Why valuing monotheism puzzles me.

[Vinayaka]

Somehow that does not surprise me. The Sikhs seem to be very practical-minded.

I wish I had the ease of access that you have. They certainly intrigue me.

Also hard to figure them out because they're not into proselytising or telling everyone. In that way, they just mind their own business.

 

[sun rise]

I think that it is a mistake to consider the Trinity a form of polytheism.

I see it that way as well.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

If you say so.

Some of us are not ashamed to admit that it can be hard to understand others, though.

Neither am I, as I occasionally make threads (in Judaism DIR) especially since I'm ignorant of some of the Jewish customs. But considering my past discussions with you, you seemed to be (at least on the surface) knowledgeable about Abrahamic customs. If I remember correctly, you even stated you once took a positive look in Islam in the beginning so I would assume whatever knowledge you had then would be suffice for at least a novice in the study of this particular Abrahamic faith.

Sounds like a direct rejection of polytheism out of... aesthetical preference, I must assume.

It is fair to notice that the commandment actually indicates that monotheism is not strictly speaking accurate, or at least that its accuracy can't be easily demonstrated. Why would worship of other deities be forbidden if it were not possible in a practical sense?

I'm not following how you make the correlation of the rejection of polytheism out of beauty, that....is...just...strange logic. Abrahamic monotheism simply rejects polytheism because there is only one God. All things that exist according to some Islamic philosophers is that there is only one source, one perfection which is called divine providence, and from that comes the existence of "the many." The many, can be interpreted as spheres (planets), stars, galaxies etc. Of course this is in some affect, related to the kalam's argument of God's existence. But for a more direct approach as to why monotheism or Abrahamic monotheism (argues against polytheism) I think Averroes (Ibn Rushd) offered a decent explanation on the rejection of polytheism. If I can imperfectly paraphrase what he said:

Basically, according to Averroes, if you had several kings all autonomous and independent from each other in the same court, each one would vie for the worship of their surfs and servants. If one king is served more than the others and find itself having more devotees this would cause chaos among the royalties and each king would do battle with the other king to show who is more dominant and powerful. The constant battle of the kings would cause chaos amongst the divine and would make the worship of one deity over another amongst the pantheon a reckless endeavor. But if there is one king, one lord, with no other kings this would be less chaotic because there are no other lords who would vie for power.

Now considering this is medieval philosophy this would seem an archaic form of philosophical thinking for us, but this provides an ideal blueprint for why at least at that time monotheism is sufficient for the believer. Now, for you, you may think this is nonsensical thought considering that you may impart the idea of a unified pantheon where everyone would work in unison (similar to the Trinitarian philosophy). However, looking at the history of pantheon deities, most notably the Greek gods, there is always a battle among the gods of Olympus. After the Titans defeat, some were killed and some were punished. When Prometheus gave mankind fire, Zeus decided to punish him by chaining him to a rock, and had an eagle fly and eat his liver for the rest of eternity.

Sorry, I am not following. This seems to be a statement of faith in an Abrahamic-styled God, to be sure. But it does not really clarify my question.

You asked the question "why should anyone worry about a God who does not want to associate with anyone?"

My analogy was to break down the idea of non-association on two fronts:

1) Because there implies the idea that in all things from both a scriptural and philosophical position, God does not share credit with another especially since God is the sole author of the universe. Why give obeisance and credit to another deity (considering that it is non-existent) when God is the sole author of all the blessings and curses of this reality?

2) It's a law prescribed for Abrahamic followers. In other words, God requires a believer to be cognizant that He (God/Allah) is the sole provider of all living and non-living beings in the universe.

The above is why believers worry about transgressing what God has set down for them.

It may be because monotheism proper does not puzzle me, but considering it a big deal is what surprises me.

Monotheism, like any other form of theism, is a matter of personal inclination and aesthetical preference. It is inherently beyond any considerations of "truth". Yet some of the most motivated monotheistc doctrines insist that it is a very important thing. Why? How could that even hypothetically be very important?

That is what I can't understand, and perhaps never will.

First, what is "monotheism proper?"

Second, what is your deal with correlating beauty with monotheistic belief? You need to expand on this because it is nonsensical to associate beauty with monotheism in that regard as I see no correlation.

"It is inherently beyond any considerations of "truth."

But YOU'RE making illogical prepositions based on what? Conjecture? You're not providing a detailed analysis to why you believe such and such belief is beyond the consideration of truth. All you're doing as it appeared to me is "this doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense." It would behoove you to make a detail analysis as to why such and such does not make sense. Create examples, analogies, something that provides something more than simply disagreeing with monotheism. You're failing miserably at this which is why it may be hard for you to understand what I'm saying because I'm going off the limited stuff you're writing. In a way it could be a tedious gesture for me to offer a detailed explanation to something if you're so dismissive with one sentence with no real support behind it. This is one of the things I hate about atheists who have no philosophical background or no background in logic, they're simply dismissive to be dismissive and most are dismissive based off what they see in Christian scripture. this is similar to the many Christians with no actual foundation in the Arabic language but want to argue Allah is not God because God's name is not Allah (when Allah simply means "THE DEITY"). You are tasked not just to ask a basic question but to actually offer some sort of detailed explanation (which you failed to do) rather being dismissive you may want to detail why such and such does not make sense or why such and such relates to aesthetics, because the aesthetic part really doesn't make sense to me.

Why is monotheism important?

Aside from it being a law, monotheism is important because to the monotheist, it is rational (see the aforementioned paraphrase of Averroes' logic behind such a belief). If I create the patent and the blueprint to recreate a serum for the cure for cancer why would you praise the manufacturer for the cure when I'm the one who designed it? Or why would it make sense for you to praise the pharmacist for giving you the cure bottle when I'm the one who designed the patent for the cure? Point is you don't give praise to those who are intermediaries of the cure but the one who designed it. This is the core of Abrahamic monotheism.

What I said above, then: "How could monotheism ever be a very significant part of any doctrine, as opposed to a simple preference of form and language?"

I think I answered this ad nauseum already.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Me?

No, I don't think that Trinitarianism weakens monotheism at all.

If anything, I think that it is a mistake to consider the Trinity a form of polytheism.

Trinitarianism does not make sense. It wasn't even a part of the teachings of Jesus to begin with. For one Trinitarianism is weak because it proclaims three distinct beings of the same essence. For one, it creates a division within God by citing distinctiveness of persons but also proclaims sameness:

The history of the Trinity is nothing more than the result of a political stunt at the council of Nicene. I wrote a paper on this in undergrad refuting the famous thinker Peter Abelard's proposition on the Trinity as a logical element to Christianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trinitarianism does not make sense. It wasn't even a part of the teachings of Jesus to begin with. For one Trinitarianism is weak because it proclaims three distinct beings of the same essence. For one, it creates a division within God by citing distinctiveness of persons but also proclaims sameness:

View attachment 22974

The history of the Trinity is nothing more than the result of a political stunt at the council of Nicene. I wrote a paper on this in undergrad refuting the famous thinker Peter Abelard's proposition on the Trinity as a logical element to Christianity.

Hmm... it truly looks like your perspective is alien to mine.

You seem to expect the sacred to (necessarily?) manifest and be perceived as a deity. Even more, you expect that deity to have very specific properties that you can somehow delimit, measure, and perhaps demonstrate.

Perhaps that has some value for you. Myself, I sure can't see any.

 

[LuisDantas]

First, what is "monotheism proper?"

Monotheism in and of itself, without unnecessary and arbitrary baggage such as an expectation of lack of ability to transcend limitations of number.

Second, what is your deal with correlating beauty with monotheistic belief? You need to expand on this because it is nonsensical to associate beauty with monotheism in that regard as I see no correlation.

I don't think I can actually clarify that to you, then.

It is sort of self-evident to me that if there is any point to monotheism it must involve an aesthetical appreciation of same.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Hmm... it truly looks like your perspective is alien to mine.

You seem to expect the sacred to (necessarily?) manifest and be perceived as a deity. Even more, you expect that deity to have very specific properties that you can somehow delimit, measure, and perhaps demonstrate.

Perhaps that has some value for you. Myself, I sure can't see any.

You said:

"You seem to expect the sacred to (necessarily?) manifest and be perceived as a deity."

Well anything that speaks to me independent of my own mind, and my beings is well, I don't know a being with a mind (pretty much common sense).....

Specific properties? Which properties am I specifying? That God is one, that God is incorporeal, immeasurable, beyond intellect and therefore inconceivable physically? Which among the things have I stated that are specifically limiting God?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Monotheism in and of itself, without unnecessary and arbitrary baggage such as an expectation of lack of ability to transcend limitations of number.



I don't think I can actually clarify that to you, then.

It is sort of self-evident to me that if there is any point to monotheism it must involve an aesthetical appreciation of same.

So basically you can say something that makes sense to you but if it doesn't make sense to anyone else it's best to not clarify that position, got it.

 

[Apologes]

Me?

No, I don't think that Trinitarianism weakens monotheism at all.

If anything, I think that it is a mistake to consider the Trinity a form of polytheism.

I got the feeling you implied that from this paragraph:

I have learned that, for some reason, it is considered a big deal among certain Christian movements that God is definitely One, and should not be understood to manifest as a Trinity.

At the same time, Islaam is strictly monotheistic to the point that I truly can't understand what it proposes. It goes beyond monotheism proper towards an insistence that "God has no partners / no associates".

You presented the doctrine of Trinity and compared it to Islam which is strictly monotheistic, implying that the Trinity is not. If you didn't mean it like that ok.

I am not sure that it is possible to actually understand the concept of Shirk logically.

What is the problem with the way I described it?

 

[Apologes]

Trinitarianism does not make sense. It wasn't even a part of the teachings of Jesus to begin with. For one Trinitarianism is weak because it proclaims three distinct beings of the same essence.

Trinitarianism teaches there are three distinct persons, not beings. The distinction between a person and a being is crucial to the doctrine of Trinity. I'd expect a paper on the topic to at least be aware of that.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Trinitarianism teaches there are three distinct persons, not beings. The distinction between a person and a being is crucial to the doctrine of Trinity. I'd expect a paper on the topic to at least be aware of that.

Do you know the definition of what a being is?

Being means existence or a being means the essence of a person.

A person is an individual

My question to you is what is the difference by knowing these definitions? BTW This is what I actually defined in the paper in relation to Peter Abelard's philosophy.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have learned that, for some reason, it is considered a big deal among certain Christian movements that God is definitely One, and should not be understood to manifest as a Trinity.

At the same time, Islaam is strictly monotheistic to the point that I truly can't understand what it proposes. It goes beyond monotheism proper towards an insistence that "God has no partners / no associates".

I never quite understood that. How come a doctrine that insists on the importance of learning and following what they believe to be the Word of God somehow also afirms that there is no such a thing as an associate of God? Or to put it in another way: why should anyone worry about a God that does not want to associate with anyone?

One way to make sense of it, is to consider the similar circumstances from which both Islam and Judaism arose. Two tribal peoples where paganism/polytheism were the norm. Both Moses and Muhammad placed enormous effort in educating their followers not to be like the pagans and to worship Yahweh/Allah or the One True God. Accompanying such exhortations was an intricate philosophy of life and set of moral codes that made up the Torah/Quran. With each 'Revelation' from God was the means to move beyond tribalism with its associated barbarity to relatively higher levels of civilisation and cohesion into nationhood and beyond.

Concerns about having partners with God or the trinity are often about avoiding the slippery slope back into polytheism.

I am aware that there are specifics and nuances to be learned there. But somehow I doubt that the matter is all that clear even among sincere, devout, learned Muslims. Perhaps I just did not have the good fortune of happenning upon an explanation that I could understand. But I doubt it.

One reason why I doubt it is because that would be, well, rather weird. Whatever roles and attributes a true and existing deity could have or lack, it just feel odd to me that there are people who actually believe that they can tell true deities from false - and based on quotations from scripture, no less. Just about the crudest, least useful and most erratic of the many tools that people have access to.

Comparing Deities would be difficult. Comparing the Torah/Quran with the polytheistic beliefs they replaced would be much clearer.

Is it just me, or that is not how deities are supposed to work?

When the Quran and Torah are considered as revelations from God it all becomes easier to understand. Trying to understand Yahweh or Allah without reference to the Revelations Moses and Muhammad respectively brought would be too esoteric.

Surely the Christian/Muslim God, which is explicitly transcendental to this very Universe and presumed by both doctrines to be loving and caring, would have the means to adjust its voice and stance for the best effect depending on the interlocutor and the circunstances. Quite a few human counselors and advisers of several kinds do exactly that. How could that be beyond a true (and only true) God?

Within the framework of both the Quran and Torah there is flexibility to adjust and accommodate to the changing exigencies of their communities.

Does anyone feel like explaining to me what is meant by the absence of associates to God (in the Qur'an) or why a Trinity would be a mismatch for the God of the Bible?

Once again, avoiding polytheism and the ways of the past.

 

[LuisDantas]

I got the feeling you implied that from this paragraph:

You presented the doctrine of Trinity and compared it to Islam which is strictly monotheistic, implying that the Trinity is not. If you didn't mean it like that ok.

Sorry if I did not express myself well. I attempted to say in the OP that I find monotheism, while a legitimate stance, also one that it may be dangerous and very misleading to emphasize and take too seriously. Among other reasons, because the distinction between it and other forms of theism can not IMO reside in anything resembling objective fact. The answer to "how many gods exist" is inherently and unavoidably personal and even circunstantial.

What is the problem with the way I described it?

In a nutshell, it tries to support itself in what are IMO inherently self-contradictory Islaamic concepts and directives. Shirk is not, far as I can tell, a wholly sane concept.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I see it that way as well.

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)

“And [beware the Day] when God will say, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides God?’ ‘He will say, ‘Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.’ (Quran 5:116)

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, the Qur'an states flat out that the Trinity is a mistaken belief.

That does not make it any less weird a stance.

If anything, that is one of many reasons to suspect the wisdom of the Qur'an.

For that matter, the Qur'an also repudiates polytheism in even stronger terms, to the point of presenting polytheists ("mushrikin") as acceptable targets.

I am well aware of how wide and consequential the meaning of "Shirk" is in Islaam. What I am asking is how come people act as if it were reasonable or logical, when it clearly can not be.

Sure, most Muslims to indeed gloss over and ultimately ignore those calls for unfair repudiation, mainly because they are more reasonable people than their own scripture calls them to be. And that is awesome. But that does not make the scriptural calls themselves any less real or more reasonable.

 

[Apologes]

I attempted to say in the OP that I find monotheism, while a legitimate stance, also one that it may be dangerous and very misleading to emphasize and take too seriously. Among other reasons, because the distinction between it and other forms of theism can not IMO reside in anything resembling objective fact. The answer to "how many gods exist" is inherently and unavoidably personal and even circunstantial.

Why do you think that?

In a nutshell, it tries to support itself in what are IMO inherently self-contradictory Islaamic concepts and directives. Shirk is not, far as I can tell, a wholly sane concept.

What is the contradiction? The one you provided in the OP doesn't apply to the way I defined it.

 

[Earthling]

What are your thoughts on henotheism?

 

[Windwalker]

Ah, if so then I understand.

They aren't a huge contingent of the world's 2 billion Christians though.

According to them, they are the only actual Christians on the planet.

 

[LuisDantas]

What are your thoughts on henotheism?

I love it.

 

[Earthling]

I love it.

Okay. Well. Great. Carry on, then.