Why is monotheism important?

[cloudyday2]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels which are not very different from some polytheistic gods. God and his angels might be viewed as a pantheon. The only differences I can see are the prohibition against worshiping angels and the fact that polytheistic gods are usually connected to various features of nature (e.g. Poseidon and the sea). Worship is a nebulous concept though. The activities we call "worship" when the object is a god are called "veneration" when the object is not a god.

But even if we don't challenge the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic, why is it so important? For example, why isn't belief in the benevolence of the gods more important than belief that there is one god? If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

 

[public hermit]

I think there may need to be a distinction here between the historical development of monotheism (e.g. in early Israel) and philosophical arguments in defense of monotheism. How monotheism developed may look very different than the reasons employed to defend it. I think (a good many) OT scholars would argue that what developed into monotheism in ancient Israel began as henotheism.

All that to say, it seems monotheism was important to ancient Israel because YHWH was the greatest and the Creator. They didn't deny the existence of other gods, but that theirs was the greatest. The philosophical/theological reasons for the importance of monotheism developed in the context of an already assumed monotheism.

Monotheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[hedrick]

It doesn't make sense to have more than one ultimate power in the universe.

In the area where Israel got its start, the pagan gods acted pretty ungodlike, fighting with each other, etc. The Greek gods seemed to be similar. I guess in principle you could have more than one god like the one Jesus describes, but it's a bit hard to imagine.

I'm skeptical about the subsidiary gods. Assuming the stories of angels should be taken literally, they're created beings who act as God's messengers. I wouldn't consider them anything like a pantheon.

As I'm sure you know, I don't believe in a mean God, nor multiple mean gods.

 

[cloudyday2]

@public hermit and @hedrick , would you agree that the number of gods is less important than their divine plan? In other words, if you had to choose between knowing what the gods expect of you and knowing how many gods exist, wouldn't you rather know what the gods expect of you?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Theres God and then theres everything that God made. A><Z <is training ground>

 

[hedrick]

@public hermit and @hedrick , would you agree that the number of gods is less important than their divine plan? In other words, if you had to choose between knowing what the gods expect of you and knowing how many gods exist, wouldn't you rather know what the gods expect of you?

I guess. It's just a bit hard to imagine how that would work.

If you read modern theological/philosophical discussions about god, he's not envisioned as just a bigger human, but as something different. It's not clear that multiple instances even make sense.

In the OT, early Israelites seem to have seen God as pretty analogous to a human. It came out of, though opposed, a culture where gods were kind of super humans. You can see vestiges of that fairly late in the OT. In that context this kind of discussion makes sense. It makes less sense in a Christian context, and none in the context of modern theology.

 

[public hermit]

@public hermit and @hedrick , would you agree that the number of gods is less important than their divine plan? In other words, if you had to choose between knowing what the gods expect of you and knowing how many gods exist, wouldn't you rather know what the gods expect of you?

The problem is, if there are multiple gods, then the expectations might be contradictory. That is what @hedrick seems to be touching on about the Greek gods acting in a manner too anthropomorphic.

The development of monotheism in Greek philosophy is helpful. I may be corrected here, but it seems to me Plato had a tendency to identify "The Good" as the highest form, with justice, knowledge, truth falling under it. Plotinus's "The One" seems to be a combination of Plato's "The Good" and Aristotle's "Uncaused Cause."

At any rate, multiple gods with multiple expectations won't work. And if multiple god's have the same expectations, then one is forced to ask "Why?" and that's what leads to concepts like Plato's "The Good." If they all agree then there must be a reason higher than them as the cause for their agreement.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"Plato had a tendency to identify "The Good" as the highest form, with justice, knowledge, truth falling under it.”

And hense the term platonic when a sexual lean isn’t applied.

 

[St_Worm2]

Why is monotheism important?

Hello Cloudyday2, first and foremost, because it's the truth. For example:

Isaiah 43
10 "You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
In order that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no Savior besides Me.”
​

If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

Our God, our Creator, who is w/o beginning or end, the God who spoke space-time and everything else within our realm into existence, is the only God we have, so no worries about needing to keep track of a thousand "nice gods", because they only exist in people's minds (well, unless you want to remember stuff like that for some reason ).

As for the "nice" part, fortunately the One God with which we all have to do is kind, patient, gracious and merciful towards us, and He demonstrated His great love for us (even though we are His enemies who hate Him) by coming here to die that horrible death on the Cross in our stead so that we could live.

So, I became a Christian, at least in part, because it seemed to me that the One, "loving/real" God had it all over the thousands (actually hundreds of thousands in India alone) of other "nice", but fake Gods in every conceivable way

--David

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels which are not very different from some polytheistic gods. God and his angels might be viewed as a pantheon. The only differences I can see are the prohibition against worshiping angels and the fact that polytheistic gods are usually connected to various features of nature (e.g. Poseidon and the sea). Worship is a nebulous concept though. The activities we call "worship" when the object is a god are called "veneration" when the object is not a god.

But even if we don't challenge the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic, why is it so important? For example, why isn't belief in the benevolence of the gods more important than belief that there is one god? If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

On a different topic a person gave a message that sort of implies in spirit. It was a Blog post of writing counter various Christians who question the traditional Christian narrative of Jesus dying on Friday and rising from the dead on Sunday, and that counts as "3 days" according to the Jewish notions of the day (that we know today as "Inclusive Reckoning". Anyway the guy wrapped up presentation with a nice statement that those people who spent their time questioning were "hung up on the Chronology" of the Resurrection, rather than the message of the resurrection which he spoke of "pulling victory out of something that looked like a total defeat". And I think that sort of thing applies here.


I have heard some apologetics presentation talk about God's unity and how important it is because you can only have something that is all powerful etc. if it is united. And I think that is true, but not really Thee reason.


The main reason is the pervasive theme throughout the Bible as God as a King (and one with no equals or competitors in his league). And lots of the scholars that see some polytheistic looking stuff in the OT Hebrew are right. It is there because the metaphor of God as a King, enthroned with a heavenly court is present in a number of places, in both Testaments. But anyway true sovereignty AKA divinity belongs with Yahew alone.

 

[Radagast]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

The monotheist religions believe that monotheism is true.

 

[cloudyday2]

If you read modern theological/philosophical discussions about god, he's not envisioned as just a bigger human, but as something different. It's not clear that multiple instances even make sense.

An important feature of God in the Abrahamic religions is personality. Christians often say that we must have a "relationship" with God or Jesus. That means God must have a personality that allows for a relationship with humans.

 

[zippy2006]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels which are not very different from some polytheistic gods. God and his angels might be viewed as a pantheon. The only differences I can see are the prohibition against worshiping angels and the fact that polytheistic gods are usually connected to various features of nature (e.g. Poseidon and the sea). Worship is a nebulous concept though. The activities we call "worship" when the object is a god are called "veneration" when the object is not a god.

But even if we don't challenge the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic, why is it so important? For example, why isn't belief in the benevolence of the gods more important than belief that there is one god? If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

Trying to give a different answer, I will say that complete surrender can't take place without that complete ontological distinction between God and creation. Generally speaking, the otherness of God is compromised on polytheism. Polytheism brings a consumerist mentality to religion. On polytheism the question is not whether to serve the One Lord (which is a very deep question), but rather, "Which god(s) should we serve?" (a much more superficial question).

 

[Radagast]

The development of monotheism in Greek philosophy is helpful. I may be corrected here, but it seems to me Plato had a tendency to identify "The Good" as the highest form, with justice, knowledge, truth falling under it. Plotinus's "The One" seems to be a combination of Plato's "The Good" and Aristotle's "Uncaused Cause."

Plato also speaks of "The One." And in the Timaeus, The One creates the universe via a Demiurge.

 

[Robban]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels which are not very different from some polytheistic gods. God and his angels might be viewed as a pantheon. The only differences I can see are the prohibition against worshiping angels and the fact that polytheistic gods are usually connected to various features of nature (e.g. Poseidon and the sea). Worship is a nebulous concept though. The activities we call "worship" when the object is a god are called "veneration" when the object is not a god.

But even if we don't challenge the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic, why is it so important? For example, why isn't belief in the benevolence of the gods more important than belief that there is one god? If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

Some have many gods and one world.

I have in One God and two worlds.

Pretty simple.

 

[Robban]

The monotheist religions seem to feel that one-God is a very important or even the most important part of their theology.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in angels which are not very different from some polytheistic gods. God and his angels might be viewed as a pantheon. The only differences I can see are the prohibition against worshiping angels and the fact that polytheistic gods are usually connected to various features of nature (e.g. Poseidon and the sea). Worship is a nebulous concept though. The activities we call "worship" when the object is a god are called "veneration" when the object is not a god.

But even if we don't challenge the claim that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monotheistic, why is it so important? For example, why isn't belief in the benevolence of the gods more important than belief that there is one god? If I had to choose between one mean god and 1000 nice gods, I would choose 1000 nice gods even though I might not be able to keep track of them all. Why is the number of gods so important to monotheists?

The most used word in addressing the Master of the universe is, "You"

Thereof the "personal relationship"


Or would reckon.

 

[cloudyday2]

Some have many gods and one world.

I have in One God and two worlds.

Pretty simple.

What are the two worlds? Are they Earth and Heaven?

 

[cloudyday2]

The problem is, if there are multiple gods, then the expectations might be contradictory. That is what @hedrick seems to be touching on about the Greek gods acting in a manner too anthropomorphic.

The development of monotheism in Greek philosophy is helpful. I may be corrected here, but it seems to me Plato had a tendency to identify "The Good" as the highest form, with justice, knowledge, truth falling under it. Plotinus's "The One" seems to be a combination of Plato's "The Good" and Aristotle's "Uncaused Cause."

At any rate, multiple gods with multiple expectations won't work. And if multiple god's have the same expectations, then one is forced to ask "Why?" and that's what leads to concepts like Plato's "The Good." If they all agree then there must be a reason higher than them as the cause for their agreement.

A god by my definition must have a personality so humans can pray to it and please it and displease it and so forth. "The Good" doesn't meet that requirement. There is some anthropomorphism required for a god to be a god.

 

[Robban]

What are the two worlds? Are they Earth and Heaven?

This world and the world to come.

 

[public hermit]

A god by my definition must have a personality so humans can pray to it and please it and displease it and so forth. "The Good" doesn't meet that requirement. There is some anthropomorphism required for a god to be a god.

That makes sense. One the one hand, a "god" that was somehow less than personal would not fit everyday religious experience and expectations, as you point out. On the other hand, a "god" that does not transcend human characteristics would not befit the source of all that is (be it by creation or emanation). Presumably, such a source might include the required anthropomorphisms and yet would surely transcend them. So, I wouldn't let the place holders "The Good" or "God" or "The One" throw you off. Those are words we use to refer to that which transcends whatever label we use, or whatever conception we may have. God may in fact be One and Good, but we wouldn't want to assume thereby that we have now comprehended God

Back to the point, if there were a multiplicity of gods with contradictory expectations on humanity, obeying or worshipping one or the other would be trivial unless there were some overriding expectation. If there were an overriding expectation, which perhaps picked one or more gods out of the multiplicity as being the one(s) to obey and worship, then that overriding expectation would point to something greater than any of them. Likewise, if the multiplicity of gods all had the same expectation, we would wonder the source of their unity, which in turn would offer itself as the Primary One, or Good, or God. I used the example of the philosophers to show how something similar happened historically. Still, the way monotheism developed in western philosophy is markedly different than how it developed in ancient Israel.