Does Somebody Have To Be Wrong?

[Therapon]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

So, could there be multiple gods that had no first cause and who are all involved in creation, etc? Yup.

Am I more inclined to believe that there is one original Source? Yup.

I can't believe that there are many Gods with no first cause, I don't know any Polytheist that believes that? In the Classical Polytheistic Tradition (Hellenismos) this goes back to Socrates as elucidated by Plato. Also the poets Homer and Hesiod placed Phanes (Eros/Cupid) as the first God and pantocrater (See my avatar for a pic of Phanes). Of course this has been ripped off by so-called monotheists, so you may believe your first cause is representative of monotheism and think yourself a monotheist because you believe in one first cause...but you would be sadly mistaken

[AletheiaRivers]

I can't believe that there are many Gods with no first cause, I don't know any Polytheist that believes that

What or who would the polytheists that you know say created or emanated the "many Gods?" Do they even think about it? Where did those Gods come from?

Either they are self existent, or they were created.

If they were not created / emanated, then they had no first cause.

Originally Posted by Therapon

Of course this has been ripped off by so-called monotheists, so you may believe your first cause is representative of monotheism and think yourself a monotheist because you believe in one first cause...but you would be sadly mistaken

You don't have any idea what I believe my "first cause" to be like, so you have no room to say that I'm sadly mistaken.

Monotheism = One God

Duotheism = Two Gods

Polytheism = Three or more Gods

Those are the definitions I'm using. It's easy. Is there ultimately one God, ultimately two Gods or ultimately three or more Gods?

If you care to know, my view of God is a Neoplatonic-like panentheism

Who knows, we might have had a nice conversation.

[bgruagach]

Not all Pagan religions consider there to have been a starting point to reality and therefore not all Pagan religions include the idea of a "first cause." The Pirahã people of Brazil for instance do not have a creation myth. The myths of Ireland are another example where there are no creation myths (except where they were brought in by outsiders such as the Norse.) I understand there is similarly no creation story in Korea although there is a myth about how the nation of Korea started (the first King, Dan-Gun) -- but in the story Korea as a place was assumed to have always been there.

In cultures where reality is believed to have always existed there is no need to assume a "first cause."

[AletheiaRivers]

In cultures where reality is believed to have always existed there is no need to assume a "first cause."

I understand and appreciate that. I don't agree with it, but I have no problem with it.

In my little philosophical mind I would say that, in those cultures, reality is "God" (as that reality had no beginning). I know they wouldn't say that, but from a philosophical standpoint, that is how it could be defined.

I'm defining "God" as that which cannot be reduced, the "bottom turtle." Whether that turtle has transcendent sentience or personality, I'm not saying. I'm simply using the term "God" to mean that which we cannot reduce.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

I'm defining "God" as that which cannot be reduced, the "bottom turtle." Whether that turtle has transcendent sentience or personality, I'm not saying. I'm simply using the term "God" to mean that which we cannot reduce.

Have you been reading "Yertle the Turtle" again?

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Have you been reading "Yertle the Turtle" again?

ROFLMAO!

[Dondi]

Yeah, apparently, God's name is Mack.

[AletheiaRivers]

OK, now I'm going to have to go read the book. I thought I'd read most Dr. Seus, but I haven't read that one.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

OK, now I'm going to have to go read the book. I thought I'd read most Dr. Seus, but I haven't read that one.

This is my favorite Seuss book. It is actually three stories, all seeming to have a moral point, the other two being "Gertrude McFuzz" and "The Big Brag". Written in 1958, Yertle the Turtle is actually a bag on Hitler.

[Therapon]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

What or who would the polytheists that you know say created or emanated the "many Gods?" Do they even think about it? Where did those Gods come from?

The Gods are emanations of 'The One' and yes if you are like you say, influenced by Neoplatonism, you should know that we (Neoplatonists) do think about it

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by Therapon

The Gods are emanations of 'The One' and yes if you are like you say, influenced by Neoplatonism, you should know that we (Neoplatonists) do think about it

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause, a "creator."

That was my whole point.

You said:

I also believe that polytheism is the true nature of religion and conversely anything else is false.

Which, if you are neoplatonic, is not true. Neoplatonism is not polytheistic.

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

If the "gods" are emmanations of "The One," then ultimately, that is MONOtheistic, as the gods have a source, a first cause, a "creator."

That was my whole point.

Not necessarily.

"First cause" and "creator" imply a beginning point. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy that the various gods and goddesses are different faces or aspects of a larger Divine that requires belief in a starting point. The Ultimate Divine could have always existed, and the various manifestations of that Divine could also be thought to have always existed and therefore have no starting point.

; )

Ben Gruagach

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

Not necessarily.

"First cause" and "creator" imply a beginning point. There is nothing inherent in the philosophy that the various gods and goddesses are different faces or aspects of a larger Divine that requires belief in a starting point. The Ultimate Divine could have always existed, and the various manifestations of that Divine could also be thought to have always existed and therefore have no starting point.

; )

Ben Gruagach

And yet it's all ONE unified whole that always existed. Plurality in unity.

Could we pretend that I only used the term "Source"?

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by AletheiaRivers

And yet it's all ONE unified whole that always existed. Plurality in unity.

Could we pretend that I only used the term "Source"?

Some postulate that the essentially unknowable One is more of a collective than a singular individual. Just because we mortals are individual and see ourselves as distinct from other members of our species does not mean that the Divine has to be this way.

That might be considered to be "making God in our own image."

Some certainly do see the Divine as a singular individual, even one who might manifest to humans through various guises, but it's also certain that some see even a One Ultimate Divine as being so complex and advanced that our feeble concept of individual identity could not possibly apply to It.

; )

Ben Gruagach

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by bgruagach

Just because we mortals are individual and see ourselves as distinct from other members of our species does not mean that the Divine has to be this way.

Actually I agree. Hence "plurality in unity," "Neoplatonic emmanationism," and "panenetheism."

Am I really being that unclear or are you guys just being difficult?