It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pantheonic Deities?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I've always wondered - moreso than the existence of a singular omnipresent being - if maybe the universe was formed and is currently being ordered by a group of gods, such as seen in Greek and Egyptian mythology (as well as innumerable others), as opposed to a singular entity. If nothing else it should make you think where those people thousands of years ago got the idea for these beings and what boosted them to such renown that they gained irrefutable worship.

And even if this is not widely believed, is it really so much harder to get behind than the theory ID or God?




posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Technically there is as much support for that as their is for a biblical god as the intelligent designer. Maybe even more so, if you consider that many designers would, working together, perhaps make a less "elegant" design than a single inspired designer would, and that seems to be the case if organismal structures were designed.


A partial issue is, just how paganistic were these old religions? When we read about greco-roman mythology, we have bullfinch, and the like, but that thing would be, so i have heard, utterly unrecognizable to the average greek or roman. Many beleived in singular gods.

Or, for example, consider the neo-platonic religions with their groups of archons, ruling the universe.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I think that the tendency of man to create multiple Gods is in essence a result of man's need for personal representation. For instance, if those farmers over there have their God of Corn, I'm gonna have my God of Blacksmithing.

Modern monotheism touts itself as a highly approachable institution, presenting believers with a unique and personal link to whatever single deity. Is such a relationship with a God that everyone and their mother worships on the same footing as a God that pays special attention to a certain group of people? I dunno, but this playoff season, I'm praying to the Hockey Gods that the Oil come out on top.

Zip



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
A few of my friends through the years have been into wicka. A religion or cult I’m not sure how to categorize it, is a basic pagan group. They, like many primitive cultures that live (or used to live) directly off the land, believe that there are forces above that control the world we know. The god of the west, of the east, of the sky, of the sea, etc. These forces or “The Powers That Be” take on many different meanings for groups around the world. For the big religions the power that be is a single god for other (Greeks & Egyptians) it was/is multiple gods and still for others it is multiple spirits or souls.

I like to believe the multiple spirit/soul theme. I’m not sure where or when but, I remember once being told that we only use 20% of our brains abilities. So what are the other abilities? Perhaps it is the ESP, perhaps we are all telepathic but we just don’t how to use it. Perhaps that 80% is reserved for the soul. What’s my point?!

Maybe “god” is just a collection of souls. (Some good some bad)

Have you ever been at a concert with a very long time popular super group where, while they are preforming one of their signature songs all of the theater sings along? At the end of that song everyone cheers and gets a rush of energy. Even those that were not signing feel the rush. Why? Where does that rush come from? Would you feel it if you viewed the show on a recording? NO. Here is an example of a large group of people getting together and focusing their energy one just one thing, just one theme. How is that energy transmitted between these people? Here is my guess, the soul. (You can get the same feeling in a church mass but, hey let’s not go there)

There is no evidence of any god, but I do believe there is spirituality. (If not then I have seen an unbelievable amount of strange coincidences in life) The whole meditation/Yoga thing and Buddhism seams to go into this spirituality/soul thing. I think that ESP and telepathy might be an example of tapping into and using the spirituality/soul as an individual. Prayers and concert energy are ways to tap into a group of souls. When humans get together in groups the whole attitude changes without clear communication. The attitude can be good as in a concert or bad as in a riot it depends on the quality of the souls. Whatever form of subconscious communication we humans have it appears to be connected. If the soul can live on independent of our body then maybe it (omnipresent being) is just a collection of souls (ghosts by some definitions) that are doing the organizing. Some souls exist forever and some fade away. But the knowledge, “the Powers That Be” could be just a collection of long lasting souls that have spent their entire non-physical existence learning how stuff works and communicating that knowledge through spirituality. So as long as humans exist so will spirituality and the souls. (Maybe psychics are real, naw, that’s a whole different game.)

The existence of the souls seams far more believable then any deity(no miracles needed), there are simple examples everywhere. Why does anyone need to make up the existence of a supreme being (touting an endless amount of miracles) outside of our physical laws? I still don’t understand how anyone could begin to believe that a singular omnipresent deity can exist with all the knowledge ever, yet have no origin.



grav



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If talking about souls, it would be interesting to note that the sanskrit word for soul is 'aatma' and the sanskrit word for God (or the ultimate being) is 'parmaatma' or the 'first soul'

It is also interesting to note that though Hinduism in pantheonic in nature, having perhaps the largest collection of Gods of any religion, it still believes in an ultimate 'energy' or the 'parmaatma' which is superior to Gods. 'Parmaatma' is 'nirankar' or without form. It is the basis for life and is present everywhere. Even the Gods derive their energies by tapping into it.

Hence maybe what we call the soul could just bea part of this universal energy & our link to it



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The more deities there are, the less powerful any individual god or goddess would be. You can't have two omnipotent entities and you certainly can't have twenty, still less millions and millions of them in the Hindu style.

But if the members of a pantheon are not omnipotent, what kind of gods are they? Beings endowed with the power of creation? Very few pantheistic belief systems confer creative potency on all their gods, so that definition won't wash. The ability to perform 'miracles'? Better, though miracles are very largely in the eye of the beholder; any of us can do miracles that would make Leonardo boggle. In the end the definition would have to be something like 'being with powers humans don't have.' Given the powers humans do have nowadays, that doesn't leave much room for gods.

Pantheism defies logic; it's no accident that the greatest Greek philosophers were monotheists.

[edit on 25-5-2006 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
.
I've thought about it too and perhaps there are various gods. But by whom or what were they created? They obviously didn't just burst into existence.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
As far as being omnipotent, I suspect that the followers of a particlar god think that they are the more powerful one. Indra used to be the primary god in india, but then later on we see 'super-men' who are outclassing indra, or we see Ram as a supreme god. None of them are considered omnipotent, as in creators of everything, but they are see as especially powerful and useful.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
As far as being omnipotent, I suspect that the followers of a particlar god think that they are the more powerful one.

Up to a point. In A History of God, Karen Armstrong argues that the original covenant between the Hebrews and Yahweh was blatantly power-based: Yahweh delivered invincibility in battle in exchange for exclusive homage and worship. Yahweh, at the time, was competing for worshippers with other local deities like Baal and Ashtaroth, and won the competition by keeping his end of the bargain. This explains why the Old Testament is so full of battles and massacres.

Armstrong argues powerfully that this exclusive contract, or covenant, was the origin from which the concept of a unitary, omnipotent deity evolved.

Pantheists, however, relate to their gods in a different way. Every pantheon has greater and lesser gods, arranged in a hierarchy like that of a corporation or bureaucracy. There's always a Top God, Zeus Piter or Brahma or whoever, who is capable of pretty much anything (just like Kenneth Lay) but who is mostly too awe-inspiring and remote to be pestered for favours. He (it's almost always "he") delegates a lot, and his underlings have responsibility for particular departments (love, war, the earth, the ocean, agriculture) and sub-departments. If humans require assistance in one sphere of life or another, they must apply to the head of the appropriate department. Petitioning the wrong god is futile; moreover, it might anger the right one and make the supplicant's troubles even worse. Pantheonic gods are unpredictable fellows: for example, Ganesh, the elephant-headed Hindu god, is worshipped both as the Remover of Obstacles and as He Who Obstructs, which is why he is always acknowledged at the outset of any enterprise, though the tutelary deity of that enterprise may be another deity; thus Ganesh is also known as the God of Beginnings.

This miniscule subdivision of divine functions explains why pantheons sprawl so.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gravityisatheory
Have you ever been at a concert with a very long time popular super group where, while they are performing one of their signature songs all of the theater sings along? At the end of that song everyone cheers and gets a rush of energy... You can get the same feeling in a church mass but, hey let’s not go there.

No, let's.

It doesn't have to be a "supergroup". In fact, the stadium rock extravaganza is actually an overmediated fake, a baroque, technologically supercharged (and to the aficionado, unconvincing) parody of the very real and authentic shamanic experience that great performers evoke and share with their audiences. I call it shamanic; you can call it religious if you like, but it sure ain't angels with harps up there on stage. The blues used to be called the Devil's music for a reason. And the Devil certainly has won this round: every form of contemporary music, even what passes for country down in Nashville nowadays, harks back in some way to the blues.

And it isn't just music; it inheres in whatever stimulus or complex of stimuli, artfully or intuitively deployed, touches the dark beating instinctual heart of man and moves it to ecstasy. The same potent essence charges the words of the pastor and the witnessing of his congregation, fuels the charismatic, tribalized "Christianity" that seems (to a secular observer, at least) to be bent on destroying all that is good and admirable about the United States of America.

But good or bad, it is always and in all places exactly the same. You may hear its beat in the firewalker's drum at Kataragama and in the poetry of St. John of the Cross. I've watched it provoke a miniature race riot at a Sham 69 concert in staid stockbroker Surrey, whip up spit-flying hatred outside a mosque at Dibba on the shores of the Arabian Sea, reduce phlegmatic Chinese to dribbling hysteria at a born-again revival meeting in Singapore, been uplifted by it as I watched dhol-playing dervishes spin themselves to ecstasy in a musico-religious trance on a balmy night in Lahore, even generated it myself one unforgettable evening when the stars were right and the company was sympathetic and my Stratocaster played me rather than the other way round. It's all the same thing. Call it god, call it devil: it lies within us.

If you want to call it soul, by all means do so, but remember that souls are said to be immortal. This daemon is mortal, all too mortal; it dies when the air around the shaman stops vibrating.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Pantheism defies logic; it's no accident that the greatest Greek philosophers were monotheists.


I think you mean "polytheism" defies logic, instead of pantheism. There were quite a few of the Greek philosophers who were pantheists, but not polytheists. Plato and Socrates appear to have been pantheists, and possibly Pythagoras. In more modern times, Spinoza, Goethe, Hegel, and Einstein were pantheists.



[edit on 26-5-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I think you mean "polytheism" defies logic... There were quite a few of the Greek philosophers who were pantheists, but not polytheists.

You are quite right. My apologies for the sloppy usage.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Technically there is as much support for that as their is for a biblical god as the intelligent designer. Maybe even more so, if you consider that many designers would, working together, perhaps make a less "elegant" design than a single inspired designer would, and that seems to be the case if organismal structures were designed.


You have noted something here in SPECIFIC, that I believe is overlooked within Scripture.

"Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "

This of course, is during the Recreation noted on the Sixth Day. You may know by now, I am very opinionated in respects to the Races, and I believe this is exactly, what you are noting should have been considered.

First, And God said, Let us, in the collective sense, implying this was a colaboration, and not an 'Edict'.

Second, Angels are not alike. They differ as we differ and for that matter there are many things on this planet, that are not identical, despite being the same in general.

I expect there are, Dark Skinned, Dark haired Angels. Shorter Angels with a Yellow complextion and 'Asian Features'. I could go on but why? I trust you get it. Your not a brick like some others Nygdan.

And of course, although many overlook it, note THIS IS Recreation.

"Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. "

I also expect, from this Singular notation, we have that 'Missing Link' to the Past Sceince is scrounging around Dirt piles in Africa seeking with spatulas.

But I think in essence, your consideration was a fact.

As for Zipdot's note

I think that the tendency of man to create multiple Gods is in essence a result of man's need for personal representation. For instance, if those farmers over there have their God of Corn, I'm gonna have my God of Blacksmithing.


I think this again, is factual beyond the point of discussion. Cain and his decendants would have done this. And it seems Tubal Cain may have said exactly that.

But Astyanax has asked

But if the members of a pantheon are not omnipotent, what kind of gods are they?


They are the Fallen Angels that came to earth and took the daughters of man and set themselves up as gods and dieties. Still powerful in the respect of what they were (Fallen Angels), and as noted before, had the ability to think tank Recreation.

Dock6 was noting his thoughts, and asked

But by whom or what were they created? They obviously didn't just burst into existence.


In essence, this is exactly what they did. They are the sons of God.

And Nygdan, again you are quite right. The fallen had talents, according to his duty. When looking at the gods and dieties, each have some special insight or gift, if it can be called such.

Astyanax brought up the following [quote]In A History of God, Karen Armstrong argues that the original covenant between the Hebrews and Yahweh was blatantly power-based: Yahweh delivered invincibility in battle in exchange for exclusive homage and worship. Yahweh, at the time, was competing for worshippers with other local deities like Baal and Ashtaroth, and won the competition by keeping his end of the bargain. This explains why the Old Testament is so full of battles and massacres.

And again Baal, and Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Venus, Hera, and on and on, are Yahweh's Black sheep. The Fallen Angels. It is no competition. It's not do this or else. Abraham was promised certain things. Likewise were the 12 tribes. Those promises are as valid today, as the where all those years ago. It was the people, who couldn;t accept unconditional acceptance of Yahweh, but today, for example, everything Dan was promised is still afforded to Dan. Benjamin, Levi, and so on is the same. But much like a child, when they disobey, they are punished. Do you take away the Allowance for every, when a child is not acting as they should. Of course not.

There is also, the matter that once, we all had one God. It is just we rather like to listen to the lessor gods and dieties. The Fallen have certainly, along with thier boss, played a good con game. We (as a collective made up of Humans) bought their scam hook, line and sinker.

An interesting discussion none the less.

Have a good evening

Ciao

Shane









[edit on 27-5-2006 by Shane]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Accidental double post: see below

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
God said, Let us, in the collective sense, implying this was a colaboration, and not an 'Edict'.

It's not easy to figure out what you're getting at, but you seem to be suggesting that beings of some kind, which you call 'angels', participated in the Creation alongside God. You are attributing creative powers to beings who are not God. This is a very ancient and persistent heresy called Manichaeism, which the church regards as anathema. If this is what you believe, you cannot call yourself a Christian, at least not in the sense of being part of the worldwide community of the faith; you have forsaken your Christianity. I trust you're aware of this, and comfortable with it?



But Astyanax has asked


But if the members of a pantheon are not omnipotent, what kind of gods are they?

They are the Fallen Angels that came to earth and took the daughters of man and set themselves up as gods and dieties.

Can you provide some evidence of this that isn't based on faith? I don't share the faith, you see. And it's no good quoting Scripture at me because I don't believe that either. I'll be wanting good hard evidence that does not require the highly imaginative reinterpretation of ancient texts: evidence of forensic or scientific quality. And I'm sure I shan't be the only one wanting it.


Astyanax brought up the following


...Yahweh delivered invincibility in battle in exchange for exclusive homage and worship... Yahweh, at the time, was competing for worshippers with other local deities like Baal and Ashtaroth, and won the competition by keeping his end of the bargain.

And again Baal, and Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Venus, Hera, and on and on, are Yahweh's Black sheep. The Fallen Angels. It is no competition.

I don't think so. In my view Baal, Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Venus, Hera and the rest are anthropomorphizations of natural phenomena and (simultaneously) projections of human drives and instincts, as is Yahweh. Have you any (forensically and scientifically) credible evidence that any of these hypothetical beings has a real existence?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Astyanax:

I must say i have to agree with you on the point that pantheons seem to sprawl endlessly. But i do not see the problem with that. I am no religious expert but whatever little i know about hinduism, which is not my religion by the way, points to the fact that Hindu's beleive in a 'Supreme Entity' which is far greater than all the other Gods, 'Dev' (beings of light). As pointed oput by Nygdan, hinduism is very very dynamic in nature and the importance of various 'devs' keeps changing over a period of time. Like Indra was considered all powerful at one time, later on Brahma gained importance, still later Vishnu and Shiv came to prominence. But all this does not change the fact that the concept of an Ultimate Power greater than the Devs exists in Hinduism. None of the hindu Devs and Devis (female) are considered Omnipotent.

That is the beauty, in a way, of hinduism. There is place for everyone
I believe hinduism is the only religion in the world that has the concept of multiple ways to moksh. that is as many ways to acheive moksh as there are people. infact you can be an atheist and not worship any of the devs and devis and still be a hindu.

On a side note, you have seen the 'Dancing Dervishes'? they sure are a sight



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
It's not easy to figure out what you're getting at, but you seem to be suggesting that beings of some kind, which you call 'angels', participated in the Creation alongside God.


www.sacred-texts.com...

Exactly. Look at Enoch and it clearly notes, these fallen Angels have Gifts and talents. Azazel, (May have) assisted Tubal Cain, in the learning of Metalsmithing, for example. And who made the Spear of Destiny? Tubal Cain? The Spear that pierced Christ's side? The Spear Hitler had? The Spear of the Hapsburgs?


If this is what you believe, you cannot call yourself a Christian, at least not in the sense of being part of the worldwide community of the faith; you have forsaken your Christianity. I trust you're aware of this, and comfortable with it?


I am perfectly comfortable word the Word of God. I much rather base my beliefs on the Truth, than some doctrinal misconception spewed by Religious Sects claiming to be something they may not actually be. I am a Christian, and I believe in the Bible. I have no Faith in the Wolves leading the Sheep, nor what they may say.


Can you provide some evidence of this that isn't based on faith?


Not specifically. I would ask you, to think on what you know of the Pathenion of gods. Think of the attributes they had, and the 'desires' and failings. Pride, Vainity, Lusting, Warmongering, and many other faults. The Worship, of the lessor gods.

But no I do not at this time. I will look though


I don't think so. In my view Baal, Ashtaroth, Ishtar, Venus, Hera and the rest are anthropomorphizations of natural phenomena and (simultaneously) projections of human drives and instincts, as is Yahweh. Have you any (forensically and scientifically) credible evidence that any of these hypothetical beings has a real existence?


And that's fine. If Your view makes sense to you, thats Okay. I am just offering mine as well.

Have a good Day

Ciao

Shane



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Shane:

What makes you sure that the Bible is the 'WORD OF GOD'???

What makes it superior to say the Quran, The Vedas etc???

Why is the Bible true and not the others???

Again please do nopt qoute somethin from the Bible itself to prove your point.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
Shane:

What makes you sure that the Bible is the 'WORD OF GOD'???


Well, The Prophecy, and The History, and The Message.


What makes it superior to say the Quran, The Vedas etc???


I never noted anything to this effect. In fact, the Quran details this as well, to a lesser extent. Vedic's have a mass of very interesting Prophecy as well. The next U.S. President will not live through his term in Office. Think about that when you vote in 2008


Why is the Bible true and not the others???


I never noted this either. Greek and Roman Mythology are a fine account. As are the ME Myths in respects to this.

They all speak to the Same things occuring, just from the difference of perspective.
Some chose to worship and defile theseselves with The Fallen, while others did not.

And look, No Quotes

Ciao

Shane


Again please do nopt qoute somethin from the Bible itself to prove your point.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Shane:

Glad to see your response. You are not like some of the other so called 'Christians' i have come accross on this site.

But i guess our view points are totally different on this topic. I guess we must agree to disagree.

I shall leave it at that since i know next to nothing about the Bible to argue with you about it. Just wish more people were measured in their responses like you



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join