Why would monotheism be a good thing, let alone a necessary one?

[Akivah]

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?

 

[Akivah]

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.

Historically, both Christianity and Islam have used "convert or die" tactics. Other than perceived monotheism, what is a common thread between them? Why do both religions have such a need to get new adherents?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Arianism was really the more monotheistic position though. This is a question of orthodoxy rather than strict monotheism.

That's what I meant, though. The question of the Trinity was central to thecearly councils.

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.

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.

 

[1robin]

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.

Well that was a mouthful.

I only wish to respond to two claims you made.

1. Is monotheism necessary?

I am not sure if monotheism its self is necessary but it is necessary that some being alone, or as 1 being among many must exist to explain many feature of observable reality. Among those religions which contain a divine being similar to the God of Christianity and necessary to explain the universe the 3 great monotheistic faiths have by far more evidence for their being true than any other faith. Of the 3 great monotheistic faiths Christianity has by far the greatest amount of evidence and explanatory scope.

Is the existence of a single Omni-type God necessary? I am not sure but a religion which includes a God similar to Yahweh is very necessary to explain reality.

2. Is monotheism a good thing. You hade better believe it.

A. Only if a God similar to Yahweh exists do any objective moral values and duties exist. If a similar God to the bible's God does not exist then the best we can do is to claim that arbitrary social fashions are as close to moral truths as we can get, which is pathetic as well as depressing.

B. Only with God does man have a foundation for racial equality. If evolution alone produced mankind and since evolution has never made two equal things in over 14 billion years we can find no foundation in it for equality. The founding fathers knew that very well.

C. Only if God exists does human life have any sanctity. Biological anomalies have no inherent sanctity or objective value.

D. Only with God does humanity have any meaningful hope. If God does not exist all of those who commit evil and those who commit great acts of self sacrifice will eventually end up the same. As atoms that cannot feel, love, or care flung to all corners of a cold, dead, and indifferent universe.

E. Only with God do human lives have any eternal meaning or purpose. Biological anomalies without a God have only a superficial purpose and little meaning.

F. 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.

I can keep this up for hours but I will wait to see what someone can do with these first.

Is monotheism a good thing? In the case of Yahweh, without a doubt nothing could be any better.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I took some time to think about this. Please take your time and read and reply when you can. No rush.

Part 1

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.

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.

There are many gods, but only 1 God.

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?

This is why monotheism is important. What the pagans worship are not Gods.

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?

Diversity is good in somethings, but not in a true religion if they are going to include gods that are not a God.

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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Part 2

How do you know those you mention are Gods? How do you know they are telling yur the truth?

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?

Only if they are Gods, and they are not.

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.

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?

My point exactly. This is a power and political statement. These statements into laws is what causes wars.

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.

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)

The problem is that gods and not a God and therefore have no ability to help.

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.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

I never answer post that long. Let me say, that many voices saying contradictory things is not for me. The Catholic church and Buddha have some very different theology. How do you tell which one is right?

My main objection to polytheism is that their is only one true God. He has all the truth I need.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

All god's are false Gods. If you want to get your theology from that which is not a God, be my guest. Igt is not my language, it is the language of the one true God. What is unattractive to you is attractive to me, so why should I accept another language? Especially one that usually contradicts the Bible. BTW Buddha was not a god.

 

[Kirran]

Who says the Buddha was a god? He was a teacher.

 

[Reggie Miller]

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

Prove these statements.

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.

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.

Not interested in pigeon sports, sorry.

 

[Reggie Miller]

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.

Argument lost by forfeit.
Thank you for admitting your obvious prejudice. A poor choice of words to be sure, be I will accept your forfeiture of the argument nevertheless.

 

[Kirran]

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.

I'd also like to hear how you come to these conclusions, actually.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd also like to hear how you come to these conclusions, actually.

It is a well trodden road, but sure. My original statements were

Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.

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?

 

[Kirran]

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?

Well yes, because governments and ideologies from areas of the world where monotheistic narratives are not dominant are just as inclined to authoritarianism. This is true both in the modern era, where the governments of the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam have been just as bad as those of Christian and Muslim areas, and historically if we look at the monarchies of India, Southeast Asia and East Asia in comparison to those of Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Augustus]

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.

To some extent I agree. I didn't express myself very well before. Was meaning to say that it wasn't the case that the Emporer could just state what he believed and everyone else would go 'great idea boss, we'll get on the case'.

The Emperor could favour/replace clergy depending on their views which would have a cascading effect further down the line and also fund likeminded churches or persecute dissenters (although this is problematic if you follow a minority belief). Over time this would have an effect on popularity of various views.

There were even later Emperors of a more Arian persuasion, like Constantius II, who provided a boost to Arianism. They failed to impose Arianism on the society as a whole though.

He did have a fair bit of influence, but these 'religion as a tool of control' arguments tend to overstate the degree to which rulers could create doctrine at will out of pure convenience.

In early Islam the Caliph tried to promote the view that the Quran was created by God, not coeternal with Him, including violent persecution of clerics who disagreed. As you probably know, this view lost out and is now heretical to orthodox Islam.

Imperial patronage can certainly help or hinder a cause, but only to an extent.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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?

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.

I am in favour because I think that God is One.

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.

That is certainly a good reason for figures of authority to encourage the belief, but does not explain why people accept it.

Badly written rules force many people to crave a single authority figure?

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.

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.

And God lets people do what they want until the judgement day.

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.

since God promises the next world is better, even heaven, where peace reigns.

This is the heaven where there was a riot and a third of the angels rebelled and became demons? THAT heaven?

In my mind, one event tends to imply one cause.

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.

I like how polytheism addresses life. Monotheism tends to fall on hierarchy and power. Polytheism seems more community.

I think it acknowledges an interdependence that is sorely lacking from strict monotheism.

"No man is an island", after all, and even an island must deal with its' various lifeforms both on and off the surface, weather, geological rumblings, etc.

We are so fortunate to have someone in the forum mote intelligent than Pascal.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Pascal helped invent calculators, people! No need to bother thinking up stupid things like computers and the internet! Pascal rescued us all from ignorance as it is!

Yes, Pascal: super genius, who, according to wiki, signed away most of his family inheritance and died at an early age. But that's okay, he made a super smart wager ... I mean, he still died a horrible death that today we could've probably fixed anyway, but hey ... smart guy all around.

It can be very significant if He gave us a solution relevant to today's problems.

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?

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.

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.

This is why monotheism is important. What the pagans worship are not Gods.

Where do you think the name El or Yahweh comes from? Who worshiped THEM before Judaism was invented?

Diversity is good in somethings, but not in a true religion if they are going to include gods that are not a God.

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.

How do you know they are telling yur the truth?

How do you know the bible is telling you the truth if I can find El and Yahweh in the Epic of Baal?

We ar to have the attitude of servants; we ar to worship as children.

Children should not be worshiping parents and only an idiotic boss should be treating "servants" like slaves instead of valued employees.

Monotheism is indeed remarkably more prone to justifying authoritarian attitudes than pretty much all of its alternatives. And history underscores that.

Yes. Egypt always had its problems, but the fur REALLY flew when one pharaoh decided one god was all that was needed.

Historically, both Christianity and Islam have used "convert or die" tactics.

If the conquest of Canaan happened, Christianity and Islam got their ideas from Momma Religion...

Only if a God similar to Yahweh exists do any objective moral values and duties exist.

Do you live your life like a pious ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew?

Only with God does man have a foundation for racial equality.

Like, the MAJORITY of the bible is trying to kill off the "other".

Only if God exists does human life have any sanctity.

Why? What if we're just something God left on the stove and forgot about when He went to the movies?

Only with God does humanity have any meaningful hope.

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 there exist a consistent moral justification for our eating and dominating all other life forms that share the planet with us.

LOL, what?

The Catholic church and Buddha have some very different theology. How do you tell which one is right?

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?

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's where they're missing the boat. The Promised One will only come with Teachings but ultimately it will be for humanity to choose to implement them.

That's the Christ that will never come, the One Who will wave a magic wand and fix the world. We believe He's already come but He's leaving it up to us to choose our own destiny.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Depending on what you mean by authoritarian, I think it is a bit more complex than that.

What you say is correct to some degree, but perhaps not in some other senses.

All belief systems supported authoritarian attitudes as pretty much all societies were authoritarian. There was also no secular/religious divide which is largely a Christian invention.

Polytheisms did tend to be more tolerant of diverse beliefs though because they were not mutually exclusive. Sort of 'You can have your own gods, as long as you accept ours too'. New gods were often absorbed into the pantheon or links were made between your gods and foreign gods with similar characteristics.

However, Roman persecution of Christians was partly caused by Christian intolerance towards the Roman gods, particularly in the sense of the Imperial Cult. As they refused to accept the legitimacy of the Roman gods they refused to accept the legitimacy of the Roman polity.

Both polytheisms and monotheisms could be intolerant of incompatible belief systems, with monotheisms though there is less 'wiggle room'.

All religions could be a justification for political authoritarianism though.

 

[LuisDantas]

Badly written rules force many people to crave a single authority figure?

Rules are only as good as the willingness of people to honor and course-correct them as the necessity presents itself.

There is no substitute for actual sobriety and maturity.