Am i supposed to take polytheism seriously?

Am i supposed to take polytheism seriously?

In fact does anyone outside india even consider the idea of many gods as anything but laughable?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Generally people in a city or tribe preferred one god over all the others so yes you're not supposed to take polytheism as its known in pop culture seriously

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the difference between polytheism and a million trillion spiritual entities influencing the world with considerable power either for or against Yahweh, but arbitrarily not being called gods? How is Satan not a god?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't pray or give offerings to angels. They're barely spiritual entities, more akin to limbs or appendages of God that competing god(s?)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They're barely spiritual entities, more akin to limbs or appendages of God that competing god(s?)

        You say this, but if I 'member correctly the Bhagavad Gita (one of the most popular Hindu scriptures) explicitly states that's the exact nature of lower-case gods, people, animals, inanimate matter, etc. All just competing and fucking about, but still remaining part of and never isolated from the singular divinity of Krishna.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You don't pray or give offerings to angels.

        Prayers:
        >Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. Be our safe guard against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking for the ruin of souls. Amen

        >Saint Michael,
        >defend us in battle
        >that we might not perish
        >at the dreadful judgment.

        >St. Michael the Archangel, illustrious leader of the heavenly army, defend us in the battle against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of darkness and the spirit of wickedness in high places.
        >Holy Church venerates you as her patron and guardian. The Lord has entrusted to you the task of leading the souls of the redeemed to heavenly blessedness.
        >Entreat the Lord of peace to cast Satan down under our feet, so as to keep him from further holding man captive and doing harm to the Church.

        Offerings :
        >Oh most noble Prince of the Angelic Hierarchies, valorous warrior of Almighty God and zealous lover of His glory, terror of the rebellious angels, and love and delight of all the just angels, my beloved Archangel Saint Michael, desiring to be numbered among your devoted servants, I, today offer and consecrate myself to you, and place myself, my family, and all I possess under your most powerful protection.
        >I entreat you not to look at how little, I, as your servant have to offer, being only a wretched sinner, but to gaze, rather, with favorable eye at the heartfelt affection with which this offering is made, and remember that if from this day onward I am under your patronage, you must during all my life assist me, and procure for me the pardon of my many grievous offenses, and sins, the grace to love with all my heart my God, my dear Savior Jesus, and my Sweet Mother Mary, and to obtain for me all the help necessary to arrive to my crown of glory.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Incidentally the Angele Dei, the prayer to their guardian angel, is the very first prayer many Catholic children will learn

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh and here's a bonus one mixed with Mary-worship
          >August Queen of the Heavens, Heavenly Sovereign of the Angels, thou who from the beginning received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan, we humbly beseech thee, to send thy holy Legions so that, under thy command and through thy power, they may pursue the demons, combat them everywhere, suppress their boldness and drive them back into the abyss.

          Btw protestants will laugh at this and then go right back to giving their money to evangelicals who invoke legions of angels to defend Trump or whatever

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I especially like how Queen of Heaven was also the title of Asherah. There is literally no difference.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was also the title of Hera, Juno and Isis
              It's almost like we always worshiped the same entities throughout all history and just occasionally change the names and titles we use to identify/refer to them and the autistic framework we use to try make sense of it

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh and here's a bonus one mixed with Mary-worship
          >August Queen of the Heavens, Heavenly Sovereign of the Angels, thou who from the beginning received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan, we humbly beseech thee, to send thy holy Legions so that, under thy command and through thy power, they may pursue the demons, combat them everywhere, suppress their boldness and drive them back into the abyss.

          Btw protestants will laugh at this and then go right back to giving their money to evangelicals who invoke legions of angels to defend Trump or whatever

          You know, it's funny. Jesus was a cult leader, so it at least makes sense that he could end up like this, but Mary is literally just his mom and didn't do anything. This is completely absurd in respect to reality.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed, unlike the disciples who were at least given powers to cast out of the devils and whatnot, and there are passages in the Bible that seem to rebuke the notion that his mother deserves special attention.

            > 47 Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

            >4 And Jesus said to her, “What business do you have with Me, woman? My hour has not yet come.”

            >25 Now beside the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 So when Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              In my opinion the most decisive is this one:
              >Luke 11
              >27 While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” 28 He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
              There is no cope for this, this just flat out refutes the notion of Mary worship and any mental gymnastics are inevitably pathetic schizoposting. The translation I used is also Catholic Church-approved, so I seriously would like to know what the Catholics think to themselves when looking at this.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh indeed, I was trying to remember that verse but couldn't find it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Those are cuckolicks, we're talking about in Christianity

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Protestantism is at best henotheistic(if you didn't have to deal with the Trinity), but most Protestants have extreme views of Satan that border on being more akin to Zoroastrianism or Gnosticism than other denominations of Christianity. Satan is undoubtedly a deity by any sensible standard.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You don't pray or give offerings to angels.
        Not true for most Christians, but even if it is true for Protestants, that doesn't change the nature of the religion. These gods still exist, they just aren't involved in ritual.
        >more akin to limbs or appendages of God
        Evidently does not apply for demons and Satan, which do clearly compete with Yahweh and the angels. "Angel" and "demon" are just terms for specific categories of deities.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm also reminded of the demonic "princes of the air" in early Christianity and Orthodoxy, which effectively fulfill the same role as the Judges of Hell in East Asia or the Egyptian afterlife deities who prevent the soul from passing (many other pagan examples of this of course)
          https://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >In fact does anyone outside india even consider the idea of many gods as anything but laughable?
        Frankly, the idea that the universe was designed by a highly combative committee fits reality better than it all being the work of a single mind. Particularly, as in many older religions, if they are also hostile to mankind a good deal of the time (as is most of the rest of the universe).

        Granted, it was usually treated as though you invoked a particular god for a particular goal, much as saints are patrons of X and Y.

        Most give offerings to saints and invoke angels in prayers.

        Plus, you've basically described the brahman, wherein all gods are emanations of a single source.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the idea that the universe was designed by a highly combative committee fits reality better
          Reminded of an old blogpost about evolution:

          A human being, looking at the natural world, sees a thousand times purpose. A rabbit's legs, built and articulated for running; a fox's jaws, built and articulated for tearing.
          But when you look at all the apparent purposefulness in Nature, rather than picking and choosing your examples, you start to notice things that don't fit the Judeo-Christian concept of one benevolent God. Foxes seem well-designed to catch rabbits. Rabbits seem well-designed to evade foxes. Was the Creator having trouble making up Its mind?

          When I design a toaster oven, I don't design one part that tries to get electricity to the coils and a second part that tries to prevent electricity from getting to the coils. It would be a waste of effort. Who designed the ecosystem, with its predators and prey, viruses and bacteria? Even the cactus plant, which you might think well-designed to provide water fruit to desert animals, is covered with inconvenient spines.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (cont)
            The ecosystem would make much more sense if it wasn't designed by a unitary Who, but, rather, created by a horde of deities—say from the Hindu or Shinto religions. This handily explains both the ubiquitous purposefulnesses, and the ubiquitous conflicts: More than one deity acted, often at cross-purposes. The fox and rabbit were both designed, but by distinct competing deities. I wonder if anyone ever remarked on the seemingly excellent evidence thus provided for Hinduism over Christianity. Probably not.

            Similarly, the Judeo-Christian God is alleged to be benevolent—well, sort of. And yet much of nature's purposefulness seems downright cruel. Darwin suspected a non-standard Creator for studying Ichneumon wasps, whose paralyzing stings preserve its prey to be eaten alive by its larvae: "I cannot persuade myself," wrote Darwin, "that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." I wonder if any earlier thinker remarked on the excellent evidence thus provided for Manichaen religions over monotheistic ones.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In fact does anyone outside india even consider the idea of many gods as anything but laughable?
    Well Japan and other traditional east asian paganism (notably in China) for one, and pretty much all Buddhists in practice: not only do the bodhisattva effectively ascend to godhood for all intents and purposes, but it further incorporates unambiguous pagan deities.

    Honestly speaking, Christianity, as in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and even moreso in syncretic spinoffs in africa, haiti or latin america, is basically polytheistic too. Oh sure, the "angels" are heavenly figures serving God and not called gods themselves, the saints are just people in heaven (or coopted pagan deities) to whom miraculous powers are attributed, and of course the Trinity is akshually just one God (btw various sects of Hinduism believe in trinities and other gods being just emanations of a superior god)
    But the end result is that people are effectively practing polytheism, it's just that they have to loudly insist they're not if asked.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In fact does anyone outside india even consider the idea of many gods as anything but laughable?

    Not really. If you believe in one God it isn't much of a leap to rationalize there's lots of lower-case gods.
    Christians accept the idea of one true all-mighty God, but then some of them also accept a multitude of saints, angels, satan, lucifer, the anti-christ, and a whole host of other spiritual and supernatural beings. They might not call them gods, but they basically all except for name. Catholicism in particular may as well by a polytheistic religion.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my opinion about monotheism in a nutshell. the trinity itself is so laughable I fall over thinking about it.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you think it's laughable?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is only one creator God in the hellenism

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      there isn't, chaos was not a god but the previous state of the cosmos

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Earth and the Sky literally had sex

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Sigma

    I have a better question: why is LULZ filled with christian apologism and propaganda?

    This board is basically this:

    - let us figure out a way to more anons worship some dead israelite in a torture device
    - BYZANTIUM!
    - wow pagans are so dumb lmao
    - obscure christian memes only regulars from LULZ will understand
    - if you are north-west european you are basically prone to being gay, low-iq and like to kill kids
    - atrocity propaganda #1
    - atrocity propaganda #2
    - a few relevant historical threads, with low reply count

    Why is this board like this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because this board has been overrun by discord trannies and tradcath/tradprot retards, and to cap it off, JWs.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Egyptian creation myths are ridiculous. Some gods literally created the world through masturbation and by turning their hands into vaginas.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That actually makes sense when you think about it.
      In those egyptian myths reproduction was the only means of creation. But how Atum could create if he was the only god? By masturbating.
      The egyptians didn’t have a life denying religion that made them afraid of their own bodies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Masturbation isn't life affirming

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          t. Abrahamic

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No more absurd than a magic israelite going around 1st century Palestine doing magic powers.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your own god is called Elohim which means "gods".

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What israeli buckbreaking does to a nigga

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, you're not supposed to take it seriously, even though christians really want you to.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nice new atheist rhetoric.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most polytheistic deities have too much human attributes (have human-like appearance, reproducing like human, giving them worldly aspects, giving them X-men superpowers, have human-like personalities, can wage war against one another, can get moody like a bitch) that it hard to me to even make sense of it. A real God is above all else, not a typical comic book superheroes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Old Testament god couldn't even win a wrestling match against Jacob without magically dislocating his hip, and he was certainly a moody bitch.
      In the NT God literally becomes a human.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not talking specifically about Christian God. How about Allah, Yahweh or Brahman (the ultimate reality kind, not Brahma the Trimurti)?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yahweh is a normal polytheistic deity at the source and still has all the attributes of such in the Old Testament, it's only in later exegesis that he becomes abstracted to fulfil the philosophical demands of an advancing society. Polytheistic religions generally develop this much further than the monotheistic ones, I'd even say. Hinduism for example draws no line between "theology" and "philosophy", they are one and the same thing, and the resulting thought is much more sophisticated and civilised than the Abrahamic religions which mostly still operate on Iron Age mythology as such.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No religion is ever going to be more anthropomorphic than Christianity, which is completely premised on its god being 100% human. When I reflect this statement on you, you will probably turn it into a good thing instead too.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Islam is the only monotheistic religion, specifically sunni islam as sects dabble in zoroastrian shirq.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sunnis do still have saints and other folkloric superstition, though Salafism is pretty close to absolute monotheism. I'd say Judaism and Islam both qualify for genuine monotheism and specific strands of both may be more or less than the other.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To me monotheistic omnipotent god seems way more laughable, that makes people do all sorts of bullshit philosophical copes to justify evil. Much easier to say that some gods are evil and cause evil in the world.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Sigma

    [...]

    It sincerely feels like anons posting here are dysfunctional idiots whom often lose debates at /misc/ proceed to get frustrated and come here puke their shit around.

    Worst board I have ever seen.

    Even worse than /lgbt/ because at least I can have a laugh or two from those degenerates.

    Here we have degenerates who aren't funny and many of them I know that are self-loathing.

Your email address will not be published.