euphronius posted:

We should bring back the Chi Rho

Gaius Marius posted:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/#MonOri

Just read this if you guys are interested. It's clear that this thread is totally out of it's depth on this.

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.

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.

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.

And I still argue Christianity is not monotheistic. If it monotheistic is then Hinduism is too

Edit

Forgot Rastafarianism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'

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.

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.

And I still argue Christianity is not monotheistic. If it monotheistic is then Hinduism is too

Edit

Forgot Rastafarianism

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.

[...]

Scholars and theologians have long debated how best to characterise Zoroastrianism theism; dualism and monotheism have historically been the most frequently used terms for the religion.[21][22][23][24][25] Many consider Zoroastrianism to be the world's oldest monotheistic religion. Despite the fact that Zoroastrianism has dualistic undertones, the Zoroastrian faith is certainly a monotheistic religion. There are two main reasons why Zoroastrianism is not and should not be considered a dualistic religion. The first is that Zoroastrians do not consider themselves to be dualistic. In their minds, they worship one god, namely Ahura Mazda. Second, the definition of dualism lends credence to the monotheism of the Zoroastrian faith. A basic definition of dualism is “a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil.” But Zoroastrians believe in the supremacy of Ahura Mazda.[1] In addition to this, other than dualism, the other issue that have long made it problematic to identify Zoroastrianism as true monotheism, is the presence of lesser deities. But before hastening to conclude that the Amesha Spentas and the other yazatas compromise the purity of monotheism, we should consider that the other historical monotheisms too made room for other figures endowed with supernatural powers to bridge the gulf between the exalted, remote Creator God and the human world: the angels in all of them (whose conception in post-exilic Judaism was apparently developed after the pattern of the Amesha Spentas; Boyce and Grenet, 1991, 404–405), the saints and the Virgin Mary in several Christian churches, and the other persons of the Trinity in all of Christianity. Despite the vast differences with Zoroastrian theology, the common thread is that all these beings are subordinate to the Godhead as helpers or (in the case of the persons of the Trinity) co-equals, hence they do not pursue different interests and are worshiped jointly with the Godhead, not separately; therefore the supplicant's dilemma does not arise.[26]

Some scholars believe Zoroastrianism started as an Indo-Iranian polytheistic religion, But later transitioned into a Monotheistic faith.[1] Some say that "like the rest of the Zoroastrian texts, the Old Avesta does not teach monotheism".[27] According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "Zoroastrianism Contains Both Monotheistic and Dualistic Features," but "Though Zoroastrianism was never, even in the thinking of its founder, as insistently monotheistic as, for instance, Judaism or Islam, it does represent an original attempt at unifying under the worship of one supreme god a polytheistic religion comparable to those of the ancient Greeks, Latins, Indians, and other early peoples."[28]

In the 19th century, through contact with Western academics and missionaries, Zoroastrianism experienced a massive theological change that still affects it today. The Rev. John Wilson led various missionary campaigns in India against the Parsi community, disparaging the Parsis for their "dualism" and "polytheism" and as having unnecessary rituals while declaring the Avesta to not be "divinely inspired". This caused mass dismay in the relatively uneducated Parsi community, which blamed its priests and led to some conversions towards Christianity.

The arrival of the German orientalist and philologist Martin Haug led to a rallied defense of the faith through Haug's reinterpretation of the Avesta through Christianized and European orientalist lens. Haug postulated that Zoroastrianism was solely monotheistic with all other divinities reduced to the status of angels while Ahura Mazda became both omnipotent and the source of evil as well as good. Haug's thinking was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine (though being reevaluated in modern Zoroastrianism and academia).[24] It has been argued by Dr Almut Hintze that this designation of monotheism is not wholly perfect and that Zoroastrianism instead has its "own form of monotheism" which combines elements of dualism and polytheism.[29] It has otherwise been opined that Zoroastrianism is totally monotheistic with only dualistic elements.[30]

Some scholars assert that Zoroastrianism's concept of divinity covers both being and mind as immanent entities, describing Zoroastrianism as having a belief in an immanent self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute, thereby putting Zoroastrianism in the pantheistic fold sharing its origin with Indian Hinduism.[31][32]

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.

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.

quote:

Additionally, the life force that originates from Ahura Mazda, known as Asha (truth, cosmic order), stands in opposition to Druj (falsehood, deceit).

euphronius posted:

Ok I’m sorry I forgot the Holy Spirit

Mea culpa

Still not Abraham’s god by definition

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.

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.

euphronius posted:

How can Jesus be the god of Abraham. It makes no sense.

Deteriorata posted:

Come over to the Christianity thread and we can set you straight.

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.

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

FishFood posted:

E: Quote is not edit

euphronius posted:

I don’t think they are the same god at all Zoux

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.

euphronius posted:

How can Jesus be the god of Abraham. It makes no sense.

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]

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.

ChubbyChecker posted: