Look it up, because your reference bears a very very strong resemblance to the 'Course in Miracles.'
Nonetheless, your reference is loaded with the ambiguity of 'nice warm fuzzy wuzzy coincidences.'
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Monotheism and Polytheism
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
Look it up, because your reference bears a very very strong resemblance to the 'Course in Miracles.'
Nonetheless, your reference is loaded with the ambiguity of 'nice warm fuzzy wuzzy coincidences.'
necessarily being the keyword. i'm aware that there is more than one form.
didn't say it was.
wow, you're really miffed aren't you? the question was, are they incompatible, obviously they aren't given hindus believe brahman has many aspects, christians if they don't nullify the word believe people are all gods, jews too, et al.
Those conclusions are accurate by a certain perspective, and quite innacurate by others.
It all comes down to what one considers relevant when comparing the stances.
everything isn't black vs white, again they can be compatible.
the middle is not necessarily the whole because you've forgotten the polarities; when you only considered the middle. daoism would be a good example of contrast being compatible as a paradox.
no thing doesn't exclude every thing, or all. no thing, or an undifferentiated middle, or ein sof simply implies that from some undifferentiated thing came all differentiated things. that thing is an action; which then can become differentiated.
you can't get something from absolute nothing.
Long way around but you are apparently agreeing with my original posts.
Too vague.
The differences between monotheism, atheism and any other stances and variations of theism and non-theism are actually rather fluid, if we are dealing with actual people.
There are doctrines that insist on favoring very specific subsets of those possibilities and even on demanding those subsets, certainly. But being belief stances, they may very easily exist in flux for any given person, voluntarily or otherwise.
It is IMO a very small deal with little to no signficance whatsoever. It is a matter of aesthetical preference, not one of choice of public policy or anything else of any serious consequence.
Therefore, it is entirely possible (perhaps even healthy) for a given person to simply lack any ability or interest in holding a stable stance on the matter. That is no more strange nor less advisable than a lack of ability to settle on a favorite color, place or music.
Last edited:
All right then.
Pantheism is only "equivalent to" atheism if one insists that a "true" deity is supposed to have a conscious will of some kind, if even then.
An alternate and arguably superior perspective highlights that pantheism has at least a touch of supernaturalism, while atheism does not have to.
Likewise, Panentheism is indeed a variation of monotheism. Which implies (correctly) that there are significant differences that characterize it as distinc from generic monotheism.
Creating a high fog index does not deal with the definitions in just plain Engish.
Based on the definitions of the words in the English language you are creating a high fog index of the problem of excluded middle. Monotheism is NOT Polytheism. Polytheism is not Monotheism.
The problem is the definition of Monotheism and Polytheism, which are specific definitions. There is a multitude of other terms in English that describe alternative views of the Divine. To avoid creating a conflict of simple definition we use other words.
Another meaningless high fog index statement. The belief in the philosophical 'absolute nothing' by 'some' Christian theists does not define Monotheism nor Theism.
Never claimed you could. In fact I do not believe in the concept of 'absolute nothing.' What does this have to with the subject.
Last edited:
True, but that is not the question originally proposed by @Fool
All this is a s true as the sky is Carolina blue at noon on a clear day on the 4th of July, but does not address the original question.
words have multiple definitions, words also have synonyms. words can also be used as metaphors, again there is not a fixed rule to how words have to be used. it isn't like math. language is very versatile.
i'm not trying to confuse, sorry if i gave the impression that i was.
Last edited:
I do not believe 'a touch of supernaturalism' includes the definition of pantheism. You are drifting over to the Gaia model of our physical existence which is the personification of the physical, or possibly panpsychism.
OK, as I said.
Last edited:
I believe the assertion that word have multiple definitions, maybe to a certain extent be true, but nonetheless words have definitions for functional use in the English language. Language being versatile relies on alternate words to describe your intent and meaning and not shmoooozing the definitions of words to create a high fog index.
For example: (1) Monism and Panentheism are variations of Monotheism, and still not compatible with Polytheism. (2) Henotheism describes a hierarchy of Gods, and is a variation of Polytheism.
Last edited:
so you want it your way or no way?
i was pretty clear on the question. the answers we get from people are like a rorschach tests. not everyone filters the experience the same way.
thank you for sharing your opinion.
but again i have no experience in a course in miracles, or bahaism. and i could tell you were upset given your repeated errors in postings.
but an undifferentiated middle is not the whole of a thing.
you yourself have validated what i was doing was okay.
"Language being versatile relies on alternate words to describe your intent and meaning and not shmoooozing the definitions of words to create a high fog index."
two things that seem to be in contrast can be mutually complimentary; which is obviously a paradox. using two different words to describe one thing is again an example of poly in regards to words; which express a mono idea.
if you differentiate one thing then you must have at least one other thing in contrast to it, or the thing cannot be differentiated. in some monotheistic religions that differentiation is god vs self, or man. it can't be understood except in contrast to some otherness. that is two things
Last edited:
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
What is the undifferentiated middle? What are you talking about?
No, as defined in the English language Monotheism is incompatible with Polytheism
Never said it was. We use other words to describe the broader concepts of belief not defined as Monotheism and Polytheism.
Monotheism is not Polytheism, and Polytheism is not Monotheism. They are incompatible. There are other terms to describe various other alternative beliefs.
Thinking Homer
Understanding and challenging different worldviews
Can a Christian and a Hindu have an intelligent discussion about the nature of the world, the self, and God? Of course they can, there is enough common ground to engage in deep discussions. Actually most Hindus (if not all) will reject the notion that their religion is polytheistic. It is more accurate to classify it as a pantheistic religion, and Hindus believe that their many gods and goddesses are merely representations of the One Divine Being (Ishvara).
However, to answer your question, monotheism cannot be compatible with polytheism purely because there are too many fundamental differences in world views. To accept both would mean that you live in a self-contradicting universe. For example, Hindus believe that the Universe was always in existence, whereas Christians believe that it had a clear beginning (before which there was nothing, only God). Hindus believe in reincarnation, whereas Christians believe in the resurrection (Reincarnation states one soul (atman), different bodies. Resurrection states one soul, one body). The concept of heaven and hell is eternal for Christians, but it is temporary for Hindus (once you exhaust the good/bad karma, you reincarnate back to earth until your soul reaches liberation (moksha)).
These are just a few of the differences. Hope that helps
If you perceive the distinction as worth of so much differentiation.
Which is very much not a given.
Just as a note, I suspect that I addressed the original question quite exactly.