Monotheism & Polytheism

[Sees]

So I cannot say my God is the only God, Because it's not true for everyone?

That's silly.

I say chocolate is the best thing ever,
Even though I know that is not true for everyone.

I don't accept other Gods as Gods, and I won't deny that just to be seen as open minded.

Of course I'm not open minded about the existence of my God.
I think someone who is open minded about the existence of their God isn't sure that their God is real.

I think that quote is trying to persuade people to be persuadable.

No thanks.

It's not so much the specific theology in itself but the package deal it often comes with. The True One God, True One Religion, True One Book, True One Interpretation, The One Real Truth that I have and everybody who does not see or accept this One Way package is wrong..possibly also damned or in need of my kind assistance or righteous wrath.

 

[nazz]

What HHDL wrote in the OP is borne out in cross-cultural studies, namely that monotheistic societies tend to be more likely embroiled in religious conflict than monotheistic ones.

Why this appears to be the case is that if one's society is more polytheistic, there's a greater acceptance of diversity since polytheism by nature in more diverse when it comes to beliefs. If I believe in Gods A, B, and C, and you believe in Gods D,E, and F, there's not likely to be much conflict. But even if we both believe in A,B, and C, because we assume diversity of opinions, then we are less likely to conflict with one another.

Most of the world was once polytheistic and there was plenty of conflict.

 

[Sees]

Most of the world was once polytheistic and there was plenty of conflict.

Always something to fight about lol. We can only try to minimize it and do it as gently and mindfully as possible.

Beliefs about God/Gods, scripture meaning, etc. shouldn't be a part of it though. That's one thing many pagan cultures did right. Even then you have a priest/prophet/guru pop up at times saying this is the only right way and developing specific cults that can lead to division and conflicts.

People speaking for the divine is almost always the issue.

 

[nazz]

Always something to fight about lol. We can only try to minimize it and do it as gently and mindfully as possible.

Beliefs about God/Gods, scripture meaning, etc. shouldn't be a part of it though. That's one thing many pagan cultures did right. Even then you have a priest/prophet/guru pop up at times saying this is the only right way and developing specific cults that can lead to division and conflicts.

People speaking for the divine is almost always the issue.

Historically the conflict was not over whose god was real but whose god was stronger. If you won the battle against your enemies it meant your god prevailed.

 

[EyeofOdin]

Reason and logic win.
If all the gods exist, it still wouldn't matter because they are themselves caught in pairs of opposites, like and dislike. Just really powerful beings.
Nature encompasses them all, in Hinduism they call Nature Shakti, and in Buddhism they. Call it Buddha nature. This thing, being the source of all gods, men, and animals, it would be the "one true God" that Moses and Muhammad speak of.

This is why monotheism is considered superior to polytheism, because the lesser gods are hardly worth calling God. They are like angels, powerful, but still caught in samsara.

This is horridly offensive, number one.

Secondly, I would like to point out that linguistically speaking, the monotheistic god cognates with most other sky father or warrior deities.

Also I would like to say that all traditional Monotheistic faiths have their roots in Polytheism. Jehovah comes from Yahweh, coming from Yahu, the Canaanite got of war. This makes sense now why God was called a "man of war" so many times, and how Jesus says "I bring not peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). This is why the old testament God is so focused on war, conquest and genocide instead of cosmic issues. That wasn't when he was the creator, it was when he was a warrior deity, similar to Ares, Mars or Odin.

I would be a little more respectful when talking about polytheism. It so turns out that it's the basis of all the world's religions, and monotheism wouldn't be anything without it.

 

[EyeofOdin]

Historically the conflict was not over whose god was real but whose god was stronger. If you won the battle against your enemies it meant your god prevailed.

This surprisingly is a very recent development in religion and cultural conflict. Before monotheism or monolatrism, wars were about land, power, money etc. things people are supposed to fight over, not whose god has a bigger dick than whose god.

The belief in superior cultures and superior deities didn't arise until the monolatristic belief systems in Canaan and other parts of the middle east somewhere around 600BCE, which are the percussing religions to the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Sorry man, cant please everyone.

 

[nazz]

This is horridly offensive, number one.

Secondly, I would like to point out that linguistically speaking, the monotheistic god cognates with most other sky father or warrior deities.

Also I would like to say that all traditional Monotheistic faiths have their roots in Polytheism. Jehovah comes from Yahweh, coming from Yahu, the Canaanite got of war. This makes sense now why God was called a "man of war" so many times, and how Jesus says "I bring not peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). This is why the old testament God is so focused on war, conquest and genocide instead of cosmic issues. That wasn't when he was the creator, it was when he was a warrior deity, similar to Ares, Mars or Odin.

I would be a little more respectful when talking about polytheism. It so turns out that it's the basis of all the world's religions, and monotheism wouldn't be anything without it.

Jesus was not talking about a literal sword so let's leave him out of it please.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

There are no superior deities that's the point , even if all the gods are real they are still just people. The "One" God is simply the origin of all these. Its formless, even the gods worship it.
It is not a deity, it is the pure divine(hard if not impossible to. Describe)
People meditate, after they see this one(Tao, the Monad, Brahman, whatever) they normally think that deities are insignificant. And many people are "seeing"

 

[nazz]

This surprisingly is a very recent development in religion and cultural conflict. Before monotheism or monolatrism, wars were about land, power, money etc. things people are supposed to fight over, not whose god has a bigger dick than whose god.

The belief in superior cultures and superior deities didn't arise until the monolatristic belief systems in Canaan and other parts of the middle east somewhere around 600BCE, which are the percussing religions to the Abrahamic faiths.

I don't mean the wars were fought tp prove anything about the deity but just that if your side won it proved your god was stronger as a side effect of that.

 

[iamsharky789]

Who is the best god(s)?

 

[Sees]

Who is the best god(s)?

Who or what is the best husband/wife, dog, father/mother, patriot, food, wine, music, etc.?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I only believe that one God exists but I am respectful of other's beliefs to the contrary. If you are a polytheist and that makes you fulfilled, then that is wonderful for you.

 

[Tumah]

Here's something I read to kick-start my morning meditation two days ago: Whoever excludes others will find himself excluded in turn. Those who affirm that their God is the only God are doing something dangerous and pernicious because they are on their way to imposing their beliefs on others by any means possible. -- "The Path To Tranquility: Daily Wisdom" by the Dalai Lama, p. 393.

Whaddya think?

I don't understand the logic leap between believing in one G-d to the exclusion of others, to imposing that belief on others. Why is believing in one G-d and letting others believe what they want not an option.

 

[metis]

Well I recognize all gods as real but I worship only one. Does that get the HHDL's stamp of approval?

He would agree with your approach but not your conclusion, so you're only batting 500.

 

[metis]

And here's where I'm going to tear down what I just said above... lulz. I have seen many, many disputes in the contemporary Pagan community about the gods. That we accept multiple gods by no means we're less likely to come into conflict. Pagans argue about all sorts of things. We'll argue about what the gods are "really" like and if our personal experience with them can trump historical evidence. We'll argue about what the proper kinds of offerings are. We'll argue about whether or not gods are "archetypes" or "just symbols" as opposed to "literally real." And Neopaganism in particular has something of an identity crisis with respect to its polytheism as it loves to throw a lot of not-so-polytheistic ways of thinking into its mix (well, maybe it doesn't love to... I think it can't help it because it developed out of an overwhelmingly monotheistic culture and it has a very hard time freeing itself from that influence).

In short, polytheism isn't quite the "get out of conflict free" card that one might think.

I didn't say or imply that it's conflict free, only that cross-culturally there has been less religious conflict with polytheistic societies than monotheistic ones. If you're familiar with Joseph Campbell, he mentions this in at least one of his books.

 

[metis]

Most of the world was once polytheistic and there was plenty of conflict.

But over what would be the next question, and historically most conflict was over resources, with religion paying either a minor part or no part at all.

 

[metis]

I don't understand the logic leap between believing in one G-d to the exclusion of others, to imposing that belief on others. Why is believing in one G-d and letting others believe what they want not an option.

I didn't say it wasn't or isn't an option, but merely citing what the historical research has shown on the average. Also, it tends to be fairly logical because of the foundational difference between the two, which I mentioned in an earlier post here on this thread, namely that polytheism by its nature tends to be diverse whereas monotheism tends to insist more on conformity.

 

[Tumah]

I didn't say it wasn't or isn't an option, but merely citing what the historical research has shown on the average. Also, it tends to be fairly logical because of the foundational difference between the two, which I mentioned in an earlier post here on this thread, namely that polytheism by its nature tends to be diverse whereas monotheism tends to insist more on conformity.

Oh, I see what you are saying. I was thinking more along the lines that Judaism does force itself on anyone. Then I thought you might be referring to forced conversions in other religions. But now I realize you mean within the religion itself.

edit: I meant Judaism doesn't force...

 

[metis]

Oh, I see what you are saying. I was thinking more along the lines that Judaism does force itself on anyone. Then I thought you might be referring to forced conversions in other religions. But now I realize you mean within the religion itself.

But your point is a very good one that needed to be mentioned. I had decided to include it while putting together the idea for the thread, but then I forgot. Hey, it's an age thingy, so please me some slack here, OK?