Monotheism - how did it start? Is it really here yet?

[Robittybob1]

 

Robbity You ask, "@Disarray - some part of that post sounded personal. Are you saying you believe in more than one God?"

No, I was not saying or implying that at all.

 

........

 

Did I not state that I noted that they assumed that people would worship one God, as I stated....not that they weren't free to worship. It was the assumption that adherents to polytheism were so deranged as to not be worth mentioning, as if America, was, by definition, monotheistic.

 

 

 

I'd say it would have broadened the scope of the study, and then the teachers would be lost in the diversity. Even if America (USA) is monotheistic does that imply all of the religions follow the same god? I went to a church once where the pastor lambasted the muslims as not following "our" god. Is it all to do with names and spellings etc?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Did I not state that I noted that they assumed that people would worship one God, as I stated....not that they weren't free to worship.

 

 

It wasn't clear if that is what you meant, or if you were suggesting that the US constitution only protected monotheistic beliefs.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

It wasn't clear if that is what you meant, or if you were suggesting that the US constitution only protected monotheistic beliefs.

Shall we all be a bit clearer in what we state or imply then. For even Disarray made assumptions about the Americans even though it wasn't something they had actually stated.

Can we make a declaration of where we stand so we don't make presumptions anymore?

Edited June 16, 2016 by Robittybob1

[disarray]

Robbity, You ask "Even if America (USA) is monotheistic does that imply all of the religions follow the same god?"

 

well, no, I don't see that written anywhere, but I think that those who say that it doesn't matter what God you believe in as long as you believe in God are excluding a lot of

sub groups, e.g., perhaps wiccans. Others who say that are trying to make the point that all monotheists worship the same God (which is as debatable as asking whether we all believe in the same Abraham, if not moreso).

 

But I think fundamentally, people assume that there can only be one God.In terms of this thread, this is important, as one immediately is led to ask why people make such an assumption.

 

(And yes, of course, some monotheists condemn other monotheists.)

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

....

 

But I think fundamentally, people assume that there can only be one God. In terms of this thread, this is important, as one immediately is led to ask why people make such an assumption.

 

(And yes, of course, some monotheists condemn other monotheists.)

How can one sort this mess out? As soon as one religion says of another "their god is different than ours" that immediately implies there is at least two gods, so if they believe in one God and reject the other, can that religion rightly be called monotheistic?

 

If there was only one God how come we have these differences?

[Strange]

How can one sort this mess out? As soon as one religion says of another "their god is different than ours" that immediately implies there is at least two gods, so if they believe in one God and reject the other, can that religion rightly be called monotheistic?

 

They are saying that the other people believe in something that is not god. Therefore the only god is the one they believe in.

 

Of course, the others may say exactly the same thing. Or they may say that they are both worshipping the same god.

 

 

If there was only one God how come we have these differences?

 

Because the differences are in what people believe. Not in what is.

[disarray]

Robbity:

 

Good question. Well, I think it best to take it on a case by case basis. Many Muslims, for example, reject Christianity because they don't think that Christ is the one, true savior (they have their own guy), and because they think that Christianity is essentially polytheistic (disguised as monotheism) and therefore pagan. Similarly Jews are more than iffy about Jesus being the true savior of their people.

 

Hey, even in the early churches, people were burning each other at the stake because hey disagreed about what true Christianity really entailed in terms of dogma, e.g., purported heresies such as whether Jesus was as holy as God, or whether Jesus was part human or just appeared to be, etc. etc. But we are not just talking about individuals, we are talking about hundreds, thousands, and in some respects millions of people who died fighting, to a large degree, over such questions (e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant wars).

 

I see your logic, but I don't think things work like that in real life....People don't say, hey, we both believe in one God and our scriptural stories are similar, so let's just bury the hatchet and go have a beer. No, rather than that, they focus on minor details and then claim that if you are not baptised, or don't think the pope has a direct line to God, or think you can interpret the Bible for yourself, or don't believe God died for your sins, or use the term Allah instead of God, etc., etc. then your beliefs are blasphemous, your faith is misplaced, your God is false, your morals are twisted, your chances of salvation are nil, your spirit is corrupt, and your religion is pagan.

 

So yes, I agree these conflicts might seem, to the proverbial visiting Martian, as petty and absurd, but hey, in my book, that's the nature of group mentality (aka ethnocentrism).

Edited June 16, 2016 by disarray

[Strange]

 

People don't say, hey, we both believe in one God and our scriptural stories are similar, so let's just bury the hatchet and go have a beer.

 

 

Well, some do. I would guess it is the mainstream view in most branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Bahá'í.

[disarray]

Strange; Oh, of course, there are millions of people who do say just that. Indeed, I think that the Catholic church has really been making an effort to take a more ecumenical by embracing other religions....When people get along there is nothing to fix....so I just focused on the fact that millions of monotheists often violently disagree and note that it is worthwhile trying to analyze the reason that they do, with a view to, perhaps, minimizing future conflict.

Edited June 17, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

Strange; Oh, of course, there are millions of people who do say just that. Indeed, I think that the Catholic church has really been making an effort to take a more ecumenical by embracing other religions....When people get along there is nothing to fix....so I just focused on the fact that millions of monotheists often violently disagree and note that it is worthwhile trying to analyze the reason that they do, with a view to, perhaps, minimizing future conflict.

I've been trying to formulate a ecumenical solution.

Here is a rough attempt.

The Muslims and (Christians) must accept the OT prophets that allowed the Jews to claim the lands of Israel (not sure of the actual physical boundaries).

The Jews (and Muslims) must accept the NT and accept Jesus as the Messiah.

The Christians (and Jews) must accept Muhammad as a prophet and include the Koran as part of the Bible.

[disarray]

Robbity:

Good approach.

 

Muslims/Christians say Jews have lands: Unlikely to happen...to many gray areas, e.g., west bank.

Jews/Muslims accept Jesus as Messiah: Unlikely to happen...In effect, everyone would be a Christian if that happened, perhaps by definition.

Christians/Jews accept Muhammad as prophet: Not sure about Jews, but Christians tend, I gather, to not reject the idea of Muhammed as a prophet.

 

As per my last post, I think that a key point is that countries as a whole "use" religion for different reasons: At the national level, religion is used to justify military aggression and the appropriation of land and resources, and to find justifications for taking a political stance on such issues as homosexuality, divorce, abortion, etc. On an individual level, religion is used to comfort those dealing with death (their own and loved ones), reducing personal guilt/anxiety, achieving a degree of respectability, gaining fellowship, etc.

 

If one scans history, one finds that at the national level there is little compromise. Even in modern times, negotiations between countries or, on the other hand, such things as air strikes and sanctions have had little ameliorative effect (unless a regime change is effected) on the attitude of national leaders who are in charge of the country's military.

 

The alternative is to focus more on increasing communication and understanding between various individuals from different countries. There are millions of examples where individuals within a community (in the U.S. for example) have found that they have more in common than they thought, and therefore have developed a greater degree of tolerance and friendship.

 

So on the one hand, as illustrated by political platforms of Presidential candidates in the U.S., there is a conflict of opinion as to whether the best way to go is to take an aggressive stance by, for example, minimizing the presence of religious dissidents in general so as to especially exclude those who embrace a more nationalistic and militant attitude, or whether the best way to go is to take the stance of welcoming and assimilating individuals who wish to peacefully find their niche within, American culture.

 

Ideally, individuals between cultures could communicate well enough via such things as the internet, tourism, television programs, etc. so that those in charge at a national level capitulate to those wishing to take a more peaceful approach to international affairs.

 

I am trying to avoid endorsing any political party or whatever, and "God knows" no one knows what the outcome might be were the U.S., for example, to take either a more restrictive, or, conversely, more open arms policy with regards to immigrants.

 

I acknowleldge that the OT (e.g.,story of Abraham and his descendants) is full of positive characters and positive messages that provide solace, inspiration, instruction, and comfort to individuals, though, again, in terms of a "Jewish" nation (or Israelite 'nation' before that), the thrust of the OT at the national scale seems to be one in which a favored people presume to have the right to take over certain lands, sometimes in a militant manner; and this attitude, unfortunately tends to, I suspect, add to the militant attitude of national leaders to presume that this is the way to go.....'onward Christian soldiers' sort of thing. At the national level, different major monotheistic religions tend to interpret the Abrahamic story in a manner that favors their own country.

 

So yes, taking steps in the right direction include encouraging the intermingling of religions and cultures at an individual level, encouraging an ecumenical attitude in various religious leaders, and having a less restrictive attitude with regards to the issue of who can walk freely in those areas considered to be most holy lands and sites.

 

Ultimately, I think that it is better for people of different religions to presume that Abraham was not a real person, or at least to presume that such a person existed, and perhaps even had conversations with God, but that we really don't have sufficient evidence to determine just which tribal groups Abraham and God favored, or thought deserved particular tracts of land, etc. For example, let's all just throw our hands up in the air and say that scriptures conflict with regards to whether Isaac or Ishmael was the favored son, and that we ultimately don't have enough info to know. Similarly, taking a less literal/fundamentlistic approach leads, I suggest, to a less dogmatic and a more inclusive attitude towards people of other monotheistic religions (embracing the Abrahmic stories), thereby minimizing intolerance, hatred, and warfare.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by disarray

[Robittybob1]

 

......

 

Ultimately, I think that it is better for people of different religions to presume that Abraham was not a real person, or at least to presume that such a person existed, and perhaps even had conversations with God, but that we really don't have sufficient evidence to determine just which tribal groups Abraham and God favored, or thought deserved particular tracts of land, etc. For example, let's all just throw our hands up in the air and say that scriptures conflict with regards to whether Isaac or Ishmael was the favored son, and that we ultimately don't have enough info to know. Similarly, taking a less literal/fundamentalistic approach leads, I suggest, to a less dogmatic and a more inclusive attitude towards people of other monotheistic religions (embracing the Abrahamic stories), thereby minimizing intolerance, hatred, and warfare.

 

 

 

 

As I read it Abraham didn't care which of his children got land. He was just happy to have any kids at all. He had married a wife who to all intends was barren, and Ishmael was born by a type of surrogacy but there seemed to be tension between the women and Sarah got her way and Hagar was sent packing. After Sarah died Abraham remarried and had a swag of other kids, all of which could have land and nations named after them.

 

It is via Moses we get the "Promised Lands" so I would be interested to explore the Muslim view on the actions of Moses.

I'm trying to analyse what you have just said. There seems to be the need to believe, but also some are atheistic. So do the atheists also feel they need to believe but resist this? I could see this happening. Some ancient saying within himself, "No. I will not assign this event to a God. I will find out the scientific reason for this".

This exploration has resulted into what we have today where the things to explain just seem to keep getting pushed back. Will we ever get to understand how the Universe started off in a highly ordered state? If there ever became just the one unanswered question, will this be the ultimate monotheism? No more need for tree gods, sun gods, rain gods, Moon gods, Mother goddesses etc but just one god that answers the final question.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/string-theory-co-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

 

This topic is being discussed separately http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95795-dr-michio-kaku-i-have-concluded-that-we-are-in-a-world-made-by-rules-created-by-an-intelligence/

 

I would be mightly surprised if this was the same God as was envisioned by Abraham.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Memammal]

I just read that article and i.m.o. it sounds a bit vague and unfounded. If anything it points to the block universe theory and if one really wants to insert a god, Spinoza's god would do just fine (god = nature).

Edited June 22, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

Robbity: You said that "As I read it Abraham didn't care which of his children got land."

 

I guess that your statement does not contradict my point, which is that it would be nice if people from the various monotheism did not make such a big deal as to whom their particular scriptures and/or Abraham thought the land in question should go.

 

But to clarify the point, I don't think that Abraham had much say in the manner if God supposedly was telling him which son was to have descendants that would inherit the land, or bring a savior. Certainly, it would not be uncharacteristically disloyal of him to disregard God's emphasis upon the importance of the matter. Indeed, some Christians are quick to point out that God considered Isaac the "only" son of Abraham:

 

"‘He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’." (Genesis 22:1-2, R.S.V.)."

"Muslims on the other hand feel that Ishmael was the one offered up by Abraham. They believe that the Holy Bible supports this by its declaration that

Abraham offered his only son" http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm (Note: I deliberately chose a Christian-based site)

 

Similarly, when Sarah turns against Hagar, God, according to the Christian Bible (Genesis, 21, 12), says to Abraham,

 

"Do not be upset over the boy and your servant. Do whatever Sarah tells you, for Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted."

 

So perhaps you might elaborate upon your claim that Abraham really didn't care that much who got what.

.....................................

You also state that, "Will we ever get to understand how the Universe started off in a highly ordered state? If there ever became just the one unanswered question, will this be the ultimate monotheism? No more need for tree gods, sun gods, rain gods, Moon gods, Mother goddesses etc but just one god that answers the final question."

 

I would note that it has been a long time since the majority of people on the surface of the earth believed in pantheism.

 

I have a bit of an issue with the use of the word "God" in that posts regarding religious topics rather consistently use the word God (and not Goddess), thereby apparently assuming, as do the major monotheistic religions today, that the Supreme Being is a male. Even if we defend the practice of using words such as "he" and "him" when speaking of God as just being metaphorical (he is a leader, he is powerful, he is a disciplinarian, or whatever), I would suggest that the practice is unfortunately archaic, in that it tends to emphasize the strong patriarchal nature of the major monotheistic religions even in today's world.

 

I'm guessing that you are suggesting that even if scientists discover (with a reasonable degree of 'confidence') why the universe started out the way that it did without resorting to use of the word God, then you still think that such a "force" or whatever would be metaphorically the equivalent of the word "God," so that we could legitimately describe such a scientific theory as really, some sort of monotheism.

 

I think that most scientists would be unlikely to do this unless they thought that the public knew that they were obviously being metaphorical in their use of the word "God," as apparently Einstein did. Typically scientists avoid explaining things by resorting to the concept of 'God', and indeed, sometimes somewhat derogatorily refer to such a 'filler' explanation as the 'god of the gaps'. Bottom line is that calling a scientific explanation about the origin of the universe a form of monotheism is totally misleading, and unnecessarily confusing.

Edited June 23, 2016 by disarray