|
euphronius posted:We should bring back the Chi Rho
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
E: Quote is not edit
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:20 |
|
Gaius Marius posted:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/#MonOri Far be it from me to debate the scholars of Stanford's .edu but lol at: quote:Most mainstream Old Testament scholars believe that the religion of the early Israelites was neither monotheistic nor polytheistic but “monolatrous.” While the existence of other gods was not denied, Israel was to worship no god but Yahweh. followed a little later by quote:It is therefore no accident that polytheistic systems often end up elevating one god or principle to the supreme position, and reinterpreting the others as its agents or manifestations; they become, in other words, essentially monotheistic. I don't argue with what you are describing but you're not describing monotheism. you know the word. you used it right there edit: I do also just generally disagree with the sort of bias that leads to suggesting polytheism with a core central Deity then becomes "essentially monotheistic." The argument that all polytheism eventually collapses into a monotheistic model is one that starts by assuming the "natural state" of human worship is monotheism. If a company or organization is run by a committee, and that committee has within it a president and a vice-president, that company is still run by the multiple entities who make up and participate in the committee. They do not stop existing as soon as a committee president position is made and appointed LITERALLY A BIRD fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Mar 19, 2024 |
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:26 |
|
euphronius posted:The Egyptians invented it. The Persians invented it. Celtic beliefs were erased who knows. There are monotheistic interpretations of Hinduism. Sikhism is arguably monotheistic. I don’t know about Chinese religions.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:45 |
|
There are a number of monotheistic religions outside of Aten and Abraham, even if they aren't as big. I think you could also see polytheism as something that could be forced onto religions externally even if it can be a lot less chaotic to just shoehorn in the existence of other gods into somebody else's theological framework. It's also not like polytheism totally prevents religious conflict either; while it sure is nice and convenient where everybody just decides that somebody else's gods are either different names for their own or distant members of the same pantheon that are being worshipped in a weird and funky way, that is not the only possible response, and there's plenty of room to cause offenses over taboos. There were five sacred wars over Delphi.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:49 |
|
SlothfulCobra posted:There are a number of monotheistic religions outside of Aten and Abraham, even if they aren't as big. I think you could also see polytheism as something that could be forced onto religions externally even if it can be a lot less chaotic to just shoehorn in the existence of other gods into somebody else's theological framework.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 19:55 |
|
Orbs posted:It might apply to Hinduism... but a lot of that may be due to colonizers like the British coming in and completely misinterpreting what Brahma is meant to be (on purpose or by accident). They basically acted like it's obviously just yet another expression of their one multipart God, this time with "funny" details from India. But my understanding is that Brahma is meant to be more like a fabric, a godhead that all the other beings draw power and magic from, not necessarily above or below, but just in community with them. I don't think it was ever intended to be their Creator God who rules over all the other polytheistic gods, at least not until colonial revisionism really got going. I mean "hinduism" being a single religion is mostly a creation of British colonizers lumping together a wide range of local traditions
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:07 |
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's also not like polytheism totally prevents religious conflict either; while it sure is nice and convenient where everybody just decides that somebody else's gods are either different names for their own or distant members of the same pantheon that are being worshipped in a weird and funky way, that is not the only possible response, and there's plenty of room to cause offenses over taboos. There were five sacred wars over Delphi. Not that it wholly prevents it, but as you say: acknowledging the reality of other people's Gods provides different possible responses to facing strangers with strange Gods that aren't simply to kill them. I know there are people in here who are not me who could talk at length about the Roman habit of adopting foreign Gods into their pantheon to help "encourage" those God's followers to convert to their paradigm (Hittites too?). As Orbs said too, while human violence is often justified beneath a banner of "the Gods told me to" religious violence in and of itself was not really the driving factor for warfare until the paradigm shift that accompanied monotheism. Maybe because people were busy trying to fight over food and land instead, and religious warfare rolls around when the other reasons for warfare are already tapped out, again, I know a lot more about Egyptian religion specifically than most of any of the others. But oppressive religious violence is pretty widely attributed to monotheistic traditions over polytheistic ones.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:09 |
|
Religious wars in general are rare regardless of the theology, and fairly often many supposed holy wars can be put pretty simply into terms of secular motivations for conquest or against the potential of some weird new thing that is threatening the dominant power structures. Polytheistic religions often valorize their followers winning glory in battle as much as if not more than monotheistic ones, and the biggest reason to not attribute them in comparison as being causes of violence is just not respecting the beliefs that they held as driving motivators.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:31 |
|
if you define religious war narrowly as 'a war that is exclusively about religion' then they're quite rare yeah; but I think it's more useful, probably, to define them as 'wars that are at least partially about religion', or 'wars that the wagers conceive of in religious terms more than they do with other wars'
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:32 |
|
What percentage of, say, the 30 YW was religious and how much was because the HRE was hosed
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:44 |
|
cheetah7071 posted:if you define religious war narrowly as 'a war that is exclusively about religion' then they're quite rare yeah; but I think it's more useful, probably, to define them as 'wars that are at least partially about religion', or 'wars that the wagers conceive of in religious terms more than they do with other wars' Also probably worth emphasizing I did use the word warfare but also violence, because were the Crusades a war? Were the Salem witch trials? Regardless of whether they were technically wars they are emblematic examples of monotheistic religious violence.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:47 |
|
the instigators of the bohemian revolt saw it in religious terms, but were more or less completely incapable of recruiting moderate protestants to their side. Denmark and Sweden gave some lip service to defending their fellow protestants but also just wanted to conquer stuff. France just wanted to give the Habsburgs a bloody nose. The HRE handling religion poorly is sort of the common take because the 30yw is so noteworthy, but I'm not sure it actually holds up to scrutiny. France tore itself absolutely to shreds, repeatedly, in the French Wars of Religion. The HRE fought a minor civil war, had the peace of Augsburg which lasted 50 years, and then had another smallish civil war which was well on its way to being wrapped up as far less bloody than France's wars when Gustavus Adolphus decided to come knocking. The 30yw was so destructive because of outside invasions, not because the HRE was tearing itself apart. Or at least, it wasn't tearing itself apart any more than the other european countries who all had civil wars in the century before and after it. Or at least that's my understanding. (e: it's also more or less the thesis of The Thirty Years War: Europe’s Tragedy by Peter Wilson, for a citation stronger than 'some random poster on the internet') cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Mar 19, 2024 |
# ? Mar 19, 2024 20:51 |
|
zoux posted:I guess my question is "since monotheism is so successful as a religion, it's odd that it only got invented one time" but I suppose if there were other monotheistic religions the Abrahamic derived ones would look less impressive. religions aren't really invented like that, they're complex sociological movements. monotheism, as other posters noted, isnt a consistent term across religions, and really is more of a modern view distorted due to Christianity.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 21:56 |
|
euphronius posted:The Egyptians invented it. The Persians invented it. Celtic beliefs were erased who knows. There are monotheistic interpretations of Hinduism. Sikhism is arguably monotheistic. I don’t know about Chinese religions. The thing about monotheism is that once it's invented once, all the other versions are gonna seem derivative, you know? Like the Taipings or the Mormons or the Bahai or the followers of Kimbangu are all various flavors of monotheist but they're going to sound a like Christianity (or Islam) because those are the influences they're drawn from.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 22:06 |
|
Zoroastrianism started way before Christianity for example.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 22:40 |
|
The rather poorly written Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism has some interesting notes on its specific manifestation of monotheism. quote:Zoroaster's religious philosophy divided the early Iranian gods of Proto-Indo-Iranian paganism into emanations of the natural world, known as ahuras and daevas, the latter of which were not considered to be worthy of worship. Zoroaster proclaimed that Ahura Mazda was the supreme creator; the creative and sustaining force of the universe, and that human beings are given a choice between supporting Ahura Mazda or not, making them ultimately responsible for their fate. Though Ahura Mazda has no equal contesting force, Angra Mainyu, whose negative forces are born from Aka Manah (evil thought), is considered to be every Zoroastrian's main adversarial force, standing against "Spenta Mainyu" (creative spirit/mentality). Angra Mainyu was further developed by Middle Persian literature into Ahriman (𐭠𐭧𐭫𐭬𐭭𐭩), advancing him to be Ahura Mazda's direct adversary. This is probably the kind of thing that Stanford paper was meaning to point out by alluding to polytheist religions restructuring into monotheist ones -- the demotion of "lesser divinities" to angels or spirits rather than Gods proper in order to call a faith monotheistic. Interesting that it sounds like identification with monotheism really took hold after Christian missionaries showed up though
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 23:25 |
|
asserting that a god or set of gods is/are The Same One across multiple religions presupposes an objective, recognizable nature or reality of the god(s) in question—that there is a specific thing receiving worship, and these myriad folks are all aiming at the same one
|
# ? Mar 19, 2024 23:47 |
|
the idea of monotheïsm/ploytheïsm as distinct and knowable aspects of a belief system or culture—that this became so widespread and unquestioned is to me the weirder, more fundamentally transformative thing. know who believes in an ultimate source of all reality??? a whole buncha peoples!!! a lot of them have names for it and impute some character, or at least moral preference, to it!!!! and everything else in reality, including many supernatural entities, is/are existentially downstream from that ultimate reality. “our encompassing reality and its divine servants and doings are monotheïsm and angels and miracles; their encompassing reality and its divine servants and doings are polytheïsm and magic” is not the sorta neutral position that it is uncritically taken to be by [gestures expansively around]
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:00 |
|
zoux posted:I guess my question is "since monotheism is so successful as a religion, it's odd that it only got invented one time" but I suppose if there were other monotheistic religions the Abrahamic derived ones would look less impressive. You also have to consider the development of other ideas. Like that one nation could be the whole world and that one person might be able to be the ruler of the whole world.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:04 |
|
Squizzle posted:know who believes in an ultimate source of all reality??? a whole buncha peoples!!! a lot of them have names for it and impute some character, or at least moral preference, to it!!!! and everything else in reality, including many supernatural entities, is/are existentially downstream from that ultimate reality. As you were typing this I was actually appreciating another part of that Zoroastrianism article quote:Additionally, the life force that originates from Ahura Mazda, known as Asha (truth, cosmic order), stands in opposition to Druj (falsehood, deceit). by way of thinking to myself Ah, ma'at and isfet. I feel like the theism parts of a given religion get conflated with or overshadow the ontology parts quite a bit despite them being important individual components. Like, all "monotheism" vs "polytheism" really tells you is how many things you're allowed to call "God." The actual structure of a religion, its cosmology and metaphysics, are an entirely different category. LITERALLY A BIRD fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 20, 2024 |
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:19 |
|
euphronius posted:Ok I’m sorry I forgot the Holy Spirit Except the vast majority of us three agree that it is. Regardless of how many bits the Christians chop Jesus/fanfic American Jesus Who Lives in Utah into. I mean sorry, my faith has finally been outthunked. Passover is coming and I will eat all the bread. The Name didn't really mean it with that commandment. soviet elsa fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 20, 2024 |
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:35 |
|
I don't know if we can really come to a definitive conclusion about this topic? What it means for two religions to worship the same god is not something that is discrete and definable. There are certainly common features, and common roots, but there are also major differences across Abrahamic religions as well in how "God" is conceived of. The way the discussion ITT has been approaching this question as a binary "yes or no" question seems very odd to me. There is a complex mixture of similarities and differences in how Abrahamic religions think about God, as well as how different branches and denominations of various religions think about God, and even in how individual believers think about God. In addition, "God" is not a discrete category that can be shown to exist or not exist in a particular place or places, but people seem to be treating it as if it were. If you are looking for whether one version of God is the same as another, you face some serious methodological problems. I don't think its a very productive approach to quibble about whether Abrahamic religions share the same God or not, because that line of thinking assumes that "God" is a discrete entity that transcends different religions, and everyone is worshipping this same discrete entity in a different way. That is a very particular approach to religion that should not be universalized.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:52 |
|
CrypticFox posted:I don't know if we can really come to a definitive conclusion about this topic? What it means for two religions to worship the same god is not something that is discrete and definable. There are certainly common features, and common roots, but there are also major differences across Abrahamic religions as well in how "God" is conceived of. The way the discussion ITT has been approaching this question as a binary "yes or no" question seems very odd to me. There is a complex mixture of similarities and differences in how Abrahamic religions think about God, as well as how different branches and denominations of various religions think about God, and even in how individual believers think about God. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to worship the God of Abraham. I think we should just take them at their word and not try to split hairs about what we think they do or do not actually believe about it.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 00:56 |
|
How can Jesus be the god of Abraham. It makes no sense.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:02 |
|
euphronius posted:How can Jesus be the god of Abraham. It makes no sense. Come over to the Christianity thread and we can set you straight.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:03 |
|
already said the nicaeans and augustine of hippo took care of it 1700 years ago. you just gotta gently caress w the definition of "is", clinton-style homoousion, is the term
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:03 |
|
Deteriorata posted:Come over to the Christianity thread and we can set you straight. Yes this is a topic better suited for the religion thread.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:07 |
|
Deteriorata posted:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to worship the God of Abraham. I think we should just take them at their word and not try to split hair about what they do or do not actually believe. What does the "God of Abraham" mean though? Particularly in terms of religious practice, there are some very major differences in how Abrahamic religions conceive of what the God of Abraham is. There is a complex continuum of ideas across different religions and religious branches about what the God of Abraham is. Just because the words are shared doesn't necessarily mean the concept is. If you are a believer in an Abrahamic religion, you may think that your vision of God is correct, and that other Abrahamic religions are trying to worship your God, but are doing so oddly or incorrectly, but such a vision depends on a particular religious belief system. From a more neutral, anthropological/sociological perspective, "The God of Abraham" is not a discrete entity that exists independent of religious practice, but rather it is a concept that depends upon religious beliefs and practices for its definition. In this light, I don't think its very useful to try to pin down the God of Abraham as a single entity that we can definitive say is or isn't worshipped by certain groups. CrypticFox fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 20, 2024 |
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:12 |
|
If a person gives homage to Deez Nutz is that technically monotheism since they are worshipped as a single entity with the same purpose
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:18 |
Benagain posted:If a person gives homage to Deez Nutz is that technically monotheism since they are worshipped as a single entity with the same purpose
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:30 |
|
FishFood posted:E: Quote is not edit actually both quote and edit worship the same god
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 01:44 |
|
euphronius posted:I don’t think they are the same god at all Zoux That's a funny line because like Zeus they're all variations of Dyeus. Half the world worships some version of the Aryan sky god because speakers of Aryan languages migrated into and dominated the Indo-Gangetic Plain, Europe, and parts of the Middle East. Europe and the Middle East together went on to conquer and proselytize most of the planet. Someone upthread made the excellent point that since they're all made up, there's no real point to comparison of gods in themselves. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Mar 20, 2024 |
# ? Mar 20, 2024 02:21 |
|
Deteriorata posted:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to worship the God of Abraham. I think we should just take them at their word and not try to split hairs about what we think they do or do not actually believe about it. yeah, i remember having difficulty explaining to a friend why messianic jews aren't considered jews by most, but hasidic jews, who claim to have a messiah that most people don't agree is the messiah, are still. and it comes down to "that's what the majority of the people in the religion say they believe, so that's how the religion is" likewise, the vast majority of christians, jews, and muslims will likely point to each other and go "same god, different book" and leave it at that
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 02:26 |
The belief in Schneerson as the Messiah is certainly present among the Chabad-Lubavichers but they're nowhere near all of the Hasidim, although thanks to Chabad they're probably the most well-known outside of the Jewish community. And it's not even universal in that particular movement. Give it a few hundred years, though
|
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 02:37 |
|
euphronius posted:How can Jesus be the god of Abraham. It makes no sense. TBF that's the point. The whole concept of the Trinity as we know it makes a lot more sense if you think of it as ideological copy protection. Try to question it and BAM! you're a heretic.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 03:45 |
|
Squizzle posted:the idea of monotheïsm/ploytheïsm as distinct and knowable aspects of a belief system or culture—that this became so widespread and unquestioned is to me the weirder, more fundamentally transformative thing. know who believes in an ultimate source of all reality??? a whole buncha peoples!!! a lot of them have names for it and impute some character, or at least moral preference, to it!!!! and everything else in reality, including many supernatural entities, is/are existentially downstream from that ultimate reality. “our encompassing reality and its divine servants and doings are monotheïsm and angels and miracles; their encompassing reality and its divine servants and doings are polytheïsm and magic” is not the sorta neutral position that it is uncritically taken to be by [gestures expansively around]
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 05:17 |
|
Orbs posted:I'm happy to take this (quite interesting!) discussion over to the religion thread since that may be more appropriate, but I did want to first mention that this is a pretty good point too, that I'm taking some time to sit with and process. I think I largely agree with this sentiment. i should mention that judaism has historically contended against this, w communities having to manage angel-veneration to the point that metatron was known as “the lesser yhvh”. this led to a bias against named angels (which is one of the reasons that tobit, the funniest book in the christian old testament, is not part of actual Hebrew scripture)
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 16:50 |
|
if you want a rollicking tale of raphael, an angel/possible ninja turtle(?? unclear in text) helping a guy catch fish to cure blindness caused by a bird making GBS threads too hard, you want to read tobit
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:01 |
|
The Romans didnt actually ever bother to conquer down the Arabian Peninsula coast of the Red Sea, did they?
|
# ? Mar 20, 2024 17:52 |