesis, he is just referred to early on as the Morning Lord and that when he fell a third Fell with him, and while there isn’t a number fixed to this, it is more than likely given other  hints in the Bible it’s quite a lot.   So, in short, Satan is clearly in the bible, he was originally called the Morning Lord, and was responsible for organizing worship around God, and was an Angel with a great deal of authority in heaven, it is unclear to what extent his power has lessened if any since his casting out.  It is clear however, that he doesn’t have the power to create anything, but has considerable power of manipulation.

There are Jewish texts (not part of the Bible, but still Canon), which detail the fall of Lucifer.



Like I said, I think it's a terrible indicator. It's like saying "we will test if something is a pot by seeing if it is hot".

There are many things which are not gods which are prayed to.
There are many gods or false gods which are not prayed to.

There's little or no correlation between the two factors. Perhaps you are looking for 'worship'?



According to Catholic canon, Saints CAN affect the material world. In fact, it's a requirement of being a Saint - they must have committed three miracles. Additionally, I can affect the material world, so perhaps I am a god too? However, several religions describe gods which have minimal observable effect on the material world.



Perhaps we should start with a definition of 'god'?

Even the definition is confused (looking up 'deity'):


Any supernatural, immortal creature? Of course not. Christianity (and a lot of other religions) believe we all have a supernatural, immortal soul. But we aren't all deities.

So figure out what you are trying to test, then we can figure out how to test for it.

If we don't mind getting back to the orriginal topic of how the many are one (or in teh case of teh trinity three are one) I do remember the cloverleaf analogy, but that would tend to suggest to me that God is a split personality (which being omnipotent has some very real manifest implications)...
Now admittedly this would be closer to the Buddhist derived concept- excepting that it does not also embrace pantheistic implications, rather than suggesting that somehow God was subjected to childhood trauma (now *there* is a trully frightening concept- 'yes, this deity was exposed to a childhood trauma they can't face directly. I'd recomend art therapy to work through the problem. Maybe create a universe...')

Rather the reverse, I suspect God created these facets not to deal with His trauma, but with ours (and to reduce the consequential trauma if God came mucking about in all His Glory and causing us to burst into flame).

I cast Animate Dead on this thread...

The evolution of polytheism to monotheism can be explained by looking at the evolution of mankind from a magical to a mythical worldview. In a nutshell (which is cracked open and discussed at length in the first part of Habermas' Theory of communicative action, a very interesting reading), the magical worldview is a very basic one, where the world is described as being home to spirits who rule all that which man does not understand: weather, animals, birth, death, disease, madness, stars etc. In this animistic world, man interprets nature as the work of invisible, powerful spirits whose will is unpredictable. Soothing the spirits to attract their favor is central. The ancients are regarded with respect, for old age is a sign that wou know how to please the spirits. (in terms of Spiral Dymanics, this is situated on the Purple level)

The first breakthrough occurs with the rebellion against these capricious spirits and the quest for self-assertion through personal power, especially power over nature. The religious worldview evolves from mysterious ancestors to powerful heroes with all-too-human characteristics, a projection of Man's wishes,  aspirations and nature. Attaining godhood as a mortal is possible through feats of heroism. This is characteristic for the Antiquity mythology: greek, roman, gaulish, hinduist etc. (On a side note, this is also the typical mythological system adopted in Dungeons and Dragons, particularly the Forgotten Realms). This worldview is called magic-mythical; in Spiral Dynamics, this is situated on the Red level. The interesting part is that this worldview not only surpasses the old one, but that it integrates it as well: all of the powerful gods have the characteristics of ancestor spirits, plus some extras.

Out of this emerges the mythical worldview: when all the powerful gods fail or grow forgotten, man turns towards an even greater power, an can only conceive it as a power he could never attain, one that completely transcends humanity. Such a power can only be unique, of course, otherwise it would merely be a rerun of the previous wordlview. This over-power is deemed creator of the world and is seen as mysterious and unattainable. Unlike the spirits of old, He is not arbitrary, instead following universal rules He designed and made known to the world. Human self-realization occurs through conformity to the eternal rule. This worldview is politically more "powerful" than the previous one because it is much more federating (which also explains why it durably supplanted the old belief systems and opposes them fiercely): personal power matters little, what counts is how good you follow the Eternal Law written by God. For the first time in human history, this is the worldview that gives a sense of purpose that is shared not only across the clan and family, but across the whole community of believers. This is the worldview of the great monotheistic religions, located on the Blue level of Spiral Dynamics. Here again, the new god transcends and includes the old ones: it commands to the material world it created, like the ancestors, and is mighty and strong and not to be toyed with, like the powerful gods, and goes beyond those two aspects to be federating.

This is, very briefly and shamelessly ripped off Habermas and Beck/Cowan, the evolution from magical to magic-mystical to mystical belief systems.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:02, Tue 15 Mar 2011.

I would argue that this sin't so much an evolution as a loop- animism/spiritualism connects to polytheism connects to monotheism, connects to pantheism, connects to panentheism, connects back to animism.
Which however has nothing to do with the point of this thread, which was to discuss the fact that hsitorically each of tehse has also held a trace of all the others- the Christian God is a trinity and the Jewish god forbids worshiping other Gods, he does not isist they do not exist. Egyptian polytheism incorporated the idea that teh gods were able to merge and become even more powerfull gods. Pantheism/panentheism includes the diea that god is within each of us, and that the apparently fragmentary ature of the divine can exist within multiple intelligences (such as you, me, etc.) which are nonetheless intereconnected, and animism can have a spirit of a tree as well as of a forest. The point is that the states between these world views are non-discrete.

I do not agree that panentheism leads back to animism. Animism is a dissociated worldview, where the spiritual beings are local and separated, whereas panentheism is the epitome of a nondual worldview. Of course, the nondual realization unfolds and manifests itself back into the ealier stages, but it is a very different thing to have anmistic spirituality because you have nothing else and having it as a manifest descent from a nondual state.



Not explicitely, but it is a logical conclusion. God created the universe, so if those other gods exist then he must have created them and they are to be respected as parts of the Creation. I think monotheism simply disregards those "primitive" gods at best as a misinterpretation, at worst as demons trying to lure humans.



That's like saying that "objects fall towards the ground" is equivalent to relativity theory: it's a pretty crude and locally limited equivalence. I rather believe, in a traditional neoplatonistic way, that the progression is NOT animism-polytheism-monotheism-pantheism-panantheism-animism, but rather animism-polytheism-monotheism-pantheism-panantheism-pantheism-monotheism-polytheism-animism. It's not a circle, it's what goes up comes down.



Trivial at this point of the discussion.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:46, Tue 15 Mar 2011.

Where do you get off calling animism localised or the profoundness of anothers points trivial? if you arecso dramatic in your divergance from my perspective then back it up with more than belittling words. Personally I know people who span the breach between panentheism and animism in their world view. Of course when your models aren't constructed with the a priori assumption of a linearalized development designed to stroke the authors own ego that they have achieved the pinacle of development the profundatity of the points you describe as trivial become self evident. I am familiar with the model you reference- I embraced nd rejected it, or that of a prior author who followed the same cycle of reinforcing their own preudices, by the time I was 14.

I did not mean to belittle anything and I beg your pardon if I offended you. I only meant that the fact that the transition between the worldviews is continuous and not discrete is indeed true, but I didn't feel it brought any insight relevant to this discussion. I assume the transition is not discrete and I assume you do too, so why bring up the point?



Of course they do, because you always have the possibility to "realign" the previous levels assuming you progressed in a way encompassing the previous wordview. If you do this up to panentheism, then you very well may have both coexisting.

I need to point out that people really able of attaining panentheism (and not merely reconstruct it intellectually like I'm doing right now) are exceendingly rare, because it takes a lifetime of dedicated spiritual practice. We're talking Buddha-like enlightenment here. You are lucky if you personally know more than one of those persons.



Now you're getting belittling. This "linear" model isn't as linear as you seem to think it is. Each step transcends and includes its predecessor, and progression isn't straight up: it goes up, stops, goes back, jumps upwards, stagnates... but once you've reached a more complex state, you can see the previous state in its context for the first time, and thus integrate it to your worldview. Thing is, if you indeed integrate the previous steps and not just phobically cut yourself from them, then you are able to see the progression all the way down as well, how formless God progressively manifests in the world.



Could you explain why you rejected this model, and what points struck you as unfitting?
This message was last edited by the player at 09:52, Wed 16 Mar 2011.

Well lets start with the absurdity you posit above which was, to be fair, not an aspect of teh version which I came across- the idea that each level incorporates the ones below it- now the models which  am familiar with require them to reject the levels below, which becomes abundantly clear at the level of polytheism->monotheism. You cannot simultaneously believe in multiple deities and that there is only one deity (though in that transition ground there is certainly some interesting overlap, which s hwere I began this discussion which you assert I have nothing to contribute to...).
Incidentally teh version of this linear model I first came across was one used by christian fundamentalists which posited that pantheism and pantheism were nothing but a relabeling of animism, in that spirit infused enverything while in true monotheism (TM their version of true monotheism) God exists outside the universe.
Liek I said, I have come across multiple versions of this hypothesis and whomever is positing it always has tehir own belief system at teh top as where everyone is evolving towards.
At teh same time I know plenty of 'fluffy bunny' pantheists who simply want to see The Divine in everything but reject the concept that the divine might have any sort of personality or motives. I've also met a pantheistic Hindu who described the world divided into Krishna and not Krishna, in which Krishan infused everything but tehre were still somehow demons which opposed him.
The concept of a worldview which incorporates all of teh above perspectives would not be termed pantheism or panentheim, those are a worldview of their own, and the comprehension of how these persepctives fit together can begin at any point within the wheel, even starting from a 'common' pantheism or panentheism and progress from there. I don't believe that any belief system makes one inherantly more enlightened than any other belief system.

Why the aggressivity?

I think you're confusing  two things here: the belief, and the structure. Pantheism or monotheism aren't beliefs, they are structures of belief. There's monotheistic Christianity, pantheistic Christianity, same for Islam, Buddhism, Zen... Of course, it is barely possible to be at the same time monotheist and polytheist (though the Hindu seem to have found a solution there), but it is very well possible to adopt a stance in which those structures are seen as necessary steps towards a more complex spirituality.



I already apologized and tried to clarify myself. If my intent isn't clear enough yet, or if you have a counter-argument, I'd be glad to participate, but I don't think passive-agressive comments are leading us any further.



It is if you postulate that one form of belief (polytheism, animism, monotheism...) is inherently better than another. I did not postulate such a thing. I was just pointing at how these belief systems link to each other.



On the other hand, wouldn't giving the Divine a personality and motives be a reduction of a great spiritual experience to a mere humanized concept?



That depends how you define enlightenment. I define it as the capacity to encompass a greater, deeper, more complex truth based on spiritual experience and the interpretation thereof. Thus, some belief structures are characteristic of a more enlightened spirituality than others. The way towards these more complex structures, be it Christianity, Buddhism, or whatever, matters only insofar as those systems tend to gravitate around a particular structure (e.g. Christianity and monotheism) and thus make it difficult to move beyond that particular structure and towards a more complex spirituality.

monotheism is a belief - a belief that there is one and only one deity. Lets not try to complicate the issue by reinventing language.

By postulating a linear evolution in which pantheism is the epitome of spiritual development and 'non duality' you incorporate the assertion that it is superior yto the other beliefs in your developmental paradigm.

the same way Calculus is superior to Algebra, s a greater development, though in the case of calculus/algebra the point is accurate.

And I didn't say that the structure one embraces cannot *hinder* spiritual development, merely that it does not inherantly bestow it.

In fact I would go so far as to assert that any structure which insists upon a single path to enlightenment inherantly limits the enlightenment of those adhering to it.

Including one true way "real" pantheism.

There are several concepts here getting grouped together which perhaps should not be.

1) Evolution  - evolution is the change of one form to another form. The assumption we like to carry is that the form which has changed the most is the most advanced or best. That is a basic species bias (and an uninformed one at that. I suspect we'd find whales or birds have evolved more overall than we have). I don't think this is a necessary component though - suffice to say that the creation of one system permits or encourages certain modifications that may lead to another system.

2) Require the rejection of the levels below - I don't think anything 'requires' that, however that change may permit it. If you are polytheistic, you can't reject the idea of multiple gods, by definition. If you are monotheistic, you have that luxury (as long as you only WORSHIP one god). So some monotheistic religions may reject multiple gods and some may not, but there's no requirement one way or another.



We've also seen evolution used to show that white men are superior to black men or women. That doesn't mean that evolution itself is a flawed model.



... nor the fact that almost every evolutionary tree you care to find ends with the creation of man at its pinnacle.



I would disagree with that. There have been plenty of belief systems which are structured such that they seriously inhibit the achievement of enlightenment. An easy example is Heaven's Gate, which believed a comet would bring spirits who would usher them away from Earth and to paradise. Killing oneself seems a pretty heavy bar to achieving enlightenment.

No. Just no. More complex does not mean better.



Completely agree with that.



Careful, structure/belief confusion. A structure does not give a path, it does not give anything, a structure just is. It is beliefs, and even more so institutionalized beliefs, which insist upon a path.
This put aside, I do agree with you, but what are the alternatives? All beliefs are centered around one single way to attain enlightenment, that could practically be called their defining characteristic. Do you know of any spiritual schools that teach more than one way to enlightenment? I personally don't know any.

The Unitarian Church tries to incorporate multiple paths to enlightenment. So does Ba'hai.



No, monotheism is WORSHIPPING a single god. This has been pretty well established in other threads on this same forum.



Calculus isn't 'superior' to algebra. It has specialized uses. In fact, you use algebra IN calculus. The one can't supplant the other. You could at least try competing fields, saying that say theory of relativity is superior to Newtonian physics, but you'd still be wrong. Realitivity gives better answers than Newtonian physics in some cases, but it does so at a cost. When calculating the speed of a car, I still use Newtonian physics because the margin of error compared to ToR is miniscule, and the amount of time required to calculate is significantly less and less prone to error.

<quote>
In fact I would go so far as to assert that any structure which insists upon a single path to enlightenment inherantly limits the enlightenment of those adhering to it.quote>

Do you have a source for this? It sounds like you're saying "we should teach kids all ways of doing math, and let them choose their favorite". It sounds nice, but in practice, it's not true. Our brains are formed certain ways and we accept information better in some ways than others. Structure guides us along particular pathways, hopefully the most efficient pathways, to achieving a particular goal. Lack of structure or limitations may well result in lost time (or complete failure) as time is wasted exploring redundant pathways to achieve understanding already gained.

Math does not lead to enlightenment. Unless you are calculating lumens output...

the point is that the goal defines the parameters.
and FYI, a structure can define a path- a belief structure can define a path of spiritual development from vague to highly ritualized, a physical structure can create, define or limit paths through things like hallways, doors, etc.

I either case the limitations only apply to those operating within the structure.

and in teh same way that someone who never leaves the house learns nothing of the world behind so do structures which limit spiritual develop inhibit spiritual learning/development. even if your hypothetical house is the library of congress with master teachers and a gymanasium (hypethetical allegory obviously) you are still limited in teh perspectives that you can envision to those contained within the structures, and will, for example, never comprehend the perspective of someone raised with fewer advantages (okay, allegory is reaching the breaking point...)

The point is that religion isn't math, isn't a linear development, and there is no better one true way. We don't ascend up a chain of beliefs where one belief system is on the top and teh epitome of spiritual development as the 'highest' form. Personally I feel the real state of enlightenment is when you can comprehend how all of the forms can be simultaneously true and false. sort of a quantum theology...

Not quite. It can act as a limiting factor regarding what can be found in a path, but it doesn't define the path itself.



Yes and no. It does indeed limit development once you reach the limits, but you have to start somewhere, and every unfolding in a new structure is an expansion of spiritual experience. In other words, gotta start walking before you run. Structures become limiting once you believe there's nothing outside ot them.



That's an unverified (and certainly unverifiable) assumption. As long as we agree that there are worse ways, then we have to admit that there are better ways too...



Of course not. But there is a possible ascension through different beliefs structures, going from the less complex to the more complex. This progression  is explicitely described in platonism and neoplatonism, sufism, mahayana buddhism, among others, which are pretty independent faiths with different assumptions. It's not a solid proof, but it's one hell of a hint.



You might want to specify what you mean with form. Many spiritual paths recognize formlessness as the epitome of spiritual development, where the question of true or false is irrelevant.

Ho ho ho, you're so funny :P

But seriously, math is a language for understanding the world. I would say that math leads to englightenment the same way English or science does - it creates a basis for which we can understand at all.

(And on many occaisions, discoveries in the fields of math or physics have directly translated over to theology, for instance regarding the creation or shape of the universe, the nature of planes or time and so on. So yes, math may lead to englightenment the same way any religion might. Math is burdened, however, in that it moves far more slowly and cautiously, and is still very young.)

But more importantly, I (and you) were using it as an example for one mindset overtaking and incorporating another. I may be monotheistic, but that does not mean that I am naturally antagonistic, or cannot synthesize the lessons from polytheism.




But so do the advantages. I would get from New York to San Francisco much faster following highways and signs. The highway signs don't help me very much if I'm driving through backyards.



But here's your problem - you assume that the structure we apply to learning minds must be applied forever. That's silly. I was introduced to Catholicism throughout my young life, but as I got older, I was also introduced to other religions, and as an adult, I regularly study most of the ones I can get my hands on. That structure gives me a basis from which I can build (and that method of teaching is pretty well agreed upon as being ideal by child psychologists).



Math isn't a linear development. Check out the history of String Theory for example, or encryption, which went back and forth and all over since its inception. Nor are any of these necessary the 'one true way', just 'effective ways for particular circumstances of problems'.



Great example!

(Some of my comments here are strictly in defense of math, and for the purpose of correcting some mis-statements. If you want to use a different allegory, you're welcome to.)

People please try to folow what i am saying before you argue against it. The last two posts seem dedicated to undermining a statement I did not make- I never said that all structure was bad, I said that structures *which define one true path to enlightenment* are inherantly limiting and as such inhibitory towards achieving true enlightenment. Obviously if you start on such a path then leave it then those limitations do not apply anymore, and if the structure recognizes multiple paths than the conditional statement is not met. If you never leave teh highway from LA to New York you will run out of gas, because gas stations are off teh highway, not on it.
Ultimately One True Wayism is about controling people, not enlightenment, though the assertion of enlightenment can easilly be a carrot that is offered, even if it is in fact unobtainable within that structure.
Platonic ideals do not ascend in complexity, complexity in Platonic theory is sthe result of imperfection in teh reflection of those ideals, so in fact platonic theory argues agaainst the idea you offer- sure most philosophies have an idea that tehre is a goal to be reached in spirituality, but that hardly argues for the inherant truth of the ascendancy of philosophies from animism to pantheism or panentheism. But let me here make a point -
assume for a moment that you are, as a begining argument, correct, and pan(en)theism is where it all leads to. Then when you get there you find that God infuses everything, and as such has a multitude of perspectives.
So what do you call an omnipotent being with multiple personalities?
Multiple beings.

Glass houses...



I understood you the first time and still do not agree with you. I said the structures BECOME limiting once you reach a certain development. They are not INHERENTLY limiting; rather, they serve the purpose of bringing you up to a certain point, after which they become obsolete.



We haven't read the same Plato, or at least, don't have the same interpretation... Platonic ascension is always directed towards a broader encompassing state, which contains, by very definition, more, and is thus more complex. Complex doesn't mean complicated.



You're starting with wrong premises, jump to conclusions, and end with a questionable conclusion.

First, panentheism does not merely profess that God infuses everything. That would be the first and most basic form of pantheism, to be related to Plato's allegory of the sun. It is the Over-Soul of Emerson, the buddhist Invisible Eye. Panentheism is best summed up by the classic Hinduist mantra "Brahma is the world". It is the nondual stance, the realization that there isn't God and the world, or form and substance, but rather that God is the world, the world is God, form is substance and substance is form.

Second, you're humanizing the divine again. Perspectives and personalities are concepts that make sense only in the light of individual egos and thus completely stop making sense once you adopt pantheism (and sure enough don't make more sense in panentheism).

And last, I never pretended that panentheism is what it all leads to. If you read my messages carefully over again, you'll notice I spoke of another unfolding starting from panentheism to end in animism and even farther, in materialism and atomism. In neoplatonic terms, the ascending movement towards panentheism is Wisdom. The descending, away from panentheism, is Compassion.

If two people are arguing against the 'wrong' argument, consider perhaps it needs rephrasing? :)



Why? If that path says "God is the true God, have faith", so on and so forth, then goes on to say "understand God has many faces, look at these other religions and see if there is truth in them... but remember God is the one true God..." that would seem to be saying there is one "true" path, but recognizing there is still value to be acquired from lesser paths (even if that value is as minor as "silent meditation in lotus position").

I guess ultimately what it comes down to is, I feel like you are giving a hard statement which sounds nice ("you should accept other peoples' ideas, because only through diversity can you find truth"), but I've not seen any real arguments for it.

And of course, this completely ignores that "The True Way" is a huge simplification. Are you talking about "The True Church Name"? "The True Teaching Method"? "The True Prayer Book"? I consider Catholicism a "One Way" religion, but that does not preclude it from taking some ideas from Buddhism or Paganism and incorporating them to enrich the experience of its practitioners.



It can be, but that doesn't mean it always is.



That seems a simplistic answer. Why not just call it a multi-faceted god? Or a trinity (or polyity, or whatever)?

1) All limitations by tehri nature become signifigant after some point of development, but still exist prior to that point. A ceiling in my house limits the altitude of flight for bugs and any birds which may enter my house. It imposes a limitation on the altitude of flight. technically it limits my own ability to fly inside my house as well, though my lack of wings or other ability to fly is a far more signifigant limitation. Nevertheless the limitation is there whether it affects you or not.

2)


if it ackowldges the validity of other paths but does not recognize their equality then it is not 'one true way' it si 'one better way'. One true way is when either a) all other paths are considered to eb deceptions which lead away from the truth or b) all other paths are considered ancilarry and only of value in the presumption that they will lead to the true path.
the second is rare in modern christianity, but was/is applied to a lot of pre-christian beliefs by christians who tend to be 'one true way'ists and see the value in prechristian religions as preparing teh way for Christianity.

Which is not to say that one true wayism is either inherant to all forms of christainity nor limited to christinaity, it just tends to be the way it manifets within the mainstream.

But as you pointed out, that limitation may not be relevant. Buddhism may be the 'one true religion' which provides everything we need as humans. If we were octopi, maybe it would not be so super.



I think you're defining a religion as though it's a one-line thing. I can say "Buddhism is all wrong, and following Buddha will lead to Hell, but they have meditation methods which, if turned to God, may help towards salvation". Or alternatively, "Buddhism is all wrong, but their understanding of the nature of the spirit augments our own and can be used".

Heck, you love to bring this up yourself. Catholicism I'd say is pretty heavily a "one true way" religion, yet it borrowed all over the place from Greek, Roman and other pagan religions.

The point is that if you are looking for enlightenment then you have to be able to see the truth within teh lie and teh lie within the truth, so cutting yourself off from one aspect or another of the world arrund you is inherantly limiting, the more you do so the more limiting it is.
Catholicism is hardly teh monolithic entity it is made out to be. Many Popes have reached out to other religions even acknowledging that other religions 'seek the same light' by different paths. Compare this to a born again charismatic christian who won't even listen to another religon because they are in league with the devil and Catholicism looks remarkably open. of course the issue is on a sliding scale not bianary, and within any large group there will be variation of adherance to teh strictures of any belief. And of course there may well be goals to a religious belief system besides enlightenment, which may be seen as either coequal to enlightenment or superior to it. My point is one which I had thought to be simple and self evident when reduced to it's essence- strictures restrict, and a prohibition against considering a perspective leaves you blinded to it's wisdom.

I think your a priori assumption here is that you are especially enlightened, and that your 'truth within the lie' is part of that. Unfortunately, in a debate scenario, you would have a difficult time proving that.




You are correct. But your assumption here is that strictures restrict but cannot provide sufficient wisdom on their own. Railroads restrict, but if they get me where I need to go, that restriction is acceptable, even desirable.

If you could prove that no single religion can provide all the religion-stuff a person requires to reach enlightenment (or salvation, or whatever your end-goal is), your argument would be bulletproof. But no one can prove that, and on that basis, exclusive religions are still as valid as inclusive ones, all else being equal.

1) If enlightenment could simply be taught, then it inevitably would be
2) If one religion taught enlightenment, then everyone following it's lessons would be enlightened.
3) Since there is no religion wherein all of it's members are, after a given amount of training, enlightened, then no single religion can hold all the answers in a transferable format.
4) since no religion has all the answers, then obviously it is necessary to look outside the religion to get answers.
5) Ergo any religion which does not allow one to look outside itself prevents full enlightenment.

Your points about acceptability of limitation are acknowledged, indeed I have even made the point myself that they can easilly be valid if there ar goals to the religion besides simply enlightenment. In other words saying 'the rails are usefull if I want to go to new York' is meaningless in the context of 'be able to go anywhere in the world' in which case you would be better off with your own two feet.

Question: What is it to be "enlightened"?

I know what the Buddhist definition of the word is but many religions and spiritual teachings do not define it nor is it their goal.  I believe you have to define this universal "enlightenment" before you can say what paths can or can not be used to attain it.

From Webster:
en·light·ened/enˈlītnd/Adjective
1. Having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook.
2. Spiritually aware

Now in the ideal sense I would say it would have to include both of these things and apply them to each other- someone who is well informed and rational about spirituality and spiritually aware in their rationality and outlook. Now what that means in the extreem can be hard to define, as one would have to be enlightened to fully define the criteria, and I suspect anyone that enlightened would not actually claim to be enlightened.

At the same time most religions do seek enlightenement, but most do not make it their primary goal - for Christianity it is salvation, Islam submision to teh will of God, and so on, but each also requires some degree of enlightenment to be pursued.

This is not true. My school taught calculus, but not all students could do math. I don't know of any religion which has said the only requirement of achieving understanding is to attend lessons every Sunday - it requires work - usually more work than the average person will or can give.

This is all very abstract and non-quantitative (necessarily so), but I would be very interested to find a definition of who is 'enlightened'. Then all we would need to do is find one individual who achieved it relying on a single religion and we'd have definitive counterproof to your argument.

On the other hand your calculus class had what, a semester, one year to learn it? I would think in say 10 years everyone would either give up or learn calculus. If enlightenment vould be objectively taught then I would expect anyone who stuck with it for say 40 years would have made some measureable progress.

I would expect only those who are required to or interested in achieving progress would achieve progress. There's no guarantee or requirement that the followers of a particular religion show that. So for instance, Christianity's self-stated goal is for people to establish a relationship with Jesus - nothing more. However, I think they offer a lot of wisdom (perhaps all necessary religion-provided stuff to achieve enlightenment). Those who wish to pursue it may find that Christianity provides all the religion-stuff necessary, but most Christians just don't care to make that investment.

Sure, enlightenment is hardly a necessity... I already expressed a caveat that this was a one dimentional analysis...

But you can't say 'clearly this religion doesn't offer enlightenment because not 100% of its followers are enlightened, and they probably wouldn't even want it if they found it anyway'.

If you accept that adherents to a religion may not WANT enlightenment, and that just being a member of a religion may not impart all the wisdom that religion has to offer, you can't make the argument 'not 100% of followers of this religion have achieved enlightenment, ergo this religion does not have that information'.

In fact, you can't even make a comment on whether a singular religious path can deliver you to enlightenment. They best you can do is show no occurences of the inverse. To show your position, the first thing you need to do is make honest attempts to disprove your position (and fail). Look for people who HAVE achieved enlightenment, and figure out how many followed multiple religious paths, and how many followed only one.

I'm sure this has been done before, but I've never read about it. I'd be extremely curious what the results are.

I ddn't say "this religion doesn't offer enlightenment". Indeed most religions do *offer* it. What *none* of them do is deliver reliably. You ar e'disproving' points I am not trying to make and, I suspect, getting upset at things you are reading into what I am saying. The point I ma trying to make is not about the innate superiority of any given religion but about the nature of enlightenment compared to insular thinking.

That depends on your standards for reliability...

I'm not getting upset :) Just contesting. Specifically, contesting the idea that you posted earlier that following a single path is less effective than being open to all paths. That idea is intuitive, but it's unprovable and based on unsound assumptions.

But again, that isn't what I said. I said that a closed path is more limiting than an open one, specifically in regards to achieving enlightenment. I think by definition we can all agree to the more general case (a closed path is more limting than an open one) is there any reason that general statement would *not* apply to enlightenment?

That's not the point. More limiting does not mean less effective. The overwhelming majority of people who can be said to have achieved enlightenment did follow a "closed" path.

I doubt that, but then again I believe you may be misreading what I am saying about what it means for a path to be closed as well, so go ahead, name some.
FYI- my definition of a closed path is not according to a specific faith or religion, but teh attitude that their doctrine holds all wisdom, and that other doctrines are corrupting, misleading, and have no value. So I am curious who you would pick that simultaneuosly holds that position and whom you consider to be enlightened.
Or perhaps again your reflexive assumption of what I meant led you to an erroneous reading of my statements?

Alright, so you're saying that a closed path is more limiting than an open one regarding finding enlightenment - but may still be more effective. I guess I can accept that - the open path may or may not be faster, but it certainly has more scenery.

May be more effective for some goals, yes.

I think GMC's original comment can be supported by non-biblical historical research. The early semitic god was not significantly different from other gods of the region. The only real difference was, at the time of Moses, it became an exclusive religion. This is different from other peoples because as the landscape shifted, cities (and individuals) would accept new gods, or new names for old gods, in order to integrate the new ruling class with the people.

If you read up on the politics of the period, the Semetic tribes were rather xenophobic and exclusive, especially the tribes further to the south of the area.

Around the time of the Jesus was the next major change, when Yahweh ceased to be a local god, a god just for the Jewish people, and instead became a universal God, the God that ruled all people.

It's important to realize that the people of the time lived and were raised with neighbors who would worship their own gods for their towns, and this was just how things were. It's like I respect the office of the president of the US, but not the queen of England, because I'm American, not English.  God saying 'worship no other gods' does not imply that the other gods are legitimate, but it also isn't saying that the people of Uruk should not worship Inanna (because remember, they aren't Jewish).

I really don't see this as being so confusing.

The text in question itself also makes it clear that man-made gods are being condemned.

If my wife is snuggling up to a stuffed chicken and spending all of her time with it and calling it her husband, not only would I call into question her sanity, but jealousy would be a possible real feeling as well.  However, there is no confusion that she actually has another husband.

I'm on the fence here so far.  I think katisara's point that the message was only for Jews at the time is an important one.  In the "you shall have no other gods before me", "you" refers to the Jews, not to everyone.  Which makes things a bit ambiguous.

I also think Doulos' example perhaps hurts his argument slightly.  If your wife was getting freaky with a chicken, and claiming it was her other husband, the natural response would seem to be "that's not a husband, it's a chicken!"  If instead you said "you're not supposed to have another husband other than me!" it sort of seems to imply that you accept that the chicken could be a husband if you hadn't already gotten first dibs.

That said, I think there's enough ambiguity, at least in the 10 commandments passage, to read it either way.  The Isaiah line seems like a pretty strong example Doulos' side.

My example might be silly, who knows.

Either way, when dealing with ambiguity it seems wise to then refer to texts that are quite explicit and clear like in Isaiah.

I think the historical context is also very important.

There are many references in the bible to other gods.  They were condemned not because they didn't exist, nor because they were man made, but because they were in competition with YHVH for the worship of the Jews.  What's more, this view is supported by the historical record: this is how everyone worshiped in those days.  Remember that YHVH inarguably started off as a tribal god: By saying "I am your only god", he doesn't necessarily mean he is the only god, just the true god for the Jews.

Another interesting note about the wording of the 10 comandments as it has come to us: "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before ME"

Makes no mention of after... So long as God is primary in your worship by the wording of the english text you can give secondary veneration to whomever you like, so long as they do not opose nor compeet with God.

Interesting viewpoints.  Completely disagree with them because it seems to be overcomplicating a direct reading of things.

Obviously there was a belief in a TON of other gods at the time, but for the Jews to believe that only one was real seems very logical and in step with the OT.

But if I may venture, do you do research from non-religious sources? Non-Christian sources? Have you talked about a Jewish biblical scholar, or a secular one, on what the most likely mindset was at the time?

One problem we all face is that we are modern people reading modern translations with a modern mindset. But realistically, did people view God the same way we do now? Other gods? The likelihood of that is almost nil, given how different our entire worlds are. Just speaking for myself, I don't even know what the modern Jewish view on the matter is, muchless that of someone who actually lived in the time.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. Just that dismissing other viewpoints as 'over-complicated' may be ignoring some major factors.

I don't mean to be dismissive.  My personal take is that while a historical understanding of these matters is critical, that sometimes things become overcomplicated when they don't need to be.

Countless times the OT speaks clearly about one god, only god, god alone etc.

I tend to gravitate towards the clear and easy to understand when making decisions as to how to interpret something.

It seems like words are being morphed into a fuzzy understanding in an effort to make a point about something that in other places seems to be utterly clear.  I could be wrong though, I fully admit that.

Countless times the Old Testament also refers to multiple gods, other gods, etc.  YHVH is always referred to as the primary god of the Jews, but other gods are referenced plenty of times. I think it was Solomon who was punished for consulting a witch-- not because the witch was wrong, but because she worshiped another god.

Now, we're faced with the possibility that the bible either does refer to multiple gods, or there's a contradiction in the bible (in which case, it still refers to multiple gods).  In either case, there's a lot of references to other gods.

I completely agree that the Bible discusses other gods.

The question is whether those gods were to viewed as real/competing/alternate or simply as idols/fake/false.

I'm not convinced it's anything other than the latter.

In reply to Doulos (msg #68):

Again, the verse I cited above makes it clear that YHVH is jealous of other gods.  I'd have to say they exist in order to him to be jealous of them.

I don't agree at all.  Can simply be jealous of the undue attention that your people are giving to these false idols.

Again, this is a verse with some ambiguous language being compared to a massive volume of texts that say otherwise.  For example:

Isaiah 44:6
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isaiah 44:6-8
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Deuteronomy 4:35
To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.

Psalm 86:10
For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God.

These are just the OT and from various book. Isaiah alone is riddle with very explicit verses that say only YHVH is God.

I'm not saying that the OT does not speak of other gods, but only that the clear message is that there is but one God, despite what other gods may be worshipped (by the Jewish people or others)

As I am writing this I just realize the potential source of confusion here.  I am very open to the Jewish people historically having other gods other than YHVH, or even that YHVH was just one of many in a potential pantheon of gods worshipped by certain people in certain regions.  Sure, no problems there.

However, if we're speaking of the message of the OT, then I don't believe it can be any clearer - YHVH is God and God alone, despite whate else people might be saying or doing.

Anyways, I have massive issues with the OT as a document of much worth anyways these days, so tis whole discussion is more academic than practical for me, but I have to admit I have always been confused by claims that the OT itself indicates that actual other gods existed, only that other so called gods were worshipped/followed.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:17, Wed 13 June 2012.

I'm no expert on ancient Hebrew, but I noticed that there's a difference between god as "a divine being", and God as in supreme being.  In many of the passages you cite, it can easily be interpreted that there is only one true god of the Jews.  Your Malachi verse, for example-- it clearly refers to the Semetic god YHVH, and does not exclude any of the others, since it refers to the god who created them.  That does not mean that another god did not create the other people in the world.  (And in fact, Genesis references some such people, such as the inhabitants of the land of Nod.)


When it comes to the message of the old testament, it says that there is one true god for the *Jews*: YHVH.  Not that YHVH is the only real divine being, just that he is the one for the Semitic tribes, and he will tolerate worship of no other.

The concept that there is only one god, period, I'm not sure where it originated.  Sometime after the time of Paul; he referenced other gods, although I can't recall him outright denouncing any as false.  At any event, the point was that I'm not sure when omnipotence or singularity was bestowed on YHVH.  It wasn't in the old testament, though.

Well interesting to see how people interpret things.  As always that's why I find the OT close to useless these days (along with almost every text in existence) in that 2 people can look at the exact same thing and see completely different versions of it.

Yes, this I can agree with. If taken as a whole, the OT does say that there is only one true God. However, there were definitely periods, and individuals or tribes (Jewish and not) who felt otherwise.

So to answer GMC's question, Yahweh was attributed those things because a prophet said so (whether you believe he was divinely inspired or not), and it was incorporated as part of the body of beliefs. We can definitely see that pretty clearly in the OT. However, I think this was a gradual development of understanding, and it is in fact rather unique for the time.

I have no problem with that at all.  My only concern was with the belief that the OT itself does not claim to hold a monotheistic view.