Talk:Ōmeteōtl

Reverted claims

I reverted a couple of recent changes, which although a source was alluded to in the edit summary I do not think that source represents a view which is accredited in more standard and accepted research. Figueroa's Ancient Footprints of the Colorado River has IMO problems as a reliable or even notable source (among other things it seems to claim identifying Aztlan as located on the Colorado River). The claimed translation of "ometeotl" does not accord with what just about every other scholarly Nahuatl source has to say, nor is there archaeological support for the identification of petroglyphs in the Colorado region as being anything to do with Ometeotl or even any association with Nahua/mexica iconography.

Which is not to say alternative views cannot be addressed here, just that they need to demonstrate they are notable alternatives, be referenced, and described in the appropriate context (ie not as if they were the mainstream or 'plain-fact' view). The present article does need a thorough revision and overhaul in any case, but I think we are only worsening the situation by uncritically adding in material from sources such as Figueroa.--cjllw | TALK 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation Deity

I have read that Ometeotl or Omecinatl is an Aztec figure, a supreme deity of creation.

To the very least the source of creation, but was not worshipped. Xuchilbara 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ometeotl was not a god. Ometeotl represented all matter and energy in the universe. I wish wikipedia would not label all of these aspects of Mesoamerican religion as "gods". I have read from sources that support this idea that the European conquistadors and explorers misinterpreted them as gods since they were used to worshiping gods. These sources were provided by actual indigenous people, asserting their accuracy.24.126.115.119 (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Aztecs weren't "monotheists". The idea that Ometeotl represents some sort of monotheistic idea amongst the Aztecs is the invention of Alfonso Caso, and based on Western ideals. Teotl is a difficult concept, but it does have a plural form for a reason.

Teotl may not mean "God", but it seems pretty close to "god"

Someone is insisting that

most translators now prefer lord since the concept is not equivalent to the European concept of God

First off, that "most translators" is a fine sample of Hieratic Weaselese--you better show me a scientific survey of what a representative sample of translators prefer, before I buy your "most".

Second off, I'll bet any professional translator knows that any particular gloss, especially of totally unrelated languages, will be inexact. "Lord's" an inferior translation, since it's less similar than "God". We aren't speaking Hebrew (the word Ba'al, or "Lord", used to have a connotation of a supernatural being, it being the default title for any eloah (that means god, and also God, though its original connotations were something else)). "Lord" has, in general, no such connotations in English--fewer still in Spanish, where it just means "sir" or "mister". Which is closer to the meaning of teotl? "Inhabitant of Mt. Olympus (or Asgard), capable of affecting the elements and the destinies of men"...or "generic term for member of some noble class"? The former, and not "Supreme Being," is what the word god, small g, and its equivalents in other European tongues, originally meant.

Third off, no kidding, the concept of teotl is not equivalent to the then-current European conception of God. Or in other words, the Aztecs (with the possible exeption of Nezahualcoyo-tzin) were not strict Monotheists, who offered worship exlusively to the Subsistent Act of Being. Do you seriously think this fact eluded the notice of the Spaniards? They pretty much figured the Aztecs for polytheists, and therefore translated the Aztec word for "big powerful beings that you pray and sacrifice to because they control luck and the forces of nature" by the equivalent term in their own language: god, written lower-case (okay, dios/deus, but same thing). Now, admittedly, the Aztecs seem to have been more Emanationist Pantheist than strictly polytheist, but...so were the Neo-Platonists and most Gnostics. Nevertheless, the word for "god" was used of certain figures in their worldview, figures that were remarkably similar to Aztec teteo. As, for instance, the chthonic cult of Lykaon Apollo: he'd have been right at home with Tezcatlipoca-tzin. Does the word "teotl" have all the same connotations as "god", or "dios"? 'Course not. Neither does Elohim, for that matter. Nor does Bog, or As, nor Kami. And yet we translate them all as "god." Nagakura shin8 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and PS. Fourth off, we already translate "pilli" and the "-tzin" honorific as "Lord," so rendering Teotl as that, too, will just cause confusion. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, teotl is energy, and ome is two, so its actually two energies, a balance between two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.141.29 (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "energy" translation is a new age interpretation, and nowhere found in any Late Postclassic source.

What?

At the end of the first section is a sentence that makes no sense: "He argues that of the five sources used by Leon-Portilla to argue in favour of the existence of a single creator god among the Aztecs." That's an orphaned clause if I've ever seen one. Anybody know what the ending was supposed to say? Of the five, two were neo-nazis? Of the five, four were written by Jesuits who misinterpreted everything? Of the five, three were alien invaders bent on conquering humanity by misinforming us about ancient mesoamerican belief systems? What? 24.124.125.13 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence fragment and now I've finished it.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That bugged me far more than it really should have. :D 24.124.125.13 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Accepted by religious scholars?

In reality, Leon-Portilla's Ometeotl argument is considered quaint in the academic community, if not simply an interesting, yet ill-cited theory. Leon-Portillas wasn't even the first to propose this single deity idea. Alfonso Caso wasn't even the first. The only scholors in support of the "Ometeotl" concept either deal predominantly with modern Christianized indigenous communities looking for some sort of "nucleo duro" argument to the past or else are overly preoccupied with Tezcatlipoca despite contradictory archaeological evidence. Unless someone can cite that a majority of Mesoamerican religious scholars accept this theory, which can't be done because it's not the case, it should be removes as to not mislead those interested in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.155.205.44 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)