Why valuing monotheism puzzles me.

[Epic Beard Man]

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.

The problem is you don't provide the reasons why it's illogical you just state they're illogical.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay. Well. Great. Carry on, then.

Does that surprise you?

 

[Earthling]

Does that surprise you?

No! No, I was just wondering. A lot of people haven't heard of it, since mono and polytheism usually get the majority of the attention. The Bible writers were henotheistic more than either of those, IMO.

Just curious.

 

[Neuropteron]

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

________

It would not be helpful for me to explain the doctrines of the Koran as I do not believe in it, the reason for that would go beyond the parameters of this post.
However I would like to comment on your questions regarding the appropriateness of accepting the Trinity as a bible teaching, Simply stated it is not scriptural.
The onus to explain it scripturally, not philosophically, lies completely with those promulgating this teaching.
In the absence of a clear and unambiguous scriptural explanation that a change from a monotheistic God to a triune one took place it seems reasonable to question its veracity.

As for the means of communication that God chose - allegedly- the written word, is it not His decision ? An examination of the history and impact of the bible has convinced many of its divine origin.

 

[Jumi]

Only thing that bothers me with polytheism and antitheism is the antropomorphic gods that are quite common to their followers. I just see those as pointless. Though you could argue that many monotheists (or nominal monotheists who believe Satan exists as a challenger) have the same thinking.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Only thing that bothers me with polytheism and antitheism is the antropomorphic gods that are quite common to their followers. I just see those as pointless.

The fact that you see something as pointless is hardly an effective argument against its existence!

 

[Jumi]

The fact that you see something as pointless is hardly an effective argument against its existence!

Effective or not, I wasn't making an argument against antropomorphic gods, just sharing my experience.

 

[Jim]

I think that calling Abrahamic religions “monotheistic” is misleading and missing the point. I don’t think that the passages that look like monotheism are about how many gods there are. I think they’re about who G-d is.