Monotheism: The Original Religion of Man.

[Cato]

The old hat of urmonotheism is still wandering around the internet. My opinion is neither for nor against. I've seen indications of some of what this article mentions, belief in an over-deity in various ancient belief systems, but I don't take that as proof of the truth of overlordship of the Bible's God.

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

[Wulfhere]

It's quite clear that the opposite is true. Originally our ancestors recognised that there were countless thousands of spirits. These were late reduced to a couple of dozen or so major gods, and later to one, and later to none at all. With each step we have lost a connection with nature.

[Murphy]

It's quite clear that the opposite is true. Originally our ancestors recognised that there were countless thousands of spirits. These were late reduced to a couple of dozen or so major gods, and later to one, and later to none at all. With each step we have lost a connection with nature.

How can you say it is quite clear? We can only go so far back into time. Can you tell my the faith of the Paleolithic peoples of the world? How do you know they did not worship one god?

[The Khagan]

It's all pure speculation, and both theories are quite sound since polytheism and monotheism both are not modern and naturally occurring.

Environment is also highly conducive to the nature of a religion to a certain people.

[Psychonaut]

The further away from the Middle-Eastern epicenter that you get, the less credible this thesis becomes. Animism seems to be a far more likely precursor to both monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and every other theism than anything else.

[Cato]

My opinion is that "mono" and "poly" theism existed side-by-side since quite early times, at least in the literary record. The article mentions E.A. Wallis Budge, a rather well-known Egyptologist of the early part of last century, and I personally own several of his translations of ancient Egyptian tomes such as the Papyrus of Ani ("The Book of the Dead") and, even though Budge was a Christian, he takes care to keep his comparisons of Christianity to Egyptianism to a minimum.

I think in the cases, people today, be they secularists or Christians, project far too much into these ancient beliefs, which is what I suppose I should've said in the beginning with my initial post. For them, the belief in a supreme, all-powerful God in no way was incompatible with a belief in lesser deities, ancestors, demigods, and so on. This perfectly explains why the over-deity, while being acknowledged as supreme, wasn't revered to the extent that his lessers were- his nameless supremacy created unapproachability that necessitated all sorts of intermediary beings, summed up in the bit from the Book of John as: No one has seen the Father except the one (i.e. Jesus) who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

This assumes that one recognizes the existence of a super-deity (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), which isn't the case with every belief system (Odin wasn't understood to be all-powerful or even all-knowing like Zeus was, for example).

[Cato]

The further away from the Middle-Eastern epicenter that you get, the less credible this thesis becomes. Animism seems to be a far more likely precursor to both monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and every other theism than anything else.

Good point, but this isn't quite true- the primitive Chinese had a belief in a non-anthropomorphic creator figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi) and no one can accuse the Chinese of having been influenced by Middle Eastern thought: "The earliest references to Shangdi are found in Oracle Bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1600 BC – ca. 1046 BC)." In other words, the Han Chinese had some idea of a creator deity, identified with heaven itself or the ruler of heaven, at least as early as the cavorting adventures of the Bible's patriarchs.

China had no exterior cultural contacts at this time to my knowledge, and certainly not with the Middle East. Knowing of this Shangdi, Christian commentators have likened him to the Biblegod (doubtful imo, since the belief in an all-powerful, all-ruling deity isn't as unique to the Bible as is claimed). So, I still maintain that monotheism and its polytheistic relative are a hand-in-hand affair rather than a question of chicken or egg. The supreme deity can't really be dealt with on a personal basis, for how does one worship a conception of infinity and plentitude of mighty, so you get this deity's "children," which is what happened in China (with Shangdi gradually becoming the Taoist Jade Emperor by all appearances), the Middle East, around the Mediterranean, and so on.

[Psychonaut]

Good point, but this isn't quite true- the primitive Chinese had a belief in a non-anthropomorphic creator figure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangdi) and no one can accuse the Chinese of having been influenced by Middle Eastern thought: "The earliest references to Shangdi are found in Oracle Bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1600 BC – ca. 1046 BC)." In other words, the Han Chinese had some idea of a creator deity, identified with heaven itself or the ruler of heaven, at least as early as the cavorting adventures of the Bible's patriarchs.

China had no exterior cultural contacts at this time to my knowledge, and certainly not with the Middle East. Knowing of this Shangdi, Christian commentators have likened him to the Biblegod (doubtful imo, since the belief in an all-powerful, all-ruling deity isn't as unique to the Bible as is claimed). So, I still maintain that monotheism and its polytheistic relative are a hand-in-hand affair rather than a question of chicken or egg. The supreme deity can't really be dealt with on a personal basis, for how does one worship a conception of infinity and plentitude of mighty, so you get this deity's "children," which is what happened in China (with Shangdi gradually becoming the Taoist Jade Emperor by all appearances), the Middle East, around the Mediterranean, and so on.

Dude, not only does the very name, 上帝, imply henotheism, but it's also not referenced particularly early in Chinese history. The Shang dynasty ws already a fully functioning imperial civilization. Recorded history stretches back to 2100 BCE with the beginning of the Xia dynasty, preceded by the legendary 3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors period (2852-2805 BCE), which would roughly correspond to our Migration Period in terms of cultural advancement. The 上帝 concept is hardly something that is representative of early Chinese thought, which is decidedly wrapped up in animism and ancestor veneration.

[Cato]

Fu Xi et al. are one of the many layers of myth in China and your comments that Shangdi seem to imply or indicate that this being wasn't very well understood by the Han, hence all of the other figures such as Fu Xi, Huangdi, Dayu, etc. and the Chinese ancestral spirits. Every culture has its culture heroes, and the Three August Ones and Five Emperors, as listed by Ssuma Chien, were the earliest folk-heroes of China- and Shangdi, while little understood, was identified with Tien (天, "heaven") by later commentators such as Zheng Kangcheng of the Latter Han Dynasty/Three Kingdoms era. I think he's quoted in on the Wikipedia page I linked to as one of the fellows who mentions Shangdi (tien in latters times, source of the tienming). Heaven worship, rather than the worship of a specific tribal deity, suggests the same sort of astrotheological beliefs that we find elsewhere in the world. A close cousin might be the Tengriism of the Mongols, and no one can deny that the Mongols practice(d) shamanism and ancestor worship right alongside the veneration of the great blue heaven itself.

The Shijing doesn't mention some nebulous idea, for example, rather it mentions Shangdi as being some sort of political/governing center that oversees the cosmos (in those places where the idea is mentioned, such as in conjunction with King Wen, but tian might be the actual term used here).

Xia Dynasty, I won't go back that far, I might as well talk about Noah's Flood if I do that. Tis purely the realm of legendary with rulers as godlike as the earliest kings on the Sumerian king list.

[Psychonaut]

Heaven worship, rather than the worship of a specific tribal deity, suggests the same sort of astrotheological beliefs that we find elsewhere in the world.

Yes, that's exactly my point. 上帝 is quite obviously a Sky God who, similarly to Jupiter, was later transformed into some sort of singular God. Celestial deities don't seem to originate in isolation. If you're going to venerate one natural phenomenon, chances are you're venerating (or at least believing in [henothsism]) other nature deities.

[Cato]

Yes, that's exactly my point. 上帝 is quite obviously a Sky God who, similarly to Jupiter, was later transformed into some sort of singular God. Celestial deities don't seem to originate in isolation. If you're going to venerate one natural phenomenon, chances are you're venerating (or at least believing in [henothsism]) other nature deities.

Belief in the God of Heaven implies a belief in the deities of the sun, moon, etc. This is simply a case of personification to me, which can be witnessed in the Egyptian religion, where the creative principle, Ra in the earliest layers, is often identified simultaneously and by name with the other deities, who can best be called the aspects of Ra:

http://www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Tutankhamen/budge-tut11.htm

Homage to thee, O Ra, who risest as Tem-Heraakhuti. Heraakhuti being Harakhty being Horus "of the two horizons," the rising and the setting sun.

In other fables, Ra is said to have created himself from the primeval ocean or wanking off to create the other deities.

Etc.

Mixed up in this narration is what seems to be a confused medley of mythology, with Ra called the son of Nut, the sky-goddess, and also called Osiris (the judge of the underworld, where, Ra, the sun, resided at night). An outside observer might think this is a bit of confusion, but the Egyptians seemed to find no contradiction herein. Astronomy might explain the visible symbols (i.e. Jupiter was thought to be the planet of the same name, just as the Babylonians thought Marduk was the planet in question blahblah, "the kingly planet"), sun and moon and stars and planets, but what explains the deeper concepts?

[Antonine]

The old hat of urmonotheism is still wandering around the internet. My opinion is neither for nor against. I've seen indications of some of what this article mentions, belief in an over-deity in various ancient belief systems, but I don't take that as proof of the truth of overlordship of the Bible's God.

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

This is an important perspective. It is possible that many peoples had a single God which had characteristics bridging the various realms. It can be seen in some cultures that this God was later "personified" with avatars, lesser incarnations, and so on. Some cultures also invented lesser Gods in relation to this Supreme Deity, but nonetheless acknowledged it as the King of Gods or Father of the Gods.

[Amapola]

The further away from the Middle-Eastern epicenter that you get, the less credible this thesis becomes. Animism seems to be a far more likely precursor to both monotheism, polytheism, pantheism and every other theism than anything else.

We can't forget that in Greece When Hesiod sketched the synopsys of a cosmogony, he declares that the Gods were subsequent as well as he mentions an initial chaos.

It's also written in the vedas: Rig Veda, X 129.

[Thorum]

I would have to guess my oldest ancestors had no religion and had no beliefs in the supernatural.

[Cato]

We can't forget that in Greece When Hesiod sketched the synopsys of a cosmogony, he declares that the Gods were subsequent as well as he mentions an initial chaos.

It's also written in the vedas: Rig Veda, X 129.

Hesiod mentions that the cosmos proceeded from chaos, entropy and the like. There was no creator-god as is found in the Bible, although the philosophers later on developed a highly organized and rational view of Zeus as the creator, orderer and sustainer of the cosmos (the Stoics) with the myths being seen as allegorical tales.

[Talvi]

I think that the idea that a very primitive society believes in only 1 God is just silly. The occurrence of a religion with 1 God is extremely rare and always centralized by a group or institution or brought about from 1 person, not a collective community.

Even a very huge percentage of customs have been modified to fit monotheism from previous beliefs in many "gods"

Monotheism as the original religion is illogical and just a huge LOL in general.

[Amapola]

Hesiod mentions that the cosmos proceeded from chaos, entropy and the like. There was no creator-god as is found in the Bible, although the philosophers later on developed a highly organized and rational view of Zeus as the creator, orderer and sustainer of the cosmos (the Stoics) with the myths being seen as allegorical tales.

Right, right, but Hesiod mentions that "The initial state of the universe is chaos, a dark indefinite void considered as a divine primordial condition from which everything else appeared" and affirms the kingship of the god Zeus himself over all the other gods and over the whole cosmos.

[Cato]

Right, right, but Hesiod mentions that "The initial state of the universe is chaos, a dark indefinite void considered as a divine primordial condition from which everything else appeared" and affirms the kingship of the god Zeus himself over all the other gods and over the whole cosmos.

But this divine primordial condition as you called it was inert matter for lack of a better term; it always existed and had no creator. The pattern in the Theogonia proceeds from the initial divine chaos through the primordial deities, the Titans and to the Olympians and the reign of Zeus. A king of kings is to be found in Hesiod's tale, but he emerges at the end of the story and not, as in the Bible, in the beginning.

[Amapola]

But this divine primordial condition as you called it was inert matter for lack of a better term; it always existed and had no creator. The pattern in the Theogonia proceeds from the initial divine chaos through the primordial deities, the Titans and to the Olympians and the reign of Zeus. A king of kings is to be found in Hesiod's tale, but he emerges at the end of the story and not, as in the Bible, in the beginning.

For Hesiod, that chaos was ἀρχή "arche" in Greek, first cause, aka a God or first motor, since he considered it a divine condition himself in his cosmology. The Greek philosophers ascribed to arche divine attributes.It is the divine horizon of substance that encompasses and values all things.

[Cato]

For Hesiod, that chaos was ἀρχή "arche" in Greek, first cause, aka a God or first motor, since he considered it a divine condition himself in his cosmology. The Greek philosophers ascribed to arche divine attributes.It is the divine horizon of substance that encompasses and values all things.

So was chaos considered to be more than just a divine condition that set the rest into motion, with the emergence of the primordial deities, Titans, etc.? It's like the Norse Ginnungagap, an uncreated abyss from which everything else emerges. I don't know if the Norse pagans gave divine emphasis to their abyss, but the cosmic giant, Ymir, did emerge from it.

In the Biblical cosmology, the Creator creates ex nihilo, although some commentators on the creation story in Genesis have suggested that God created from himself, drawing interesting parallels to the old pagan concept of "the deity that creates itself."

[Psychonaut]

It's like the Norse Ginnungagap, an uncreated abyss from which everything else emerges. I don't know if the Norse pagans gave divine emphasis to their abyss, but the cosmic giant, Ymir, did emerge from it.

I don't think that's really a good analogy; Norse cosmogony differs significantly from Hesiod's late systemization of the Greek mythos. In the Eddas, the Ginnungagap is not treated as a kind of creative force like it is for Hesiod. It does not, itself, do anything; it is merely the empty place where the cosmogony begins. It's not described as existing prior to the fire and ice that blended to create the worlds, rather just as an empty spot between those two forces that partook in both of them:


Said Ganglere: What took place before the races came into existence, and men increased and multiplied? Replied Har, explaining, that as soon as the streams, that are called the Elivogs, had come so far from their source that the venomous yeast which flowed with them hardened, as does dross that runs from the fire, then it turned into ice. And when this ice stopped and flowed no more, then gathered over it the drizzling rain that arose from the venom and froze into rime, and one layer of ice was laid upon the other clear into Ginungagap. Then said Jafnhar: All that part of Ginungagap that turns toward the north was filled with thick and heavy ice and rime, and everywhere within were drizzling rains and gusts. But the south part of Ginungagap was lighted up by the glowing sparks that flew out of Muspelheim. Added Thride: As cold and all things grim proceeded from Niflheim, so that which bordered on Muspelheim was hot and bright, and Ginungagap was as warm and mild as windless air. And when the heated blasts from Muspelheim met the rime, so that it melted into drops, then, by the might of him who sent the heat, the drops quickened into life and took the likeness of a man, who got the name Ymer. But the Frost giants call him Aurgelmer.

[Cato]

My opinion is that "mono" and "poly" theism existed side-by-side since quite early times, at least in the literary record. The article mentions E.A. Wallis Budge, a rather well-known Egyptologist of the early part of last century, and I personally own several of his translations of ancient Egyptian tomes such as the Papyrus of Ani ("The Book of the Dead") and, even though Budge was a Christian, he takes care to keep his comparisons of Christianity to Egyptianism to a minimum.

I think in the cases, people today, be they secularists or Christians, project far too much into these ancient beliefs, which is what I suppose I should've said in the beginning with my initial post. For them, the belief in a supreme, all-powerful God in no way was incompatible with a belief in lesser deities, ancestors, demigods, and so on. This perfectly explains why the over-deity, while being acknowledged as supreme, wasn't revered to the extent that his lessers were- his nameless supremacy created unapproachability that necessitated all sorts of intermediary beings, summed up in the bit from the Book of John as: No one has seen the Father except the one (i.e. Jesus) who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

This assumes that one recognizes the existence of a super-deity (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.), which isn't the case with every belief system (Odin wasn't understood to be all-powerful or even all-knowing like Zeus was, for example).

I'll have to refresh my comments a bit and say that, generically, the concept of a supreme deity isn't incompatible with polytheism, ancestor worship and so forth. Within a specific tradition, say Judaism or Catholicism, the generic supreme deity isn't an impersonal and remote force but a creative being with a distinct personality and traits, a personal God in other words.

Within the context of these specific traditions, there's a clearly-defined system of values, religious beliefs, and taboos the creator being presented as being "jealous," that is wanting to be acknowledged as the sole divine being. Other deities in this case are so much chaff in the wind, and hence you find a strong anti-polytheistic stance in the Biblical religions, although one may debate the nature of such beings as angels, saints and whatnot.