All Religions Are Polytheistic?

[Silverbackman]

If you think about all religions are polytheistic. Even Abrahmic Faiths are if you really look at it. How do we define "God"? If you ask a monotheistic he tells you that God means the ultimate eternal ruler of the universe. However Polytheistic people do not believe in many ultimate eternal rulers of the universe, each God is designed a specific role in the universe and cannot do the same things one God could. So then should all these polytheistic gods be called one gods or something else?

Now if we look closer into polytheistic religion Shaytan can be considered a God in polytheistic terms. He is the God of Evil. The angel Gabriel maybe an angel of God, but in a way he is a God all of his own considering he is from the heavens and can do supernatural feats and stuff. If we look at Greco-Roman religions, there are many gods but many of them work for Zeus the supreme God.

So wouldn't it depend more on how you define "God" before calling it a polytheistic religion? Perhaps monotheistic religions only have God and no other Heavenly or Hades figures.

What do you think?

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So wouldn't it depend more on how you define "God" before calling it a polytheistic religion? Perhaps monotheistic religions only have God and no other Heavenly or Hades figures.

What do you think?

"...Satan being a product of human minds and of instinctive human tendencies toward error. God alone is Creator, and all are creatures of His might."

Link is about 1/3rd down the page.

In the Baha'i Faith there are grades of holiness, but the curve goes to infinity at God, while the curve is mearly unmeasurable at Manifestations and the Holy Spirit in whatever form it is.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So wouldn't it depend more on how you define "God" before calling it a polytheistic religion? Perhaps monotheistic religions only have God and no other Heavenly or Hades figures.

What do you think?

I think it depends on how you define polytheism. Is polytheism:

a. Belief that there are many equal gods
b. Belief that powerful beings other than Supreme God exist
c. Worship of many gods (in the context of a or b)
d. None of the above - please define!

I think what will be more interesting to discuss is: what exactly is polytheism?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

If you think about all religions are polytheistic. Even Abrahmic Faiths are if you really look at it. How do we define "God"? If you ask a monotheistic he tells you that God means the ultimate eternal ruler of the universe. However Polytheistic people do not believe in many ultimate eternal rulers of the universe, each God is designed a specific role in the universe and cannot do the same things one God could. So then should all these polytheistic gods be called one gods or something else?

Now if we look closer into polytheistic religion Shaytan can be considered a God in polytheistic terms. He is the God of Evil. The angel Gabriel maybe an angel of God, but in a way he is a God all of his own considering he is from the heavens and can do supernatural feats and stuff. If we look at Greco-Roman religions, there are many gods but many of them work for Zeus the supreme God.

So wouldn't it depend more on how you define "God" before calling it a polytheistic religion? Perhaps monotheistic religions only have God and no other Heavenly or Hades figures.

What do you think?

Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (as well as the Bab and Baha`u'llah) Say God is ONE: "Shma O Yisroel . . . " Muhammed clearly states that God has no partners nor equals. Baha`u'llah says Satan is the voice within each of us that panders to our baser selves when we are called upon to behave ethically.

Trying to view God as an "entity" is the problem. Most picture God as being "the universe" in some way or another. The fact is that we cannot understand God with our own nature. If anything God contains the universe, and the universe does not contain God. If one looks at this way, how can one make partners for God?

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (as well as the Bab and Baha`u'llah) Say God is ONE: "Shma O Yisroel . . . " Muhammed clearly states that God has no partners nor equals. Baha`u'llah says Satan is the voice within each of us that panders to our baser selves when we are called upon to behave ethically.

Trying to view God as an "entity" is the problem. Most picture God as being "the universe" in some way or another. The fact is that we cannot understand God with our own nature. If anything God contains the universe, and the universe does not contain God. If one looks at this way, how can one make partners for God?

Even if they spoke of one God it doesn't make it so, or it does make it so meaning all religions are monotheistic in that sense. If we look at Greco religion we can Zeus is God, and all other beings with supernatural powers are nothing more than angels or evil angels (Hades, Possedin, ect.). Now using the same logic we can turn any other religion into a monotheistic religion since most religions have an supreme God. Now if we try to turn Judeo-Christianity into a polytheistic religion we can say that Yahweh is just the supreme God, and Shaytan, Gabriel, or any other being are lesser Gods.

Also if you look at Christianity it is very much a polytheistic. Many Muslims I have talked state that God cannot be 3 distinct Beings (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit) and saying it makes the religion polytheistic (in this sense tritheistic.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

I think it depends on how you define polytheism. Is polytheism:

a. Belief that there are many equal gods
b. Belief that powerful beings other than Supreme God exist
c. Worship of many gods (in the context of a or b)
d. None of the above - please define!

I think what will be more interesting to discuss is: what exactly is polytheism?

I would say we really need to look at what makes a polytheistic.....well polytheistic. So in a sense polytheism and monotheism are very reletive terms because most religions do have beings that either reflect the absolute God, or have supernatural beings nonetheless. If monotheism is really true there is only one supernatural being, and this supernatural being is one distinct being and not three seperate beings.

Originally Posted by smkolins

"...Satan being a product of human minds and of instinctive human tendencies toward error. God alone is Creator, and all are creatures of His might."

Link is about 1/3rd down the page.

In the Baha'i Faith there are grades of holiness, but the curve goes to infinity at God, while the curve is mearly unmeasurable at Manifestations and the Holy Spirit in whatever form it is.

I guess you can say then any religion is monotheistic that has a universal force of one in many different forms. That would rule out out Greco-Roman religions as monotheistic, but not hinduism because hinduism still has one fundemental force. However if you define Zeus or Jupiter as only a God, and claim Apollo or Hades are just angels then Greco-Roman religions can turn polytheistic.

But then we would have to discuss is God a force or a being? Or both? If there is one universal force and different Gods in a sense all religions are monotheistic.

[Agnideva]

Hi Silver,

I am still not sure how you’ve defined polytheism. From what you wrote, my understanding is that the existence of any beings other than God implies a type of polytheism.

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

So in a sense polytheism and monotheism are very relative terms because most religions do have beings that either reflect the absolute God, or have supernatural beings nonetheless.

I agree with you there. Most religions do recognize that there are beings other than God who are greater than humans. But in many religions, particularly Abrahamic, these beings are not worship worthy, and are not be worshipped.

If monotheism is really true there is only one supernatural being, and this supernatural being is one distinct being and not three seperate beings.

If there are no other beings but God, then there should also be no individuality because even individual souls are kind of a lesser being below God. Do you agree? In other words, there should only be God and nothing else. This view is held only by the monistic theory in Hinduism – that only God (Brahman) truly exists and all other individualities are existent only relatively in the interim between creation and dissolution. So, this would be Monism rather than Monotheism.

I guess you can say then any religion is monotheistic that has a universal force of one in many different forms. That would rule out out Greco-Roman religions as monotheistic, but not hinduism because hinduism still has one fundemental force.

Yes, in monistic Hinduism, God (Brahman) is the only force, the only eternal existence (dualists disagree with this premise). But even within monistic Hinduism, the relative existence of many lesser beings below God is admitted.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

Hi Silver,

I am still not sure how you’ve defined polytheism. From what you wrote, my understanding is that the existence of any beings other than God implies a type of polytheism.

I agree with you there. Most religions do recognize that there are beings other than God who are greater than humans. But in many religions, particularly Abrahamic, these beings are not worship worthy, and are not be worshipped.

Actually you bring up an interesting defination. If we were to define monotheism as worshiping only one supernatural being, and no other supernatural being that would make sense. Christianity in this case then would not be considered monotheistic, because they still worship 3 distinct beings (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit).

If there are no other beings but God, then there should also be no individuality because even individual souls are kind of a lesser being below God. Do you agree? In other words, there should only be God and nothing else. This view is held only by the monistic theory in Hinduism – that only God (Brahman) truly exists and all other individualities are existent only relatively in the interim between creation and dissolution. So, this would be Monism rather than Monotheism.

If we think about you are right because if monotheism means only God exsists, then how can any souls exsist (because souls are sort of supernatural). But keep in mind if we define God as a supernatural force then we do not fit this category because we are apart of a natural force (at least in this realm).

I myself am neither monist nor dualist, I am more trist, if there is such a word. I believe there are 3 fundemental forces of the absolute force. If we think about all aspects of nature is like this. In an atom you have the proton, election, and neutrons. You can be hot, cold, or warm. You can be male, female, or in between. In a sense what I believe at the same time is both monism and dualism because I do feel there is one fundemental force (monism), but believe in that within the one force there are two opposite force (dualism). But where there are opposite and negative forces, there must be a third neutral force.

I define God in three parts: Heaven, Hell, and Nature. Heaven is a postive force (good), Hell is a negative force (evil), and Nature (neutral). So am I polytheist in the fact that I believe in 3 parts of God? But I do believe these 3 forces are all linked to one force, so perhaps I'm monotheist? It would depend how you look at it, but I myself do not worship neither of the gods. Prayer and Meditation are different from worship, so that might boot out the whole idea of "how many Gods your worship" a way to detirmine whether or not you monotheist or polytheist.

Yes, in monistic Hinduism, God (Brahman) is the only force, the only eternal existence (dualists disagree with this premise). But even within monistic Hinduism, the relative existence of many lesser beings below God is admitted.

I can agree with that, but what about if I think the one fundemental force is dividing further into 3 forces? Is that too different or the same?

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

If we were to define monotheism as worshiping only one supernatural being, and no other supernatural being that would make sense. Christianity in this case then would not be considered monotheistic, because they still worship 3 distinct beings (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit).

I believe this is how Abrahamic monotheism is defined – as worship of one God and not of beings other than God. In Christianity, there are three distinct beings sharing one nature, so it is sort of "tri-theism" within monotheism.

Hinduism, by contrast, is largely henotheistic, which means there is one Supreme God who is all encompassing, but there are mighty beings within God’s creation who are also worthy of worship. The mighty beings are souls just like us, but they are very mature souls described to be living in their "self-effulgent soul-bodies", who guide us toward the pursuit of liberation.

If we think about you are right because if monotheism means only God exsists, then how can any souls exsist (because souls are sort of supernatural). But keep in mind if we define God as a supernatural force then we do not fit this category because we are apart of a natural force (at least in this realm).

Yes that's right, if we think of ourselves only as the physical body . The Hindu view is that whereas the body is part of nature, but the soul is not. The soul is distinct from nature and completely immaterial.

I myself am neither monist nor dualist, I am more trist, if there is such a word. I believe there are 3 fundemental forces of the absolute force.

Ah, interesting! You’re views sound something like "dualism" in Hinduism. When we say Hindu "dualism" it really means pluralism or triism. But it's kinda different from what you described. The pluralistic philosophies admit three eternal indestructable substances: God, nature and soul. The force that acts on all three is God (Brahman). Upon cosmic dissolution, only the three substances remain, but in their unmanifest states. The unmanifest state of nature (matter) is energy, and the unmanifest state of the soul is called a potentiality. According to pluralistic philosophies, all the opposites: proton and electron, good and evil, happiness and sadness, heaven and hell are part of nature, which are acted upon by Brahman, and for the soul to enjoy/endure until liberation. Obviously, the monists have big problems with this philosophy.

what about if I think the one fundemental force is dividing further into 3 forces? Is that too different or the same?

I don't know. Can you identify with the pluralism ("dualism") as described above?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Actually you bring up an interesting defination. If we were to define monotheism as worshiping only one supernatural being, and no other supernatural being that would make sense. Christianity in this case then would not be considered monotheistic, because they still worship 3 distinct beings (Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit).

that depends on the Christian. I am a bible believing Christian & I do not worship 3 distinct beings. I worship ONE being, the same way the Jews do.

I worship ONE God, IN & THROUGH, the man Christ Jesus.
& no, i do not have a written doctrine to offer, on how & why I see it that way.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

If you think about all religions are polytheistic. Even Abrahmic Faiths are if you really look at it. How do we define "God"? If you ask a monotheistic he tells you that God means the ultimate eternal ruler of the universe. However Polytheistic people do not believe in many ultimate eternal rulers of the universe, each God is designed a specific role in the universe and cannot do the same things one God could. So then should all these polytheistic gods be called one gods or something else?

Now if we look closer into polytheistic religion Shaytan can be considered a God in polytheistic terms. He is the God of Evil. The angel Gabriel maybe an angel of God, but in a way he is a God all of his own considering he is from the heavens and can do supernatural feats and stuff. If we look at Greco-Roman religions, there are many gods but many of them work for Zeus the supreme God.

So wouldn't it depend more on how you define "God" before calling it a polytheistic religion? Perhaps monotheistic religions only have God and no other Heavenly or Hades figures.

What do you think?

Sir

I also do not agree with you, in fact the monotheists believe that One God has many attributes and these attributes need not to be personified or physically made, since God is not a physical being, rather everything physical has been created by Him and he is distinctively aloof of all the creations. God is manifest by His attributes. I would say, please do not mind, out of confusion the polytheists might have personified the attributes of God and often made physical gods and named the same accordingly.



“Shytan” is not a being in itself;it has been created by God.Rightly observed by Mr.Smkolins "...Satan being a product of human minds and of instinctive human tendencies toward error. God alone is Creator, and all are creatures of His might."



“Gabriel” is also not a being in himself, and works as God orders him, so there is no need to treat him god.



The fact is that all true prophets of great religions of the world on whom God revealed Himself and talked to them, one to one, they have given the message to the mankind that God is one.



To me, it is not a philosophical question; it is the observation and experience of the prophets who talked with God in different ages and different regions of the world that God is one.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by inhumility

Sir

I also do not agree with you, in fact the monotheists believe that One God has many attributes and these attributes need not to be personified or physically made, since God is not a physical being, rather everything physical has been created by Him and he is distinctively aloof of all the creations. God is manifest by His attributes. I would say, please do not mind, out of confusion the polytheists might have personified the attributes of God and often made physical gods and named the same accordingly.



“Shytan” is not a being in itself;it has been created by God.Rightly observed by Mr.Smkolins "...Satan being a product of human minds and of instinctive human tendencies toward error. God alone is Creator, and all are creatures of His might."



“Gabriel” is also not a being in himself, and works as God orders him, so there is no need to treat him god.



The fact is that all true prophets of great religions of the world on whom God revealed Himself and talked to them, one to one, they have given the message to the mankind that God is one.



To me, it is not a philosophical question; it is the observation and experience of the prophets who talked with God in different ages and different regions of the world that God is one.

-----------------------------

It also ignores the current meaning of the words: "polytheism" and "monotheism". You can't insist on your own definition of the terms and discuss them with others when the words do not mean the same thing. Its pointless, and disingenuous.

Regards,
Scott

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I define God in three parts: Heaven, Hell, and Nature. Heaven is a postive force (good), Hell is a negative force (evil), and Nature (neutral). So am I polytheist in the fact that I believe in 3 parts of God? But I do believe these 3 forces are all linked to one force, so perhaps I'm monotheist?

If you like examples from physics consider the phenomina of an "electron hole". It's a very real thing, and yet not real at all. Shadows are very real, exact things, and yet defined, created, but what they lack. In this sense true evil is the lack of good - and the strongest evil is merely the most clearcut case of the lack of good.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

-----------------------------

It also ignores the current meaning of the words: "polytheism" and "monotheism". You can't insist on your own definition of the terms and discuss them with others when the words do not mean the same thing. Its pointless, and disingenuous.

Regards,
Scott

Sir,

I give meanings of the words as per "Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary" as under:-

Polytheism-belief in or worship of more than one god

Monotheism-belief that there is only one God

I exactly meant as defined above. English is not my mother tongue, I accept. Kindly mention correct meaning of the words. Thanks and regards.
Yours
inhumility

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by inhumility

Sir,

I give meanings of the words as per "Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary" as under:-

Polytheism-belief in or worship of more than one god

Monotheism-belief that there is only one God

I exactly meant as defined above. English is not my mother tongue, I accept. Kindly mention correct meaning of the words. Thanks and regards.
Yours
inhumility

that definition works for me. anything beyond that seems to complicate & distract the bottom line. mono works for the application on keyboards also. ONE note at a time. Poly would mean more than one note at a time.

[inhumility]

Sir,

I also don’t insist on anything. It is an Interfaith Forum; I inform only what I believe in. For bridging between the faiths, I think it will facilitate if the things are discussed in an understandable manner. The religions are for common and ordinary people, and the prophets addressed the ordinary people. The true religions are simple. My submission was also simple thatthe fact is that all true prophets of great religions of the world on whom God revealed Himself and talked to them, one to one, they have given the message to the mankind that God is one.
To me, it is not a philosophical question; it is the observation and experience of the prophets who talked with God in different ages and different regions of the world that God is one and one only. They could not collaborate on anything being separated in time and space from one another. We (all great religions of the world) believe in God on testimony of the truthful prophets, when He revealed Himself to them and told them to give this message to the fellow human beings and that is why the prophets are also called Messengers of God. This was the message, primarily, which could not be understood or in fact practiced without believing in the Messengers also. Philosophically it can only be discussed as to “what should be”, it is only through observation and experience determined what in reality “is”. This is very simple.

What was true at the time of the prophets is also true now. If we want to know about oneness of God, we shall have to listen to what the prophets or messengers of God say and lend ears to them.

I would like to explain this with three example by testimony of Adams,Moses and Christ:-

Genesis 3:9-12 (King James Version)

9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Only one God revealed Himself to Adam ,none else.

Deuteronomy 6:4-10 (King James Version)



4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

9And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

10And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not.

Only one God revealed Himself to Moses, and Moses only preached one God.

Matthew 22:37 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Christ also followed in the footsteps of Moses and confirmed ONENESS of God,without any change.

Thanks and regards

Inhumility