One God theology --- where did it originate

I want to know where and when did the idea that God is one single entity --- the root of all religious conflicts (in fact the root of organised religion) start? And who started it?

I think it was Zoroastrian, though the religion he founded was nothing like Christianity or Islam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the first "organized" monotheistic religion was judaism, as far as i know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: The concept of monotheism began long before Moses established the popular (or not so popular, as it were) religion. Since the time of early humans, the feelings of fear and awe (worship) of the elements and the unreachable stars, planets and constellations, promoted the idea of religiogenesis (a new word I just made-up). They feared and awed what they couldn't understand. So, in order to bring some understanding to the elements and to the unattainable sky creatures wihch they did not understand, they created stories and legends about them. Some millenia later, the ignorant still believe these myths to be true.

So, to answer your question, this is where the root of all religion started.

~ Medicine*Woman

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moses

 

as far as i'm aware it began with 'Abraham' 'father of monotheism'....it is VERY revealing that his tomb has armed guards always at the ready to segregate Muslims and Jews, s both recognize Abraham as their first prophet

Then we get this mythic tal of 'Moses' receiving the 'Ten commandments' on 'Mount Sinai....of which one states categorically 'Noone shll have another god but me' ie., 'he' is a "jealous god">>>>>>>>>>>>

So, Moses comes down the mountain and finds worshippers idolizing a Golden Calf. He's then orderd by 'God' to slaughter 3000 of them. And this is the first recorded massacre

So then we have one city, one temple of God, one people. something never known before

Zoroastrinism was more the origans of dualim. they beliefed in one eternal bad god and one eternal good god, in eternal battle
It greatly influenced Judaism etc.!

 

Abraham was before Moses , but it seems there might have been monotheism even before that :

http://www.bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm

 

Well Aten was pretty early 1200 BCE.

But, I think Hinduism is probably the oldest - as it is the world’s oldest religion. Don't confuse the Avatar, which are manifestation of the Supreme Being with Polytheism which is actual differing Gods. It's not the same. Hindus are monotheistic.

So to answer the monotheism part - it's Hinduism, in at ~3000 BCE.

The root of religious conflicts is the root of all conflict and that’s nature - natural selection resulted in our having DNA that found balancing cooperation with competition results in the best dispersal of ones own DNA, as either alone doesn’t work as well as a balance of the two. Hence sometimes humans help one another and at other times they kill one another.

This cooperating/competing mentality is the root of all conflict.

Zoroastrianism at its oldest is 1800 BCE. So, although an old belief system, its no where near as old as Hinduism.

 

Reading about Aten (even though its brief) gives me an idea. In the ancient world exemplary humans (apart from animals and other symbols from the nature) were made into deities after their death. Some powerful, over egotistic men, eager to become gods (and not sure if humans will deitify them after they're dead) forced humans to worship them while they were still alive. They used 'power' to ensure that. (interestingly, there are examples in various mythologies suggesting this phenomenon). The over ambitious of them -- perhaps even in the very ancient days --- wanted themselves to be considered the only god,

But, since 'spirituality' was not organised into religion in those days, their attempts mostly failed --- as soon as they died.

According to the Wikipedia source --- Zorroaster attempted for the first time to bring the concept of a single god, but there were key differences between Christianity and Islam that came later. Zorroastrianism is much closer to nature and has many of the 'nature' worshipping values of previous societies.

But yes, it did sew the seeds of monotheistic organised religions of Christianity and Islam.

The original system of worshipping exemplary humans and symbols from nature continued unabated, side by side with Zorroastrism. The best thing about these systems was that a.) they celebrated human being's relationship with the nature, and b.) the deities enjoyed universal reverrance --- someone from Greece will not have any qualms about worshipping a deity from, say, Persia or Germany. There was no competition --- only mutual reverence.

Even Jesus was worshipped as one of the 'gods' for three centuries before Christanity sought to appropriate him.

 

I think, what happened in 300 BCE was that need to exercise power over people through forms of worship surfaced again. But this time one person did not come forward to claim he was god. Perhaps people in those times were less likely to believe such a claim. Instead, taking clue from Zorroaster, A group of people probably with Jewish background appropriated Jesus Christ and ascribed the new Bible --- and a complete set of teachings which he never said, to him. Jesus Christ was probably the best choice because he enjoyed widespread following in those days --- although as a saint and in completley different forms.

For the first time in human history, the authoritian powers appointed a hierarchy --- a complete institution to plan and implement 'words of god' --- words which actually came from those in power to control lives of people by exploiting their blind faith.

Christianity brought in a concept of God that meddles with the social lives of people --- and worse, makes workshipping any other god a punishable offence (the latter has precedence though).

For the first in human history the 'God' that one worships was made into a basic social identity --- and given the name of 'religion'. This ensured that people saw each other as 'differnent', 'rivals' and 'enemies' based on whether they adhered to 'Christianity' or not. Interestingly, the earlier faiths failed to see Christanity as 'rivals' or 'enemies' since they were essentially inclined to consider anybody's form of workship as a valid form of worship. And since these earlier faiths were not organised they failed to put up a serious resistance.

But, people did not take to this conspiracy readily. What followed for the next several centuries was widescale mayhem and bloody massacres. Original deity and nature worshipping faiths were labelled 'pagans' and evil and especially targeted for 'ethnic cleansing'. Christ worshipping sects were labelled as 'heretics' and similarly targetted. I think what gave Christianity all that power was the Roman Kings conversion to Christianity.

And by 600 AD came another attempt at garnering social power through this new phenomenon called 'relgion'. They called it Islam.....

 

......Only there were no saints or holy people to ascribe it to. A person with no 'spiritual' background claimed to have visions from 'god' which ordered people to obey and worship him or face the consequences. What followed was a never ending drama of bloodshed and mayhem --- and at one time Christianity and Islam fought fierce battles to claim a larger portion of human population.

 

According to Wikipedia:
Monotheism (in Greek μόνος = single and θεός = God) is the belief in a single, universal, all-encompassing deity. Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic religions are considered monotheist.

I don't think (and neither does Wikipedia) that Hinduism qualifies for a monotheistic religion. Hindus do say that god is one and it manifests itself in several forms --- but that is not what monotheism is all about. Also Hindus may have started saying that when 'criticised' by Islam and Christianity about their having too many gods, i.e., it may be an Islamic influence on Christianity or maybe a much earlier influence --- that of Zorroastrian --- the ancestors of Hindus and Iranians are the same.

With all due respect, I think the above is a far-fetched and simplistic explanation --- even if it has been 'proved' by science.

 

Is it possible that original form of Judaism was way different --- like other nature worshippers of the past.....and it's form was changed in later era --- with back effects, probably after Zorroastrian religion came along.

 

of course, judaism evolved as time passed. the original semite people from whom the religion springs were polytheistic.

as far as i know, however...zoroastrianism was practiced about 1500 years after the formation of what we would see as the judaism of the time of jesus. i may be wrong though. *shrug*

 

Yes, i have read this article before, and it is a bias pice. look t the autor's comment here:
"The truth is that man is the crown of God's creation, originally perfect (before his fall) and having a clear understanding
of the Nature of God"

hmmmm, well "HE" wouold woulnd't he??

ie it is bias. not mention of GODDESS notice, and how on of THEearliest archeological find was the'Venus' statuettes, which i belive were symblizing both Goddess, and screed muhroom.

Npwhere does articl show ny knowledge about the cpmmon usage of psychedelic sacraments ,by peopls since time immemorial. Hence it is VERY uperfical account, and male biased.

Really, for anyone familir with psychedelic exprience, you do not become momnotheisticlly-minded at all. Much rathe Nture--including universe, seems suddenly ALIVE. From thi insight it would be much morelikely early peoples believed Natur was alive--ie., animism...!!....and also from there or commensurate was the idea of a GOddess who ws/is immanent, rathe thn some hierarchical God on high. For th myth of the Goddess unlike the God myth, is that her body IS Nature and universe

Considering that first priority for ANYbody is nurture and sustenancerather than star gazing/worship, is it surprsing NATURE would take prominenc over some idea of a distant 'God' lordin over everyting?....surely that idea would come later wit the patrirchy who decided it ws the male fo the species who was superior

And look t who the main spokespeople are for the theory of monoetheism in your link...Sir this Sir that, Doctors. ie., establishment figures who it would benefit mintaining te patriarchl hierachical bias over mythology and belief. Look t how tey even drag Indigenous peoples under their propaganda

Having said that....i m aware from my own research that very nciently there eems to xist two streams, eg., shamanic and Goddess rligion .....i bewleve it is the former that we get the seeds of a monotheistic god, and idea of 'separate' spirit world where 'bad' spirits need to be placated etc . then shaman becomes sole male authority

 

Well I suppose if you are talking about the dumbed down version of monotheism - where a God sits atop a throne and passes judgment onto His creations down here on planet Earth. Yeah, then perhaps Aten fits the bill, or Zoroastrian? -depending on which is older.

However, Hinduism IS the oldest religion and it is also monotheistic from a Hindus point of view. Just because thr Hindus religion is a little more sophisticated doesn’t make it any less monotheistic.

No I doubt that the concept of monotheism in Hinduism is a knee-jerk apologetic leftover from Xian/Islam conflict. Hinduism is 2 or 3 times older and already had developed a sophisticated monotheistic religion.

Yeah, that’s what they like to suggest.

Then it seems likely that Zoroastrianism is just a modified form of Hinduism. And really, it is. Akin to Islam being a modified form of Judaism. Keep the basics, mix in a messenger, and sprinkle in some local folk lore – whaaalaaa a New Religion.

Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation is the more likely.

We are what our DNA has made us. Our DNA codes for hate, love, empathy, ect… all of which were selected for because they increase our chances of survival and reproduction.

When we take a look at a bee hive we see a neat little genetic testament to the powers of DNA. Each Bee has a mathematical percentage of relatedness to the Queen. So long as that mathematical percentage remains favorable then everything progresses with apparent smoothness. However, this is a balance. If it should (and very occasionally does) swing to the point where it is no longer mathematically significant in terms of relatedness (amount of common DNA shared with the Queen) to protect and work for the Queen then all Hell Breaks Lose!

We humans have been selected for conflict. Conflict affords the best chances of reproduction. I think the underlying mechanisms of conflict are simply a reflection of the balance between cooperation and competition. Cooperate a little, enough to get something out of it, but not too much. Compete a little, enough to get something, but not so much as to lose the help of your fellow competitors - Else you lose out.

Whaalaaa conflict

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh no! not Darwinism again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

who was it that claimed that Darwinism is dead!

 

If you'd like to offer an alternative explaination ........

 

There is an entire discussion going on in the thread: Darwin was wrong about sexuality

Caution: The thread is extremely inflammable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm waiting for some more insights on the topic of this thread!

 

So "Aten" is the same deity as "RA" ?

I'm confused becasue i always associated "RA" as being the Egyptian Son God.