Just an educated guess but I don't think we, the human race, are any better off with one god versus having many.

Do you think the switch to one god was made because one omni-everything god comes across as having much more power than a bunch of them combined? Or were there just too many of them to remember? Or did the multitude of deities just not deliver?

Whatever the reason for the switch, has anything really changed? Other than what or who people worship, what's different? Whether its Odin or Zeus, Allah or Yahweh, Mohammed or Christ, the answer is.... nothing changed. I think you could bring back all the gods you want and it wouldn't matter.

The only hope is that going from many to a few to one is part of a sequence that ends at zero. So I guess the next question would be....are we better off having no god(s)?

Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

Baron Max

Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

I know what you're getting at but unifying all of the same society isn't the world. I think all that does is pit one society against the other. No different than its always been. How do we get each society to agree that it's the same god? Maybe it isn't the god that's the problem, its the prophets we need everyone to agree on. Perhaps the prophet's teachings need some agreement.

I think we forget that God is a personal issue. People who share a vision of God are likely to groupp together. Even within monotheists you have sects, so its not the God that's the problem, its the intransigence of the personal opinion of God. How many liberals become conservative? And vice versa?

People are different from each other and they accentuate these differences themselves.

Its only when there is competition between groups or when one decides it wants to diminish the other that problems arise.

A ship with two / more skipper(s) will have trouble.
Two ships with desire of controlling same area will create trouble themselves.

I think we forget that God is a personal issue. People who share a vision of God are likely to groupp together. Even within monotheists you have sects, so its not the God that's the problem, its the intransigence of the personal opinion of God. How many liberals become conservative? And vice versa?

People are different from each other and they accentuate these differences themselves.

Its only when there is competition between groups or when one decides it wants to diminish the other that problems arise.

Personally I have no use for religion and I have trouble tolerating it at the best of times but if the religions of the world at minimum agree to agree then I could at least entertain the notion that they aren't going to take all of us down with them. Secretly I hope that as we pare down the number of gods over the centuries that we eventually come to realize there aren't any. There seems to be an undercurrent developing, and this is only an assumption on my part, that more and more people have had it with religion. This ripple hopefully becomes a tsunami.

I see monotheism as possibly the second last step in the religious phase of man, assuming we're in one that is. The last step being complete rejection of gods. I just hope we get to that part.

A ship with two / more skipper(s) will have trouble.
Two ships with desire of controlling same area will create trouble themselves.

I see one ship sinking fast. Monotheism is like the Titanic, not enough lifeboats.

Having no god , self righteousness will rule, and tends to anarchy.

Having no god , self righteousness will rule, and tends to anarchy.

Personally I think religion has had more than enough time to get things right.

Nowadays, atheists seem to have common shared ideas regarding better world, but this is because just having shared opponents, theists. United against theist. Get rid of theism, how do you think the world will be?

I've spoken up on this issue many times here.

Religion is instinctive in humans--an "archetype" in our collective unconscious, it occurs in all cultures in all eras. Yet it is polytheistic religion that is the true instinct.

Religion is an externalized model of the human spirit, which is complex. From the pantheons of the earliest civilizations who wrote their beliefs down, through the formalized Egyptian, Hindu and Greco-Roman religions, in the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays, up through the popularized anthropology of Joseph Campbell; priests, scholars, artists and common folk have all found a rather consistent set of 23 components to our spirit. (Forgive me if I've got that number slightly wrong. It's difficult to google but no one has yet corrected me. I can't even name all 7 dwarfs, much less all 23 gods and goddesses.)

The Hunter, the Healer, the King, the Warrior, the Lover, the Reveler, etc., we recognize those as the demystified English names of the gods and goddesses of the ancients and as the stock characters in traditional drama. We also resonate to them because each one of them resides inside us.

Think of them as components of a vector that defines our personality. Some have larger magnitudes than others; that varies from person to person and explains why some of us, if we "follow our bliss," end up being the Healer--doctors, nurses, EMTs, veterinarians, etc.--while others end up being the King--managers, politicians, military leaders, etc. The magnitudes also vary from day to day. Sometimes we just need to loosen up and be the Reveler, other times someone special walks into our life and the Lover takes charge for a while, and if Wal-Mart wants to build a store in our town the Warrior will come out in many of us, not all taking the same side in the war.

Wait for it... What happens if you're extremely disciplined and never let your weaker spirits have their day? What if you believe that a good Healer must never hunt, or that a good King can never let his guard down and revel? We've all seen what happens when spirits are suppressed. They fester and turn into something dark. One day we get angry, threatened, exhausted, bereaved, or simply drunk. We turn into a "differen person," and do terrible, crazy stuff. Our friends say, "I can't believe it, he's not like that," because we've been careful to never let anyone see that part of us until that part of us got so frustrated that the only way it could gain the freedom to express itself was to do it by dishonorable means.

This elegant 23-dimensional model of the human spirit explains so much about us. It tells us why we are different ways on different days, why sometimes we must do things that most of the time we think are ill-advised or downright wrong, but are in fact normal for everyone. We don't just make peace with all of those spirits, we come to regard them as resources. We have 23 different ways to look at problems. We forgive ourselves--and just as importantly each other--for lapses when we let the wrong spirit handle the wrong situation. Only human, screwed up, next time I'll try it differently, sorry!

Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.

I've spoken up on this issue many times here.

Religion is instinctive in humans--an "archetype" in our collective unconscious, it occurs in all cultures in all eras. Yet it is polytheistic religion that is the true instinct.

Religion is an externalized model of the human spirit, which is complex. From the pantheons of the earliest civilizations who wrote their beliefs down, through the formalized Egyptian, Hindu and Greco-Roman religions, in the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays, up through the popularized anthropology of Joseph Campbell; priests, scholars, artists and common folk have all found a rather consistent set of 23 components to our spirit. (Forgive me if I've got that number slightly wrong. It's difficult to google but no one has yet corrected me. I can't even name all 7 dwarfs, much less all 23 gods and goddesses.)

The Hunter, the Healer, the King, the Warrior, the Lover, the Reveler, etc., we recognize those as the demystified English names of the gods and goddesses of the ancients and as the stock characters in traditional drama. We also resonate to them because each one of them resides inside us.

Think of them as components of a vector that defines our personality. Some have larger magnitudes than others; that varies from person to person and explains why some of us, if we "follow our bliss," end up being the Healer--doctors, nurses, EMTs, veterinarians, etc.--while others end up being the King--managers, politicians, military leaders, etc. The magnitudes also vary from day to day. Sometimes we just need to loosen up and be the Reveler, other times someone special walks into our life and the Lover takes charge for a while, and if Wal-Mart wants to build a store in our town the Warrior will come out in many of us, not all taking the same side in the war.

Wait for it... What happens if you're extremely disciplined and never let your weaker spirits have their day? What if you believe that a good Healer must never hunt, or that a good King can never let his guard down and revel? We've all seen what happens when spirits are suppressed. They fester and turn into something dark. One day we get angry, threatened, exhausted, bereaved, or simply drunk. We turn into a "differen person," and do terrible, crazy stuff. Our friends say, "I can't believe it, he's not like that," because we've been careful to never let anyone see that part of us until that part of us got so frustrated that the only way it could gain the freedom to express itself was to do it by dishonorable means.

This elegant 23-dimensional model of the human spirit explains so much about us. It tells us why we are different ways on different days, why sometimes we must do things that most of the time we think are ill-advised or downright wrong, but are in fact normal for everyone. We don't just make peace with all of those spirits, we come to regard them as resources. We have 23 different ways to look at problems. We forgive ourselves--and just as importantly each other--for lapses when we let the wrong spirit handle the wrong situation. Only human, screwed up, next time I'll try it differently, sorry!

Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.

*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more!

Having no god , self righteousness will rule, and tends to anarchy.
a reference to how you know this would be handy?

Nowadays, atheists seem to have common shared ideas regarding better world,not just now days it's always been athiesm is the natural way to be. but this is because just having shared opponents, theists. no atheist thinks of the theist as his opponent. United against theist. we are all individuals with common ideas, we dont think of theists as the enemy. Get rid of theism, how do you think the world will be?a lot lot better off, people wont kill as much for a start.
and please dont come back with communism as an atheist ideology, it's not.
thats like saying all catholics are jews or muslims.

a lot lot better off, people wont kill as much for a start.
"a reference to how you know this would be handy?"

and please dont come back with communism as an atheist ideology, it's not.
Communism is an atheist ideology, not the ideology of atheists.

You see, what could be pointed out by this is that the normal assertion that religion causes violence could be applied to atheism as well, since communism has caused a lot of violence, and so by extention all atheist ideologies must cause violence. Do you see the reasoning behind this?

I don't agree with it, but I don't agree that all religions cause violence either. It's for the same reason that you would say it's ridiculous to paint the actions of a few atheist ideologues onto the hands of all atheists.

Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.

I'd like to start off by saying that, as usual, your post was beautiful. I agree with everything but what I have quoted here, and I've always had an abiding interest in the works of men like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Thank you for rekindling it.

However, with your ideas about monotheism I must argue. First, most societies throughout history have been patriarchal. Polytheism does not promote inherent equality among the sexes (not that this was your assertion), nor does it promote some kind of "balance" to a civilization, as you seem to be suggesting. Of course, since you pointed out the masculinity of monotheism I must ask that you define exactly what this "balance" is, before I continue to dissect your post. It seems at surface glance to be about the various inherent behavioral qualities that differentiate the sexes, but you are a smart man and so I don't want to go on the assumption that such is what you are talking about. It seems over simplistic, so clarification is needed.

If it is about the various differences in behavior which separate man and women, then what are these behaviors? If you could list them for me, I'd be glad. I think it's been pretty well known throughout history that, when you attempt to find inherent differences between man and woman (psychologically, not physically), then a sharp contrast cannot be identified, only inferred through experience with members of the two sexes. If I'm wrong and you have the answer, I'd greatly appreciate your opinion, since it's one of those "big questions" of life.

Black and white morality? Well, not all monotheism holds to this rigid analysis. True, American bible-belt fundamentalists tend to hold this view, but none of the major Christian Churches propogate such a simplistic view of the world, and neither do the other two Abrahamic faiths. In fact, both Judaism and Islam consider morality to be the affairs of man, not God, and that God transcends said morality. The Hebrews (originally) saw the law as belonging to the Hebrews alone. Islam extended it to all mankind. Still, though, as samcdkey (as the Muslim on this message board whom I hold to the highest intellectual standard) has stated many times, morality is man made.

So, as you see, monotheism on the whole does not hold this black and white view of morality. This is the fault of individuals, not of belief systems, and if you were able to go back in time and talk to a (patriarchal) Greek, or Roman, or Gaul, or any other ancient person for that matter, you may find a similar percentage of them engaging in the same type of black and white view of human behavior. My point, if I haven't gone off track, is that this type of view is the fault of individuals who don't want to do the hard work associated with moral dilemmas, not of the type of beliefs which guide their judgments.

Maybe it'll take your response to clear up my position.

Edit: I tend to prefer polytheism, actually. It makes life more interesting to me, and it seems to be more practical than monotheism. After all, it's very natural to look at a tree, or a river, or a grove, and personify it (turning it into some kind of deity), than it is to think of this abstraction called "God", saying only what it isn't and never what it is.

"a reference to how you know this would be handy?"oh do come on, get serious.
how many people now and in the past have been killed by religion.
also Statistically speaking; atheists make up a smaller percentage of the prison population than the general population and have a lower divorce rate than the major religions.
that how this is known.
Communism is an atheist ideology, not the ideology of atheists.I concur, my mistake.
Atheism has nothing to do with political beliefs. Atheism is part of the Communist and Socialist doctrines, but atheists are not necessarily Communists or Socialists. Many point to the actions of Communist Russia, China and North Korea as examples of what atheists in political power would do. Communism uses an enforced stance to squash religious decent and instill it's own supreme dictatorship.
You see, what could be pointed out by this is that the normal assertion that religion causes violence could be applied to atheism as well, since communism has caused a lot of violence, and so by extention all atheist ideologies must cause violence. Do you see the reasoning behind this? no, the point being, atheists would not replace God with an all powerful government, that would be hypocritical. There is a strong belief in the values of freedom brought by a secular government.
atheism per se, is not a violent ideology, as it basis is in humanism.

whereas most religious holy books preach violence and murder, thus religious ideology is based in violence

I don't agree with it, but I don't agree that all religions cause violence I never said that, most religions are very dangerous mind viruses, the world would be better off, theist have had power, since the first man ever spun a yarn/told a tall tale.
we are badly in need of a change.

Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

Baron Max
:m:

Actually, when someone thinks that only their god is real and valid, they often loose respect for other god-theories & other religions.

In fear of loosing his sheeple to a more liberal morality, the lord made it a sin to have dealings with other gods. IOW: You don't get as much servitude and donation-money if your members leave your religion.

I think monotheism has similarities with monogamy:
Possessive, Jealous, Expecting Devotion, Reducing Freedoms, etc.

People blame too much on religion, and not enough on themselves.


Religion = man made concept

Most of you are wasting your time playing the blame game. It's clear enough to me that anything man does is his fault, and his choice. It's not christians, muslims, hindus, jews, or bhuddists, it's just people.

Like you wouldn't say, guns kill people, you'd say people kill people. So why is it that you'd say Religion is a problem. It's just people, and it can't be changed unless you can some how control a persons free will.

[QUOTE=Jaster Mereel]

So, as you see, monotheism on the whole does not hold this black and white view of morality. This is the fault of individuals, not of belief systems

[QUOTE]

Although the Abrahamic faiths especially do (basically) hold a rigid belief system of "black and white" ,"totally right or totally wrong" type of thinking. Studying the Old testament or Torah will confirm this idea that there is no balance between women and men at all, rather all the ignorances of the cultures who created these religions.
The early hebrew priesthood had constant problems with their populations straying away from the cult of Yahweh as they returned to their original belief in worshipping the God Baal who who was embraced by the indigenous populations in Canaan. Baal being mainly a fertlity god who was the consort of the mother Goddess Asherah. Surprisingly enough it seems likely at one time too that Yahweh also was consort to the Goddess Asherah.
The cult of Yahweh prophets being of a patriarchial mindset of course did successfully supress this feminine aspect of their belief system.

You are right thou that many cultures that embraced polytheism were patriarchial societies, such as the ancient romans and greeks.
The ancient egyptians on the other hand can be credited with having a very balanced system of worshipping both the feminine as well as masculine aspects of the divine and reflecting the same type of thinking back into their everyday lives and other aspects of their culture. Without the nonsense of the patriarchial influences of "women should pray this way","pray separately from men", "keep covered", "be very humble and submissive to men" and other endless examples of a similiar nature. So, I suppose this relates back to the question of what the "balance" part means.

Regardless of numbers is there not the tendencey to think your god is better than their god therefore causing conflict?

Abandon gods and the situation seems little different- disagreement about which particular system - morals, econiomics, politics - is better than another.

In that sense I don't think monotheism has changed much.

Perhaps we would be best scrapping the lot and starting again. Or perhaps already collectively we have all we need at least as a framework; with international law, local legislation, social and personal morals (situational morals?). Let conscience be our guide? However we don't deal very well with hypocrasy so perhaps that's our biggest challenge now?

I did read recently that conscious decisions may be more spontaneous than was at first thought in that when individuals are faced with 'big' decisions (reader shall i marry him?) they are just as likely to make a snap decision as they are when faced with a small one (toast or cereal for breakfast). Length of time to make the decision appeared not seems to make much difference either. I may have misread the particular article but it does suggest there are some major implications if this is true. If humans are unable to make the 'right' decision alone perhaps they do need the gods to help them.....
or maybe we should just trust our instincts more to come up with the right decision?

Perhaps we would be best scrapping the lot and starting again. Or perhaps already collectively we have all we need at least as a framework; with international law, local legislation, social and personal morals (situational morals?). Let conscience be our guide? However we don't deal very well with hypocrasy so perhaps that's our biggest challenge now?



Got a plan B?

Besides you start letting peoples morals be their guide you're bound to have history repeat itself.

The only way i see fit as a fix is tolerance. Something very few people have the patience for.

The only way i see fit as a fix is tolerance. Something very few people have the patience for.

Yes. That works.

The only way i see fit as a fix is tolerance. Something very few people have the patience for.

So ...if they don't have the patience to do it, how can it be a fix?

Baron Max

Got a plan B?

Besides you start letting peoples morals be their guide you're bound to have history repeat itself.

The only way i see fit as a fix is tolerance. Something very few people have the patience for.

plan b: And the Lord said let there be tolerance. Those whosoever do not demonstrate it will burn in everlasting hell/won't reach Nirvana/won't swim with the virgins/ won't be reincarnated as a man.
plan c: Law 39 statute 67 states those who do not demonstrate tolerance will be fined £7000 for each offence.
plan d: School curriculum - History unit 1 Tolerance. A lack of tolerance has lead to history repeating itself ad nauseum. If you kids don't go out and get yourself some you're doomed to a perpetual cycle of blame and indignation.
plan e: A guide to practical parenting. Tolerance. A trait without which your child will not survive in this increasingly competitive world. Reason with your children and point out the many benefits and advantages of tolerance.
plan f: Vitamin c has been known to increase tolerance levels by 50%. Go out and buy some today.
plan g: New Tolerence vaccinations made widely available after successful pilot indicated that levels of co-operation were improved by a whopping 95% compared to the control group (hopelessly intolerant god botherers and those lacking moral fibre).

However, with your ideas about monotheism I must argue. First, most societies throughout history have been patriarchal. Polytheism does not promote inherent equality among the sexes (not that this was your assertion), nor does it promote some kind of "balance" to a civilization, as you seem to be suggesting. Of course, since you pointed out the masculinity of monotheism I must ask that you define exactly what this "balance" is, before I continue to dissect your post. It seems at surface glance to be about the various inherent behavioral qualities that differentiate the sexes, but you are a smart man and so I don't want to go on the assumption that such is what you are talking about. It seems over simplistic, so clarification is needed. If it is about the various differences in behavior which separate man and women, then what are these behaviors? If you could list them for me, I'd be glad. I think it's been pretty well known throughout history that, when you attempt to find inherent differences between man and woman (psychologically, not physically), then a sharp contrast cannot be identified, only inferred through experience with members of the two sexes. If I'm wrong and you have the answer, I'd greatly appreciate your opinion, since it's one of those "big questions" of life.The evidence is indeed strong that human societies have always been patriarchal. Women were indeed the "weaker sex" until very recently when contraception, substitutes for natural milk, and sedentary professions freed them from an endless cycle of pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing that kept them out of the mainstream. Nonetheless, women were more respected in the pre-Abrahamic days. Because of the biologically enforced division of labor, it was women who learned to be the healers, counselors, herbalists, cooks, and other home- and nearby field-centric specialists. Not to mention the awe in which they were held for the unique ability to create new life in eras when survival of the pack was a constant battle between reproduction and attrition. As Jean Auel hypothesizes, it may have been quite recently in our history that we recognized any role at all for males in the reproductive process. Ancient peoples had fertility goddesses and medicine women. These roles were institutionalized during the Bronze Age, whose incessant warfare required a constant replenishment of the male population and ensured that the only "elders" who survived to perfect and pass on their expertise were women.

It can be inferred, even from the male-biased version of history we have, that wise women with the respect of the community were regarded as a threat to the patriarchy of the Christian church, something which transcended the disenfranchisement, arranged marriages, and wartime rape of previous eras in its debasement of the status of women. Old men were rare so the attributes of age were attributed exclusively to the old woman: wrinkles, wispy hair, missing teeth, stark features from loss of subcutaneous fat, eccentric behavior, an air of disgust for foolish conventions... She who was once revered as a "medicine woman" was now cast as a "witch." Christians were taught to cast old women out of the community. It was no coincidence that this era saw long-civilized Europe degenerate into a dysfunctional Third World in its sanitation, disease, practical science, grooming, education, rationality, and human relations.

Inherent differences between men and women? Perhaps there are none. Nonetheless every culture seems to create a Venus-Mars paradigm. And you can't deny that Venus vs. Mars is an enduring symbol of its spirituality. Men have been the instigators of war with only a handful of exceptions, while women have just as consistently been the force of love.

Is something that occurs in virtually every human society in virtually every era not a textbook example of an archetype? Is it not genetically preprogrammed in our synapses due to an accident of DNA, or is it not inherited from an era when it was a survival trait that we can no longer understand, or is it not breathed into our souls by the goddess on our way down the birth canal--depending on one's preferred model of the human spirit? I cannot justify my conviction that there is a division of male and female spirituality--a yang and yin to refer to yet another long-respected model--using the tools of any of the "hard sciences." Yet the "soft sciences" like anthropology and psychology, despite their politically correct efforts to avoid it, provide a stunning and durable stream of support for my position, going back into prehistory. I never thought I would be the kind of elder who says things like, "I can't convince you that I'm right through rational means, but ignore my counsel at your peril." And here I am. :)

The Abrahamists celebrate Mars and suppress Venus. I cannot find a way around this model of recent history. To the extent that we all have Venus and Mars inside us regardless of our biological gender, it is perhaps not a hopelessly sexist view of humanity.

Black and white morality? Well, not all monotheism holds to this rigid analysis. True, American bible-belt fundamentalists tend to hold this view, but none of the major Christian Churches propogate such a simplistic view of the world, and neither do the other two Abrahamic faiths. In fact, both Judaism and Islam consider morality to be the affairs of man, not God, and that God transcends said morality. The Hebrews (originally) saw the law as belonging to the Hebrews alone. Islam extended it to all mankind. Still, though, as samcdkey (as the Muslim on this message board whom I hold to the highest intellectual standard) has stated many times, morality is man made. So, as you see, monotheism on the whole does not hold this black and white view of morality. This is the fault of individuals, not of belief systems, and if you were able to go back in time and talk to a (patriarchal) Greek, or Roman, or Gaul, or any other ancient person for that matter, you may find a similar percentage of them engaging in the same type of black and white view of human behavior. My point, if I haven't gone off track, is that this type of view is the fault of individuals who don't want to do the hard work associated with moral dilemmas, not of the type of beliefs which guide their judgments.I think it's too facile to say that it's the followers of a prophet who are responsible for the failure of his teachings rather than the teachings themselves. As a professional manager I would be incompetent to the point of malpractice if I did not hold the managers who work for me responsible for the positive and negative acheivements of those they manage. I thus hold Jesus and Mohammed responsible for the evil done by their followers. Since they could not stick around to yell "stop" when things got really out of control I won't be too hard on them. But their Flower-Child naivete (especially Jesus's) and disdain for the flesh-and-blood world of reality (especially Mohammed's) indicate a consummate lack of the wisdom and the understanding of human nature with which they are traditionally credited.

Yes, patriarchy, intolerance, war--and all the other entries on what should be the true list of Seven Deadly Sins--have always been with us. But it's hard not to reach the conclusion that they have become far worse in Christian and Muslim civilization. (I give Judaism a tentative bye but probably because as the only non-evangelical member of the Terrible Triad it never achieved the size and power to do as much damage. Israel is hardly a reassuring harbinger of how it might be to live in a world with a billion Jews.) I've gone into this at great length on other threads. But to hit the highlights, only the Christians and Muslims have, in the name of their prophet, set out to utterly wipe from the face of the earth all traces of entire civilizations they considered "blasphemous."

Civilization is mankind's greatest and most precious achievement and he has only managed to create six of them. Three of those six were obliterated by Abrahamists. We still have enough artifacts, writings, and accounts of Egyptian civilization to not have completely lost it, thanks to its previous encounters with various offshoots of still-polytheistic Mesopotamian civilization. But the Aztecs and Incas were isolated from us until the Christians got there, burned their libraries, melted down their artworks, and destroyed their cities, so we have precious little of them left to enrich the surviving global civilization.

I assert that the destruction of a civilization is the worst sin that can be committed by human beings. It is eternally irreparable, it is eternally irrepentable, and so it is eternally unforgivable. It brands Christianity and Islam as inherently uncivilized, threats to the survival of the civilization we have left. The fact that Christianity and Islam are at this very moment squaring off and encouraging each other to "bring it on"--in the name of their prophets--only supports my point.

Abrahamism is the religion of Mars. We need a whole lot more Venus in this world if we expect civilization to survive.

So ...if they don't have the patience to do it, how can it be a fix?

Baron Max


It's not a fix. It's just another way of saying fuck it.

There's not much of a difference. The Catholics have their saints, a patron saint for everything, with one guy in charge. The Pagans had many different Gods, with one guy in charge.

plan b: And the Lord said let there be tolerance. Those whosoever do not demonstrate it will burn in everlasting hell/won't reach Nirvana/won't swim with the virgins/ won't be reincarnated as a man.
plan c: Law 39 statute 67 states those who do not demonstrate tolerance will be fined £7000 for each offence.
plan d: School curriculum - History unit 1 Tolerance. A lack of tolerance has lead to history repeating itself ad nauseum. If you kids don't go out and get yourself some you're doomed to a perpetual cycle of blame and indignation.
plan e: A guide to practical parenting. Tolerance. A trait without which your child will not survive in this increasingly competitive world. Reason with your children and point out the many benefits and advantages of tolerance.
plan f: Vitamin c has been known to increase tolerance levels by 50%. Go out and buy some today.
plan g: New Tolerence vaccinations made widely available after successful pilot indicated that levels of co-operation were improved by a whopping 95% compared to the control group (hopelessly intolerant god botherers and those lacking moral fibre).

You've never been to a debate class have you?

ricky: why would you need to go to a debate class, do you have to be taught to have an opinion, cant you think for yourself.

ricky: why would you need to go to a debate class, do you have to be taught to have an opinion, cant you think for yourself.

Usually in order to have a balanced and fair arguement, you actually have to come up with an arguement.

Also if you think debate class is a place you go to get taught peoples opinions, i suggest you sign up for a class too. Becuase it's a class that teaches you, how to defend your opinions.

How about this lesson, in order to have a fair debate, you're arguement can't consist of make believe, but an actual event against the oposing statement.

You asked if I had a plan b! Why don't you debate/challenge my reply? My point was (which admittedly was made rather sarcastically) is just saying that everyone should get a fix of tolerance is not a tenable solution. This I implied in my rather tongue in cheek list of 'plans'. You've never been to a class explaining irony have you?

Your own comment about tolerance is in fact 'make believe'. When you have a number of opposing religions preaching the opposite of tolerance - our god is the one true god. If there is one god then all others by implication are false.....but which is which? In that sense monotheism has not changed anything.

You asked if I had a plan b! Why don't you debate/challenge my reply? My point was (which admittedly was made rather sarcastically) is just saying that everyone should get a fix of tolerance is not a tenable solution. This I implied in my rather tongue in cheek list of 'plans'. You've never been to a class explaining irony have you?

Your own comment about tolerance is in fact 'make believe'. When you have a number of opposing religions preaching the opposite of tolerance - our god is the one true god. If there is one god then all others by implication are false.....but which is which? In that sense monotheism has not changed anything.

Well thanks for clearing up your posts initial point. But i asked if you went to a debate class, because usually in a debate you give an arguement your opposer can actually argue. (basically i mean don't just give me a bunch of sarcastic use of a list because it doesn't leave much to debate)

Maybe if all these oppsing religions taught their followers tolerance it would work. Even a polotheistic religion can practice it, and even a large number of monotheistic religions.(even muslims in pakistan followed non violence, from Ghandi.) But even i openly admitted in my first, and second statement that it didn't work. Why? Because if it did work, we might have started trying it years ago. It cannot work in our reality for a few reasons, and one of those being on the unlikely fact that everyone will suddenly wake up and completely agree on one thing. Now that would be quite an irony.

Monotheistic religions cannot preach or practise tolerance because to do so would be tantamount to saying there is more than one god. the monotheists have already dismissed polytheism as primitive. In a bit of a fix aren't they?

So if we can't derive moral guidance from religion, nor from our illustrious leaders where does that leave us?

Monotheistic religions cannot preach or practise tolerance because to do so would be tantamount to saying there is more than one god. the monotheists have already dismissed polytheism as primitive. In a bit of a fix aren't they?
Maybe not. There's always the "you were serving god, but just didn't know it" approach. From one of the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis...

"But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted."

Here Aslan and Tash are allegories for God and Satan. Of course, this still displays the one-dimensional view Fraggle was talking about (can every act be classified as 'vile' or 'non vile'?)

Monotheistic religions cannot preach or practise tolerance because to do so would be tantamount to saying there is more than one god. the monotheists have already dismissed polytheism as primitive. In a bit of a fix aren't they?

So if we can't derive moral guidance from religion, nor from our illustrious leaders where does that leave us?

I can see where you're comming from, but just because you choose to coexist with a person of a different religion does not neccessarily mean you accept their religion.

It's more like a don't ask, don't tell situation. Like if everyones religion was as private as voting then not so many of us would be worried about it. If religion was a private matter, which it should be i could sit next to a muslim on a bus in israel without fear of getting blown up. But for another example there are a few countries in asia, where you can see buddhists, and hindus coexisting. But only because the form of buddhism and hindu are very simular. But even christianity/islam/jeudism are virtually simular in comparison.

Maybe not. There's always the "you were serving god, but just didn't know it" approach. From one of the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis...

"But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted."

Here Aslan and Tash are allegories for God and Satan. Of course, this still displays the one-dimensional view Fraggle was talking about (can every act be classified as 'vile' or 'non vile'?)

I think what this boils down to is acts which are considered "good", and those which are considered "bad". It's not anymore one-dimensional than any polytheistic religion because morality is still a matter of good and evil, even if you believe in multiple gods. Black and white morality has nothing to do with how many gods you worship. Polytheists were just as stuck on good and evil as monotheists are, it's just symbolized differently.

Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.But what about Ancient the Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans … - they were undoubtedly unified societies. As a matter of fact - I'd say polytheism was good because it meant that the unifying factor wasn't religious belief but unwritten societal contracts.

Take Japan for example. The Shinto Religion has at least a million Gods. Yet the Japanese are, and have been, one of the most unified societies.

Having no god , self righteousness will rule, and tends to anarchy.The Dali Lama is self-righteous?
:bugeye:
Buddhists are self-righteous?
:bugeye:

Surely you jest?

I don’t know about you but I find monotheists are some of the most self-righteous people on the planet. Usually thinking their God, and hence their moral code, is the only true belief.

All in all, the advent of monotheism has not improved the human condition one iota. We are still quite fucked up.

It is very difficult for me to include atheists in that equation but at minimal they are guilty by association for just being human I guess. Actually no one can blame an atheist for any of the problems religion has created. I sure all atheists would love to take a crack at a crapload of gods than to keep hammering on the chosen one.

The Dali Lama is self-righteous?
:bugeye:
Buddhists are self-righteous?
:bugeye:
Surely you jest?


You got me on this, but I'm no jest.
My Buddhist friend worship Buddha, inspite of they say he's not God, but they treat him as if he is God, worshipping and putting expectation toward him, in meditating. They still put burden on Buddha as higher entity.
I revise 'god' as 'higher being' then.



I don’t know about you but I find monotheists are some of the most self-righteous people on the planet. Usually thinking their God, and hence their moral code, is the only true belief.
[/QUOTE]

Too bad, it is.
Different religions, people feel self-righteous from each other. Even in the same religion, still several sects with their own self-reigteousness. But at least in same group, they agree on theirs.
What I see, this agreed in same group will reduce if the group broken. The belief in one god (or believe in Buddha for Buddhist) grouped them to agree upon their teachings.

Self righteousness is not limited only to theists!

The problem with the religions that originated in the European/Arabian context is that they all claim to be the one true religion and are as such actively trying to recruit/convert others. This suggests that they are neither willing or able to practise tolerance.

It seems to me that the worship of anything (god, money, sex) leads us into trouble as does our fixation on insiders and outsiders which religions only appear to perpetuate.

Monotheism people have killed more people than any polytheism people did put together.

Self righteousness is not limited only to theists!

The problem with the religions that originated in the European/Arabian context is that they all claim to be the one true religion and are as such actively trying to recruit/convert others. This suggests that they are neither willing or able to practise tolerance.

It seems to me that the worship of anything (god, money, sex) leads us into trouble as does our fixation on insiders and outsiders which religions only appear to perpetuate.


and if they learned tolerance, and were willing and had the patience to do it, it would probably work. Back to square one with my original point.

Monotheism people have killed more people than any polytheism people did put together.
That's because monotheism is newer, and more people have been alive since monotheism than before. How many deaths per capita have been caused by monotheism versus polytheism? Please weight your answer with respect to socioeconomic, environmental, and biological factors (such as epidemics) that affect population but whose effects are often falsely blamed on religion.

Monotheistic religions cannot preach or practise tolerance because to do so would be tantamount to saying there is more than one god. the monotheists have already dismissed polytheism as primitive. In a bit of a fix aren't they?

So if we can't derive moral guidance from religion, nor from our illustrious leaders where does that leave us?

On the contrary one could argue that monotheism grants the basis for tolerance because it establishes the one god from whom everything emmanates - just like essentially there is one sun - the problem comes when people have the opinion that the sun is only above their head and no one elses

Tolerance coming out of polytheism is questionable because a seperatist view is the delightful environment that intolerance thrives in

and if they learned tolerance, and were willing and had the patience to do it, it would probably work. Back to square one with my original point.

Yes except that's a very big nigh impoissible 'if'. Therefore perhaps we need another secular way?

On the contrary one could argue that monotheism grants the basis for tolerance because it establishes the one god from whom everything emmanates - just like essentially there is one sun - the problem comes when people have the opinion that the sun is only above their head and no one elses

Sadly the one true god approach perpetuates the 'them' and 'us' - saved and damned approach. What religion would ever be able to convert everyone under the sun?

Yes except that's a very big nigh impoissible 'if'. Therefore perhaps we need another secular way?

How else do you deal with people who won't listen to a peaceful manner? In a more secular manner, what a joke. Sorry, but you guy need to pick up an AK-47 in a secular way of thinking about this.

The thread is 'Has monotheism changed anything?' My answer to that is no so try getting rid of theism and find another way. Perhaps the only way to teach tolerance is to remove the issues that cause intolerance in the first place. Religion is one of those and one that could be kept seperate from affairs of state and education. What people want to worship in the privacy of their own home is then up to them. We have laws both international and local. We also have various systems of formal and informal education. Within those frameworks we can teach individuals to think for themselves instead of relying on some otherworldly diety to sort our problems out for us. It should also be possible to encourage empathy for others as is often successfully done by charity campaigners. Is it so hard to transfer this knowledge into everyday life without the need for AK47s?

Just saying everybody should be tolerant and have patience just won't hack it!

Patience is a hard thing to teach as is tolerance but if you rely on religion alone to do you're on a one track trip to a dead end.

I don't understand why you have such a problem understanding?

Sadly the one true god approach perpetuates the 'them' and 'us' - saved and damned approach. What religion would ever be able to convert everyone under the sun?

Well even if you are talking of the sun you infer by default darkness - in other words it would be ridiculous to declare everythingh as "religion" that goes down in the name of religion, just like it is not a given that the sun shines on everyone 24 hours a day - there is the argument of monotheism that everyone is already converted anyway in the sense that because everyone ultimately emmanates from the same source (one god) that the only irrevocable eternal constitutional position for everyone is with god and anything else is a temporary material manifestation

what you are referring to are a certain class of practioner who has not realized the imports of monotheistic scripture - for instance there is teh quote from the gita that a person has reached the platform of knowledge where they will not fall down whent they have the vision that all living entities belong to god - if one still has the "us" and "them" vision as the ultimate insoluable definition of reality than they are neophyte monotheists

And what are those who don't believe in god or gods? That there is no higher purpose other than to live and die?

Do you not count the search for cures for disease as a noble purpose? The creation of protection against the ravages of weather? The attempt to ensure a steady and adequate supply of food? The education of our fellow man into the mutual benefit to all of a life of peace, harmony and cooperation? The maintenance and embellishment of a social organization that facilitates that peace, harmony and cooperation? The enrichment of life with literature, music, and other cultural pursuits?

One does not need to believe in the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes.

To say that to live and to die are all there is without religion is to dismiss everything in between as a "comma." It is the logic of a certain world leader who is too illiterate to read anything between the punctuation marks.

It is also the logic of the sociopathic fringe of Islamic extremism, which teaches that this life is irrelevant because nothing truly important will happen until the afterlife.

It is a dangerous logic.

Do you not count the search for cures for disease as a noble purpose? The creation of protection against the ravages of weather? The attempt to ensure a steady and adequate supply of food? The education of our fellow man into the mutual benefit to all of a life of peace, harmony and cooperation? The maintenance and embellishment of a social organization that facilitates that peace, harmony and cooperation? The enrichment of life with literature, music, and other cultural pursuits?

One does not need to believe in the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes.
One does not need to reject the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes, either.

To say that to live and to die are all there is without religion is to dismiss everything in between as a "comma." It is the logic of a certain world leader who is too illiterate to read anything between the punctuation marks.

It is also the logic of the sociopathic fringe of Islamic extremism, which teaches that this life is irrelevant because nothing truly important will happen until the afterlife.

It is a dangerous logic.
It is dangerous logic, which is why the vast majority of religious people do not talk or live like that.

And what are those who don't believe in god or gods? That there is no higher purpose other than to live and die?

There are gradations of material life - so even though one will die they can be considered more advanced by dint of charity, exhibitions of tolerance etc etc - all of which are considered to be apadharmas or things that bear a nearness to dharma (like sub branches)