Why is monotheism important?

[hedrick]

In order to support Christianity, I think God has to have at a minimum, something corresponding to intentionality. He has to want good for us, or there would be no reason to send the prophets and Jesus to guide us. He also has to be able to interact with at least some humans, or there would have been no way to inspire the prophets and Jesus.

This is intended as a minimum, not necessarily what is actually the case.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

Human organizations can have unity, so why can't divine organizations? Some problems have a single optimal solution, and any group of sufficiently intelligent beings will converge on a consensus for that reason. There is also a unity of action that comes from submission to the group's decision after members are first given an opportunity to advocate their personal opinions.

Also, the real point of this thread is not "why is monotheism more plausible than polytheism?". The real point of this thread is "why is monotheism/polytheism such an important way to characterize religions?".
- Why not classify religions based on whether they think other religions are fatally flawed?
- or whether they practice evangelism?
- or whether they think the gods are always benevolent and right?
- or whether they believe that dogma is immutable (except in rare instances such as Moses on Mt. Sinai or Jesus in Palestine or Muhammad in a cave)

 

[public hermit]

The real point of this thread is "why is monotheism/polytheism such an important way to characterize religions?"

Isn't it due to the fact both kinds of religions exist? Isn't it just a classification based on what is observed? Maybe I don't understand.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What are you guys agueing about? How could anyone think there is dualism of God? The religions of One God is Christianity Judaism and Islamic. Buddhism and other religions have lesser life forms for their gods, the highest being themselves.

 

[public hermit]

Why not classify religions based on whether they think other religions are fatally flawed?
- or whether they practice evangelism?
- or whether they think the gods are always benevolent and right?
- or whether they believe that dogma is immutable (except in rare instances such as Moses on Mt. Sinai or Jesus in Palestine or Muhammad in a cave

I see. I don't know.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

What is the world that we are not to love?

 

[cloudyday2]

Isn't it due to the fact both kinds of religions exist? Isn't it just a classification based on what is observed? Maybe I don't understand.

Well most things have various parameters that might be used for classification - height, weight, color, or whatever. A highway engineer might want to classify traffic based on vehicle weight while an environmentalist might want to classify traffic based on pollution per commuter mile.

Why is the number of gods so important in classifying religions? There are lots of other ways we could classify religions.

 

[public hermit]

Well most things have various parameters that might be used for classification - height, weight, color, or whatever. A highway engineer might want to classify traffic based on vehicle weight while an environmentalist might want to classify traffic based on pollution per commuter mile.

Why is the number of gods so important in classifying religions? There are lots of other ways we could classify religions.

I apologize. I completely misunderstood your question. I really have no idea why that form of classification is so prominent vs. the other possibilities you mentioned.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well most things have various parameters that might be used for classification - height, weight, color, or whatever. A highway engineer might want to classify traffic based on vehicle weight while an environmentalist might want to classify traffic based on pollution per commuter mile.

Why is the number of gods so important in classifying religions? There are lots of other ways we could classify religions.

Probably nothing when everyone is sitting at home anyway.

 

[cloudyday2]

What are you guys agueing about? How could anyone think there is dualism of God? The religions of One God is Christianity Judaism and Islamic. Buddhism and other religions have lesser life forms for their gods, the highest being themselves.

See post #22
Basically I'm asking why so many people think that monotheism vs. polytheism is the most important way to characterize religions.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The cooperation and corporate rights came into existence to free slaves at the civil war fought in the united states. That’s not what the presidence was originally for but just the paper work for which corporations came into being. Hence, a lesser god, that is the world.
hmm, I just answered my own question.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Human organizations can have unity, so why can't divine organizations? Some problems have a single optimal solution, and any group of sufficiently intelligent beings will converge on a consensus for that reason. There is also a unity of action that comes from submission to the group's decision after members are first given an opportunity to advocate their personal opinions.

Also, the real point of this thread is not "why is monotheism more plausible than polytheism?". The real point of this thread is "why is monotheism/polytheism such an important way to characterize religions?".
- Why not classify religions based on whether they think other religions are fatally flawed?
- or whether they practice evangelism?
- or whether they think the gods are always benevolent and right?
- or whether they believe that dogma is immutable (except in rare instances such as Moses on Mt. Sinai or Jesus in Palestine or Muhammad in a cave)

That question has been argued for centuries about church and state.

 

[hedrick]

Human organizations can have unity, so why can't divine organizations? Some problems have a single optimal solution, and any group of sufficiently intelligent beings will converge on a consensus for that reason. There is also a unity of action that comes from submission to the group's decision after members are first given an opportunity to advocate their personal opinions.

I agree. You could in principle have a council of gods that works cooperatively. Indeed some models of the Trinity are three entities that are very closely integrated. If we were going to create a religion from scratch with no external input I suppose that would be possible.

Christians, at least, have felt that we can't know what God is like unless he tells us, and all of the plausible sources say he's one. The actual polytheistic religions are not the kind of cooperative group you describe. (At least that's true of the polytheism that the Biblical authors dealt with. I'm sure there's some Polynesian tribe somewhere that actually has the kind of idea you refer to.)

Furthermore, there are degrees an anthropomorphism. I think the most plausible ideas of God are at the less anthropomorphic end, and I don't think multiple gods even make sense.

 

[Robban]

There is a form of reasoning that says if a religion or a community formed by that relgion

are living in peace and prosperity.

Why disturb them?

As the saying goes;
"There may be food,
there may be drink
but if there is no peace,
there is nothing.

 

[Radagast]

Isn't it due to the fact both kinds of religions exist? Isn't it just a classification based on what is observed? Maybe I don't understand.

Polytheism eventually produces philosophers who say "that can't be right."

In Greece, for example, you had Plato.

In the major schools of Hinduism, Brahman is the only true deity (if "deity" is the right word).

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[Radagast]

The real point of this thread is "why is monotheism/polytheism such an important way to characterize religions?"

Because it's such a clear-cut distinction, on the whole.

- or whether they practice evangelism?

That's a little fuzzier, but you frequently see references to the three great proselytizing religions, which have spread around the world to multiple ethnic groups: Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.

These are generally contrasted to, say, Judaism and Hinduism, which are mostly associated with specific ethnic groups.

 

[cloudyday2]

Because it's such a clear-cut distinction, on the whole.

I would argue it really isn't clear-cut. Judaism has "sons of god" or angels who were each given dominion over one of the ancient human nations. The Hebrews were reserved for God. I suppose many modern believers see that verse as poetic rather than literal, but the many stories about angels in the Bible were clearly meant to be as historical and literal as any other stories. What's the practical difference between the angel Gabriel and the god Hermes? They both functions as heralds and messengers for the supreme god of their pantheon.

Christianity further blurs the meaning of monotheism with the divinity of Jesus and the belief that all Christians should become divine (theosis/deification). Jesus prays asking the Father for all his disciples to be one just as Jesus and the Father are one.

Furthermore, almost all polytheistic gods include a supreme god and a creator god (possibly dead or retired). Hinduism, for example, might be considered monotheistic with numerous perspectives on that one god provided by the other gods.

Judaism was able to evolve from its original polytheistic form to its current monotheistic form without ever admitting that a change had happened. That indicates a blurry distinction rather than a clear-cut distinction.

For that matter, where is the definition that distinguishes between divine beings and non-divine beings? If that definition is blurry then the whole concept of monotheism must also be blurry.

 

[Robban]

I would argue it really isn't clear-cut. Judaism has "sons of god" or angels who were each given dominion over one of the ancient human nations. The Hebrews were reserved for God. I suppose many modern believers see that verse as poetic rather than literal, but the many stories about angels in the Bible were clearly meant to be as historical and literal as any other stories. What's the practical difference between the angel Gabriel and the god Hermes? They both functions as heralds and messengers for the supreme god of their pantheon.

Christianity further blurs the meaning of monotheism with the divinity of Jesus and the belief that all Christians should become divine (theosis/deification). Jesus prays asking the Father for all his disciples to be one just as Jesus and the Father are one.

Furthermore, almost all polytheistic gods include a supreme god and a creator god (possibly dead or retired). Hinduism, for example, might be considered monotheistic with numerous perspectives on that one god provided by the other gods.

Judaism was able to evolve from its original polytheistic form to its current monotheistic form without ever admitting that a change had happened. That indicates a blurry distinction rather than a clear-cut distinction.

For that matter, where is the definition that distinguishes between divine beings and non-divine beings? If that definition is blurry then the whole concept of monotheism must also be blurry.

Abraham would not agree.

After escaping being put to death by Nimrod,

Abram was hidden in a cave, he stayed in the cave until he was ten years old.

During this time he came to believe in the existence of G-d through reasoning.
By watching the sun, moon and stars coming and going
each in their own time.

He reasoned there must be a power above and beyond
all the visible forces of nature,
a power that had created them and controlled them at all times.
Young Abram perceived the unlimited and timeless existence of G-d.

Then G-d made Himself known to Abram and taught him
the right way of living.

Later Abram went to the house of Noah and Shem,
he stayed there many years,
he studied and learned to serve G-d.

The Talmud tells that Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah
before it was given.

He, Abram had been taught the knowledge of the true G-d and he despised the idol worship of the people around him.

 

[Radagast]

the many stories about angels in the Bible were clearly meant to be as historical and literal as any other stories

Angels are not "gods." They are (1) created and (2) infinitely inferior.

Christianity further blurs the meaning of monotheism with the divinity of Jesus

Christianity is monotheist; for the nature of the Trinity I refer you to the Athanasaian Creed.

and the belief that all Christians should become divine

I certainly don't believe any such thing. Who does?

Furthermore, almost all polytheistic gods include a supreme god and a creator god

Once the polytheistic pantheon contains a unique supreme god (as in Zeus for the Greek Stoics), religious groups are on the pathway to monotheism.

Hinduism, for example, might be considered monotheistic with numerous perspectives on that one god provided by the other gods.

I said that already. You're obviously not engaging with what people post here.