Polyteism vs monoteism

R

Robban

Registered Senior Member
Hi! I am new to this forum and will probably ask some silly or provocing questions. Plz try to not kill me for that :)


Question:

Isnt x-ianity having a problem with monoteism when it recognises satan as a "reality"?

It seem to me that Satan is given divine attributes as a tough competitor to God. There is even referenses to both angels and demons as "non-human" divine beings.

To me this looks like a polyteistic religion which has its root in the elder polyteistic religions of ancient mesopotamia (ugarit, babylonia, ancient egypt, sumer etc)

Any comments on that?
 
Satan is a divinity of sorts, but that alone certainly doesn't put him in God's league. He's a demon, a haughty rogue, an insurgent of sorts, not a deity. He promises naught but anguish and is incalculably lesser than his Creator in power. He is merely an impermanent project, a parvum opus dei, meant to eventually be vanquished. He's not a whit better off than we.

Don't get me wrong, though. I don't believe any of this.
 
Originally posted by Robban
There is even referenses to both angels and demons as "non-human" divine beings. To me this looks like a polyteistic religion which has its root in the elder polyteistic religions of ancient mesopotamia (ugarit, babylonia, ancient egypt, sumer etc)
Click to expand...
Precisely Ugaritic in its inception. Hence the Sons of God found in Genesis and Deuteronomy.
 
hinduism has destructor dieties and the like. satan is one such diety in christianity. of course, the devil comes from popular literature. translations in the bible were made after the fact.
 
In the ancient Jewish tradition god had the original role of satan, this is, to bring strife and misery to gain more followers in a sadist fashion. The earliest mention of the devil was that of an angel/demon called the 'adversary' who was sent down to earth in human form to trick humans into beleiving in astrology, paganism, etc so that god could send them to hell. In some instances, early Jews were even caught worshipping Baal as a monotheistic god, but these sects were destroyed.

When Christianity came along this adversary became 'satan' which means 'ruler of hell'. Lucifer, a minor Roman ruler and god of the time was made into the figure of a demon and considered the leader of the rebellion of angels. From here on Satan, not god was responsible for horrible things on earth, thus we get all these fluffy Xstian types and not the god-fearing crusaders of old.

Nowadays he is pretty much called Satan, although many give him interchangeable names like leviathan, baal, mephisto, despite the fact that these are different demons (read Dante's Inferno). All of these demonic, satanic figures are simply pagan gods of old recast as fallen angels. The story of a rebellion of the gods is much older than the bible and can be seen in early middle eastern traditions such as the Summerian Ea VS. Tiamat story and in western traditions where Aesir VS. Vanir.

However, the huge difference is that in pagan traditions these gods had no dualistic denomination. A modern minded fellow may say that Loki is a satanic figure while Odin is a powerful god-like figure this is simply not the case. The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'. Their idea that forces are either creative or destructive are more in tune with nature. What is destructive in one way is creative in another.

Basically the Jews took the idea of cult deities (people that exclusively followed Venus for example) and turned it into a monotheistic god that is more 'true' than another god. As such they took the pagan constructs of warring gods and added a moral polarity, thus you arrive at the concept of good and evil, god and satan.

AS for the idea of polytheism within Christianity, it has doesn't hold. Satan, being a creation of god, with limited freedom is subject to all of god's laws.

In modern times Satan is seen in an athiestic sense as a being wholly stronger than God and Jesus. He appeals to man's natural instincts and values, not chastity. In the black metal scene this concept has extended into interest in non-Jewish northern gods such as Perun and Odin, which are gods of frenzy, domination and fury, as well as gods of knowledge.
 
It looks like the old testament is running a propaganda-campain againt the old ugaritic pantheon, whos most important diety is Baal. In several places it is described how the people worshipping Baal and Ashera are punished.

In 2 King 1:2 Baal is refered to as Baal Sebub, the God from Ekron (at least in the swedish translation). I guess this is where the word Belsebub comes from. (What is Sebub?)

If Satan is derived from Baal then he is definatly a diety of magnitude.

Interesting is that both Baal and Jahve is refered to as "the rider of the clouds", so now Baal is Jahve.

Baal is believed to mean "The Lord" witch we are familiar with from the x-ian God.

El, the head of the panteon has this standing epitet: creator of the created, witch I also believe we recognize from x-ianity and jews.

In kings, Ashera should be refered to as Jahves wife (although I have not yet found this)

Possibly the isrealites (or whoever) made a merge of all the characters from the "pagan" religion into the one Jahve (as you mension). This was probably to make the olds obsolete in the campain for the priests to dominate the area (?)

In the old scripts Baal is described as a good and loving God with responsibility for fertility, rain, weather, crops etc and not at all an evil fearsome demon.

He is mighty but not allmighty as with the jewish God. He needs help from the Gods to perform sertain tasks, like killing the watermonster Yam (Tiamat I guess).

By the way: Could we see the heritage from this story in Genesis,
1 Gen 1:2 and 1 Gen 1:6 - 7, when God devided the water into two?
 
Look at this list of differences between the ancient traditions with Genesis:

Atrahasis:
The gods are identified with nature and natural forces;
Genesis:
God is NEVER identified with nature--He stands above it

Creation was accomplished through sexual procreation;
Creation had nothing to do with sexual procreation

Primeval darkness had a name, a personality, and deity;
Darkness was nothing more than just that.

The sea had a name, a personality, and deity;
The sea was nothing more than just that.

The abyss had a name, a personality, and deity;
The abyss was nothing more than just that.

The sun, moon, and stars were given names and histories and powers;
They are simply called the greater and lesser lights, and the stars are barely mentioned.

The Shabbatu was a day of terror;
The Sabbath was a day of blessing and rest.

Man created as slave labor to feed the gods;
Man created to enjoy God's blessing.

The serpent was huge and powerful;
The serpent was small and powerless (relied on wits)

Many, many gods in very complex and tumultuous relationships;
One God, balanced and stable.
Man is formed out of some 'part' of god (e.g. blood) mixed with clay;
Man is formed of dust, in the image of God.

Source: The making of the OT (Near the bottom. There is also a list of commonalities).

There is definitely some kind of heritage, but the God described is just as definitely not the same one.

PS. Baal-zebub (mentioned in 2 Kings 1) was a Philistine deity worshipped at Ekron. It means "Lord of the Flies".
 
Last edited:
I am not convinced yet.

The Bible is quite some years younger than Atrahasis and there are scripts even older, like eluma elish.

There is a lot that happen to a story over a great timespan, especially when its past over by word of mouth.

There does also look like politics has had great influence in the tranformation.
 
Not so much "politics", as religion. The Biblical accounts would have been very controversial at the time. Please check that website, since it also addresses the word of mouth aspect.
 
I have always been fascinated by the Enuma Elish and I would say that the concept and story behind Baal is simply a new twist on that old story, so it's safe to say. There was a Baal that was sacrificed to and there is extensive evidence of this.

As for the differences between paganism and genesis, it makes sense as to make the new god, Yawhew, more powerful before the other gods.
 
Yes, thank you for the error report, I made the foolish assumption that it was New Testament. Damn myself to hell!
 
Originally posted by and2000x
Yes, thank you for the error report, I made the foolish assumption that it was New Testament. Damn myself to hell!
Click to expand...
You also foolishly make such absurd statements as "The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'". Again, why not actually learn something before presuming to instruct others?
 
The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask one then? I am friends with plenty of Hindus to know what the hell I am talking about. If one says 'evil' it is NOT 'evil' in the Judeo-Christian sense at all, but in the sense that it is harming or life destructive.

Look up the word DUALISM and you will see that it has no meaning (in the Judaic sense) within Hinduism.


From the words of a Hindu:http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/hinduism/religion_spirituality_and_modernworld/page27.htm

"The idea of a Devil or that of an entirely evil being is wrong. No creature exists who is inherently evil or who can act in an entirely evil manner. However, the evil or harmful actions of people can create a negative force that appears to have an existence of its own and can be almost overwhelming. Such negative powers and entities do exist and must be reckoned with but can be transcended.

These negative forces are not the product of religious unbelief but of willful egoism. The way to transcend evil is to transcend the ego, which is to go beyond the barriers of belief and identity. Unfortunately, the specter of evil has been used to dominate or destroy people who think differently than a particular group.

Such an idea of evil is itself one of the most evil things the human mind has ever invented, as the violence perpetrated in its wake throughout history has demonstrated. It turns other human beings, who are also God, into demons who have to be destroyed and who are not even worthy of human consideration."
 
Originally posted by and2000x
Why don't you ask one then? I am friends with plenty of Hindus to know what the hell I am talking about.
Click to expand...
My goodness. So some of your best friends are Hindu. How very WASP of you.

Originally posted by and2000x
"The idea of a Devil or that of an entirely evil being is wrong. No creature exists who is inherently evil or who can act in an entirely evil manner."
Click to expand...
You blithering idiot. How does that quote in any way support the ignorant and disgusting assertion that "The pagans (Hindus included) have no concept of moral 'good' or 'evil'"?
 
My goodness. So some of your best friends are Hindu. How very WASP of you.
Click to expand...

What the hell? I'm not an Anglo or a protestant. Hinduism was invented by white Europeans anyway, so I don't see the point in this attack. (Read some Savitri Devi)

As for the pagan bit, I suppose you obviously KNOW since you are a pagan yourself. It is very plain and simple: the moral codes of the pagans (not Wiccan pseudo-trash) are based not upon dualism but are part of a universal balancing act via traditionalism (for the Hindus it is simply kharma/dharma). There are references to 'evil' gods within Hinduism, but they are meant as forces of ill-fortune, destruction, and death. Unlike the Christian concept of evil, these destructive forces are essential and positive in change, despite the negative influence they may have upon people. Thus morality is seen as CODES TO LIVE BY, not something that will condemn you to an eternity of damnation.

As for ancient paganism, I am very interested in Odalism/Odinism and have held it dear as an integral part of my history. It is very simple to see the non-duality in Odalism for example: a town may chose to worship whatever deity they choose, be it Thor, Odin, Loki..whoever, for no god is 'evil' or 'blasphemous'. While some gods are more favored over others, they are all essentially capable of acts that the Christian mind would deem 'evil' or 'wrong'. Odin was the lord of the death, lord of the hanged, god of war, master of the pantheon, lord of poetic and erotic frenzy, and giver of knowledge (I could go on for two pages listing them all) He was worshipped fanatically by a small cult of Berzerks (bear-skins) who saw him as the Allfather and great provider. Indeed, all warriors who are slain look foward to meeting this wise and great leader in the Great Hall. However, outsiders considered him to be quit horrific, and called him 'Ygg, the terrible one' who would ride around Yule Tide (12 holy nights of the dead) and slay and rape humans at his whim. Such acts were not seen as 'evil' or 'wrong' at all, and such concepts were cherised as part of reality. Many a judeo-christian would lump Odin in as some sort of Jehova figure, but he is not of this description at all. Worshipping other gods for different reasons was perfectly acceptable and not 'evil'. Fenrir is the wolf that shall help bring about Ragnarok. Though he is feared as the great destroyer and bringer of death, he is seen in a positive light as the being that purges the world of weakness and decay. This same concept is seen again and again throughout many pagan pantheons including those of the Greeks, Romans, Summerians, and so on.

I think you need to define what you mean by 'morals'. Many people mistakingly confuse morals with social rules. For example, the Hindu caste society had extreme social rules and taboos. The same was of the Norse society. Morality can only be defined by a monolithic god who creates a dual nature of 'good' and 'evil'.
 
This is it in a clear cut manner:

1. Pagan societies had concepts of right and wrong.
2. Pagan societis had no MORAL concepts of right and wrong.

Morality requires an force of 'good' such as God, versus and 'evil' force, such as 'Satan' or sin.
 
Pagan societies

Originally posted by and2000x
This is it in a clear cut manner:

1. Pagan societies had concepts of right and wrong.
2. Pagan societis had no MORAL concepts of right and wrong.

Morality requires an force of 'good' such as God, versus and 'evil' force, such as 'Satan' or sin.
Click to expand...

Morality lies in the consciousness of every human being. You know nothing. Please don't try to teach before you learn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top