Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 04:38 pm
Ok - I am no religion or history expert, so I may well be asking really stupid questions - (and have a lot of my "facts" wrong - correction happily accepted - as long as you don't say ignoramus a lot, right?) - but I have been doing some thinking and wondering about monotheism.
1. Genesis.
Firstly - why? What led to people deciding to have only one god?
When I was little, we were taught, of course, that this was the thing towards which religion naturally aspired, seeing that it was true! Now, of course, I no longer accept that! So why?
And why WHERE it seems mainly to have happened. I mean - the world, by and large, is happily polytheistic, or pantheistic - suddenly, in one part of the world, boom! Three connected religions with only one - MALE! (it seems) - god. Oh - four - I forgot Zoroastrianism - same general region, right?
The Egyptians, (under Akhnaton, was it?) flirted with the concept - but this lasted only one Pharaoh-hood as far as I know.
2. Intolerance and religion based violence.
What is it that causes the adherents to this god, howsoever named, to be so intolerant? To sneer at, or want to kill, or generally to regard in a less than nice manner, those who do not share their belief? (I am speaking historically here, a bit - but it is noteable that some of these adherents STILL act this way - I am aware that many do NOT, though.)
I mean - as far as my ignorance goes, I gather that the community of gods was a pretty tolerant one - that folk recognized familiar gods and goddesses under other names in other parts - or agreed pretty happily to honour local ones - no real sweat. Also, that new gods were quite acceptable - (I know that the Jewish and christian god was a bit non de rigeur in Rome for a bit - I understand largely because of its adherents intolerance and fanaticism????)
I know that in some parts a lot of violence - like sacrifice and such - happened in the NAME of, and in the worship of, some gods (eg Aztecs) - I am talking here about killing folk because they didn't have YOUR god - or because they interpreted some bit of holy writ differently and such. This habit seems, to me, to have pretty much arisen with monotheism. I may be wrong, of course....
3. Maleness
Hey - we had lots of goddesses and all that! Why were these single gods seemingly so MALE?????
Ok - so that lot ought to be answered fully by the time I get home from work, right???
(Mods - I have put this in Philosophy and Debate deliberately, cos I didn't wish to offend the religious folk too egregiously - and some might, I thought, find this topic offensive in Religion and Spirituality)
I agree. I've thought wistfully of polytheism ever since I learned that the Roman view of the cosmos allowed a little godlet for every compost pile--lares and penates and all that.
Well, I wasn't so much saying "monotheism bad, polytheism good" you know.
I mean, I am not overly fond of some of the gods and goddesses who apparently wanted hearts ripped from living bodies in their hundreds, for instance.
I am more just wanting to puzzle out some stuff about the one god phenomenon.
But I do know what you mean! And spirits for the streams and rivers and trees and all that - can't help thinking that, if you are gonna have supernatural beings about, that those are good ones to believe in!
Think of the comedown for a hard working nymph. Instead of supervising a organic, varied meadow between two streams she's handed the dull monoculture of a cornfield!
As for the bloodthirsty deities--there are parts of the Old Testament that portray a singular god as both wrathful and vengeful.
Hmmm - indeed- but not demanding human sacrifice - at least not directly - seemed happy with the death penalty for non-believers and mildly naughty folk.
1. I think the belief in one God was gradual, the move from henotheism to monotheism. It has been suggested that his happened during the Babylonian Exile, when God's place was no longer the temple, but God went out with His people and was now everywhere. Each nation had its own god or gods. Usually a conquered nation's god was conquered and defeated or incorporated. In this case it did not happen that way. The other move that was also happening was from idols and physical manifestations to immaterial. This can be understood to also be gradual and whatever faction of factions represented this view won out. There's a type of pillar Abraham uses to mark a spot, which is then later forbidden by Moses.
The Egyptians were monotheists, but they were united by the sungod. There are theories flying about that the Israelites had contact with Akhenaten, but they are theories. There are also theories that if there was a historical Moses, and I believe there was, that he was taught some of Jethro's religion. They're all theories.
2. I think the intolerance happened when a tribal God was forced where He didn't belong. It went from the Jewish God, Creator of everything whose chosen have a special purpose to God of everything who all must come to accept, for He is their God and they must know this.
The issue with the Romans was that the Jews would not accept other gods, nor would they Hellenize. Some did Hellenize, indeed, but many would not. So when in Rome, everyone did as the Romans did, except the Jews who remained independent in the way they conducted themselves.
3. The masculine language can be seen as a reflection of the people who wrote it. God was not considered male or female. It has been suggested that the reason God is conceived of as immaterial is because of all the language that shows Israel as the bride of God in some fashion, sometimes explicitly. It would be wrong for the adult male nation of Israel to be the bride of something with a penis, so the image was done away with. This is just a theory though. I think it's pretty farfetched. Somebody wrote a book that suggested it. Don't remember the name of it.
Noddy24 wrote:Abraham and Isaac?
Imagine that you're somebody living back in the day who does slay children or does know of such things, and you read that story or, more likely, you hear it read. Nevermind the contextual clues that Abraham had faith he would not have to slay his son, because his God is different. It's Genesis 22 if you want to take a look.
I don't think the possibility that this was a practice in Israel can be eliminated, but it is not sanctioned in any of the books. All valid sacrifices are described, and it is described what they are for. If it happened and it was truly widespread enough, the prophets would have said a lot more on it than they did.
A songle powerful god pretty much anounces, "My god is bigger than yours. Bigger than all your gods. My god is supreme."
This is a traditonal male attitude.
I don't know about that--the alpha female in a pack of wild cannids will kill the offspring of any other female. I don't deny the patriarchal misogyny of the Semitic peoples, but that does not necessarily extend to the Hamitic or Aryan tribes.
You fail to consider how the possibility of one single god evolved. Imagine living in a world where there are many gods. Now imagine devoting yourself to just one. But those other gods are still there. Now imagine you've become a nation, united under this one god. But those other gods are still there. Now imagine you are conquered, and it is expected that either your god is conquered and defeated or it becomes one of the lesser gods, but this does not happen. Theology adapts. Your god is going with you, spilling out from his ruined home, the Temple, and going everywhere that you go. God is no longer limited to one place.
And it happens like that, gradually. It's an evolution in understanding. There's no sudden, "My god is greater than yours." It had to be understood that God was not defeated. It was the Israelites who had failed God and they had been punished for this. They had done something wrong. Gradually this happened. And it wasn't the last adjustment to theology.
If I wish to advance into as much power as possible it would be as the paraclete of a single God one that cannot be overruled by "lesser gods". An absolute abstract whose "WILL" I become while publicly proclaiming "It is not my will but His will which commands me." This enforces uniformity but it also creates monstrosity because all other possibilities, desirable or not, were consigned to an "Act of Faith" - the totalitarianism of an Auto-da-fe. To rule in the Divine Right of a Self-Created sacred entity, what greater technique for the convergence of power toward a single group or individual has the world ever experienced? The greatest corporations by comparison are barely footnotes. It is mental incest breeding the ultra ego which explains why "unitary" gods are so defective when our own faults become so glaringly magnified in them.
Are you suggesting that polytheists did not pray to a chief god who they regarded as most-powerful, acting in that god's name or by the will of that god?
I'm not suggesting that at all. Married Gods were usually "overruled" by the missus. In the polytheistic pantheon power was shared with a chief god at its helm. You somehow missed the intent of what I meant to say regarding the power complex inherent in the psychology of a unitary God.
Ack - I will be back to comment later folks - thank you all for the comments.
Setanta wrote:I don't know about that--the alpha female in a pack of wild cannids will kill the offspring of any other female. I don't deny the patriarchal misogyny of the Semitic peoples, but that does not necessarily extend to the Hamitic or Aryan tribes.
Any ideas re why? And can you say why you believe this?
Noddy24 wrote:A songle powerful god pretty much anounces, "My god is bigger than yours. Bigger than all your gods. My god is supreme."
This is a traditonal male attitude.
Hmm - mebbe - but that is cart before horse - why suddenly do "male display" with gods? (IF it WAS sudden) (If it WAS "male display")
dauer wrote:1. I think the belief in one God was gradual, the move from henotheism to monotheism. It has been suggested that his happened during the Babylonian Exile, when God's place was no longer the temple, but God went out with His people and was now everywhere. Each nation had its own god or gods. Usually a conquered nation's god was conquered and defeated or incorporated. In this case it did not happen that way. The other move that was also happening was from idols and physical manifestations to immaterial. This can be understood to also be gradual and whatever faction of factions represented this view won out. There's a type of pillar Abraham uses to mark a spot, which is then later forbidden by Moses.
Oh - I thought the Hebrews were already possessed of the god of Abraham when the babylonian exile occurred??? Could you expand a bit?
dauer wrote:The Egyptians were monotheists, but they were united by the sungod. There are theories flying about that the Israelites had contact with Akhenaten, but they are theories. There are also theories that if there was a historical Moses, and I believe there was, that he was taught some of Jethro's religion. They're all theories.
dauer wrote:
You mean they were polytheists, right? There WAS a Pharaoh who declared one god - but he didn't last long...you consider Ra as the "chief" god as a precursor to monotheism?
dauer wrote:2. I think the intolerance happened when a tribal God was forced where He didn't belong. It went from the Jewish God, Creator of everything whose chosen have a special purpose to God of everything who all must come to accept, for He is their God and they must know this.
Yes - but why, do you think?
dauer wrote:The issue with the Romans was that the Jews would not accept other gods, nor would they Hellenize. Some did Hellenize, indeed, but many would not. So when in Rome, everyone did as the Romans did, except the Jews who remained independent in the way they conducted themselves.
And the christians, later.
dauer wrote:3. The masculine language can be seen as a reflection of the people who wrote it. God was not considered male or female. It has been suggested that the reason God is conceived of as immaterial is because of all the language that shows Israel as the bride of God in some fashion, sometimes explicitly. It would be wrong for the adult male nation of Israel to be the bride of something with a penis, so the image was done away with. This is just a theory though. I think it's pretty farfetched. Somebody wrote a book that suggested it. Don't remember the name of it.
Lol - I am prolly really asking why patriarchy! Of course I believe the god and the language reflect the minds of the folk creating it. So - the hebrew god is neither male nor female - in the popular mind also? Does the Hebrew word for god have a gender? As English usually says "he"?
The trouble with monotheism is that it is not mono, one; it's really duo, two, meaning God and the rest (all His creations, including us). I prefer a true MONISM, in which there is ONLY "God" if you will, or dharma, or Reality, or Brahma, or Alla, etc. I like the saying, even though I am not a theist: "There is only God." When Jesus proclaimed that he was God (assuming he did make the proclamation), I suspect that he meant--if he was sane--that we are all God; that there is ONLY God.
Got any opinion on the questions I ask about monotheism, JL?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace