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.