How could a polytheistic religion evolve in a monotheistic religion?

And some would say your headology ain't fooling anybody, you Roman mystery cultist you.

Frequently, monotheistic religions recognize that one god cannot be everything to all people and instead venerate aspects of that deity, that are often given different names.

Those aspects eventually become distinct deities as their portfolios grow.

It's difficult, because a truly omnipotent being would take all the (infinite) space necessary to exist, and thus "crowd-out" all other contenders for the title of "God." It's illogical for two omnipotent beings to exist in the same time and in the same relationship, since neither could be omnipresent, which implies neither is truly omnipotent. Thus, it can be certain that no pantheon contains a single omnipotent being.

Neither is omnipotence limited to material form. For if an alleged omnipotent being were limited to material form, then it would be limited by that form thereof.

>neither could be omnipresent

Not true. Check out Hilbert's Hotel. An infinite space can contain an infinite number of infinite sized things - and this, btw, assumes that 'omnipresent' means a kind of physical immanence rather than something more metaphysical or abstract.

Also feel obliged to point out that monotheism doesn't necessarily require it's deity to be the absolute highest possible being like in Abrahamic religions. It just requires one deity.

I've seen this with a few christian groups. They start worshiping the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three different entities. Then they reason that there must be a Holy Mother as well. I wouldn't call them a cult, but mostly because they were such nice and friendly people.

I have Catholic family that very nearly deifies the town's patron saint. Loosen the restrictions a little and he'd be a full-on god.

I have Protestant friends that seem to believe Satan is just as powerful and important as God - that could be interpreted as bitheistic.

> Not true. Check out Hilbert's Hotel.

Only entering; not both ways. Don't give me that WLC bullshit. Molinists are a bunch of trolls. Hilbert's has a theoretical front door and you very well know it.

>Trinity is polytheism
Stop that.

>It just requires one deity.

Yes. And arbitrarily so at that. The only thing that would make monotheism obligatory would be (a.) reason to/for omnipotence or (b.) threat of force from the church.

Which would make a lovely campaign scenario.

The god has children and gives them sovereignty over the world while he goes to rest for a millennia.

Point of order. The Communion of Saints is not worship, nor are saints considered gods. Prayers to a saint is merely requesting the saint to also pray for the intercessor, essentially asking them to use some of their pull with the Big Guy by virtue of their saintly status.

That said, in High School I ran a game based on the idea that there was one true God and clerical spells were petitions to various saints. I got a lot of research for it from the nun that ran the library at my school. She also ran the Games Club and even played D&D with us many times.

No?

God splits himself?

That's right, the Trinity isn't polytheism.

It's Neo-Platonism.

No, that's wrong. Trinity is the Trinity. It just works.

Yes, OP is rather vague. This could refer to religion (what the finite beings do), or to the being(s) itself.

Rule of thumb. If it quacks like a duck...

>GOD FUSION!!!!

-God has omnipotent knowledge of self. Perfect self-identity.
- This concept of self would be so perfect; so complete, as to comprise another person, yet still God's perception of the divine self. A perfect duality of self, as well as self-perception.
- The self and the self-concept would know one another and agree with one another so well as to have a perfect relationship or will. This living and active will would necessarily take on a 3rd aspect. A purpose that comprises all the aspects of the first two, but not separate from the "essential nature" of the one being. Given that God has a perfectly accurate and true self-perception.

No, asking for some help through a saint ain't the same as worship, proddy

>Prayers to a saint is merely requesting the saint to also pray for the intercessor, essentially asking them to use some of their pull with the Big Guy by virtue of their saintly status.

Well, everyone except Saint Paul, who had a much different belief on user's spin on intercession.

There's always some shithead like you. Firstly, I didn't say it was a polytheism. I said it was nearly a hentheism. Secondly, you don't have an argument, and I highly doubt you'll be able to formulate one that's even remotely substantial.

>inb4 b-b-b-b-but it's the three in one so it's really just one b-b-b-b-b-because reasons!

Yeah, much like a hentheism. Three aspects of one being.

Calm your tits and try following the first two commandments for a change, idol-worshiper.

That's modalism.
It's three wholes for which they are of a whole.

>Only entering; not both ways.
>Hilbert's has a theoretical front door and you very well know it.

That's some serious sophistry you've got going on there. Here's the thing: an omnipotent being can find a way.

Not to mention goalpost shifting. Just now you were talking about 'space'.

>doesn't know the difference between revere and worship
>follows someone that Jesus didn't say we should follow

>b-b-b-b-b-because reasons!

So, three aspects of one being, just like I said?

Yep. Three aspects of one being, just like I said.

>thou shall not have any idols
>except for this cross thing here, that's totally legit

No, it's one being. Aspects implies it's a suit.

The holy Trinity: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul. That's Plotinus, the guy Origen based his ideas on when he invented the Christian Trinity.

(Yes I'm oversimplifying. But the influence of Neo-Platonism on Christian theology cannot be dismissed.)

No. Once again, Hilbert's is a theoretical infinite with a beginning at a point in timespace. Thus, merely a one-way infinite.

Thus, the deception was entirely your own, since I didn't invoke Hilbert's fucking Hotel.

That's the problem, oversimplifying it kills the meaning. If you oversimplify it leads to confusion.

>Hilbert's fucking Hotel.

That's one big whorehouse.

So if one is three is two six or two thirds? Was two one prior to the Roman Empire?

>t. Triggered papist

>one is three
Stop that. It's one with three wholes that are wholes, never parts.
>being a proddy

>>being a proddy
>Being a theist

Holy Trinity.

And saints in Christianity are pretty much treated like gods in Hinduism or Shinto.

>openly shitting on God and your parents
You need to stop that.

>parents
My well adjusted hardworking DNA sources that don't believe in imaginary friends because they are adults?

That was awful, you need to believe in something or you'll fall. Believing in nothing is not good for the spirit.

Being an atheist is not believing in nothing.

If you truly cannot conceive of believing in anything without God, perhaps religion is not as mentally healthy for you as you seem to believe.

No, it's willfully saying that you deny that God made an impact.

I'm not an atheist, although I'm certainly not a Christian to be fair, I'm just saying that the corner you have philosophically put them in is undeserved.

>being a pagan
That's even worse

Even if Christianity is right, most my family would never, ever convert. I would rather be in hell with them than in heaven without them.

Do you have an actual rebuttal for this reason of mine to not be Christian?

Well, I don't know what country you're from, and I don't know your religion, so I can't make an argument just yet.

God has children.

You mean the Nephilims?

The gods did the fusion dance.

No, it's infinity big whorehouse.

That's just easy, assorted saints gain prominence, more and more people worship saints associated to specific situations rather than the overgod, eventually it goes down to saints as their own deities.

Catholism

I have embarrassed myself this day

I think he meant it the other way around

Well, there's a historic case where this... Didn't happen, but it's pretty close. A guy called Vladimir the Red Sun tried to unite the slavic pagans by making Perun the head god. It didn't work, since everybody kept forshipping their own gods like Stribog or Veles instead, so Vladimir decided to just take christianity and baptize pagan shits instead.

Also, a guy called Akhenaten was an egyptian pharaoh who decided that having many gods sucks, so he tore down the established religion and made a minor sun god Aton the only god. It... Didn't quite work out.

Going back to the Old Testament, Archangels actually embodied different aspects and virtues. Michael was the Archangel of Armies, for example. Moloch was the Archangel of Sacrifice. Don't forget about Saints and the virtues that they embodied too.

It's always great to see the ass-backwards philosophers and theologians come out in full force.

> I would rather be in hell with them than in heaven without them.

Depending on your conception of Hell, that's not really an option.

If we go by the lake of fire original route, then yeah, you could swim on over to them and burn with them forever, probably, if swimming is possible in a lake of metaphysical fire. Might have other things on your mind, though. Like the whole lake of fire that will burn you forever but which you will never, ever grow desensitized to.

If we go by Dante's Inferno route, then you probably don't get to do that. Your section of Hell is probably different from your individual family member's areas, and even if it isn't, I doubt the attending demons will let you just go wherever you want.

Finally, if we go by the modern conception of Hell as being nonexistence, you don't get to hang out with your family at all, because you don't exist, and neither do they. Alternatively you do exist but in total isolation and separation from everything, without being able to just go mad and escape into a fantasy world.

>going by any route at all for hell
Don't do that, Dante hell is fanfic tier and lake of fire is all in the mind.

One god kills the others.

Look at Old Judaism

The post isn't clear. Do you mean a polytheistic religion evolve from a monotheistic religion, or to one?

From the former, consider the current concept of the trinity, and give it a few more thousand years of cultural telephone.

Is actually a videogame, but ever heard of Pandoras Tower?
Some dudes did (or rather tried) that in the backgroundstory of that game.
For a real life example, look upon Echnaton and Nofretete...

Sorry, I was unclear. I mean to say that I would not want to be in heaven without them rather than actually wanting to be with them in a physical capacity.

If my family isn't allowed into heaven, then I would not want to be there. That's all I'm saying.

>How could a polytheistic religion evolve in a monotheistic religion?
Hinduism has literally millions of gods, that's more than there are people living in many European countries.

Imagine this going on for a long enough time with more and more gods being added. After a while the Grand Poobah gets pissed as fuck and decides from now on there's only one god and he does everything. Fuck you. He also has all the myths, stories, legends, powers and portofolios attributed to the previously existing gods. Even if the're mutually contradictory. Because ain't nobody got time to remember millions of gods by name.

Look at Zoroastrianism. It was dualistic at first, then when Zoroaster died it kind of drifted off base a bit.

Look at Mecca Mohammed and the Arabs and go from there, I say this because there's more history on them than the ancient Israelites

Then what the hell is your religion?

Have a single female goddess who births more gods at certain points. Easy.

a bunch of saints that become so popular that they get revered for their own sake. original god takes on "father of the pantheon" role in the eyes of people who've come to perceive saints as literally divine. The new lesser gods get their domains from whatever the saint's claim to fame was.

A preacher of of a monotheistic god is deified as the child of said god

Triggered.

all these triggered christians, I feel like these different denominations ought to remember that, considering being a christian only requires that one believes Jebus is god and that he died for us and all that jazz, details like the trinity and if sainthood is bad really don't matter. a lot of people died over petty crap like this and that is the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing. it is well and good to discuss but we must make sure that we still love each other as brothers (and sisters, if there truly are any girls on this site) in Christ. try to be nice to each other. don't kill the heathens for not believing. that is also the opposite of what we should do. (/sermon)
god I must be insufferable.

Saints

Fuck, Christianity in general

There are multitude of historical examples of how such situation may come to being. Judaims, which most people tend to forget, most likely emerged as a splinter cell of an older Canaanite religion, which was your pretty standard "pagan" hierarchical polyteism. What most likely happened was that the cult of the highest Canaanite god, El (or Elohym, literally meaning "the highest") eventually grew so strong and popular it slowly began to disregard the other gods, forming it's own splinter and eventually it's own conflict with the rest of the Canaanite society. It is also possible that the situation was backwards: there was a conflict within the Canaanite society, and in order to maintain unity within one of the splinter groups, they emphatised one particular god in their pantheon as "their patron", eventually elevating him to a position of the sole god.

Another example is the (admitedly short-lived) emergence of Atonism in Egypt. Again, this was most likely an attempt to use a single god of the pantheon to form a new type of identity to help validate a major shift in social organization and politics. It can be argued that the emergence of Islam was very much a similar deal.

The idea of one god being born from polyteistic environment can emerge from simple philosophy, as it had in certain schools of Hindu, or in later Greek philosophy (Plato, Plotinos). I think it's actually pretty natural that at a certain level of abstraction and philosophical inquiry, the idea of "oneness" and unifying principles of the world being more attractive and intuitive than plurality.

TLDR:
Monotheism most commonly emerge from polyteism as a part of a emergence of a new social identity (attempted political reform) or as a natural result of increasingly abstract philosophical contemplation.