Akivah
Well-Known Member
In any case, that would not negate the need to consider and answer my question. Even if God-given, such a decision would still need critical and moral evaluation.
How so?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In any case, that would not negate the need to consider and answer my question. Even if God-given, such a decision would still need critical and moral evaluation.
What I ask here is for some hint or help on why this specific (and IMO rather minor, as all matters that come too close to relying on the belief of the existence of a deity for their significance tend to be) matter is perceived as so significant by many Christians and Muslims.
Arianism was really the more monotheistic position though. This is a question of orthodoxy rather than strict monotheism.
While establishing orthodoxy was important to prevent social conflict, it was not the Emperor who decided upon orthodoxy but the bishops (whose views in turn reflected the people). The emperor legitimised/enforced orthodoxy in the name of social harmony rather than created it out of convenience.
Well that was a mouthful.I am aware that there is some controversy among the Abrahamics on this matter.
Many people consider the worship of Saints in some segments of Christianity to be a form of polytheism and therefore a deviation from supposedly necessary monotheism.
Some consider Trinitarianism itself a form of polytheism.
Islaam specifically seems to place a good deal of significance to keeping proper monotheism, to the point of insisting that politheism is automatically idolatry and, to the best of my understanding, insisting that we should understand that "God has no partners, no associates" and that it is not proper nor desirable to have intermediaries between a Muslim's relationship with God.
That seems at first glance to imply on disapproval of the regard for the Qur'an as scripture and even of worship of God, but apparently that is not what is meant even by the most extreme interpretations of those principles. Fair enough, although I find the language inaccurate, even misleading, particularly given how seriously Muslims seem to take the matter.
What I ask here is for some hint or help on why this specific (and IMO rather minor, as all matters that come too close to relying on the belief of the existence of a deity for their significance tend to be) matter is perceived as so significant by many Christians and Muslims.
Word has it that whole denominations refuse to acknowledge specific others as being "true" Christians / Muslims supposedly because they are Trinitarians or are understood for some other reason to be polytheistic. It is, literally, a deal breaker for many people, and I am told that it requires a considerable effort from some in order to keep their faith that others keep true to apparently important monotheism despite what is perceived as indications to the contrary.
Try as I might, I have so far failed to conceive better explanations for so much worry beyond two very weak reasons.
1. Peer pressure and social bonding needs.
People will often attempt to build a sense of community by producing issues and lending them significance, underscoring how misled the outsiders who fail to value it are.
Monotheism is as good an issue to be lent significance as any, I suppose, although I don't think that explains the intensity of the passions that some people have on the issue.
2. Pascal's Wager and its variants.
It is all-out contradictory that a sincere monotheist would lend any significance to this glorified joke that is the claim that you better "at least try" to believe "in the right God" in order to avoid "punishment in the afterlife". Yet so many people assure me that they mean it that I can't help but assume that they are sincere. Presumably polytheism, even when not conscious, would be grounds for such punishment.
It makes no sense. Then again Pascal's Wager was never to be taken seriously, as pretty much any serious analysis by any perspective will immediately show.
It makes no theological sense, no religious sense, no rational sense, no moral sense, lacks internal coherence and does not take anthropological reality into consideration. Yet variations of it keep popping up, presumably as significant arguments for belief even, from people that I have no reason to believe to be lying or consciously trolling as they do so.
Even taken together, those two factors seem way too weak to explain the insistence on monotheism and the passions attached to that insistence. Yet I have utterly failed to conceive of any other explanation.
Any ideas on what I may be missing? Maybe it is just that there are indeed many people who take Pascal's Wager seriously, unlikely as that seems to me?
Edited to add: after creating this thread it occurred to me that there may be a third, somewhat more understandable (but not much better) reason.
Belief in monotheism or monocracy may be appealling for people who find in it relief from the terrible stress that is dealing with the diversity of beliefs and ideological stances around.
In a way, it implies that there is no particular need to listen and deal to other people's perspectives, because it is all somehow part of God's plan and he will step in as he sees fit.
I think it is a particularly strong appeal among the Bahais and Ahmadiyya Mulsims, but by no means limited to them.
Have you not notices the community of voices speak different truths.
1. How can I tell which one to follow?
2. Religion, at least Christianity, is not about the things God created, it is about if what the One God says is true.
3. I will not give gratitude to what you call nature, I will give gratitude and praise to the Creator who created them.
There are many gods, but only 1 God.
This is why monotheism is important. What the pagans worship are not Gods.
Diversity is good in somethings, but not in a true religion if they are going to include gods that are not a God.
How do you know those you mention are Gods? How do you know they are telling yur the truth?
Only if they are Gods, and they are not.
There is no equality between man and God. We are to have the attitude of servants; we are to worship as children. WE are sinners, but Gods will forgive our sins if we admit we are and confess them. Is that not what good parents do?
The problem with poly theism is they can' tall be telling the truth and much of what they preach is contradicted b y wha the one true God teaches.
What world view do you want to see? Maybe it is there and you just don't see it.
The problem is that gods and not a God and therefore have no ability to help.
I take it that you see some rational sense in Pascal's Wager then?
Then I guess I won't satisfy your expectations. Best of luck.
It is not always true, of course. Often enough it is.
Possibly.
I took some time to think about this. Please take your time and read and reply when you can. No rush.
Part 1
Every polytheist will differ. Here is how I see life.
Background: Replace deity with spirits. Replace worship for reverence.
That is the beauty of polytheism. Each person has the truth and each person has their own space to practice that truth. There is no power authority with one space over another. There is no interpretation of why someone else's space should be a part of theirs. It's a perfect accord because you have a diversity of gods all having their own personality and ways of guiding people. It's beautiful.
1. You don't. You follow the one that calls to you. In my experience, it's not the other way around. I didn't go to, say, Catholicism because it looks nice. The devotion and the relationship with the sacraments drawn me to it. I didn't go to Buddhism later on in life because I like the Buddha statue in my living room. Rebirth is a part of life and to know the nature of life, that fact is something we have to face one day. Whether we escape it by thinking there is a heaven or being comfortable with death like the Buddha is the choice of the person. I didn't go back to paganism because it's new age. My mother practiced it. My family practices it (mix matched not European). I have always believed in it. Never thought it as a religion until I came on RF.
How do you know which one to follow, Catholicism gives me devotion but I don't believe in the foundation. Buddhism gives me knowledge but I am connected to the spirit-ual aspects of life rather than just the mind/knowledge. Paganism gave me all of this in one shot by communing with ancestors, living spirits, my family on earth, my family living today. It is more personal, more concrete.
How does this deal with multiple gods?
When you have a connection with multiple things and people in your environment, you mirror off of these things and people. In the case of gods, the same thing. If you have one god, that's like having one parent. One friend. One sibling. But never telling that child they have a full family. Gods (or spirits) are family members. In Western culture we tend to think a child can be raised by one or two parents. I was raised single parent and I turned out fine. However, I noticed and wished like Catholicism I had a whole family that took care of me.
Without the spirits, my family, my friends, strangers, environment, and me, I wouldn't be alive. The gods are all of these things. God-means object or person of worship. When you are part of these things and people they shape who you are.
One god doesn't do that. One god denotes hierarchy. For example:
2. "...it is about if what the One God says is true."
When you think this way, you are thinking hierarchy not equality. You are thinking one over another. It's not a community it's servitude. Having one god over all people is making people worship a god that may not reflect who they are as a person.
It makes them a slave by the definition of the word in content and context.
3. a. I will not give gratitude to what you call nature, b. I will give gratitude and praise to the Creator who created them
a. One god also causes defensiveness and/or it can make someone offended because one person doesn't serve that one god. When you have multiple gods, that disappears. You are not thinking "I will not give gratitude to what you call nature" because that is an insult. However, when you have multiple gods you respect that each person has their own calling to whatever god/truth that they follow. It doesn't have to be yours.
Many African villages have many gods in many communities but in one area. They all, from what I'm told, do believe in a creator; but, given I don't know the politics there, I'd assume they they are all respectful to a high extent of what another community believes without saying they should have their truth. More than one gods have a height of respect for diversity. One god does not.
b, You don't have to worship, revere, and/or give respect to the environment that takes care of you. Many people recycle, you are not obligated to do that. Some plant trees others tend to animals. It's a preference people do not something you have to do. Nothing to get passive defensive about.
Many gods helps not see life like that. You respect that one person may see the environment as their gods and another may see their ancestors as their gods. You don't put a cover over everyone's beliefs because you feel that they have a creator.
That is inappropriate and I see that in a lot of god-of-abraham religions from Christianity, Islam, even Bahai though they don't say it that way; they see it likewise.
Many gods takes all of that out. It gives people their own space without saying any other person's "Groups" is a manifestation of their own. It looks at diversity without saying its a product of it as if degrading what takes care of you as if it's, what some people call, a vessel. In Catholicism, they put high reverence to Mary because she is the Mother of Christ. Yet, many protestants say she is just a vessel. To call what god created a vessel shocks me.
With many gods, see the beautiful plethora of life. It gives you the chance and/or guides you to see people as they are not how we want them to be. I go to my mother's mother for guidance which is different than what I go to my father's mother for. I talk to the sun differently than I would the moon. Having that diversity makes life come alive.
One god doesn't do that. It's political not equality. Communism not liberal.
That is your belief. We have yet to prove any-any god of any religion Pagan included exists outside the minds and experiences of the people who believe in it.
So you'd have to rephrase that to make it objective. How does one god exist? By what means does it exist without going to any religious book to define it?
That is your opinion. It is false. That is like telling you what you worship is not god all because I believe and revere multiple spirits. That's silly.
Does the one-god religion make you say this? This is another example of power in language.
Polytheism doesn't do that because many polytheists accept and respect other gods even if they don't believe in, say Hemes, they believe in Thor, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist and the other does. It means they respect both but called by one.
How can that diversity and calling and even option to be connected to more than one aspect of life if you only have one aspect and not many?
This is another example if power-language. There is no one true religion in polytheism in my opinion. There are many gods and many truths.
Also, think of this. If you believe jesus is god, of course our gods/spirits aren't your god/spirit. I believe the spirits are the souls of our deceased and environment. Many hard Polytheist actually believe in deities that have no human manifestation.
You can't compare the god of abraham to a Pagan god, say Hemes just as I can't compare my great great aunt to jesus christ. Not wrong. Not immoral. Just inappropriate to do so. Polytheism dissolves all of that. When one is polytheist, they see multiple gods or multiple trusts/aspects of life. Limiting it to one is, well, limiting.
Like being in prison because one judge convicts you rather than having a jury.
Part 2
If you are comparing it to your god, then that's inappropriate. Name objective attributes of a god that we can agree on/a common denominator then we can discuss whether one of our god is true or not. You can't base truth off of my belief or opinion unless you share it from my perspective not yours.
Whose truth? This is another power-language. Polytheism doesn't have one truth.
Follow me here:
To compare it to monotheism is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes they are both fruits (both theism) but that doesn't mean and apple is an orange. I have many apples. You have only one orange. You are asking me to compare my apples to your orange and saying I don't have the correct orange in my hand when I only have apples.
Understand how that doesn't make sense?
This is power-language. Polytheism respects you have one god. We just don't understand it. One god believers have a power point of view. Very different. That's why we have wars not because of different religions but because one religion thinks it has the One truth. Many One truth religions killed Many truth religions because of it.
Horrible history yet people still want to believe in one god. I don't understand that. You'd think we'd learn from history.
My point exactly. This is a power and political statement. These statements into laws is what causes wars.
How do you know this? Have you asked a polytheist or me about what I believe and take my belief into consideration without comparing it to your own?
This is bias language. When you believe in many gods or many truths, you dissolve that power because everyone believes in multiple gods and no one is over another.
The latter, I hear that from monotheist a lot. "maybe it is there and you just don't see it." If you came from the one-god point of view and see and respect diversity, you may understand what I mean. Until then, to tell you honestly, you can't see what's at the bottom of the ocean if you keep looking down and talking to the fish and telling them how nice it is up here even though they naturally live in a water environment.
You are not the center of the universe (meaning your belief); so, to get out of that, why have a power-religion to make you think in that mindset?
What is positive about what you just said? (Not to you, to others)
My point is its like a family. You have many guides like you have many family members. You are saying that children can be raised by one parent with no relatives, siblings, and one parent. That's pretty hard in itself. Children seem to get healthier and more productive help when they have a good supportive network. One god is just that, only one.
Life is community oriented not hierarchy. Maybe you just don't see it, but that power-language is an unattractive aspect of your religion. So, it's not something I want to see unless you change your language or find ways to have a common definition of what a god is before discussing who has the truth and who doesnt.
Actually, no, it can not. Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.
Prove these statements.
Also prove that polytheism and atheism "can not."
I plan of course to take your proofs and rip them dutifully to shreds so you had better make them sound real good. I tire of your obvious prejudice against monotheism, more probably against God than anything else.
All it takes is honesty and attention, really.
If you don't want to see it, I won't have the means to force you.
Not interested in pigeon sports, sorry.
All it takes is honesty and attention, really.
If you don't want to see it, I won't have the means to force you.
It is a well trodden road, but sure. My original statements wereI'd also like to hear how you come to these conclusions, actually.
Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.
It is a well trodden road, but sure. My original statements were
Why so? Because monotheism taps into authoritarian drives and is to a not-unconsiderable extent actually shaped by it. It is particularly clear in the Abrahamic Faiths and most of all in the Qur'an, which seems quite oblivious to its own discourse's implications.
A core element of it is the attachment to the idea of a "strong leader" whose authority will function as a jump start towards a "better future". It may easily become an attractive belief for people who are morally and religiously lazy and/or dominated by fear of the future. And it all too easily corrupts itself, mainly because it demands submission and avoidance of much necessary questioning.
Polytheism is inherently far less fertile ground for such abuse, because it acknowledges the variety of aspects of religious worship. So is atheism, because it denies itself the opportunity to take refuge in the "certainty" of the righteousness of the central divine authority.
Do you want me to elaborate on the part about historical testimonial to those dangers?
I disagree. What you're saying may have commonly been the case, and may always have technically been the case. But if Constantine was an Arian, I think church doctrine followed another path, at least initially.
One set of rules that apply to every little thing that can ever be conceived can be hard to wade through, though. Having well organized, well written, PERTINENT information that is easily accessible is much better. I'm also confused by your political analogy, as we also have Vice Presidents, the Courts, Congress, the Senate, State and Local governments, etc ... and that's not counting private companies, grassroots citizen initiatives, and foreign involvement. To say we must rely on one person to rule an entire country is absurd and false.Why do we have one set of rules? Because two sets of rules would get confusing and lead to arguements. Why couldn't we have both Trump and Hillary as president?
I do too, in a very general sense, though I concede my religion hails from a polytheistic tradition in all stages of its life. So I guess I'm more henotheistic than I am monotheistic nowadays.I am in favour because I think that God is One.
Badly written rules force many people to crave a single authority figure?That is certainly a good reason for figures of authority to encourage the belief, but does not explain why people accept it.
I occasionally play Monopoly (online, as I can't remember what I did with my Grandpa's set from the 50s). I know of at least two ways to play and as kids my brother and I would make up stuff anyway because being a greedy jerk didn't seem moral.If you were playing scrabble, one set of rules would be beneficial to the fairness of the game. and if there was room for interpretation in the rules, one scrabble King to settle disputes would really bring peace to the game.
Basic human psych ... no, ALL of psychology notes that if you want to teach consequences, you don't wait eons after people die to teach them what the problem was. You nip that crap in the bud right then.And God lets people do what they want until the judgement day.
This is the heaven where there was a riot and a third of the angels rebelled and became demons? THAT heaven?since God promises the next world is better, even heaven, where peace reigns.
A traffic accident can occur due to many causes: road layout/quality, weather, sobriety of drivers, signaling functionality, etc. As winter is coming on (and I moved north of the Mason Dixon and I was depressed apparently people drive just as stupid here as they did down in the Deep South, where I'm from ... not as bad, but still bad), we are getting more and more pileups that cannot be traced to just one cause.In my mind, one event tends to imply one cause.
I think it acknowledges an interdependence that is sorely lacking from strict monotheism.I like how polytheism addresses life. Monotheism tends to fall on hierarchy and power. Polytheism seems more community.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!We are so fortunate to have someone in the forum mote intelligent than Pascal.
I think the world is waiting for the One True to come up with this silver bullet that will fix everything. Is it prohibitively expensive or something?It can be very significant if He gave us a solution relevant to today's problems.
Do you believe God can make up His own mind? I think another flaw in that wager is that it ignores God's part in all this.Let me put it another way. If what you believe about God is right, it doesn't' matter what I believe. If what I believe about God is right, it is critical what you believe.
Where do you think the name El or Yahweh comes from? Who worshiped THEM before Judaism was invented?This is why monotheism is important. What the pagans worship are not Gods.
Diversity acknowledges reality. Think of a cat. Now think of the cat as part of a food chain. Now think of the cat in terms of the thousands of different connections this cat has to all elements of its internal and external environments, including you. NOW think of how all those other elements (including you) connect to each other. It may still be more simplistic than the kind of reality God sees, but to focus JUST on the cat is far too limiting to be useful in describing reality.Diversity is good in somethings, but not in a true religion if they are going to include gods that are not a God.
How do you know the bible is telling you the truth if I can find El and Yahweh in the Epic of Baal?How do you know they are telling yur the truth?
Children should not be worshiping parents and only an idiotic boss should be treating "servants" like slaves instead of valued employees.We ar to have the attitude of servants; we ar to worship as children.
Yes. Egypt always had its problems, but the fur REALLY flew when one pharaoh decided one god was all that was needed.Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.
If the conquest of Canaan happened, Christianity and Islam got their ideas from Momma Religion...Historically, both Christianity and Islam have used "convert or die" tactics.
Do you live your life like a pious ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew?Only if a God similar to Yahweh exists do any objective moral values and duties exist.
Like, the MAJORITY of the bible is trying to kill off the "other".Only with God does man have a foundation for racial equality.
Why? What if we're just something God left on the stove and forgot about when He went to the movies?Only if God exists does human life have any sanctity.
God promised us a savior and still plans on nuking the entire planet some time in the future, per many denominations.Only with God does humanity have any meaningful hope.
LOL, what?Only with God does there exist a consistent moral justification for our eating and dominating all other life forms that share the planet with us.
Judge the tree by its fruit. I just am having a hard time figuring out why this is so hard: if Religion A claims that God says if we do Option 1 we will see 10 years of peace and Religion B says that if we do Option 2 we will see 10 years of peace ... is it REALLY that hard to see which one gets closest? Even if neither of them do, I would still think the one that got even one step closer to the goal is the superior choice (at least with regard to that one topic) than the other, right?The Catholic church and Buddha have some very different theology. How do you tell which one is right?
Actually, no, it can not. Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.
Badly written rules force many people to crave a single authority figure?