Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(2nd edition - Dec 2010) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
While polytheism is the belief in multiple gods - although it doesn’t
necessarily preclude the simultaneous belief in a single supreme god - it is
believed to have been the foundation of all ancient religions. Of course, times
change… roughly 1,500 years ago, give or take a few centuries depending on how
one wants to compartmentalize the matter, polytheism virtually disappeared from
western cultures as a religion.
Ultimately - and largely due to the pejorative forces of monotheism - the ancient pantheons of the Greek, Roman and Norse were demoted to myth. Although the polytheistic religions of the ancient Egyptians have also disappeared - as did the later Sumerian collection of gods - polytheism still persists in the Far East… most notably in Hinduism and Buddhism.
While polytheism is a fascinating subject for spiritual reasons alone, for western societies perhaps the most interesting aspect resides in its choreographed downfall… namely the schemes and battle tactics employed by Christianity and Judaism.
In the west, while polytheism lost the battle of the minds to monotheism - having been effectively eradicated as a religious belief - and to whatever extent polytheism became its own worst enemy by having grown essentially corrupt and therefore self-destructing, it was religious intrigue which delivered the coup de grace.
In the beginning however, ancient polytheism was rooted in innocence by
well-meaning theists who simply tried to honor the many faces of God. At the
time, it was not important one should consider there being just one god… or
any other particular number of gods. It was not an issue at first… it only
became an issue when polytheism organized itself and became an institution.
Once organized, of course, beliefs had to be made uniform and this uniformity demanded, among other things, that the number of gods be agreed upon. It was the beginning of the end for polytheism. Also, the innocence of polytheism became further corrupted when the dreadful idea of ‘worship’ entered the picture.
The idea of worship was not conceived because of any spiritual necessity but instead it was conjured up as an organizing tactic. Without the need to worship, there would be little reason for believers to congregate and therefore the institution would have no ‘congregation’ in which to administer. With the door open to take control of an otherwise leaderless and unorganized ideology, something was needed to get people together on a regular basis. It was roundup time and the churches the corrals.
A chance to lead the leaderless was a golden opportunity for the organization-minded polytheists … as if being a flock without a shepherd, or being an unfilled vacancy there for the taking. The idea was also clever… until then, who would have dreamed spiritual beliefs could be administered? After all, a belief isn’t a tangible item. Until then, only material possessions were thought controllable such as land, money or perhaps a slave. The notion someone could control an idea would have been thought preposterous initially.
Markedly evident that polytheism as an institution was now wholly corrupt, if not evil; it also became an easy target for any other competing belief… namely Christianity.
In western societies, while monotheism was adopted by virtually all subsequent
religions, it wasn’t because it was necessary in the spiritual sense; it was due
to their stand against polytheism. Since it had been widely heralded that a
belief in more than one god was the reason for wickedness, it made this
otherwise unnecessary position instead necessary for the purpose of distancing
and distinguishing themselves. While the wickedness of polytheism was not due to
the number of gods, but instead the result of repugnant worshiping practices,
nonetheless the ‘one god’ concept was adopted… along with, of course, a whole
new set of tenets.
However, while the tenets were markedly different, monotheism followed suit and promoted the idea of worship as an organizing tactic as well. And, even though monotheism lambasted idolatry as if evil, they also practiced it… as any statue of a religious figure can testify. Islam would even claim Christianity is polytheistic. In short, there was much the western institutions of monotheism adopted from their predecessors… the bygone institutions of polytheism.
While the organizers of both these institutions are guilty of exploiting spiritual beliefs, exploitation was nothing new as a tactic… which, for ages, had been typically utilized by business entrepreneurs. Just like a businessman would, they took advantage of an exploitable opportunity which, in this case, was the unorganized scattering of beliefs of evidential importance to people which guaranteed a continual flow of followers. Seen as a ‘market’, they needed only to position themselves as the ‘middlemen’… specifically to place themselves between God and man.
Competing religions also employ the tactics typical of a politician… which is to discredit their rivals in every possible way. While discrediting a rival was nothing new either, perhaps an idea dating back to the Stone Age, certainly lovers did that, but until then nobody really considered discrediting a spiritual belief before, at least not on such a scale… and polytheism, obviously caught off-guard since they were unable to stage an effective defense, was perhaps the first victim of a wholesale smear campaign.
For the newer religious institutions - most of which were now monotheistic as a matter of policy - although they couldn’t be anything else since they had already discredited polytheism in order to destroy it, all that remained was to screen and control information.
While the spiritual truths commonly known today were likely known for ages, some
ancient knowledge isn’t commonly known… or, for that matter, new revelations.
The reason is because not all spiritual truths are advertised through the
channels of organized religions… only selected information. This is typical for
a religious institution though... in order to save face they won’t change a
comma in their dogma. As a result, the missing pieces we must discover for
It remains a mystery the extent of spiritual knowledge which might have been forgotten or lost over the ages, or destroyed by the Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition, but some of it obviously survived. That which is generally known is due largely to Christianity and Judaism selectively citing the sayings of men (prophets) believed to have been spiritually enlightened.
While these prophets would have been subscribing to some unadulterated version of either monotheism or polytheism initially, unrefined at the time - a belief of their own making whether divinely acquired or not - this fact was played down by the later monotheistic religions which quoted their insightful observations. Later, but shamefully, any unrefined beliefs still lingering were ignominiously denounced and viewed as heresy… which discredited, in effect, their very own sources. Of course, those who subscribed to unsanctioned beliefs the Catholics burned at the stake.
The point is, by failing to credit an unrefined (un-institutionalized) belief as the cause for a particular insight, as being the impetus; they are implying their religion was responsible instead. While it isn’t plagiarism since credit was given the author, but by leading one to believe their religion was the impetus is to infer co-authorship.
So what is meant by an unadulterated version? It is merely one's belief in God (however perceived) along with some personal points of view... some divinely ascertained. Since it was the common man who discovered God, not religions, his version would be the original or unadulterated version… being a profoundly simple matter yet one as flexible as a person’s growing wisdom and revised insights might dictate. Of critical importance to one’s spiritual wellbeing is that the unadulterated version is fluid.
Yet, it is insane there should be any battle between polytheism and
monotheism... since both are rooted in one simple and divinely-acquired truth…
there is a God. The belief in plurality is an innocent non-issue simply because
plurality isn't applicable to ethereal matters where physical distinctions don't
exist. This inapplicability is what makes it innocent. Nor would it have
spiritual consequences either... not unless the Pacific Ocean begrudges people
for believing it is really six oceans instead of one.
Even if it was divinely ascertained there is just one god, being wholly comprised as a single unit, indivisible, and not merely determined by committee, the contradicting belief in some form of plurality still wouldn't matter.... no more than the conflicting beliefs in the number of colors in a rainbow. It is still a rainbow. Plurality only became an issue when ‘worship’ entered the picture. The act of worshiping, an act which requires the subject be identified, forced one to choose between monotheism and polytheism.
While in effect there is just one God, the scope of his infinite influence and the variety of ways it is expressed suggests diversity which, in turn, opens the door to all kinds of possibilities which may include manifestations… and perhaps the case since purportedly they occur. However, whether a common ghost or a vision of Mary, if any differences in ‘composition’ between them exist in which to compare, they would be of a type unknown to humans. To date, the ethereal has no known compositions (obviously none physical) nor is it yet divisible.
The point being… since humans are not capable of determining the number of gods beyond one, therefore being a contentious issue for no logical reason, the focus instead should be on whether these manifestations actually exist, and especially if any ethereal distinctions exist.
Obliviousness to the role of the senses would also cast doubt on the fact that
only through the senses is how ethereal distinctions can be made. However,
having been only allotted six senses (the Buddhists say nine); it’s a sense
which humans don’t have (the Buddhists would disagree). This unknown sense,
although admittedly a heightened sixth sense may
have this capability, would be no more alien than the alienness of music to
Since all aspects of creation are known only through the senses, and by no other means, the reason for any unknown aspect is because we do not possess the necessary sense or because we’re not fully utilizing the sixth sense. The senses are not only the windows to the universe and our manner of awareness; the senses are so phenomenal it’s curious why they weren’t idolized by polytheistic institutions instead of contrived gods with contrived names such as Apollo and Thor. Yet, they weren't entirely contrived, there was some basis... the muse of Greek mythology being a good example.
Second only to God, nothing is more deserving of a pedestal than the senses… but not for worshipping purposes mind you, but to appreciate and admire. After all, without them we are otherwise nothing. The lesser gods, if any, would only qualify for third place.
But originally, the different ways God expresses his influence was what polytheism was based upon… albeit that posed a problem in expressing the matter since incorporeity is only shallowly describable due to the limitations of languages. Nor can sensory experiences be adequately described such as the smell of a rose or a baking cake. As a result… the pantheons were contrived (as a substitute).
In the end, it doesn’t matter these doctrines of polytheism or monotheism… which in both cases the extraneous tenets were included because religions can’t put their brand on such a small collection of known truths and get much mileage.
While the freedom of religion exists as a cherished right, in that one may choose to believe anything they wish, and may practice that belief in most any manner, that changes upon entering a church because, as middlemen, churches attempt to inhibit this freedom by insisting upon the belief in their dogma only. In other words, upon the doorsteps of a church is where the freedom of religion ends. Churches prefer your ideas be left outside… especially isms.
God knows… freedom of religion exists only in the heart.
Matrix of Mnemosyne... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world
Last modified: 10/25/13