God vs gods

[Elijah John]

Here on this site, one often hears from non-believers statements and questions doubting the existence of "gods", plural. Not sure why that is. Why not just question God, singular? In Western culture, that would be a more relevant question.

Hardy anyone believes in "gods" anymore. Hindus and Pagans maybe. But most folks here in in the West are either Jewish, Christian of Muslim. Monotheism is predominant.
(Whether or not Trinitarians are actual Monotheists is another debate).

But this leads to an important question. Why philosohically, (excluding reasons of upbringing or cultural conditioning) do SO many in the West believe in God, singular, as opposed to "gods" plural?

What IS the case for Monotheism, as opposed to Polytheism?

(please, this is not intended to become a "prove God or gods exists", thread)

[Divine Insight]

Why, I'm wondering, does the Monotheistic idea of God prevail in the minds of Jews, Christians, Philodophers and most Deists...instead of say, a Pagan pantheon. Why does Monotheism make more sense to so many?

To begin with Pagan doesn't automatically imply polytheism. You need to understand for those who worship the Abrahamic God of the Hebrews anything other than that god is considered "paganism". But to people who consider themselves to be "Pagans" do not define themselves based on the Abrahamic religion.

For many Pagans, the term Pagan actual means to worship nature as God, or God as nature and that certainly be monotheistic. It has nothing to do with being something other than Abrahamic. Neither does it imply polytheism.

Personally, I am somewhat challenging my own assumptions here, because I do have reasons to prefer the Monotheistic God idea over Polytheism.

I have a problem with God being viewed as an egotistical entity. It makes no difference to me whether there are one or many. Egotistical Gods make no sense to me.

But I would like to explore the case for Monotheism further....hence the topic.

Well, like I say, from my perspective nothing is more "monotheistic" than pantheism. That's as monotheistic as it gets. You can't get any more monotheistic than to view all as God and God as all.

In terms of the Mediterranean religions it's pretty clear to me that their desire toward monotheism was nothing more than a desire to own the religious patent rights to God. It's pretty clear that the people on that region were all trying to own the rights to God. And claim quite exclusive ownership of God. If you don't worship OUR GOD, then you're obviously a heathen who has rejected the real God in favor of worshiping false fantasies. But call OUR GOD a false fantasy and off with your head you heathen! That's blaspheme against OUR GOD.

That's the attitude.

But I will say, regarding Paganism, the Wiccan idea of a Goddess and a God, one of each principle (as taught by Marion Weinstein) makes more sense to me than say a whole Norse, Roman or Greek pantheon...a god/ess for this and a god/ess for that..etc, etc.

But still, the idea of God as a duality does not make AS MUCH sense to me as does God as a singular Unity. But there does seem to be an echo of Polarity in Nature, ...male and female, Sun and earth/Moon, proton and electron...night and day, etc.

Actually Wicca isn't anywhere near that dogmatic. In fact, most Wiccans I know actually view the Goddess and the God as different facets of the same underlying "spirit"

I practice "Wicca" myself (although I am quick to put that in quotes), because I practice a very personal version of Solitary Wicca. When I cast a circle I cast it thrice (as do all witches). But for me it goes as follows. The first casting is done in the name of the Great Spirit (the Holy Spirit if you like). This is the ultimate monotheistic God that you seek. In my paradigm this God has no gender, no form, and no name. I refer to this God sometimes as AUM, or OM. But this is not a name it is a sound, a vibration. This vibration is seen as the essence of "God".

Then when you chant "OM" you are vibrating with the essence of God, or the "Holy Spirit" to put it in Abrahamic terms. This idea comes from both Wicca and Taoism, as well as Buddhism too.

The second time I cast the circle it is for the Goddess, the feminine aspect of God or AUM. This time it is a vibration that takes the form of the yin or feminine. When I cast this second circle I actually invoke or call upon four different Goddeses. These are all images that I have created (or borrowed from folklore traditions). They are no entities in their own right, they are thought forms through which the Holy Spirit can become manifest as a feminine image.

The final casting is for the Gods, and I actually call upon four masculine "Gods", although I don't really think of them as "Gods" so much. they are merely masculine thought forms through which the Great Spirit, or Holy Spirit can become manifest as the masculine.

So in this sense, neither the Goddess, not the God are seen as the ultimate "GOD". They are simply symbolic facets through which the Holy Spirit (which is GOD) can commune with me. Because of these they aren't merely just symbols, but they are actual thought forms that God (or the Holy Spirit) can commune through.

This type of paradigm is actually used by many Wiccans. So in this sense this type of Wicca is actually quite "monotheistic' It's actually pantheistic. Again, it's as monotheistic as it gets.

It's wrong to think of this as polytheism. At least for the Wiccans who view it this way. I'm not saying that this is true of all Wiccans. There are no doubt Wiccans who view the Goddess and God as actual separate personified deities not unlike the way that the Christians view God and Jesus. As personified deities.

But my point here is that Wicca is not that dogmatic. Wicca doesn't have a concrete definition for how you need to think of these things. And it is the freedom within Wicca to embrace what calls to you what attracks many people to it. It can be as monotheistic or as polytheistic as you care to make it. That choice is entirely yours to make.

That's what many Muslims say, when they are accused by Christians of worshiping a "different God". "That is ridiculous" they say, "there is only ONE God!".

That's what I believe too, the One God, or Divine Reality, is worshiped in many different ways.

Yes but unlike the Muslims you not are proclaiming that there is only One God and HE is the One who had Muhammad write the infallible Qur'an.

If you are a Christian the Muslims wouldn't say that you are worshiping a "different God", you're simply not worshiping Allah. There are no other God's to worship. So from there point of view if you are a Christian then you aren't worshiping God at all. Period.

That's what they mean by that.

[DanieltheDragon]

I just don't understand the whole monotheism is more logical/reasonable than polytheism.

what does monotheism bring that polytheism doesn't?

I think in order to debate this we need to know what you mean by mono theism and why you think polytheism is impossible.

[Elijah John]

I just don't understand the whole monotheism is more logical/reasonable than polytheism.

what does monotheism bring that polytheism doesn't?

I think in order to debate this we need to know what you mean by mono theism and why you think polytheism is impossible.

Ha, that's what I am trying to figure out. Questioning my own assumptions to some degree.

Monotheism=Belief in ONE God.
Polythieism=Belief in multiple gods.

I think Monotheism is almost certainly more rational than Polytheism, especially polytheism regarding myths of Olympus, for example. Folks have been to the top of Mt Olymupus and have SEEN that there is no Zeus, Appollo, Hera, etc residing there.

But Deists and other philosophers have arrived at the conclusion that there is One God, ASIDE from any myths, including those found in the Bible.

I have yet to see a similar rational case made that supports the existence of multiple gods.

But aside from these, I am looking for more rational arguments that support the existence of One God, aside from Deism (as exemplified by Thomas Paine) and aside from the Bible.

I'll give you one example of what I mean. Muslims argue that if there were multiple Gods, there would be multiple Creations, all competing with each other. But nature contradicts this thesis, as it is fairly harmonious, and not all that chaotic.

When chaotic things DO happen, we think of those phenomena as exceptions to the rule of harmony, because they are the exeception

So agree or not, they give a reason for the basis of their faith, not just "the Quar'an says..." Actually, the Quar'an is full of appeals to Reason and nature, which it characterizes as "signs for thinking men".

So I'm looking for arguments along those lines, for the purpose of this thread.

Why does Monotheism make COMMON sense? And polytheism does not.

Again, please don't go down the "theism does not make sense period" road, that is not the topic of this thead.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

I understand the distincitions you are making regarding Wicca/Paganism etc.

And Nature worship and Pantheism and Panentheism and all that.

Although Pantheism is a fairly unified outlook, meaning one underlying reality, I don't think it really fits with the widely accepted definition of Monotheism, which usually posits that God is largly OUTSIDE of his creation and beyond nature, even though He is considered to have created it.

I think you usually make some good points but here I think you are mistaken:

--------------DI states:
"Yes but unlike the Muslims you not are proclaiming that there is only One God and HE is the One who had Muhammad write the infallible Qur'an.

If you are a Christian the Muslims wouldn't say that you are worshiping a "different God", you're simply not worshiping Allah. There are no other God's to worship. So from there point of view if you are a Christian then you aren't worshiping God at all. Period.

That's what they mean by that."

---------------EJ responds:

I would submit that Muslims DO consider YHVH the same god as Allah, but under a different name. Both are considered the God of Abraham from an Islamic perspective. It is ironic, that Muslims are MORE inclusive than Christian Fundamentalists in saying that we all (Monotheists) worship the same God.

Main difference (besides the names) is that Muslims do not consider Jesus to BE a God. They would agree with Christians in that they consider the Father of Jesus to be God, though not Jesus himself.

In fact, Muslims actually teach the Virgin Birth, something that even Jews do not.

So of course they teach that Monotheists worship the same God.

They just consider "shirk" to be a sin, which is acribing partners to God and worshiping them, even including Jesus (Issa), whom they consider an important prophet, but just a prophet.

By the way, "Allah" in Arabic only means "THE God" as in the only God.

Muslims WOULD say that Christians are worshiping Allah, when they worship the Father, not Jesus. In fact, Arab Christians call the Father, Allah.

But the Indonesian courts have made mutual understanding almost impossible when they declared only Muslims have the right to use the name "Allah" to refer to God. Ironic, because this plays right into the hands of exclusivists, like Christian Fundamentalists.

[Divine Insight]

I am looking for more rational arguments that support the existence of One God.

I don't understand what you mean by "rational arguments".

What do you even mean by "One" God?

Meaning that God is "One what?"

One personality?

One ego?

One sentient supreme being?

All of those things assume an anthropomorphic Godhead. Basically a "Zeus-like God.

In other words, you're basically suggesting that if the Greeks would have stuck with only Zeus that would have made more sense?

And what about Goddesses? Why does it make sense to believe in an anthropomorphic male Zeus-like Godhead who doesn't have a female Goddess counterpart?

And if we're going to believe in a single Godhead, why not a female Goddess? Why a guy God? It seems to me that it makes far more sense that our creator would have been female since females are the ones who carry eggs and new life to birth.

I'm not sold on the idea that a single egotistical God makes sense. Especially not a single male God.

It seems to me that your ideal that a monotheistic God makes the most common sense is your own subjective view. I can't imagine any rational arguments being made to support that this should be the case.

Especially if God is an anthropomorphic Godhead who has a specific personality and ego. Why just one? If there can be one, then why can't their be infinitely many? Where did this single individual God-ego come from?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

DI states:

"One sentient supreme being?

All of those things assume an anthropomorphic Godhead. Basically a "Zeus-like God.

In other words, you're basically suggesting that if the Greeks would have stuck with only Zeus that would have made more sense?"

----EJ responds.

That's it, One sentient Supreme Being. Not the others that you suggested there.

Not NECESSARILY antropomorphic. Deists, for example, do not anthromorphosise their idea of God with the attachment of myths, which they deem to be needless encumberance.

[Divine Insight]

----EJ responds.

That's it, One sentient Supreme Being. Not the others that you suggested there.

Not NECESSARILY antropomorphic. Deists, for example, do not anthromorphosise their idea of God with the attachment of myths, which they deem to be needless encumberance.

But what does one "sentient" supreme being mean outside of our anthropomorphic view of our own sentient existence?

As a human your idea and experience of sentience is "me versus them". You view yourself as an "individual separate being".

Why push that anthropomorphic ideal onto God?

That's what I'm asking.

How can you say "None of the Above" when I included Zeus in the mix.

Zeus would qualify as "One sentient Supreme Being". All you need to do is toss out all the other gods and goddesses.

So basically your happy with "Zeus" as long as it's the Hebrew version of Zeus (i.e. Yahweh), and not the Greek Zeus.

It's not an inherently different idea. In fact, it's precisely the same idea. The only difference is that Zeus was merely the God of gods, whilst Yahweh is the God of the Angels, Satan, and humans.

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference there if you ask me.

[higgy1911]

Concerning the arguments that insist on the necessity of god to explain existence, what is the reason for postulating a single conscious entity rather than a committee of entities?

[arian]

What IS the case for Monotheism, as opposed to Polytheism?

The need for monotheism seems to me to be entirely an egotistical construct.

What would it mean for a God to be an individual entity? It basically means that it has a single personality, and single ego, and single personal self.

Yes, .. as in "I Am".
Hello Divine Insight.

The Abrahamic religions actually fail miserably to create a single monotheistic God. To begin with they have Satan as this God's arch enemy. That alone brings into question the ideal that this is a monotheistic religion. How can Satan be a threat to a God if Satan is not on the same playing field as God. If God could crush Satan at any moment, then there would be no reason for God to allow Satan to interfere with his creation to the point where Satan is causing God to drown out the bulk of humanity.

God created man in His own image, and religions create god/gods in their own image, the physical image part. As Children of God, we have free will, otherwise we would be short of "created in Gods image", and would just do whatever purpose God has created us for, .. like animals.
The Angel Lucifer, AKA Satan has become proud, selfish and jealous of man, so he opposes Gods work. But because God is a just God, He doesn't interfere with free will, until He sees that His creation is on a destructive suicidal spiral, hurting each other for selfish reasons, killing each other (Cain killing Abel) and when this becomes so great, that no convincing, or chastisement seem to work, God gets tired of it, .. and well, here we are. The rest of history is written in the Bible.

Satan has already been judged, and for now he rules over those who are eager to serve him. There is no competition here, God is just waiting to see who will recognize the lies in this temporary lifestyle, and who are willing to fight for an eternal life full of joy and happiness?

Those who do, He will send His Son with the Angels and take them with Him, and those who used up their chances with self deception, for a temporary reward, will be dealt with. You know the rest of the story, right?

So IMHO, it's a farce to even claim that the Abrahmic religions represents "monotheism". It's a false claim that these religions represent this concept.

Yes, I agree.Seeing God through religious indoctrination does cloud their perception of One God, and this becomes even more obvious in the fruit they bare.
With their mouth they cry out: "God oh my God", but their deeds cry out: "Satan oh my Satan!"

Christianity takes this even further and demands that God is a monotheistic trinity. And that Jesus was both the Father and the Son simultaneously praying to himself and talking to himself. He's claimed to be both 100% God and 100% man simultaneously which is an absolute oxymoron. This is just extreme desperation to try to keep the religion monotheistic.

It's no secret that I'm with you there DI!

Also, you need to ask why monotheism was so important over polytheism. And the answer probably stems from the Greeks. Tribes invented their own gods. And in doing so every culture had their own God. So the early attempt at trying to unify religion was to create Zeus (the God of gods). He's the FATHER of all gods.

I know, and then we have Buddha as the 'teacher' of all these gods, hoping to stop them from fighting each other, and become 'one with the universe' as Buddha has.

The Hebrews then just took this concept one step further by demanding that their God is a jealous God who will allow no other gods to be placed before him. Notice that at this stage it's still polytheistic. There must exist other gods for their God to be jealous of and demand that you don't both those Gods before this God.

God is not jealous of wood and stone gods with all their silly fairytales behind them that makes them somewhat believable, God is jealous of all the time man puts in these silly worship rituals to those objects that cannot speak or do anything for them. I mean they even sacrifice their children to these worthless, lifeless gods. I'm sure you would be jealous too if you seen your children go in the back yard and give thanks to the old Oak tree for all the things 'you' have done for them.

But then as time went on the idea evolved into the thinking that there actually are no other Gods at all. And that the God of the Hebrews is actually just the only God and all other gods are just false illusions that don't really exist at all.

This whole line of thinking was religious cultural warfare. Everyone was trying to create a religion that has only one God who trumps all other religions and makes all other religions false. This is why monotheism became so important to these cultures. Like I say, we see this attempt in Greece with Zeus being the God of Gods. Then again with Hebrews proclaiming that their God commands that thou shalt not place any other gods before him.

Yeah, .. but don't forget the Big-bang Evolution religion with their high Priests like Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking and so on, they too proclaim there is no other god but Eywa (Mother Nature). Every religion wants in on the action, they all create doctrines that trumps all other religions.

Christianity then creates the demigod Jesus and proclaims that no one get to the Father God but by him. Also anyone who refuses to believe in him is condemned already. The tolerance for other Gods has no become absolute zero. This is religious bigotry at it's pinnacle. You either worship our God or go to hell. It's that simple. There are no other gods, and therefore to reject our single monotheistic God is to reject the only God there is.

I mean everyone should know by now that the Christian Religions god is a deity, the plural demon entity Legion. They even become Diviners for him, getting their degrees in Divinations from accredited schools of 'divinity', and Trinity Colleges.

You are still ignoring the OP, this is about "God vs gods" NOT on; "gods vs gods and who is the best one from them all"? You haven't even touched on the 'Creator' God, you are just rambling on about religions and all their created gods.

This is the epitome of religions monopoly.

See what I mean? I consider you as one of the most intelligent debaters here, but you seem so stuck on/in religion, divining those same circular insights as the Christians and all the other religions do. I would really like to hear your opinion on this Post here; "God vs gods", .. Please?

The Arabs would have none of this so they played the same game. They created Muhammad, the "The Last Prophet" of God to clean things up in a book called the Qur'an. And they named the original God of the Bible Allah. And they claim that Allah does indeed demand that you worship only him and therefore if you reject his last prophet Muhammad you are rejecting the one and only "Real God".

You should start a New OP called: "War of the gods!", but as I pointed out, this one is; "God vs gods".

Monotheism became important precisely because religions were being used for political authority. This is why it became important to imagine that there is only one monotheistic God.

Now Let's Change Gears Big Time

Actually the only truly monotheist religions are Pantheism, or Panenthism. They proclaim that all is God, there is nothing that is not God. You can't get anymore monotheistic than this. Pantheism is the most monotheistic religion you can imagine. But pantheism doesn't view God as being an egoistical individual jealous entity. Instead God is the part of you that makes your existence possible.

Ah them ..ism's; Mono, .. Pen, .. Poly, .. they are all derived from "theism"

the·ism
noun: theism
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Our Creator is NOT 'a god or gods', .. one of the theistic religiously created gods that just happens to be chosen to be the creator of the universe. God IS God, the Creator, not of the created. He IS, as in "I Am" as He told Prophet Moses.

It's not a religion that thinks of God as being a selfish egotistical ruler sitting on a throne in heaven, instead it's a religion that thinks of God as the essence of your being.

So Pantheism is the Queen of the monotheistic religions. But it doesn't need to turn God into an egotistical entity in order to do this. The Pantheistic view of God does not require an evil Satan. It's the purest form of monotheism. It doesn't even require polytheistic human souls since all humans are an expression of a monotheistic living god.

Pantheism did not evolve to become monotheistic for the political reasons of proclaiming ownership of a single egotistical God. Instead, pantheism evolved from introspection and the realization that all is one.

Now Let's Change Gears Again

Forgetting about pantheism for a moment, and returning back to the idea of an egotistical God, we can ask, "Why should there be only one egotistical God?"

If there can be one egotistical God then why can't there be infinitely many of them? Doesn't it seem strange that if God is an ego sitting on a throne in heaven that there would only be one of them? Especially when this God is said to have a "Kingdom" which must stand against its enemies?

Pantheism:
Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

Pantheism is derived from the Greek roots pan (meaning "all") and theos (meaning "God"). There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.[/I]

Again, pantheism is just another religion confused as to who God really is, so they say "everything is God", but NOT REALLY Everything, just the universe. Yeah, that's the ticket, the universe is God. So our god is bigger than all your gods, and he/it don't care a diddly about you, or what you do because he is not a personal god.

Pantheism - continued
As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Others hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical

If Pantheism is not the worst and most confusing concept of God I have ever heard, I don't know what is? It can be taken philosophically, theologically, religiously, it's theistic (Pan-theistic) and scientifically (observing nature and the universe). It's a being, but not a being, yet you are part of this God, but I guess you cannot consider yourself a 'being'!??

Why not just say it; "The Pantheistic god is Big-bang Evolution." It is an impersonal god that created the universe from nothing, with a total chaotic, unplanned accidental plan resulting in beauty, survivability, complexity where through time that it accidently created, made everything work in perfect harmony.

The Biblical picture of God evolved around the concept of Earthly Kings. Kings get their power by the number of loyal subjects they can get to serve them. In the Abrahamic religions this same mentality is carried over. Not only is God seen as a King of Kings (a title given to Jesus by the Christians), but he also desperately needs your loyalty and vow of servitude to obey his every command without question.

Wow, that is the most deviously concocted untrue description of Jesus: "he also desperately needs your loyalty and vow of servitude to obey his every command without question" I have heard yet.

Read the Bible again, and you will see that God did not want his Children to have a earthly king, God insisted they don't need one since He was both their King and God, who provided for them. But nooo... they wanted a king, even after the Prophet explained to them that kings require taxes, and servitude. That a king will not be always just, he will have his own personal agendas that they will have to obey without question, they insisted on one.

What servitude without question? Oh yea; "Love one another as I have loved you, do unto others as you would have them do to you, .. turn the other cheek, .. wash each others feet as I have washed yours, .. help each other without wanting anything back in return, .." should I go on?

Is this really what a single-existing monotheistic egotistical God would need? Why does this monotheistic God so desperately need such loyal obedient followers to serve him and join his army against Satan, etc.?

Whaa.. ??? Ooh, .. you mean like those religions who serve their gods? That is what the religious do, kill, sacrifice their children, starve entire nations, poison their own, enslave their own, all to appease their gods.

It doesn't even make any sense if you stop and think about it. It's clearly modeled after the medieval monarchies where earthly Kings desperately needed to keep their loyal subjects in line. Because those earthly Kings get their power in numbers.

But a genuine supernatural omnipotent God would have no need for any loyal followers who are willing to martyr themselves for him. Yet in both Christianity and Islam there is no higher honor than to martyr ones self for God's sake.

It's what those omnipotent supernatural deity-gods want, both the Christian and the Muslim deities, .. your soul. Only it's not to save it, but to take it to hell with them. Our God on the other hand want's to SAVE our souls from hell. He requires mercy, not sacrifice.

That's the mentality of medieval monarchical Kingdoms. Being a martyr for your King or for the Kingdom is the greatest act possible.

But does this really make any sense in the context of a supposedly omnipotent God. Why would an omnipotent God need your martyrdom?

It's clearly not even a supernatural concept.

Oh yes it is, it's all supernatural concept, brought to you by divinations through their loyal diviners.

What Does Monotheism Mean Anyway?

If there exists a "God" why can't there exist infinitely many Gods?

And what would be the result of that if it were the case?

Are Gods egotistical jealous entities? According to the Hebrew Bible their God most certainty is. But why should that be the case? Egotistical jealously is already something that we consider to be a failing of a mortal human.

What if there are many Gods that have no petty flaws like jealousy?

Egotistical jealousy, ah, some Devine beings are just so, .., so petty. Good thing they are kept in the 'supernatural realm' right?

In Greek polytheism the multiple Gods behaved as poorly as mortal humans. But what if Gods were above those failings. What if the God's had grown beyond these kinds of ego-centric failings? Then we could imagine many polytheistic Gods all getting along in harmony without conflict.

Hey, .. give it more time, I hear Buddha is working on it, .. you know, teaching them to be "One with the Universe".

So actually if we allow for ONE GOD to be "perfect" and flawless in terms of human failings (which clearly the biblical God is not), then there's really no reason why we can't imagine infinitely many "perfect" Gods all of whom get along in perfect harmony with no petty problems that mortal humans have.

So there's really nothing to be gained by a single monotheistic Godhead. Have infinitely many perfect Gods would be just as fine.

Why do you keep serving, talking about those imperfect gods then? Become an atheist and leave those silly religiously created rebellious troublemakers, along with their religions, and seek after your Creator.

In fact, if you think about it, one reason we might think a monotheistic Godhead would be better is because then he wouldn't have any other God's to argue with, disagree with, and therefore go to war with.

But look at what we have done here. All we have done is imagine a single imperfect egotistical Godhead who can't get along with other Gods, and we solve that problem by giving him the ultimate authority so that he has no one to argue with, he just gets his way without argument.

Does that really represent a single perfect monotheistic Godhead? Or is this just a cop-out because we can't imagine multiple Gods actually getting along with each other without conflict.

If a single Godhead can be "perfect" then there is no reason why there can't exist infinitely many "perfect" Godheads. All of which can get along with each other without going to war over every little disagreement.

There is truly nothing special about the idea of a monotheistic Godhead. That very ideal is actually nothing more than the human ego raising it's head and trying to imagine a single most powerful EGO.

In pantheism that whole idea is nonsense. And it does indeed stem from the ego.

It's the ego that dreams of the ultimate ego. And that is what a monotheistic God would be. The ultimate ego. The ego that is so powerful it always gets the last WORD.

Is that God? The ultimate ego in the sky? Complete with jealously, wrath, a desire to be obeyed and served, and every other human failing? And if he doesn't get his way he'll take an egoistical temper tantrum and start casting people into a state of eternal damnation to egotistically punish them for not worshiping his ego?

Excuse me, but that IS the God portrayed by the Bible.

You speak like a genuine Diviner who gets his Insights straight from the supernatural realm. I'm sure you speak for billions of other diviners all over the world who worship those Deities.

It's not only monotheistic, but it's a monotheistic monster.

If there were more than one of those they most certainly would hate each others guts. And they would be doing nothing but trying to cast each other into hell so the remaining one could be the top ego.

Of course they hate each others guts. I can't possibly imagine spending eternity with them. Their followers are no better, killing torturing, robbing each other, going to war with one another, even the ones who worship the same Deities can't wait to annihilate the other. Christians against Christians of another race, Muslim Jews against Muslim Arabs murdering each other in the name of the same god/gods.

[Divine Insight]

As Children of God, we have free will, otherwise we would be short of "created in Gods image", and would just do whatever purpose God has created us for, .. like animals.

Animals have free will too.

And besides, there is nothing innate about Free Will that would prevent anyone from being cooperative.

So free will is no excuse for the immoral preachings of Christianity.

The Angel Lucifer, AKA Satan has become proud, selfish and jealous of man, so he opposes Gods work.

And none of that has anything to do with free will.

All these things you have mentioned, taken to obsession, would be a sign of mental illness. Therefore all you are saying is that Satan is mentally ill. If that's the case, then God could cure his mental illness without interfering with his free will.

Moreover, all the things you've mentions as traits of this Satan are actually also artists of this God. This God is extremely proud and demands to be "glorified" and worshiped constantly. He's also extremely selfish since he throws temper tantrums of wrath when he doesn't get his way, and finally he has already confessed to being a jealous God in his first commandment to men.

So the Biblical God is everything that you deem to be disgusting in Satan.

God is not jealous of wood and stone gods with all their silly fairytales behind them that makes them somewhat believable, God is jealous of all the time man puts in these silly worship rituals to those objects that cannot speak or do anything for them. I mean they even sacrifice their children to these worthless, lifeless gods.

The God of the Bible is every bit as lifeless and worthless as any other idol images that man has created to worship.

Have you ever heard God speak? If you have, then you are an extremely exception among men.

I'm sure you would be jealous too if you seen your children go in the back yard and give thanks to the old Oak tree for all the things 'you' have done for them.

I would never be in that position in the first place. I would never play hide-and-seek with my children to the point where I became nothing more than a silent lifeless worthless idol of mythology.

And moreover, if I was disgusting enough to do that to my children, then I certainly wouldn't be in any position to be blaming them for giving thanks to other things since they couldn't not possible even know that I exist.

I hold that any father who would be jealous in this situation would be a very sick man indeed.

Yeah, .. but don't forget the Big-bang Evolution religion with their high Priests like Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking and so on, they too proclaim there is no other god but Eywa (Mother Nature). Every religion wants in on the action, they all create doctrines that trumps all other religions.

Trying to make out like secular atheists worship anything is about as low as a religious apologist can stoop. All it does is demonstrate their desperation in being unable to convince others of their God delusions. In fact, I would indeed suggest that this is itself a form of jealousy.

You are still ignoring the OP, this is about "God vs gods" NOT on; "gods vs gods and who is the best one from them all"? You haven't even touched on the 'Creator' God, you are just rambling on about religions and all their created gods.

There is no reason to believe that if there is a creator it cannot be a collection of conscious beings. There is nothing especially sacred about the idea of one God versus many.

Why should there be? What makes one lonely God any better than an infinity of Gods? In fact, a single lonely God would actually be pretty darn pathetic.

Why should there only be one God? If there can be one God, then why not infinitely many? The restriction on having just one God is probably a sign of humans need to try to keep things simple. But there would be nothing simple about a God. Restricting God to be only "One" is to put God in a small box just to make it convenient for the human mind to try to imagine.

This is the epitome of religions monopoly.

See what I mean? I consider you as one of the most intelligent debaters here, but you seem so stuck on/in religion, divining those same circular insights as the Christians and all the other religions do. I would really like to hear your opinion on this Post here; "God vs gods", .. Please?

When asking why humans created monotheistic religions it's reasonable to address that issue as well.

In terms of just the pure notion of "God vs gods", neither one has the upper hand. There is no reason why one would be better, or more logical, or make more common sense than the other. If you only have one God it makes sense to ask, "Why aren't their infinitely many Gods?"

The very idea that there could only be one God seems pretty strange to me. Why only one? And where did it come from? If one God can exist, then why not infinitely many?

I don't see why there is any reason to believe that one situation should be more likely than the other. May as well flip a coin.

In terms of religions it makes sense how religions became monotheistic. That's the only way to go if you are trying to trump your neighbors in having the ONE TRUE RELIGION. Making sure that there can only be one God is the key to winning that battle.

But in terms of any real creator(s)? Why should the creators be limited to only being one? How about you explaining that to me.

You should start a New OP called: "War of the gods!", but as I pointed out, this one is; "God vs gods".

I don't need to start a thread on that. The whole world is already doing that live every day real time.

Besides, what's your problem? Anytime we speak of any "god concept" it's reasonable to bring into up religion. After all, where do you ever hear of a god concept outside of religion? You don't. We don't find "god" in science, for example.

You only find gods in religions. So why should you deem it to be problematic when people illustrate why various religions created the types of Gods they did?

There are no gods outside of religion by definition. As soon as you mention a god you've automatically created a religion if you're not already referencing an established one.

Our Creator is NOT 'a god or gods', .. one of the theistic religiously created gods that just happens to be chosen to be the creator of the universe. God IS God, the Creator, not of the created. He IS, as in "I Am" as He told Prophet Moses.

And now you're preaching religion.

If Pantheism is not the worst and most confusing concept of God I have ever heard, I don't know what is?

If you don't understand pantheism then you'd do everyone a favor by not discussing it.

Especially not in terms of proclaiming what it must be after you just confessed that to you it's the most confusing concept of God you ever heard.

Wow, that is the most deviously concocted untrue description of Jesus: "he also desperately needs your loyalty and vow of servitude to obey his every command without question" I have heard yet.

I didn't mention Jesus at all. I was talking about the Biblical God in general. But I can understand why you might think I was referring to Jesus specifically.

~~~~~

The rest of your post appears to be in agreement with what I have said about how the Abrahamic religions are killing each other in the name of their jealous God(s), so there's no much sense in commenting further on that issue.