Hymn to Babylon, missing for a millennium, has been discovered

"Progress" and "enlightenment" are neither uniform, linear, upwards, or continuous. All it takes is one absurdly corrupt regime to burn down the "Library of Alexandria", and with it, thousands of years of history and accomplishment.

>You can see a historic parallel to how that played out with the formation of the Roman pantheon. Mostly stolen stories and ideas from the Greek pantheon tweeked to fit the empire.

You also have to think in the opposite direction, how did these gods all come about. Every person will have their own at list slightly different understanding and memory of the stories and rituals. Go to the next village over and everything will be almost but not quite the same, go 20, 100, or 1000 miles and differences will scale from mild recognition to completely different. If you meet a group of people from far away and they have a god of war, do you think it's the same god of war as yours or not?

Romans did this by having the same god have several names for, to simplify, several versions of the "same" god.

Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Jupiter Ammon, Jupiter Dolichenus etc.

> There were all kinds of gods.

And if you look at all those quintessentially pagan gods of the myths, you will find that they share this in common: that they are beings among many.

> The Christian conception of God is taken from "pagan" philosophers.

I'm not sure what you're implying, but traditional Christian theology draws from both biblical sources and philosophical analysis, and yes, that includes the philosophical works of pre-Christian, pagan philosophers (note the high esteem in which theologians like Augustine and Aquinas hold Plato and Aristotle, for example; Aquinas goes so far as to honor Aristotle with the title of "the Philosopher"). And not just the pagan philosophers: you can also include the work of Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and Averroes, if you like, who made contributions to the existence/essence distinction.

Here, biblical sources most strongly correspond to revealed knowledge, which is to say, knowledge that cannot be inferred through unaided reason (like the Trinitarian nature of God), while the philosophical corresponds to what can be known through unaided reason (which is the proper object of what's called natural theology).

This is completely consistent with Christian, certainly Catholic tradition and the concept of logos spermatikos (a term Justin Martyr borrows from the Stoics; note also the use of "Logos" [λόγος] in John 1:1, which has echoes in such concepts as Tao [道], Ṛta [ऋत], Maʽat [mꜣꜥt], and so on). If God is real and knowable at least partly by unaided reason, then you would expect at least some of that knowledge or some approximation to surface in a variety of cultures. In this respect, the Catholic Church claims to possess the fullness of revealed knowledge.

But the source of a truth is irrelevant.

> There's also a difference between theologian's/philosopher's conception of the Divine and religion and how lay people actually understood their faith.

What's your point? That we should treat the two as on par? Do you do that with any other field other than theology? The sciences spring from culture, but a good science deepens and refines and corrects our knowledge beyond what was given in our. We don't treat doxa and endoxa as having equal weight.

> Even early Christians were divided on how they understood God.

Again, I fail to see your point. People disagree about all sorts of things and fall into error all the time, and in this case, when they are working out things and their logical consequences.

And I wouldn't overstate the plurality here. Even if there were disagreements among early Christians, and even if there are disagreements between Christians and Jews and Muslims, we can still legitimately claim that any genuine monotheism has as its object the very same God apart from those disagreements (which matter, of course, but not in agreeing about the basic object about which disagreement exists). And that is part of what I was claiming easier. If you view divinity through a shallow, polytheistic lens that merely classifies based on the number of gods in the proverbial pantheon, then monotheism ends up being interpreted as merely a special or degenerate case of polytheism. But it isn't, because a robust monotheism doesn't just claim there is only one God, but that there can only be one God.

That was a great episode; the ending was haunting.

> If you analyze these various conceptions according to their basic metaphysical claims about the nature of the divine, that diversity collapses quickly.

The word "basic" is doing a lot of lifting in that claim. Borborites believed in and practiced the sexual sacrament. Ophites believed that Christ was the serpent in the garden of Eden. Some Cathars believed that Eve's daughters copulated with Satan's demons and bore giants. These stories have been told for a long time, and some versions are literally opposite to others - with opposite meaning derived. From my perspective, the nature of human cognition, especially over deep time, results in exploring every internally representable version of an idea or in this case a theology.

It seems to me that conceptualization around the divine has evolved radically over time, and can only appear unified from the relatively limited perspective of the individual.