Interesting article...

[Sylv]

I was surfing and came across the article about Christian polytheism. It discusses how the English translation 'muddled up' some things, as well as the Gnostics in the first half, and Mormonism in the second half.
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~wiley6/polytheism.html

[Sylv]

Here's another one. :) This one gets a bit pretty dogmatic at the end, but it makes you think. (well, it made me think :D)
http://www.teosofia.com/monotheismorpolytheism.html

[Edited to fix my silly typos]

[Mithrea]

Thank you for sharing these article, Sylv. I especially like this quote from the second link you provided (even though it's not the topic):


Theologians make poor philosophers because they are partial to their own religious creed, and instead of seeking truth, are only eager to prove a dogma already asserted

It's a very informative article with a different approach, though I don't think it's clear in either one what the point is. What is the point? What difference does it make? What do you think? I wish though that pantheism had been addressed as well. Perhaps that would have made it more clear.

[Sylv]

I noticed that quote too. :) I also liked:

In our study we must reject dogma and belief and seek the truth. It does not mean that we should reject religion; it means that we must study religion.
In the second one, I think the point is a decision about whether monotheism or polytheism is correct. In the first, I wasn't sure what the point was either (lol) but some of the information I found interesting, and it kind of spurred me to look more into some of the stuff it mentioned. I think that especially in the second article pantheism would have been another idea to talk about-it seemed to me as if the article was saying a) science is monotheistic (which I don't agree with, because science doesn't deify the substance it postulates/searches for, but I can see the general drift) b) that there isn't a deity outside the universe-it is the universe (? this part was kind of confusing)

It of course rejects any personal god outside of the universe, but it teaches God as an infinite and invisible Presence.
I didn't agree with this either (I can just picture all the gods laughing at it). In that same part, it says

The difference between the Yogi and the modern scientist is that the former develops his instruments of observation and experimentation within himself and thus acquires knowledge by experience, which knowledge is verifiable by repetition of the same experience.
I wasn't sure what this meant-if you have any thoughts I'd be glad to hear them. :)
And c, that 'theosophy' teaches both monotheism and polytheism. However, after the author states this last point, he goes on to imply (at least imo) that monotheism is better, because it focuses on the 'light' of the universe not because polytheism (everything else, because it focuses on secondary lights) is wrong, but because it forgets the primary light. Also mentioned is the idea of Be-ness, Becoming, and Being.

Each one of us is a being; but moment by moment, through the hours and the months and the years, we change, we are always and ever becoming something different from what we have been or are. But within us, even in the process of becoming, is a Presence—call it Soul, call it Spirit, call it Self, call it Atman, call it by any name you please, but it is a Presence. For, it is by that Presence of the deepest Self in us that we are able to cognize, to appreciate and serve the Great Presence in the universe.
This kind of confused me. Earlier, the author had said that there is no god outside the universe-so what is this Great Presence? And why does it need to be served? However, I like the idea that even while we are always changing, our soul stays the same.
Eek! I just realized what time it is, so I'll have to talk more later (that is if you want to, hehe). Must go get ready for real-life. ;)

[Mithrea]

Real life? What's that? ;)


science is monotheistic (which I don't agree with, because science doesn't deify the substance it postulates/searches for, but I can see the general drift) b) that there isn't a deity outside the universe-it is the universe (? this part was kind of confusing)

Science is monotheistic in a couple of different ways. First of all, science is it's own Transcendental Signifier. This means that "truth" is based on one thing--empirical data. In a sense, you could say that empirical data is the one "god" of science.

Another way in which science is *becoming* monotheistic is that Grand Unification Theory (or lack thereof) is sending droves of scientists back to church. They have accounted for what happened all the way back to the last .001 second after the universe began but they can't figure out what happened to start it all. What happened in the moment before time began? That question and the lack of a sufficient answer have caused many scientists to go "looking for God" to explain it.


The difference between the Yogi and the modern scientist is that the former develops his instruments of observation and experimentation within himself and thus acquires knowledge by experience, which knowledge is verifiable by repetition of the same experience.

Same thing here. The Yogi doesn't need his knowledge to be verified because truth for him, lies beyond observed experiments. "Truth" in science is derived by using things like microscopes and telescopes and conducting experiments over and over again. The Yogi doesn't need to experiment and prove anything. He knows without proof.


Earlier, the author had said that there is no god outside the universe-so what is this Great Presence? And why does it need to be served?

Because it sounds good? Honestly, it looks to me like the writer got carried away trying to be poetic there and wasn't paying attention to the words used. However, if someone else would like to take a stab at justifying "serve" in that context, I'd love to hear it.