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)

[Thunder9010]

----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.

I think that you're right in a lot of ways. Ultimately, Judeo-Christian religions completely redefines the world "god". What is a god? Outside of Judeo-Christianity, a god is any superhuman immortal being. Only in Judeo-Christian religion do we find the teaching that God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present and the notion that there can only ever be one of them. From a Pagan point of view, angels and Catholic saints look a lot like the lesser gods you expect to find in any polytheistic pantheon. The devil and his angels would also be seen as lesser evil gods like you find in most polytheistic systems. But we don't call the gods because the word means something completely different for us.

The notion that God must be strictly singular is not, in my opinion, true Christianity. God the Father is the supreme God. That's obvious. But Jesus and the apostles inform us that Jesus became like the Father. We are commanded to become like God the Father. Any Christian theologian will tell you that we are to become godlike. C. S. Lewis is only of several Christian thinkers to say that the end-goal of Christianity is to become gods (lower case).

Why then is it such a terrible leap to consider that God the Father is not entirely unique? If we are commanded to be like God the Father, then there must be some means of accomplishing this. If not then Christ is teaching us to try our best to do the impossible and ultimately setting us up for failure. Why does it offend Christians to consider that each of us might potentially become exactly like God the Father?

It's worth pointing out that plurality was repeatedly implied in the Old Testament. The term Elohim (Gods) is constantly being used to reference deity. Monotheistic bias causes the word to be rendered singular in Greek, English and every other language, but the Hebrew word most definitely denotes plurality. I would contend that the Bible is not nearly so strictly monotheistic as Christians tend to think it is.

[Danmark]

I think that you're right in a lot of ways. Ultimately, Judeo-Christian religions completely redefines the world "god". What is a god? Outside of Judeo-Christianity, a god is any superhuman immortal being. Only in Judeo-Christian religion do we find the teaching that God is perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present and the notion that there can only ever be one of them. From a Pagan point of view, angels and Catholic saints look a lot like the lesser gods you expect to find in any polytheistic pantheon. The devil and his angels would also be seen as lesser evil gods like you find in most polytheistic systems. But we don't call the gods because the word means something completely different for us.

The notion that God must be strictly singular is not, in my opinion, true Christianity. God the Father is the supreme God. That's obvious. But Jesus and the apostles inform us that Jesus became like the Father. We are commanded to become like God the Father. Any Christian theologian will tell you that we are to become godlike. C. S. Lewis is only of several Christian thinkers to say that the end-goal of Christianity is to become gods (lower case).

Why then is it such a terrible leap to consider that God the Father is not entirely unique? If we are commanded to be like God the Father, then there must be some means of accomplishing this. If not then Christ is teaching us to try our best to do the impossible and ultimately setting us up for failure. Why does it offend Christians to consider that each of us might potentially become exactly like God the Father?

It's worth pointing out that plurality was repeatedly implied in the Old Testament. The term Elohim (Gods) is constantly being used to reference deity. Monotheistic bias causes the word to be rendered singular in Greek, English and every other language, but the Hebrew word most definitely denotes plurality. I would contend that the Bible is not nearly so strictly monotheistic as Christians tend to think it is.

These discussions always remind me of kids arguing over which superhero is better; whether Superman can beat up Green Lantern. The answer of course is, "Whatever the script says."

But then you write that this tradition says are supposed to become gods ourselves and you cite other examples that show this Judeo Christian tradition is "less monotheistic" than they think. I agree. I see little that is unique in this. The only thing special about the script written for the Hebrew God is the I AM passage, if that implies he is beyond naming. But as you point out this idea of monotheism is rather short lived in the BIble. There are all kinds of lesser spiritual being zipping around, angels, demons, and this before some Christians decided there were three Gods while they insist he is one. Doesn't even one extra god in a theology mean it isn't monotheism? Maybe the difference is that in Hinduism and other religious traditions they are just a little more forthright in admitting their polytheism when they argue over whether Shiva is greater than Vishnu.

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to post 102 by Danmark]
Hmmmm, I didn't write this:
"The only thing special about the script written for the Hebrew God is the I AM passage, if that implies he is beyond naming. But as you point out this idea of monotheism is rather short lived in the BIble. There are all kinds of lesser spiritual being zipping around, angels, demons, and this before some Christians decided there were three Gods while they insist he is one."

I am more henotheistic when it comes down to it. I pray to the Father in the name of Christ. I don't buy into the Trinity nor do I think that God must be strictly unique in order to be God. Strict monotheism never made much sense to me.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 102 by Danmark]
Hmmmm, I didn't write this:
"The only thing special about the script written for the Hebrew God is the I AM passage, if that implies he is beyond naming. But as you point out this idea of monotheism is rather short lived in the BIble. There are all kinds of lesser spiritual being zipping around, angels, demons, and this before some Christians decided there were three Gods while they insist he is one."

I am more henotheistic when it comes down to it. I pray to the Father in the name of Christ. I don't buy into the Trinity nor do I think that God must be strictly unique in order to be God. Strict monotheism never made much sense to me.

Thanks. My code error. I wrote it. I agree henotheism seems a more appropriate description of Christian theology, tho' my understanding of henotheism is that it only accepts the 'possibility' of other gods. With God supposedly having a begotten son who is also a god incarnate, this seems more Hellenistic; Zeus as the supreme God who fathered the other Olympian gods.

[Thunder9010]

[Replying to post 102 by Danmark]
Hmmmm, I didn't write this:
"The only thing special about the script written for the Hebrew God is the I AM passage, if that implies he is beyond naming. But as you point out this idea of monotheism is rather short lived in the BIble. There are all kinds of lesser spiritual being zipping around, angels, demons, and this before some Christians decided there were three Gods while they insist he is one."

I am more henotheistic when it comes down to it. I pray to the Father in the name of Christ. I don't buy into the Trinity nor do I think that God must be strictly unique in order to be God. Strict monotheism never made much sense to me.

Thanks. My code error. I wrote it. I agree henotheism seems a more appropriate description of Christian theology, tho' my understanding of henotheism is that it only accepts the 'possibility' of other gods. With God supposedly having a begotten son who is also a god incarnate, this seems more Hellenistic; Zeus as the supreme God who fathered the other Olympian gods.

If it is a polytheistic expression so be it. I don't know why my fellow Christians are so terrified of the notion.

But as a polytheistic system, the worship of God the Father and the acknowledgement of the godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is extremely unique. Casting aside the notion that they are one being/substance, they must be one in some other critically important way. My take on it? Father, Son and Holy Spirit are so infinitely united in purpose, thought and action that interaction with any one of them is as good as interaction with either of the other two. This is very different from most polytheistic pantheons where the gods all have their own separate agendas and frequently feud with one another. "One and the same God for all intents and purposes" is uniquely Judeo-Christian. The all too frequent use of the plural word Elohim to denote deity seems to indicate there is more than one. Framing Elohim with verbs and adjectives denoting singularity is, in my opinion, is a constant reminder of their complete unity.

From what I've seen in my studies, this seems to be closer to what the original Christians believed. Quite a bit simpler than the Trinity IMHO.

[Danmark]

I am more henotheistic when it comes down to it. I pray to the Father in the name of Christ. I don't buy into the Trinity nor do I think that God must be strictly unique in order to be God. Strict monotheism never made much sense to me.
If it is a polytheistic expression so be it. I don't know why my fellow Christians are so terrified of the notion.

But as a polytheistic system, the worship of God the Father and the acknowledgement of the godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is extremely unique. Casting aside the notion that they are one being/substance, they must be one in some other critically important way. My take on it? Father, Son and Holy Spirit are so infinitely united in purpose, thought and action that interaction with any one of them is as good as interaction with either of the other two. This is very different from most polytheistic pantheons where the gods all have their own separate agendas and frequently feud with one another. "One and the same God for all intents and purposes" is uniquely Judeo-Christian. The all too frequent use of the plural word Elohim to denote deity seems to indicate there is more than one. Framing Elohim with verbs and adjectives denoting singularity is, in my opinion, is a constant reminder of their complete unity.

From what I've seen in my studies, this seems to be closer to what the original Christians believed. Quite a bit simpler than the Trinity IMHO.

Yes, simpler than the Trinity. I never understood the need to distinguish between God the Father and The Holy Spirit. I suppose it goes back to some notion of this anthropomorphic Father God who is vaguely embodied and seems to have a personality exactly human with all of humanities excesses, anger, violence, revenge and even second guessing himself and changing his mind. This is juxtaposed with the idea of God as pure spirit.

Then there was the problem with Jesus. Some early Christians decided he was more than a messenger and ended up worshipping him instead of the message. Again, a very human error. This left them in an impossible situation, preserving monotheism while trying to make a God out of Jesus. This may be unique, but it is hardly the only example of religion that gets itself so twisted trying to reconcile impossibilities that it develops what seem like logical absurdities to others.

My resolution is even simpler. I just don't believe in anything supernatural. I see no evidence of it and no need to posit a 'God' or 'gods' to explain anything at all. I understand it 'just works' for some or brings them comfort. But other than the compelling hold one's background and culture exists on one's belief system, I just don't get it.

The closest I can come to belief in a god would be something along the line of Tillich's 'very ground of being;' that is, not a being at all. Just some vague and non theistic 'God' with no theology, no detail; but something beyond definition. The more detailed and specific people get about their religion, their theology, their God, the farther they seem to me to be from the truth.

[Thunder9010]

Yes, simpler than the Trinity. I never understood the need to distinguish between God the Father and The Holy Spirit. I suppose it goes back to some notion of this anthropomorphic Father God who is vaguely embodied and seems to have a personality exactly human with all of humanities excesses, anger, violence, revenge and even second guessing himself and changing his mind. This is juxtaposed with the idea of God as pure spirit.

Christian dogma gets messy and has a very poor sense of the history of the God of Israel. The singular term for God is El. El is also the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Many scholars agree that the word Eloheim was originally intended to mean something along the lines of, "All the host of the gods under El." The Bible unintentionally preserves evidence of this with its frequent references to "The Lord of the Host" or "Lord of Hosts."

The deeper you dig the more you realize that strict monotheism was a very gradual development in ancient Israel. It was always clear that there was one God above all, but monotheism was hardly in evidence.

Then there was the problem with Jesus. Some early Christians decided he was more than a messenger and ended up worshiping him instead of the message. Again, a very human error. This left them in an impossible situation, preserving monotheism while trying to make a God out of Jesus. This may be unique, but it is hardly the only example of religion that gets itself so twisted trying to reconcile impossibilities that it develops what seem like logical absurdities to others.

The godhood of Jesus only becomes an impossibility when you insist that God is absolutely nothing like a human being. If the Gods (Eloheim) created man/woman in their image, then they are the template that we were patterned after and we should expect that they look exactly like we do. It's not much of a stretch to say that we are the same sort of being, albeit infinitely ... smaller for lack of a better word. This is the way the Greeks, Vikings and countless others saw it. A mortal could quite literally earn godhood and the gods were so similar to humans that made this transition possible.

A mortal man in Jesus always being and/or becoming a god isn't a problem if you cast aside the notion that God the Father is some other ... well species for lack of a better term for it. I think post-apostolic Christianity got lost in it's obsession with this notion of the absolute otherness of God. That's the only reason that it seems contradictory that Jesus should be a god.

You are welcome to disbelieve if that's what you want to do. I see no reason to disbelieve myself and I have experience God on so many levels that for me, disbelief would be completely absurd. I do wish that I could share that with you. In far too many cases, friends who gave in to disbelief were ultimately giving in to despair and experienced a very painful ordeal in the process of it all.

God bless,
Thunder

[Zzyzx]

.

. . . I have experience God on so many levels that for me, disbelief would be completely absurd.

It is not uncommon for those who worship one of the "gods" to proclaim that they have "experienced" or heard from their favorite "god."

However, their testimonials generally indicate that they experienced some sort of mental / emotional / psychological episode that they interpret as representing the favorite "god." Perhaps those experiences are similar to what is claimed for Paul/Saul or Joseph Smith in their "visions" or "visitations."

[bishblaize]

[Replying to post 108 by Zzyzx]

Would you agree that all thoughts about anything are necessarily interpretations?

[Danmark]

Yes, simpler than the Trinity. I never understood the need to distinguish between God the Father and The Holy Spirit. I suppose it goes back to some notion of this anthropomorphic Father God who is vaguely embodied and seems to have a personality exactly human with all of humanities excesses, anger, violence, revenge and even second guessing himself and changing his mind. This is juxtaposed with the idea of God as pure spirit.

Christian dogma gets messy and has a very poor sense of the history of the God of Israel. The singular term for God is El. El is also the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Many scholars agree that the word Eloheim was originally intended to mean something along the lines of, "All the host of the gods under El." The Bible unintentionally preserves evidence of this with its frequent references to "The Lord of the Host" or "Lord of Hosts."

The deeper you dig the more you realize that strict monotheism was a very gradual development in ancient Israel. It was always clear that there was one God above all, but monotheism was hardly in evidence.

Then there was the problem with Jesus. Some early Christians decided he was more than a messenger and ended up worshiping him instead of the message. Again, a very human error. This left them in an impossible situation, preserving monotheism while trying to make a God out of Jesus. This may be unique, but it is hardly the only example of religion that gets itself so twisted trying to reconcile impossibilities that it develops what seem like logical absurdities to others.

The godhood of Jesus only becomes an impossibility when you insist that God is absolutely nothing like a human being. If the Gods (Eloheim) created man/woman in their image, then they are the template that we were patterned after and we should expect that they look exactly like we do. It's not much of a stretch to say that we are the same sort of being, albeit infinitely ... smaller for lack of a better word. This is the way the Greeks, Vikings and countless others saw it. A mortal could quite literally earn godhood and the gods were so similar to humans that made this transition possible.

A mortal man in Jesus always being and/or becoming a god isn't a problem if you cast aside the notion that God the Father is some other ... well species for lack of a better term for it. I think post-apostolic Christianity got lost in it's obsession with this notion of the absolute otherness of God. That's the only reason that it seems contradictory that Jesus should be a god.

You are welcome to disbelieve if that's what you want to do. I see no reason to disbelieve myself and I have experience God on so many levels that for me, disbelief would be completely absurd. I do wish that I could share that with you. In far too many cases, friends who gave in to disbelief were ultimately giving in to despair and experienced a very painful ordeal in the process of it all.

God bless,
Thunder

If God were a pure spirit and that spirit was something not supernatural, but of some sort of undefined and unknowable energy that also has some kind of personhood or personality, I'd say that would be truly godlike.
But descriptions like
"... they look exactly like we do. It's not much of a stretch to say that we are the same sort of being, albeit infinitely ... smaller for lack of a better word. This is the way the Greeks, Vikings and countless others saw it. A mortal could quite literally earn godhood and the gods were so similar to humans that made this transition possible"
... describe a Greek or Viking God; that is, an anthropomorphic creation.

As to personal "experience of God" and the desire to share it, I was an evangelical Christian from age 6 to 30 something, including 2 years as a lay missionary. I think I know exactly what you are talking about. But it is a manifestation of the unconscious mind combined with years of teaching or indoctrination. At any rate it is highly subjective. My sometimes used sig line describes my central thought on these matters:
"The unconscious mind is so great, unfathomable and mysterious that it is mistaken for god."