We all know them ( or some of them ).............lets us compare the similarities of monotheistic religions (apart from having one god ) :m: :p

And how did they become monotheistic ?

A little off topic, but I've been told that Hinduism considers all the Hindu gods as facets of one God. How different is this from the monotheistic idea of a God served by other heavenly powers (e.g. angels)?

One thing seems to be that the angels aren't supposed to be worshipped, while the Hindu deities might be. However the idea of an Avatar as a representative of God on earth seems quite similar to the God-made-flesh idea of Jesus. The idea of the Trinity is a bit like (a limited version) of God's having multiple aspects . . .

Maybe the only alive monotheistic religion is Islam.

Judaism is also monotheistic

"Let US make man in OUR image."

What about Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Baha'ism?

"Let US make man in OUR image."

hmmm..thats shaky ground there.
it can mean that.

generally in jewish thought however, this is not g-d speaking. it is widely considered to be the five forces of creation set forth by the g-d saying this (elohim).

islam continues this traditional thought, whereas christians clothe g-d in flesh.
an interesting dichotomy, to say the least.

What about Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Baha'ism?

zoroastrianism speaks of ahriman as a god.

christianity is hard to lump in one group, really....classical evangelist christianity (what i am assuming you are referring to) has a triune god.

please do not preach here. this forum is for impartial discussion only.

[QUOTE=Sputnik;1338050]We all know them ( or some of them ).............lets us compare the similarities of monotheistic religions ([QUOTE]

They are all sexist in mythology and also directly.
(more or less synonymously) They are patriarchal.
Their God tells (or has told them) them to make war on others.
They have angels.
They talk about Abraham.
Nature tends to be on the opposite end from the holy.
Nature is for us.
They all ahve trouble accepting sex (but not violence, oops, I said that already)
Believers refer to texts and authoratative males to find the 'truth'.
Believers find the idea that the writers of these texts had personal, gender and cultural axes to grind, blind spots and biases, so frightening they deny it completely.
Two of the monotheisms have had flings where they kill non-monotheists and monotheists (both of other monotheisms and even in other sects, groups, denominations within their own.)
They have a tendency to guilt trip people.
They have a tendency to blame body and desire for the world's problems.
They tend to use metaphors based on service (class domination) sacrifice and surrender (war). ((odd choices for loving gods))
Some shared tendency to getting rewards after death.
Monotheistic beliefs and texts make it easy for powerful people to justify aggressive actions.
Monothiestic leaders tend to have secret agreements with the rich and powerful.
Monotheistic leaders tend to exact strict adherence to religious principles on the poor and weak and 'others', but manage to explain away the sins of the powerful. (Latin America has examples countering adn supporting this tendency)
Light is good, dark is bad.
UP is good, down is bad.
Swords are used by divine intermediaries.
A husband cannot rape his wife in the monotheisms (not that he shouldn't but whatever he did was not rape, despite the lack of consent and any attendant violence), though this has been changing.
Wives adn children are property.
Anyone whose actions or words encroach on areas that the 'priests' consider their own are potential subjects of violence. (today this is carried out more indirectly and with less overt violence)
Part of all their philosophies can be seen as Grit your teeth and bear it. The rich and powerful are exempt from this.
They coopt traditions and dates used by pagan groups despite THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
God is trancendant and not immanent.
God is perfect and never does anythign wrong.
God is often a petty tyrant while also being the God of love.
Bending over is often a part of ritual honoring of God. One must make oneself low. (remember, down is bad)


They are killing us.

[QUOTE=Sputnik;1338050]We all know them ( or some of them ).............lets us compare the similarities of monotheistic religions ([QUOTE]

They are all sexist in mythology and also directly.
(more or less synonymously) They are patriarchal.
Their God tells (or has told them) them to make war on others.
They have angels.
They talk about Abraham.
Nature tends to be on the opposite end from the holy.
Nature is for us.
They all ahve trouble accepting sex (but not violence, oops, I said that already)
Believers refer to texts and authoratative males to find the 'truth'.
Believers find the idea that the writers of these texts had personal, gender and cultural axes to grind, blind spots and biases, so frightening they deny it completely.
Two of the monotheisms have had flings where they kill non-monotheists and monotheists (both of other monotheisms and even in other sects, groups, denominations within their own.)
They have a tendency to guilt trip people.
They have a tendency to blame body and desire for the world's problems.
They tend to use metaphors based on service (class domination) sacrifice and surrender (war). ((odd choices for loving gods))
Some shared tendency to getting rewards after death.
Monotheistic beliefs and texts make it easy for powerful people to justify aggressive actions.
Monothiestic leaders tend to have secret agreements with the rich and powerful.
Monotheistic leaders tend to exact strict adherence to religious principles on the poor and weak and 'others', but manage to explain away the sins of the powerful. (Latin America has examples countering adn supporting this tendency)
Light is good, dark is bad.
UP is good, down is bad.
Swords are used by divine intermediaries.
A husband cannot rape his wife in the monotheisms (not that he shouldn't but whatever he did was not rape, despite the lack of consent and any attendant violence), though this has been changing.
Wives adn children are property.
Anyone whose actions or words encroach on areas that the 'priests' consider their own are potential subjects of violence. (today this is carried out more indirectly and with less overt violence)
Part of all their philosophies can be seen as Grit your teeth and bear it. The rich and powerful are exempt from this.
They coopt traditions and dates used by pagan groups despite THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
God is trancendant and not immanent.
God is perfect and never does anythign wrong.
God is often a petty tyrant while also being the God of love.
Bending over is often a part of ritual honoring of God. One must make oneself low. (remember, down is bad)


They are killing us.

I do see your point , but you actually ends up with beeing emotionally - and almost preaches atheism ........... NOT allowed here , only in the religion forum !!

[QUOTE=Sputnik;1338050]We all know them ( or some of them ).............lets us compare the similarities of monotheistic religions ([QUOTE]

They are all sexist in mythology and also directly.
(more or less synonymously) They are patriarchal.
Their God tells (or has told them) them to make war on others.
They have angels.
They talk about Abraham.
Nature tends to be on the opposite end from the holy.
Nature is for us.
They all ahve trouble accepting sex (but not violence, oops, I said that already)
Believers refer to texts and authoratative males to find the 'truth'.
Believers find the idea that the writers of these texts had personal, gender and cultural axes to grind, blind spots and biases, so frightening they deny it completely.
Two of the monotheisms have had flings where they kill non-monotheists and monotheists (both of other monotheisms and even in other sects, groups, denominations within their own.)
They have a tendency to guilt trip people.
They have a tendency to blame body and desire for the world's problems.
They tend to use metaphors based on service (class domination) sacrifice and surrender (war). ((odd choices for loving gods))
Some shared tendency to getting rewards after death.
Monotheistic beliefs and texts make it easy for powerful people to justify aggressive actions.
Monothiestic leaders tend to have secret agreements with the rich and powerful.
Monotheistic leaders tend to exact strict adherence to religious principles on the poor and weak and 'others', but manage to explain away the sins of the powerful. (Latin America has examples countering adn supporting this tendency)
Light is good, dark is bad.
UP is good, down is bad.
Swords are used by divine intermediaries.
A husband cannot rape his wife in the monotheisms (not that he shouldn't but whatever he did was not rape, despite the lack of consent and any attendant violence), though this has been changing.
Wives adn children are property.
Anyone whose actions or words encroach on areas that the 'priests' consider their own are potential subjects of violence. (today this is carried out more indirectly and with less overt violence)
Part of all their philosophies can be seen as Grit your teeth and bear it. The rich and powerful are exempt from this.
They coopt traditions and dates used by pagan groups despite THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
God is trancendant and not immanent.
God is perfect and never does anythign wrong.
God is often a petty tyrant while also being the God of love.
Bending over is often a part of ritual honoring of God. One must make oneself low. (remember, down is bad)


They are killing us.
please do not preach here. this subforum is for objective conversation of religions.

subversive agendas will not be tolerated.

What they said. Atheistic preaching is unwelcome here.

I do see your point , but you actually ends up with beeing emotionally - and almost preaches atheism ........... NOT allowed here , only in the religion forum !!

I am not an athiest, so I think it is very unlikely that I am preaching or almost preaching athiesm.

What they said. Atheistic preaching is unwelcome here.

I am not an athiest. I guess most people would call me a pagan. I think I actually, intelligently, and in quite a diverse range of ways, answered the question and pointed out common features of the monotheisms. Sure, there were a couple of charged comments, but I don't think most of my post is preaching. I think most of what I said there is factual, quite a bit of it simply neutral and would not be disagreed with by members of the monotheisms. Other parts they might dispute, but most non-monotheists would agree with. for example the mythological treatment of women.

I am not an athiest, so I think it is very unlikely that I am preaching or almost preaching athiesm.

Propaganda against religion (" they are killing us ") is also forbidden ..............
Do NOT let your emotions influence your posts to be biased in an emotionally , propagandist or preaching way .......... this is science forum ...
Thank you !!!

subversive agendas will not be tolerated.

I happy not to post comments like the last one in my post. But I went and checked the guidelines:

Atheistic and/or theistic persuasions about religion, i.e. discussion whether or not there is a God is not allowed here. For such discussion, you have Religion forum in Philosophy category.

I am not an athiest. I did not discuss whether there is a God or not.


Preaching
1 Example: Any allude on religious books with main purpose to prove that there is only X {insert number} true religion(s).
2 All quotations and citations from religious books that have no connection with discussion, or which are inserted to distract discussion
3 Statements: There is only one (or 754) God(s) that should be followed; According to {writer} in {chapter, book} there is only true religion; Etc.
I did not do 1, 2 or 3. (I added numbers to the guidelines here, but changed nothing else.)

Propaganda
(I’ve copied this from JamesR revision of rules in Religion section)


“ For the purposes of this forum, "propaganda" is defined as material copied verbatim from other web sites, books or articles, which demonstrates clear bias for or against a particular religious belief or religious group. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively, without a particular religious or political bias.
Obviously I did not do this.


Original material posted by sciforums members will not be regarded as propaganda, provided that any arguments made for or against a particular view are supported by evidence and appropriate references to source material. ”

Here we find the only possible problem area. What you guys are upset about is not that I didn't include supporting evidence?

Do you really want me to find quotes in the OT and the KOran that seem to put women in a bad light? For example.

I realize that my post was negative, but there were also neutral comparisons made and I compared the three main monotheisms in a pretty wide range of ways. I also think that quite a few of the negatives, say the relationship with nature, is not something that would be disputed by monotheists. Nature is for our use, given to us by God. That it seems negative (to me or to you) says something about our viewpoints but does not make it propaganda for me to list it. Similarly my comments about bodies and desire. I don't think this is controversial to monotheists. I listed and most of my post was not a rant. I was truly trying hard to answer the first posters question.

I will eliminate my editorial comments in the future, but truly, I think much of my post is not controversial. Would monotheists deny the injunctions to war in their holy texts?

Certainly I did not go and find reference in the holy texts for my assertions. But that is also true of the other shorter posts here. Those posters simply stated facts or opinions.

Anyway. You won't meet any resistance from me, I'll adhere to the guidelines or perhaps avoid the Comp REl forum. I do think you need to revise the guidelines. I would have been far less cranky if someone had used one of my ideas as a starting off point for a discussion, something nice and non-controversial like DARK/LIGHT and added that I should tone down the editorial nature of my posts.

I think it is rather oddly telling that a number of people (writing in a Comparative REligion thread, no less) assumed I was an atheist. There are other religions than the monotheisms out there.

Perhaps I'll start a thread - a non-propagandist one - on that topic.

Obviously I did not do this.

“ For the purposes of this forum, "propaganda" is defined as material copied verbatim from other web sites, books or articles, which demonstrates clear bias for or against a particular religious belief or religious group. It does not include articles which examine an issue objectively, without a particular religious or political bias.
Although it was not material copied from other web sites, it's still demonstrating bias and hatred against certain religion, i.e. monotheism.

Anyway, I made some small update of guidelines, thanks to you Grantywanty.

This forum is still baby who's learning first steps.

Fortunately, I'm patient parent. :)

So let me take a non-polemic retake of my list.

[quote=Sputnik;1338050]We all know them ( or some of them ).............lets us compare the similarities of monotheistic religions ([quote]

God is male. This distinguishes the monotheisms from many pagan and indigenous religions where there is a female Goddess, often Mother Earth, but not restricted to that.
They are patriarchal. (I hope that is a neutral enough word.) Males are seen as rulers of the house and the main interpreters of God and holy texts. This is often true in other religions, but there have been exceptions, some like Gimbutas saying that Matriarchal religions were more the norm before the rise of the monotheisms. Also some pagan or indig. religions allow more intermediary roles for women (between Goddess and humans, for example, as a Priest has this role between God and humans.)
They have angels.
The main three include the story of Abraham.
Humans are given dominion over nature.
Sexual desire is seen as problematic.
They tend to use metaphors based on service (with its origins in class relations) sacrifice and surrender (a war metaphor).
There is an afterlife, often seen as above the earth.
Light is good, dark is bad.
Up is good, down is bad.
Swords are used by divine intermediaries.
God is trancendant and not immanent. This distinguishes the monotheisms from many other religions that have immanent deities or dieties that are both I and T.
God is perfect. This distinguishes the monotheisms from many other religions where gods adn goddesses engage in all sorts of questionable activities, make mistakes, etc. Also many other religions include holy beings who are more neutral (or say confusing with trickster figures) in terms of morality, awareness, and intent.
Bowing down is often a component in rituels. I think this distinguishes the monotheisms from many other religions.
Theology is practiced in the monotheisms much more than in other religions. This is partly, I would guess, due to the text nature of the religions (they have 'bibles' to be interpreted.) But perhaps there is more to it. Many experts, not all of them priests, imams or rabbis discuss, argue over, publish, research and use a lot of deductive reasoning in relation to ideas of morality, metaphysics and so on.
They have an architectural center for worship. One way to see how this distinguishes them from other religions is that prayer and religious learning often take place in a cultural artifact, something that is not nature.
I believe all three have injunctions against magical practices.
Monotheistic rituals have a tendency towards controlled expression. As opposed to the ecstatic and physicall wild nature of many pagan and indig. rituals. There are exceptions to this, of course, but the strong tendency is there.
The monotheistic texts make predictions about the future. (I think this is true for all of them)
I believe they also all share an idea of Hell.

I hope that fits the guidelines, even the new ones.

Archeologically the move from poly to mono theism appears to be tightly aligned with the move from a female godhead as the mother of life to the male god as the owner/creator of it.

The transition as far as Europe is concerned occured largely in Egypt, as the royal family's split faith betwen Amen-Ra the official king of the gods, and Aten, the sun disk inwhich Ra resided. As Amenhetep IV took power, this divide between personal and public became a political one, and resulted int he moving of the capital south to Amarna from Thebes, where Amen-Ra's hold was strongest.

The ongoing movement in the country from the purely polytheist to monotheist under Ra due largely to political motivations moved officially to worship of the sun-disk itself (Aten) during this time, right around 1800 BC. Much of the standard formalization of Egyptian society was temporarily altered during this time - the art changed for the first time in generations, the political balance shifted; after the powerful and long-lasting reign of Amenhetep III, IV's rule was almost a revolt against his father's legacy.

Since the majority religions in the area from europe to the ME are Abrahamic, with Zorastrian and others following behind, this history is critical to most monotheist religions in power ATM. Other mono-theist religions exist around the world, but from my reading this shift within Egypt seems to be the key to the ones we talk about commonly today.

edit: I should point out, I'm not claiming direct lineage from Egyptian to Abrahamic; time-wise, it seems that this cultural and political shift in Egypt had a very strong influence on the Old-testamant Isrealites who lived pretty close by.

What about Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Baha'ism?From the perspective of an outsider, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are merely three sects of Abrahamism. They all spring from the same source and each builds on the previous. Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets. So Abrahamism is just one religion that has branched out into competing denominations.

As for Bahai, it may or may not be seen as an offshoot of Islam, but it is incontrovertibly another branch from the tree of Abrahamism.

That leaves Zoroaster, who lived so early (around 1000BCE) and so far away from Israel that he was probably not influenced by Judaism. So his monotheism cannot be said to have sprung from that of Abraham.

Still, Zoroaster lived in what became Persia. The Iranic tribes among which he lived may have been Neolithic, but he lived within the sphere of influence of Mesopotamian-Babylonian civilization, which is the source of Abrahamism.

There must be something within that culture that prompts the rise of monotheism in its people. Its binary model of the human spirit (good vs. evil, God vs. Satan) runs counter to human nature. Traditional ancient religions all recognized (if I have the figure correctly) 23 dimensions to the human spirit. They all had the same gods: the hunter, the lover, the king, the healer, the reveler, etc.

For one culture to continually generate monotheistic faiths that strongly appeal to its people--and even to many outsiders--despite their counterintuitive premise, is phenomenal.

Have any other cultures spawned monotheism, or is this strictly an artifact of the Middle East?

From the perspective of an outsider, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are merely three sects of Abrahamism. They all spring from the same source and each builds on the previous. Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets. So Abrahamism is just one religion that has branched out into competing denominations.

As for Bahai, it may or may not be seen as an offshoot of Islam, but it is incontrovertibly another branch from the tree of Abrahamism.

That leaves Zoroaster, who lived so early (around 1000BCE) and so far away from Israel that he was probably not influenced by Judaism. So his monotheism cannot be said to have sprung from that of Abraham.

Still, Zoroaster lived in what became Persia. The Iranic tribes among which he lived may have been Neolithic, but he lived within the sphere of influence of Mesopotamian-Babylonian civilization, which is the source of Abrahamism.

There must be something within that culture that prompts the rise of monotheism in its people. Its binary model of the human spirit (good vs. evil, God vs. Satan) runs counter to human nature. Traditional ancient religions all recognized (if I have the figure correctly) 23 dimensions to the human spirit. They all had the same gods: the hunter, the lover, the king, the healer, the reveler, etc.

For one culture to continually generate monotheistic faiths that strongly appeal to its people--and even to many outsiders--despite their counterintuitive premise, is phenomenal.

Have any other cultures spawned monotheism, or is this strictly an artifact of the Middle East?
unfortunately, zoroastrianism isnt truly a monotheism, it is a dualistic belief structure.

ahriman (dark) and ahura mazda (light) are brothers, and equal.

*shrug*

"Let US make man in OUR image."

This is also in the Bible.

"Let US make man in OUR image."This is also in the Bible.The bible also contains exactly one instance of the Hebrew word elohim, which means "gods." The plural of eloh, cognate with Arabic allah. I'm not enough of a biblical scholar to know what passage it's in or how it's customarily translated.

in the listing of the comandments (though there are more than just the one, this is the most often pointed to IME)

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/CH3_TBS.HTM

"No other god before me" can also be translated as "you shall have no Gods", though that is not a commonly accepted way of reading it. not speaking Hebrew myself, I can't claim which is more accurate, so I'd default to the most commonly used (no gods before me).


"Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara Elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
http://www.letusreason.org/Trin3.htm

fraggle..the answer to your question about elohim:



generally in jewish thought however, this is not g-d speaking. it is widely considered to be the five forces of creation set forth by the g-d saying this (elohim).

islam continues this traditional thought, whereas christians clothe g-d in flesh.
an interesting dichotomy, to say the least.

in the listing of the comandments (though there are more than just the one, this is the most often pointed to IME)

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/CH3_TBS.HTM

"No other god before me" can also be translated as "you shall have no Gods", though that is not a commonly accepted way of reading it. not speaking Hebrew myself, I can't claim which is more accurate, so I'd default to the most commonly used (no gods before me).

indeed, some jews interpret this passage this way, including myself.
it is interpreted to mean that g-d cannot be fathomed, and any depiction (even mental) would be construed as idolatry.

this is one of the major reasons for the difference in dogma between judaism and modern christianity.

The bible also contains exactly one instance of the Hebrew word elohim, which means "gods." The plural of eloh, cognate with Arabic allah. I'm not enough of a biblical scholar to know what passage it's in or how it's customarily translated.

Due to multiple levels of interpretations and translations of historical data during the centuries, the originals meanings and phrases have been messed up. Even the Torah has missing vowels and nouns as the hebrew dilect went through stages of metamorphisis branching from jews in different geographical locations.

Due to multiple levels of interpretations and translations of historical data during the centuries, the originals meanings and phrases have been messed up. Even the Torah has missing vowels and nouns as the hebrew dilect went through stages of metamorphisis branching from jews in different geographical locations.

*************
M*W: Excellent post! I'd like to know more about this as I have found this to be true in so many cases of bible misinterpretation and contradictions. Why don't you come on over to the Religion forum. I think this is a valuable premise to discuss over there.

Thanks,

~ M*W

is there a reason you cant discuss this here?

oh wait..i forgot..moderation is practiced here.

is there a reason you cant discuss this here?

oh wait..i forgot..moderation is practiced here.

*************
M*W: No reason at all. This topic would also fit in Linguistics. My point in suggesting the Religion forum is it would have more exposure over there. There were no hidden motives in my suggestion.

Several connections between the Sumerian version of man’s creation and the Bible are apparent. The Bible speaks of woman being created from Adam’s rib.

"The great Sumerologist, Samuel N. Kramer, pointed out near the middle of this century that the tale of Eve’s origin from Adam’s rib probably stemmed from the double meaning of the Sumerian word TI, which means both ’rib’ and ’life,’" explained Horn.

So, Eve may have received her "life" from Adam without any bone being involved, or genetic material may have been extracted from bone marrow.

the sumerian term for house of creation "SHI.IM.TI" or "the house where the wind of life is breathed in". Compare this phrase with Genesis 2:7 in which God, after forming man from "the dust of the ground" or Adam meaning earth, "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."

*************
M*W: Excellent post! I'd like to know more about this as I have found this to be true in so many cases of bible misinterpretation and contradictions. Why don't you come on over to the Religion forum. I think this is a valuable premise to discuss over there.

Thanks,

~ M*W

Thankyou for your interest!
If you do have any queries that require a scientific answer on the origins of humans from a biblical point of view then I would be happy to engage in discussion!

So, Eve may have received her "life" from Adam without any bone being involved, or genetic material may have been extracted from bone marrow.
Why do you insist on a factual/historic interpretation instead of a metaphorical?
Myths have much more common with dreams and the psychology than actual historical events.

Why do you insist on a factual/historic interpretation instead of a metaphorical?
Myths have much more common with dreams and the psychology than actual historical events.

I insist on a scientific answer rather than a mythological one!

Here consider the following myth:

Truly amazing is the fact that these ancient Sumerians, whom we are told were just developing writing, accurately described and diagrammed the planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, even though these three worlds cannot be seen without the aid of a telescope. Uranus was not known to modern man until discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930.

Long considered fanciful myths, recent interpretations of Sumerian texts, particularly one entitled Enuma Elish now known as the Creation Epic, provided a most plausible explanation for the present composition of our solar system.

I didn't know that anthropology and psychology is not science.

Truly amazing is the fact that these ancient Sumerians, whom we are told were just developing writing, accurately described and diagrammed the planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, even though these three worlds cannot be seen without the aid of a telescope. Uranus was not known to modern man until discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930.

I can't comment on that because I lack any other information sources on this other than you at the moment.

What about Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Baha'ism?Hey Hey lets not forget John Frumism.

I am appalled by the biased treatment of grantywanty and the gross misinterpretation of his first post in this thread by the moderator and others. His observations may have lead to unwelcome conclusions, but in a science forum I would expect us not to shoot the messenger, for pointing out unpalatable truths.
Yours, disgustedly
Ophiolite

What conclusions? Besides he seems to be concentrating on just the three semitic monotheistic religions.

What conclusions? Besides he seems to be concentrating on just the three semitic monotheistic religions.

Is that what prevented everyone from finding anything of use or interest in my posts? No one could figure out a way to bring my points into a discussion of a broader range of monotheisms? Interesting.

I noticed however that while my orginal efforts were carefully chastized, even the cleaned up efforts brought no comments. Certainly those with experience of other monotheisms could have used my posts as starting points for a broader comparison.

Of course, this happens on threads. But I found it odd and irritating, especially after making my post unpreachy.

Is that what prevented everyone from finding anything of use or interest in my posts? No one could figure out a way to bring my points into a discussion of a broader range of monotheisms?
Don't know. Lack of interest in the topic maybe.

Don't know. Lack of interest in the topic maybe.
And yet the thread has had activity, and my response (at least for the person who started the thread) would seem to be on topic.

But such is life on internet forums.

I would argue that monotheism itself is an academic descriptor used as a means of categorizing, and thus simplifying the study and comparison of religions, which is potentially problematic anyway...

Or to put it another way, the cultures from which the religious traditions we are talking about didn't sit down one day and decide "let's create a monotheistic religion!"

It's a model which any relatively intelligent person can use to describe a myriad of religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on, yet each of these religions (except perhaps Islam) has little knobby bits that make placement into this compartment somewhat labor-intensive.

In other words it's a hole we have created arbitrarily which we are now attempting to fit different pegs. The discussion seems to revolve around which pegs fit and which pegs don't fit.

Depending on the degree of compliance with the limitations set by the definition of monotheism, different religions fit better than others. Thus we do not have a binary "yes it fits" vs "no, it doesn't fit." Instead we find Islam fits pretty well. Judaism fits, but not quite as well as Islam. Particular sects of Christianity fit fairly well, but others do not fit AT ALL (Roman Catholicism for instance is a pretty bad fit.)

And so on...

Perhaps we should be discussing the similarities between the pegs rather than their compliance to an arbitrary hole.

Just a thought. *shrug*

A little off topic, but I've been told that Hinduism considers all the Hindu gods as facets of one God. . .I had different Hundus telling me different things, some said "different facets of one God, some said "different gods".

I had different Hundus telling me different things, some said "different facets of one God, some said "different gods".

You can get similar issues in many religions. Christianity's strange trinity, for example.

My sense is that most of the more mystical practitioners tend towards an all in one interpretation in Hinduism and the more everyday 'church' goer or practitioner sees them as separate gods and goddesses and tends to have their favorite.

A little off topic, but I've been told that Hinduism considers all the Hindu gods as facets of one God. How different is this from the monotheistic idea of a God served by other heavenly powers (e.g. angels)?

One thing seems to be that the angels aren't supposed to be worshipped, while the Hindu deities might be. However the idea of an Avatar as a representative of God on earth seems quite similar to the God-made-flesh idea of Jesus. The idea of the Trinity is a bit like (a limited version) of God's having multiple aspects . . .
This isn't really what Hindu scripture says, rather this is what the western authors who write about Hinduism say....

Monotheistic Hinduism says there's one Supreme Lord of all that be, who is personal, independent from everything else, who is the origin of all, unknowable, beyond knowledge, smaller than an atom, causeless, beyond the senses, the witness of all, etc...

A little off topic, but I've been told that Hinduism considers all the Hindu gods as facets of one God. How different is this from the monotheistic idea of a God served by other heavenly powers (e.g. angels)?

One thing seems to be that the angels aren't supposed to be worshipped, while the Hindu deities might be. However the idea of an Avatar as a representative of God on earth seems quite similar to the God-made-flesh idea of Jesus. The idea of the Trinity is a bit like (a limited version) of God's having multiple aspects . . .


It's called Henotheism. Each deity represents a relativistic aspect of Nature and also represents the Absolute.

True Polytheism existed only in old Europe, Old middle east, far pacific etc etc.

indeed, some jews interpret this passage this way, including myself.
it is interpreted to mean that g-d cannot be fathomed, and any depiction (even mental) would be construed as idolatry.

this is one of the major reasons for the difference in dogma between judaism and modern christianity.

This is exactly the Islamic belief of God as well. Allah swt has a form which is beyond perfection and not related to His creation. Idols, and even depictions of saints, is frowned upon in Islam for it might in the future lead to person worship rather than God worship.