Polytheism not fitting into the binary positions some many atheists and monotheists hold in debates

[SorcererGaheris]

I read this post by polytheist G B Marian and found it very thought-provoking. Discussions/debates on theism vs atheism almost always centre upon atheism and monotheism, with polytheism often excluded.

GBM:

I've been seeing lots of posts about "theism versus atheism" lately, and they all seem rather disingenuous. The discussions in these posts are always framed as conflicts between monotheism and atheism, without fail. No other kind of theism seems to be included or accounted for, except for random occasional commenters like myself.

The monotheists in these discussions always claim that "morality is impossible without God." Meanwhile, the atheists conclude that "all religion is crap" because people don't actually need religion to be good. Neither side makes any leeway with the other, and that's not really the point anyway. These conversations tend to function more as "echo chambers" (and for both sides).

For polytheists like myself, who acknowledge and believe in many different Gods, neither side of this argument really seems to understand the actual purpose of "religion" (as we understand it at least). For us, religion and morality are two completely separate categories. "Religion" is what you do to build a relationship with one or more Gods, spirits, etc., while "morality" is how you treat other living people and creatures.

In polytheism, being a good person is just a social and natural duty. You don't have to worship any particular deity to be good. Atheists are not "sinners," and their disbelief is not a "moral failing." They're just people who don't engage with any Higher Powers, that's all. They are not predestined for hell; in fact, they are entitled to a happy afterlife just as much as anyone else, so long as they are good people at least.

Polytheists do not worship our Gods because They will "send us to hell" if we don't. Nor do we worship Them because we think it is "necessary" for us to be good people. We worship our Gods because we love Them and enjoy Their company; that's literally all there is to it. If you do not already love a God or enjoy Their company, then there is no reason for you to worship Them, and you are not expected to. End of story.

Yes, there are certain ways in which religion and morality can intersect for polytheists. Our Gods are more likely to listen to us when we are good people and we treat others with dignity. But this is very different from thinking you absolutely HAVE to believe in order to be considered "good" in the first place.
If your religious life is likewise centered around relationships, reciprocity, ritual, devotion, and presence with multiple Powers, then the standard “morality needs God" vs. "religion is unnecessary” dichotomy does not apply. When a monotheist says “morality requires God,” a polytheist can fairly respond: “That may be YOUR theology; but it isn’t the only way religion relates to ethics.”

At the same time, polytheistic religion—especially where devotion is elective, plural, and relational—does not fit neatly into the “religion = authoritarian moral policing” template that most atheists are typically reacting to. We are here to demonstrate that religion can (and, indeed, SHOULD) be about practice and relationship WITHOUT hinging on “believe this or be damned.”

Remember these things the next time you're invited to a group that presents itself as being some kind of "showdown" between "theists" (read: monotheists) and atheists.

Because my pastor is very experienced with conversions and theology generally and would probably ask more pertinent questions. As for Paul, it's very plain what happened as Jesus himself told him to 'rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do' and then when Paul was taken to Damascus he received teachings from followers of Jesus and some of the apostles. These people were his pastors. He didn't go straight from his experience to spreading the gospel. Encountering Jesus is just the first step on a long road as Paul found out.

Is a Christian relationship with Jesus not supposed to be one on one ?

As in no-one else teaches you? No that is not correct. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

That means that someone must teach you, correct you, encourage you, or even rebuke if need be, using the scriptures, so you are not led astray nor believe false doctrines. On your own, you can't do that. Fellowship is extremely important. As it says in Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 "Two are better than one, Because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, For he has^ no one to help him up."

I forgot to say in my reply that many people experience the presence of Jesus when coming to faith (I did not). At the time you had that encounter you should have also been given the indwelling Holy Spirit, whether you realise it or not.

And really, for me it does not matter is other people do not think I was a Christian. Because I was.

It's of interest as to whether you were or not because that matters now. If you were, then the Holy Spirit will be prompting you to return. Of course you can ignore Him but he will perservere. If you never were a Christian, then that can't happen. You could still encounter Christ and be saved though. It does sound like the former applies to you, not the latter.

Edit: Don't know why I ended up with italics there, not intentional!

I can safely say, as an atheist, I don’t think about monotheism or polytheism at all. It is of no interest to me.
My only concerns are when your beliefs try to impact my life.

Usual comment - what is the poster to be saved from!!!!!

So, 'other people' in this case i.e. commentaries, Bible dictionaries,pastors, theologians have all devoted a LOT more time to understanding scriptures. They will have an understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek (you can get interlinear bibles that have English on one page and then either Hebrew or Greek on the facing page so you can compare word for word.

Also, the principle that scripture is used to interpret scripture. I know, that sounds like a riddle. This means that clear, explicit passages of the Bible are used to shed light on difficult, symbolic, or implicit passages. It means you don't take verses in isolation but always use the context of surrounding verses.

A good example of this is Philippians 2:12 "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" - Does this mean we have to work for our salvation and that it's based on good deeds alone? If you read this verse in isolation you might come to that conclusion.

To understand that verse properly you need to find other clear verses about salvation. Look at Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." That verse establishes the meaning of salvation, that it's a gift from God, received by faith, not by human effort. So now you can go back to the difficult verse and understand it properly - work out your salvation, not for it. You cannot work out something that has not already been put in. Paul is talking about living out the results of a salvation the readers of this letter already possess.

People who have studied the Bible extensively and published commentaries will have spent thousands of hours on clarifying verses such as the one above, and so they generally help with accuracy and understanding in Bible Study. There's a lot more to say on the subject of commentaries but I'll leave it at that for now!

@Parker231 In four words: The wrath of God.

I counter with-

Mat 6:5 And when you may pray, you will not be as the hypocrites, because they cherish to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the broad places, that they may be seen of men; truly I say to you that they have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But you, when you may pray, go into your chamber, and having shut your door, pray to your Father who [is] in secret, and your Father who is seeing in secret will reward you. (LSV)

I rated the words of Jesus himself as meaning more than later folk. He was pretty clear there.

Ecclesiastes is old testament. And that verse is nothing to do with reading the bible.

Quote : "I forgot to say in my reply that many people experience the presence of Jesus when coming to faith (I did not). At the time you had that encounter you should have also been given the indwelling Holy Spirit, whether you realise it or not."

So it is something you did not experience, but according to you I experienced it wrong. Who says how it is supposed to work ? Where did Jesus describe it in detail.?

Quote " so you are not led astray nor believe false doctrines."

So we are back to the 50k Christian denominations, and only yours is correct. Or only the ones that say the creed anyway.

"If you were, then the Holy Spirit will be prompting you to return.". And you know this how ?

There is an alternative of course. That none of it is real. And that alternative just happens to be the real truth. It is all made up. And it took a long time for me to get to that. For me to actually understand what my "seeing the light moment was"

And now you will say " Ahh, you admit your seeing the right moment was not real ?". And yes, now I do know that. But that does not mean it was not real to me at the time.

"I forgot to say in my reply that many people experience the presence of Jesus when coming to faith (I did not). At the time you had that encounter you should have also been given the indwelling Holy Spirit, whether you realise it or not."
So it is something you did not experience, but according to you I experienced it wrong. Who says how it is supposed to work ? Where did Jesus describe it in detail.?

Again - where did I say that? I did not say you did it 'wrong'! You've completed mangled what I wrote.

Quote " so you are not led astray nor believe false doctrines."
So we are back to the 50k Christian denominations, and only yours is correct. Or only the ones that say the creed anyway.

Again, you've completely mangled what I said. Millions of Christians believe in the Nicene creed, so it's not 'only' those, that is a huge number!

"If you were, then the Holy Spirit will be prompting you to return.". And you know this how ?

Personal experience. No, I'm not going to elaborate because you'll just twist my words.

There is an alternative of course. That none of it is real. And that alternative just happens to be the real truth. It is all made up. And it took a long time for me to get to that. For me to actually understand what my "seeing the light moment was"

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, and I to mine.

You sound worried! I’m not!!

I don't think I am mangling anything you said. Sorry if it comes across like that.

I am simply asking how do you know what you say as fact, when what you say does not appear to be in the Bible ?

Quoting your post "

"Quote " so you are not led astray nor believe false doctrines."
So we are back to the 50k Christian denominations, and only yours is correct. Or only the ones that say the creed anyway.
Again, you've completely mangled what I said. Millions of Christians believe in the Nicene creed, so it's not 'only' those, that is a huge number!"

Your bit in bold. I am not mangling what you say. I am just saying there are over 50k Christian denominations. And presumably the members of each feel their beliefs differ from others enough to have a different denomination. But there will be overlap of course.

This is what I am interested in. How one book (or collection of books) can be interpreted in so many different ways, when said books (books) is essentially the same, and divinely inspired at the same time. They all come from the same Codices.

And this leads me back to my Christian days. My particular Christianity was different from many others. But that really did not matter to me at the time, because there were so many denominations anyway, all mostly saying their one was the true one.

And this will likely interest @SorcererGaheris , I rationalized that at the time by viewing the mono God in pretty much polytheistic terms. I saw it as there being one God, but that God had different spiritual forms to different people/cultures/ages depending on what His great plan was. A sort of test in a way.

I am sure polytheists have a word for that. A single God appearing as different Gods to different people ?

In fact, that I believed that is a demonstration of the mental gymnastics I did to make the existence of God, that I firmly believed in, fit the logical model of the universe. Eg, I had no need for the Trinity, because God and Jesus were manifestations of the same entity. So why have the holy spirit ?

And actually, quoting you again: "Personal experience. No, I'm not going to elaborate because you'll just twist my words."

So you are saying personal experience. Can that not be taken as meaning particular to you, rather than as following some set list of rules ?

This is what I am interested in. How one book (or collection of books) can be interpreted in so many different ways, when said books (books) is essentially the same, and divinely inspired at the same time. They all come from the same Codices.

Yes, I'm interested in it as well, and my Church will be studying the history of the Church once we finish our current End Times study. I am looking forward to what happened! I do know it was at the time of the Reformation that thousands of new denominations suddenly branched off from Roman Catholicism as they rejected the authority of the Pope. Having read what happened under some of the Popes I'm not surprised. But anyway, once that authority was removed then people began arguing over doctrine. Plus you also had the invention of the printing press and the Bible was then available to anyone to read, whereas before it wasn't.

In fact, that I believed that is a demonstration of the mental gymnastics I did to make the existence of God, that I firmly believed in, fit the logical model of the universe. Eg, I had no need for the Trinity, because God and Jesus were manifestations of the same entity. So why have the holy spirit ?

What is your logical model of the Universe that you are attempting to fit God into? You do realise He created it, not you. Jesus told us what the Holy Spirit is for, if you actually read your Bible as you say you have.

John 14:15-17 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you."

Also John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

John 16:13-15 "When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

The Holy Spirit has many roles, He is the one who enables our spiritual rebirth when we accept Jesus into our lives.

As I said, in my understanding, there was one entity. So no need for the holy spirit. Not 3 separate things, but one. Not thousands of gods, but one being many things.

That is what I believed.

And now I don't. And my model of the universe works well now. No mental gymnastics required.

Would love to be a fly on the wall during an end times debate!

It's quite something!

You wouldn’t want me in the room to pull holes in your position 🤣

I think we'd rather enjoy it, and showing you the holes in yours!

I was on the debating team at LSE - can pull holes in anything where evidence can’t be provided

@GentleSheep

Your thoughts on this. Asking from genuine interest.

It's not a new denomination. And even if it was, it would be close enough to others to be the same really. But it is a schism.

I presume this other branch are still Christians per your system. But it does beg the question of what happens at the end of times.

From the article - "In a final appeal to the group Monday, Leo had warned that the ordinations would be a “schismatic” act and a “sin of extreme gravity,” and the ruling by the Vatican is wide-ranging in clamping down on the group."

Breakaway Catholic group excommunicated after defying warnings from Pope Leo | CNN

And re polytheism for @SorcererGaheris . If both sides think their version is different enough to split, but both side maybe think both will "go up", then is that not almost polytheism ? But if both sides think the other will "go down" then that would be monotheism ?

Honestly I have no idea as I'm not a Roman Catholic and know very little at all about the ins and outs of their doctrine. Perhaps better asked of Catholics who do know more?

Fair enough. I just thought you would have an opinion, that's all. It surely comes into play at the end of days and all that.

@GentleSheep The Holy Spirit has many roles, He is the one who enables our spiritual rebirth when we accept Jesus into our lives.

Alleluia! Yes and Amen! 🙏

Come on then - what have you been learning about end times?

Thanks. So how do you distinguish an experience with one god from another? Eg, if you have an experience that you think comes from a deity, how would you decide that that particular god was, say, Yahweh rather than Loki pretending to be Yahweh?

Thanks for that. I think the issue I have is that there are some people who spend a LOT of time understanding scriptures, clarifying verses etc that say that the Bible should be interpreted one particular way. But then there are other people who have also spent a LOT of time understanding scriptures, clarifying verses etc who say that the Bible should be interpreted a different way.

For example there is a sizable section of Christians who say that the Bible is the Literal Word Of God and so should be taken at face value. As such they interpret it as saying that God created the Earth in six days some thousands of years ago, that Adam and Eve really existed as described, that The Flood literally happened and Noah absolutely did build an ark to save clean and unclean animals, that Job really did have his wife and children killed and then replaced as part of a bet between God and Satan, that the bodies of the saints really were resurrected when Jesus died on the cross and so on.

Then there's another sizable section of Christians who say that the "days" in Genesis should be taken to mean unmeasurable periods of time, that The Flood was actually just a local thing, that Job was a metaphor, and that the saints weren't actually resurrected in body but only in spirit.

And then there are the Christians who say that Genesis isn't literally true at all but is, instead, a parable about how humanity ended up in the position it's in, that The Flood is a story to illustrate the importance about keeping true to God's commandments as was the story of Job, and that the bit about the saints rising from their graves when Jesus finally died on the cross was obviously just artistic license.

All of those groups (and many more - there are thousands of subtly, and not-so-subtly, different interpretations of the Bible. For example, some groups interpret Luke 22:36 as simply being the fulfillment of a prophecy, others interpret it as a literal demand that they obtain weapons) can point to their preferred theologians as evidence that their preferred interpretation is the right one. If you follow Answers In Genesis then you're going to get a very different view of what the Bible says than if you follow the Anglican church, for example. Or the Roman Catholic vs the Eastern Orthodox. Yet all of them can point to detailed and voluminous interpretations of the Bible to justify their positions.

So... how do you decide that the theologians you're relying on to interpret the Bible for you are getting it right?

Well that's a very good point. Obviously we can't all be our own theologians. It would be incredibly time-consuming, not to mention intellectually demanding. My own pastor went to seminary and decided to leave all his pre-conceived ideas of religion (he'd been brought up Lutheran) at the door and make up his own mind based on everything he read during that time (and it was a LOT) and his studies afterwards. Most of us don't or can't do that, and that's fair enough. I think some folks just stick with what they were raised with, but quite a lot also leave their original denomination and go elsewhere. Many people don't actually even know the theology of the Church they belong to, which is a pity.

As I've progressed with understanding Christianity better (I started out Anglican) I have come across the debates that go on over all sorts of doctrinal issues. You do need to distinguish between salvific and non-salvific issues, for starters. For example. Old earth vs young earth creation - it has no bearing on whether you are saved or not, which one you believe. Rapture or no rapture. Doesn't matter. Spiritual gifts have ceased, or are still ongoing. Not salvific. BUT. Jesus was just a man who did a lot of good things vs Jesus was fully God and fully man during his incarnation on earth - you better believe the latter or your salvation is at stake. So you've got to choose a church or denomination that sticks to the core fundamental Christian beliefs, if you're going 'shopping' for one.

I firmly believe there are saved Christians in most denominations, and unsaved Christians. There are styles of worship that suit some people better than others, they're not 'right' or 'wrong' as long as they line up with the core Christian beliefs.

Which theologians can you trust? Well no one theologian will have everything right. They're still only human! The interpretive method they use is important, their 'hermeneutic', as I outlined earlier. You can also look at a person's character and 'fruit'. Do they preach the word but live something different? Do they have the humility to admit when they don't know something? Are they willing to discuss ideas outside that of their own denomination?

On this subject, translation and interpretation of the Bible, I came across something the other day that actually slightly angered me. I was using a Bible study/reference program to compose a post about the Lords Prayer for another thread. And I came across this :

Mat 6:11 Give our {F} needful bread to us today.

{Footnotes: Mat 6:11, no one knows for sure what the original word means. It is only in the N.T. twice and no where else.}

I use a PC program called e-Sword that allows one to download lots of different Bibles for in depth stuff. That bit above came from the MLV2021 translation. Modern Litteral Version 2021.

What is this word that nobody is sure about what it means ? What is this word that only appears twice ? So I switch to the KJV that has Strongs dictionary numbers.

Mat 6:11 GiveG1325 us thisG4594 dayG4594 our dailyG1967 bread.G740.

I can't screen grab this, because one hovers the mouse over the number and you get a popup with the dictionary. In this verse, it G1967 that only appears twice in the Bible. And that is translated as DAILY.

So look up that number on the web, and we get :

daily.
Perhaps from the same as epiousa; tomorrow's; but more probably from epi and a derivative of the present participle feminine of eimi; for subsistence, i.e. Needful -- daily.

So hang on. That word maybe means daily. But the scholars are not 100% on that. And this is supposed to be the word of God. And these are the magic words that Jesus himself should be said.... and nobody is sure what it actually means. It might mean needful, or it might mean daily.

And billions of people have been told over centuries " say these magic words or you will burn in hell for eternity", AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC WORD MEANS. THE MAGIC WORDS COULD BE THE WRONG MAGIC WORDS.

Grrrr. Sorry for shouting.