The Rise of Monotheism: How Did One God Become the Norm?

[Balthazzar]

You must be referring to Niflheim and Muspelheim which created the gods and goddesses then. Interesting video.

Everything has a place in the universe. Thats why it's the all-encompassing "All" to which everything belongs, and from which everything is formed.

 

[metis]

It depends on the monotheism - acceptance of only one god doesn't inherently require acceptance of any particular attributes of this god, such as being "good" or caring at all about humans. Monotheistic pantheism is a thing, for example, and in its more naturalistic interpretations god/universe simply is - god/universe isn't moralized as being good or bad.

Yes, that's true, but such beliefs developed late in the game, such as with Spinoza, who equated "God" and "Nature" [all] as being pretty much the same.

BTW, on a personal note, some here may remember my former Signature Statement: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that. That's still where I'm coming from.

 

[1213]

Classic! What a masterful quote attempting to demonstrate one's mastery of scripture!

So what's with your "[a] Satan" There is no '[a]' in Job 1:6, explicit or defined.

The term in the Hebrew scripture is הַשָּׂטָ֤ן which translates as the-Adversary...

Ok, I can accept that it means an adversary. I think it later became the Adversary, because it is the specific Adversary.

 

[1213]

In a sense, polytheism is more logical as it explains why both good and bad happens. Monotheism is more problematic as to how can a supposedly good god allow or even cause bad things to happen.

In Biblical point of view bad things are allowed to happen, because people wanted to know good and evil like God knows. That is the reason why people were expelled to this first death, where we can experience those things safely, without anything of this world being able to destroy our soul, which is the important part. Body is only like a vessel four soul and can be replaced. That is why we should not fear anything of this world. And luckily this is only a short lesson.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt. 10:28

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ok, I can accept that it means an adversary. I think it later became the Adversary, because it is the specific Adversary.

What the heck does that mean?

 

[1213]

What the heck does that mean?

I meant, I have no problem with the idea that he word satan means an adversary. When the adversary is written with capital letter, it means a specific adversary.

 

[metis]

In Biblical point of view bad things are allowed to happen, because people wanted to know good and evil like God knows.

How about miscarriages? still births? Why would God cause these to happen?

My position is that there's a lot more to this that we can't be sure of. Thus, to me it's best to "do no harm" as much a possible and try to help others have a more enjoyable life based on love and compassion for all.

 

[1213]

How about miscarriages? still births? Why would God cause these to happen?

I don't think God necessary causes miscarriages or still births. All unfortunate things happen here, because this is a place where people can be in separation from God, so that we could know what evil means (lack of good).

Thus, to me it's best to "do no harm" as much a possible and try to help others have a more enjoyable life based on love and compassion for all.

I think that is not bad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Do you see this progression in the Bible, or do you interpret it differently?

Yes. I speak for myself only. I think the earlier texts in the Bible were basically indicative of a belief in many gods, "but YHWH is OUR god," so to speak. In otherwords, by the time the earlier parts of the Bible were written, Israel had moved from polytheism to henatheism. Not perfectly. The inclination to revert to polytheism was still strong so there were many lapses.

But something happened in Babylon. Normally, if a people were conquered, they would think, "I guess their god is greater than our god, so let's start worshiping their god." But that's not what the Jews said. For reasons that I have no idea, they said to themselves, "The God of Israel is the God of the whole world, including Babylon. It's not that Marduk is stronger, but the YHWH is using Babylon to discipline us for our idolatry, violence, and neglect of the poor. THAT was the turning point in history.

That's when Jewish literature began including things like, "I am the LORD your God, and beside me there is no other." You had stories like Elijah laughing at the vain attempts of the priests of Baal to have their sacrifice divinely set on fire. Indeed he mocks them. "Maybe your god is relieving himself." IOW, its not that Baal is less powerful than YHWH, its that Baal does not exist. The extended version of Daniel has a very similar story. Daniel is like a Jewish Sherlock homes who reveals Bel doesn't NOT eat the sacrifice, that it is the priests enter the temple at night to eat the sacrifice. In other words, Bel is NOT REAL.

Since Babylon, idolatry has not even been a temptation for Jews. Not just for us. The Pharisees spread monotheism throughout the Roman empire. 10% of Roman were Jews, and that's not including the God-fearers.

When the new religion of Christianity formed, it built on Jewish monotheism. Same with Islam 600 years later.

Today, even people who are not part of any organized religion share the idea that there is one God, the creator, who is God of all the world.

1. What factors do you think contributed to the rise of monotheism in various cultures?

I think it simply makes more sense. This is largely because monotheism has a single coherent morality. How is one supposed to be morally consistent if one worships the god of love on Monday, and the god of war on Tuesday.

I think that something that aided the spread was the willingness of the monotheistic religions to adapt to different cultures. By adopting traditions of those cultures, monotheism became more palatable and relevant to the population. I think most people are familiar with how Christianity adopted things like the use of evergreens and wreaths and gift giving at Christmas.

1. How do you think this historical shift impacts modern religious beliefs and interfaith dialogue?

Well, it's a heck of a lot easier to dialogue if one can build on the foundation that there is one God.

One of the things that came into existence along with monotheism was the idea that God cares about how we treat each other. So people of different monotheistic faiths can join hands in addressing societal issues such as hunger and poverty, racism, etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, I can accept that it means an adversary. I think it later became the Adversary, because it is the specific Adversary.

Not "an" adversary. THE adversary. The word is HAsatan, ha indicating a specific comparable to the English THE.

 

[Augustus]

this is, as far as I'm aware, unique to Western culture as there was no "rise of monotheism" anywhere else except where Westerners forced these ideas on other cultures)

Abraham monotheism spread to places like Ethiopia, Persia, Arabia and the Eurasian Steppes which were outside Roman control.

I’m also not so sure it is accurate to consider the Roman Empire as being “Western” given it was really part of a Mediterranean civilisation not a European one. European appropriation of the legacy of this culture is really what created the “West” many centuries later.

Also Islam is not really Western either, and spread from South East Asia to Africa.

I’d say the initial spread of monotheism was not really a “Western” thing at all.

 

[Bear Wild]

I’m also not so sure it is accurate to consider the Roman Empire as being “Western” given it was really part of a Mediterranean civilisation not a European one. European appropriation of the legacy of this culture is really what created the “West” many centuries later.

Italy and Greece are both considered a part of the "western" world even though they have connections with the Mediterranean. Rome and Greece both influenced all of the other European cultures and helped shaped what we consider as the "Western Culture". The colonial cultures that developed in the "West" then spread Christianity well beyond their borders and around the world at the expense of those people they subjugated.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Abraham monotheism spread to places like Ethiopia, Persia, Arabia and the Eurasian Steppes which were outside Roman control.

I’m also not so sure it is accurate to consider the Roman Empire as being “Western” given it was really part of a Mediterranean civilisation not a European one. European appropriation of the legacy of this culture is really what created the “West” many centuries later.

Also Islam is not really Western either, and spread from South East Asia to Africa.

I’d say the initial spread of monotheism was not really a “Western” thing at all.

I appreciate your point that to some degree there is a "Mediterranean culture." Nevertheless, the northeastern parts of the Mediterranean are part of Europe, and considered part of the West, including both Greece and Rome.

When religious scholars speak of "western religions" and "eastern religions," they are not dividing Europe from Asia. West and east are relative to each other. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered western religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Bahai, Taoism, and Shintoism are considered eastern religions.

 

[Augustus]

Italy and Greece are both considered a part of the "western" world even though they have connections with the Mediterranean. Rome and Greece both influenced all of the other European cultures and helped shaped what we consider as the "Western Culture". The colonial cultures that developed in the "West" then spread Christianity well beyond their borders and around the world at the expense of those people they subjugated.

Northern Europeans certainly wanted to appropriate the historical legacy of the Graeco-Roman world, but considering them to be Western is very misleading (and significantly tied to 18th/19th c European cultural supremacism).

Why do the peripheral Germanic Northern Europeans have a better claim on this legacy than Syrians or Levantines who were far more integral parts of the Graeco-Roman world?

The very concept of "The West" is largely a consequence of the spread of "Eastern" religion into Northern Europe followed by the success of Islamic imperialism in MENA. To consider both of these to be the product of "Western culture" seems very misleading to me.

Modern political geography applied to the past leads to very distorting anachronisms. It's a bit like referring to people born in 5th c Constantinople as being “Turkish”.

The spread of monotheism during the much later period of European colonialism is a secondary phenomenon.

 

[Augustus]

I appreciate your point that to some degree there is a "Mediterranean culture." Nevertheless, the northeastern parts of the Mediterranean are part of Europe, and considered part of the West, including both Greece and Rome.

When religious scholars speak of "western religions" and "eastern religions," they are not dividing Europe from Asia. West and east are relative to each other. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered western religions. Hinduism, Buddhism, Bahai, Taoism, and Shintoism are considered eastern religions.

My view is that people should stop doing this when thinking about antiquity as it is a bit (Western) Eurocentric and distorts the past.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Northern Europeans certainly wanted to appropriate the historical legacy of the Graeco-Roman world,

So now you want "the west" to be only NORTHERN Europe? Greece and Rome are in Europe. Their philosophies and literature were foundational for the Christian culture that spread across Europe. They are western, and they are foundational for western culture.

May I ask why you are so attached to this idea that Greece and Rome are not western? Are you one of those people who think "Western=bad," and want to preserve Graeco-Roman culture from this condemnation? Are you someone from Asia, and want to claim Greece and Rome for yourself? I'm just wondering what is motivating you to make these remarks that are contrary to scholarship and common sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My view is that people should stop doing this when thinking about antiquity as it is a bit (Western) Eurocentric and distorts the past.

Well, let's see. I can side with you, or I can side with scholars. You. Scholars. You. Scholars. Guess which wins?

 

[Quintessence]

My view is that people should stop doing this when thinking about antiquity as it is a bit (Western) Eurocentric and distorts the past.

How would you suggest we refer to it? What word - or large number of words - should be used that would also be (somewhat) readily understood? I don't particularly like the moniker "Western" to describe these things either, but it's how things are talked about in my culture and by scholars. For better and for worse.

 

[Augustus]

May I ask why you are so attached to this idea that Greece and Rome are not western? Are you one of those people who think "Western=bad," and want to preserve Graeco-Roman culture from this condemnation? Are you someone from Asia, and want to claim Greece and Rome for yourself?

That is a very uncharitable spin to put on it.

Should I ask why you are so attached to giving the legacy to white European rather than “brown Asians and Africans”?

I’m attached to it because it is accurate and avoids anachronism.

Whether or not “The West” exists now, it did not exist at the period we are discussing.

You can understand that talking about Byzantium being a “Turkish” Empire would be nonsensical.

Talking about this Empire as being either western or European is equally false and anachronistic.

Well, let's see. I can side with you, or I can side with scholars. You. Scholars. You. Scholars. Guess which wins?

Perhaps you just need to read a more diverse range of scholarship then.

Quite a few of them are aware that Syria and the Levant were far more important and Roman than the Germanic tribes and Gauls you know.

They also understand that there was a Mediterranean civilisation rather than European, Asian and African ones.

I’m surprised you find the idea so outlandish.

 

[Augustus]

How would you suggest we refer to it? What word - or large number of words - should be used that would also be (somewhat) readily understood? I don't particularly like the moniker "Western" to describe these things either, but it's how things are talked about in my culture and by scholars. For better and for worse.

The term western can be an imperfect but useful enough shorthand for contemporary political realities.

For classical and late antiquity it makes little sense to me.

I’d use terms like Graeco-Roman, Hellenic, Roman Empire, etc.

Regarding the spread of monotheism Roman Empire, Islamic Empires would suffice (although they spread via missionary activity and trade outside of these political entities).