Yes to allegory, and yes they included them to hold the group together, that rift would have created quite the different future....
Hatshepsut
"In front of the nobles."
The idea of text threads melded together in part to keep a group with competing internal factions united (wil, above) is a good guess, I think. There's this thing about inevitable progression from animism to totemism to polytheism, syncretism, and henotheism, finally to monotheism. A ladder, with each rung more advanced than the one below, brought to you by Edward Burnett Tylor.
Yet monotheism hardly seems inevitable to me. It was rare; perhaps the Hebrew Deuteronomistic history was its first and only de novo invention. If Judaism had not survived to bequeath its daughter religions, the West might be as polytheistic as Hindu India now. Nor does Hindu religion strike me as less sophisticated, as if a product in want of intellectual traditions. Again, many societies with plural gods had a generic word for "a god," Egypt's nTr for instance. So, even with many gods, a single category of "that which is divine" could gain linguistic traction.
All the religious schemas appear to share the idea that there is a spiritual world distinct from the ordinary physical one - but only at first blush, as ancient Egypt's religions didn't really seem to think that gods lived in another world, even if the gods weren't strictly embedded in natural objects.
Monotheism and polytheism, then, may not be quite as different as they appear. Monotheistic religions have angels possessing nearly godlike powers who do "the will of the Father." The only distinction between them and a henotheistic system is this "employer-employee" relationship.
I'll admit I'm not too smart.
Does anyone here know if Elohim (masculine plural noun) referred to the same thing as the Canaanite deity name El?
Yet monotheism hardly seems inevitable to me. It was rare; perhaps the Hebrew Deuteronomistic history was its first and only de novo invention. If Judaism had not survived to bequeath its daughter religions, the West might be as polytheistic as Hindu India now. Nor does Hindu religion strike me as less sophisticated, as if a product in want of intellectual traditions. Again, many societies with plural gods had a generic word for "a god," Egypt's nTr for instance. So, even with many gods, a single category of "that which is divine" could gain linguistic traction.
All the religious schemas appear to share the idea that there is a spiritual world distinct from the ordinary physical one - but only at first blush, as ancient Egypt's religions didn't really seem to think that gods lived in another world, even if the gods weren't strictly embedded in natural objects.
Monotheism and polytheism, then, may not be quite as different as they appear. Monotheistic religions have angels possessing nearly godlike powers who do "the will of the Father." The only distinction between them and a henotheistic system is this "employer-employee" relationship.
I'll admit I'm not too smart.
Does anyone here know if Elohim (masculine plural noun) referred to the same thing as the Canaanite deity name El?
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Hatsh,
I've been looking at a couple of things on the Internet about the Canaanite deity name El, but I haven't found anything definite yet.
Yes, Elohim (masculine plural noun) is used in Genesis, telling us of how the earth and humanity were created by gods, not God.
I've been looking at a couple of things on the Internet about the Canaanite deity name El, but I haven't found anything definite yet.
Yes, Elohim (masculine plural noun) is used in Genesis, telling us of how the earth and humanity were created by gods, not God.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
A comment on religious progression. What I've read is that the view of lower and higher forms of worship, from animism to monotheism is an outdated view. Observing different African religions where many forms of worship mingle, and have mingled for a very long time, show that one doesn't exclude the other and that many of the old forms have progressed in themselves to form advanced systems for worship.
Comparing it to the Theory of Evolution, where some became apes and others became human. Both are adapted to their respective environment.
Comparing it to the Theory of Evolution, where some became apes and others became human. Both are adapted to their respective environment.
Well there's some scholarship, especially that framed within a spiritual sensibility, rather than guesswork, which offers other interpretations.
I happen to think that view ignores the philosophical/theological/metaphysical contemplation of the Divine, but then, lacking the data, its hard to say for sure, but my feeling is this is the most unlikely reason.
The Hindu trimurti Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, for example, is entirely artificial, and it never caught on, and carries no currency in the East. We make a big deal of it in the West, but that's in light of the Christian Trinity.
+++
My own view of the emergence of monotheism is shaped by the idea of a deepening of intuition and insight.
When Abram left Canaan, I think he was 'feeling his way' towards a new understanding of the Divine, and I think the rejection of human sacrifice was a significant part of this. But his God was not as 'fully formed' as it later emerges, and I think the Elohist-Jahwist conflation actually indicates a movement from a generic to a specific idea of God.
+++
I tend to see that as the natural development of metaphysical speculation.
If, for example, you take polytheism, then each god or goddess has his or her individual quality, but their divinity they share in common. Eventually this will lead one to contemplate the divine as other than, and higher than, the particular qualities any given god displays. Even in polytheism there is, I think, a hierarchy.
So the process leads to the Divine as such, which transcends the individual god in the pantheon.
Even Hinduism, with all its encompassing polytheism, there is the fundamental principle of the One, and the gods being just aspects of the One.
As soon as you start applying transcendentals to the Deity, such as the Absolute, the Infinite, the Real, etc., then you can only have one.
Not sure about that. Look at the Great Spirit of the Native Americans. I think it's more prevalent than you allow.
And, of course, the Greeks moved from polytheism to monotheism, although expressed differently through various systems.
El is common to the languages of the region, and it's impersonal, more a generic term. One of my favourites from Scripture is El Shaddai (cf Exodus 6:2). In Christianity it is translated as Pantokrator in the Greek, 'God Almighty', but its origin is Ugaritic and Shaddai was one of the gods of the Canaanite religion.
Interestingly, the suffix 'ai' signifies the first person possessive plural, an example of the pluralis excellentiae (the royal 'we'), such as evident in the Hebrew Elohim and Adonai – both plural nouns but always used with a singular verb – I know Nick bangs on about Elohim indicating polytheism, it's a common error, but a dogma to which he's wedded.
The word 'El' is derives from the root 'to be strong' or 'to be in front', but it is a generic term, more akin to 'the Divine' or 'the Deity' rather than 'the God'.
In Scripture, the term Elohim has a range of meanings, The God of Israel, God in a general sense (eg Exodus 12:12); a specific God outside of Judaism (eg 1 Kings 11:33); supernatural beings; spirits of the dead; kings; prophets; law-makers and judges. It's context-sensitive.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
For Monotheists, it does seem as though they view all of this as a theological evolution from multiple Gods in the past to One God today. And with the old definition of evolution where one started with a primitive theology and advanced over time to a more refined theology.
My perception is that earlier religions, be they a pantheon or a one god version have evolved more like the modern definition of evolution. That is, an ever branching tree into more and more directions. There is a main branch for monotheism, and there is also an equal branch for polytheism.
I am, of course, using the term evolution in its most generic sense, not in the scientific sense.
My perception is that earlier religions, be they a pantheon or a one god version have evolved more like the modern definition of evolution. That is, an ever branching tree into more and more directions. There is a main branch for monotheism, and there is also an equal branch for polytheism.
I am, of course, using the term evolution in its most generic sense, not in the scientific sense.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
What was that GK!? That's intellectual theft right there, it's exactly what I said! You sneaky witch thief*!
*Obscure reference
*Obscure reference
I suppose there's an element of truth in that. It's certainly how I see the development of Judaism.
I think the Elhoist - Jahwist is the emergence of specific monotheism from, not so much polytheism as a more amorphous theism.
Greek thought went the same way. I can't remember where it is that Plato speaks of the pantheon of Gods, largely to criticise them for evidencing some of the worst human vices.
So my Christian Neoplatonic sensibility tends to see things that way.
And from my Sophia Perennis studies, the metaphysics of Hinduism, a profoundly polytheist religion, points to the One Above All.
That is not to decry polytheism as such, but I would draw a distinction between Traditional Polytheism, and modern polytheisms, which seem to me to tend towards sentimental self-projections and little more.
(The emergence of Wicca and paganism in the UK for example, is largely down to the imagination of one man in an era when all manner of nonsense emerged among the British and European intellectual elite (so-called) around the beginning of the last century. And the whys and wherefores of that are not easily accessible at all.)
I would not decry traditional polytheism, nor detract any sense of union with the divine from them. I would go on to say that polytheist systems evidence a remarkable psychological and spiritual insight into the human condition. (Certainly no worse than the various strands of psychology in the contemporary professions, and in some cases better. Modern 'spiritual' professions are not even in the same space.)
As ever, people today dismiss or undervalue the message as 'metaphor', 'myth', 'fairy-tale' etc. which indicates nothing but a certain myopia towards the true meaning and understanding of symbol, but then that occlusion has been the inevitable result of the line of 'progress' pursued in the West.
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Actually, my statement is a follow up to yours. I took your observation and expanded on it in a slightly different direction.
Doesn't mean I am not a sneaky witch thief. Just that I didn't do it this time!
IWMWD. (It's what Morrigan would do).
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Thomas said "That is not to decry polytheism as such, but I would draw a distinction between Traditional Polytheism, and modern polytheisms, which seem to me to tend towards sentimental self-projections and little more."
True. The same could be said of modern monotheisms don't you think? There are plenty of folks going around claiming to be the One True God, and they all find followers who will blindly follow them.
And, of course, there are legitimate modern polytheistic religions.
As ever, people today dismiss or undervalue the message as 'metaphor', 'myth', 'fairy-tale' etc. which indicates nothing but a certain myopia towards the true meaning and understanding of symbol, but then that occlusion has been the inevitable result of the line of 'progress' pursued in the West.
As you know we are certainly on the same page on this issue. It has been my experience that all too many people in modern religions, mono or poly, fail in this way. This is a cultural flaw in modern society on many levels, religion being only one of them.
True. The same could be said of modern monotheisms don't you think? There are plenty of folks going around claiming to be the One True God, and they all find followers who will blindly follow them.
And, of course, there are legitimate modern polytheistic religions.
As ever, people today dismiss or undervalue the message as 'metaphor', 'myth', 'fairy-tale' etc. which indicates nothing but a certain myopia towards the true meaning and understanding of symbol, but then that occlusion has been the inevitable result of the line of 'progress' pursued in the West.
As you know we are certainly on the same page on this issue. It has been my experience that all too many people in modern religions, mono or poly, fail in this way. This is a cultural flaw in modern society on many levels, religion being only one of them.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
I'm sending the texts to the authorities for evaluation, judgement shall fall on the guilty, whoever they may be!
progettoecumene
Member
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
God is something that we cannot understand by reason. If we think He created the whole universe, we should think that God is something which is outside the universe, I mean that no natural element is the Beginning (we'd better use the Greek word ARKHE), so we cannot know Him utterly. Or, if otherwise, God would be something whose the universe is a part (in this case, He would necessarily be one). Anyway, also when we look at the politheistic religions, we always see that there's always a god who is "the chief" or whose all the other deities are an image. For example, Hinduism is expected to be politheistic, but it's properly a monotheistic faith. And the same was for Socrates, who thought that all the deities are an image of THE God, exactly as some philosophies of Ancient Egypt believed. Did you know that Jupiter comes from Deus Pater, that means "God the Father"?