The Trouble With Monotheism??????

What amazes me is not so much the emergence of masculine monotheism, but that it should amaze anyone. The polytheism of the Greeks and Romans reflects, I guess, the fact that they did not center all power in a single soveirgn. Once the monoarchic form of government took hold in the new state societies, it might have been natural for them to define the universe as their monarchy writ large. I'm not much for speculating on origins. Anthropologists, also, have pretty much given up on orgins at the turn of the century and for years (up through fifties, I believe) focused on explaining the persistence of institutions (as opposed to their origins)--why do they last and not just fall apart? In recent decades they tend to focus on an explanation of institutional/social change.
I like the speculation that before the advent of masculine monarchies--the model for religion tended to be in many places NATURE, as opposed to society. This would possibly favor feminine images and ideals. Can't say with confidence.

0 Replies

I'm in bold.

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?

They were, but this does not mean they believed he was the only god, just that they had no other. For them there was only one.

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?

I was speaking of the Pharoah Akenaten. I see now that that may not have been clear in the first line. There are some who trace the exodus to the time of Akhenaten, and of those some suggest there was either a Hebrew influence on the Egyptians or an Egyptian influence on the Hebrews. The theories can become very wild and some of them are partisan, depending on whether the source is Egyptian or Jewish/Christian.

[quote="dauer"]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?

It takes the idea that revelation was to and for a specific people, and turns it into something universal. If the revelation was intended for everyone, then everyone must learn the truth, the good news, and everyone is subject to the consequences of not heeding the words. It has been pointed out to me before that the only idolaters condemned by the prophets are Jewish idolaters and those who would lead Jews into idolatry. When other nations are referred to, it is to say, "You don't be like them. You are different." although certainly with stronger language.

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.

Are you saying the Christians helenized or that they held onto their old ways and would not change?

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"?

In the popular mind it is wrong to concieve of God as having a gender. There is not one Hebrew name for God but there are many. It is possible this is due to different groups coming together to form Israel, united under one god, but that is my own theorizing. The most important name is the Tetragrammaton, which is unspoken. I will quote something on here for you on it.

"It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, the results agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which Yhwh terms Himself "I will be," a phrase which is immediately preceded by the fuller term "I will be that I will be," or, as in the English versions, "I am" and "I am that I am." The name is accordingly derived from the root (= ), and is regarded as an imperfect. This passage is decisive for the pronunciation "Yahweh"; for the etymology was undoubtedly based on the known word. The oldest exegetes, such as On?elos, and the Targumim of Jerusalem and pseudo-Jonathan regard "Ehyeh" and "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as the name of the Divinity, and accept the etymology of "hayah" = "to be" (comp. Samuel b. Mer, commentary on Ex. iii. 14). Modern critics, some of whom, after the lapse of centuries, correct the Hebrew texts without regard to the entire change of point of view and mode of thought, are dissatisfied with this etymology; and their various hypotheses have resulted in offering the following definitions: (1) he who calls into being, or he who gives promises; (2) the creator of life; (3) he who makes events, or history; (4) the falling one, the feller, i.e., the stormgod who hurls the lightning; (5) he who sends down the rain (W. R. Smith, "The Old Testament," p. 123); (6) the hurler; (7) the destroyer; (8) the breather, the weather-god (Wellhausen). All these meanings are obtained by doing violence to the Hebrew text (Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." viii. 536 et seq.)."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&letter=T

Furthermore,

"The text here really is brilliant. In choosing the future tense of "to be," (which is also, by the way, the only truly gender neutral tense in the otherwise gender specific Hebrew language)..."

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Weekly_Torah_Commentary/shemot_kolel5762.htm

Most names are male and some are female, but this one is the most sacred. It is related to divine mercy. Jews do not speak it, to prevent blaspheme, but say adonai instead, which just means Lord. There is also El Shaddai which means Breasted God or God of Breasts, but which most people translate as God Almighty.

0 Replies

Oh, on El Shaddai, I think it's evidence of a hermaphrodite god, or god being worshipped in the form of a hermaphrodite. Perhaps before the people gave up idolatry, but at a time when they were being told to, they crafted hermaphrodite idols. It's all speculation. It could be evidence of an earlier aspect of god. I've also heard the theory that god had asherah was a consort, but then the consort was removed and her aspects combined with god's. In order to be less ambiguous I am going to use the name Yah for God from now on in this thread.

JL: How do you feel about panentheism?

0 Replies

Dauer, I see pantheism as ALMOST monistic. I may be wrong but it seems to me that pantheists see God as permeating the entire universe (pan means all). But to me it is more satisfying to hold that God IS everything, not IN everything. There is only God. Everything (you, me, bugs, crap, clouds, germs, stars, ad infinitum) is divine. For somethings to be X and other things Y is dualism. The items of dualism are all discriminated into "not-one" by humans. If we are talking about the Absolute, Ultimate Reality, there is only ONE,or monism (even though we can only perceive it, in our normal, ordinary modes of mind, as a plurality).

0 Replies

JL, that's not what is usually meant by 'pantheism.' What you describe -- seeing God as pemeating everything in the universe -- is called 'Deism.' Pantheism means a belief in all gods.

0 Replies

I didn't say pantheism. I said panentheism.

"Panentheism holds that the universe is a part of God or Goddess, or both, but that it is not the whole of God's being. Nature is thus an aspect of divinity. Unlike pantheism, however, it does not say that the universe is identical to God; it maintains that there is more to God than just the material universe. In panentheism God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality."

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/p/pa/panentheism.html

The way that it has been described to me, "Everything is god but god is greater than everything."

0 Replies

I'm not at all familiar with panentheism. I would be very surprised to learn that pantheism means a "belief in all gods".

0 Replies

Hmmmm....

0 Replies

I thought Deism referred to a creator, much like Plato's great architect of meaning, a creator who, once establishing his creation, has no further involvement with it. An impersonal god, as it were.

0 Replies

Wikipedia on Pantheism:

(Full entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism )

Pantheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Pantheism, simply stated, means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all encompassing God. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is personified in the theological principle of 'God.'

One way to describe certain interpretations of pantheism is to say "you are to God, as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." While a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (freewill) between right and wrong (killing a bacteria, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others) it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part. Another way to understand this relationship is the Hindu concept of atman. It is important to note that not all interpretations of pantheism would find this analogy meaningful; for that matter, not even all pantheists believe in free will. This is indicative of the wide diversity of pantheist belief.

0 Replies

Naturalistic Pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Pantheism

Classical pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_pantheism

0 Replies

Deism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason rather than faith, distinguishing it from theism. Deism is usually synonymous with "natural religion" in 18th century Enlightenment writings. Deism originated in 17th century Europe, gaining popularity in the 18th century Enlightenment especially in America as a modernist movement inspired by the success of the scientific method. Deists emphasize the exclusive application of reason and personal experience to religious questions. Deism is concerned with those truths which humans can discover through a process of reasoning, independent of any claimed divine revelation through scripture or prophets. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles.

Deism and Theism are closely related and this sometimes leads to controversy. The root of the word "deism" is from the Latin "deus", while the root of the word "theism" comes from the Greek "theos", both meaning "god" in English. In practice there are a range of beliefs encompassed by both Theism and Deism, however Theism can include faith or revelation as a basis for belief while Deism can include only belief which can be substantiated through reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

0 Replies

Theism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Theism&fulltext=Search

Theism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Theism (from Greek ??o? theos god) is used in two meanings: Generally it is the belief in gods or goddesses, or the belief in a creator of the universe who is actively involved in maintaining and ruling it.

The word originated in Ancient Greece and signified belief in the traditional Gods, the Olympians.

The first meaning sees four major views of the role of deity in the world in this context:

deism, the view that deity created the world but does not interact with it; emphasis on deities' transcendence
theism, proper (second definition), the view that deity is immanent in the world, yet transcends it;
panentheism, the view that the world is entirely contained within deity, while at the same time deity is something greater than just the world.
pantheism, the view that the world is identical to deity; emphasis on deities' immanence
Within theism proper, it can be differentiated between

monotheism (there is only one god)
henotheism (there are several gods, but only one of them is adored)
kathenotheism (worship of one god at a time, seeing each as supreme in turn)
polytheism (there are several gods)
Finally, we can make the distinction between belief in deities' existences and assertions about their benevolence:

theophilia says that deities are good and worthy of our worship and devotion
maltheism says that the evidence contradicts the notion that deities are good, and thus not worthy of our worship and devotion
Typical theistic religions are Zoroastrianism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í, and Sikhism.

Compare: Deism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Maltheism.

The following table is an attempt to categorize some of these positions systematically relative to each other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

0 Replies

Panentheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Panentheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
One form of Panentheism is the belief that that the universe is a part of God and that Nature is thus an aspect of divinity. Another, more likely far older, is the doctrine that God is Immanent within all creation, but that the universe is not part of God, rather God is the animating force behind the universe. Unlike pantheism, it does not say that the universe is synonymous with God; it maintains that there is more to God than the material universe. In panentheism God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality.

Contents [showhide]
1 Panentheism in Christianity

2 Panentheism in Judaism

3 Opposing views

4 See also

[edit]
Panentheism in Christianity
While it very well may be that panentheism described above has only recently been introduced to Christianity via process theology and small groups like Creation Spirituality, both making up a minority of Christians, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.

Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" of the Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil except as a result, direct or indirect, of the Fall of man or similar active rebellion against God.

This Orthodox panentheism is distinct from the "hardcore" panentheism described above in that it maintains an ontological gulf between the created and the Uncreated. Creation is not "part of" God, and God is still distinct from creation; however, God is "within" all creation, thus the Orthodox parsing of the word is "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are within/part of God but God is more than the sum of all things).

[edit]
Panentheism in Judaism
When Hasidic Orthodox Jews first developed as a movement and a theology, their theology was essentially panentheistic, even though they themselves did not use this word. Non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews viewed this theology as heretical. However, after the schism between Hasidic and non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews closed in the mid 1800s, panentheism became an accepted way of thinking in Orthodox Jewish theology. While not the mainstream point of view, panentheism has become more popular in the non-Orthodox Jewish denominations like Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism through the writings of rabbis like Abraham Joshua Heschel, Arthur Green, Wayne Dosick and Lawrence Kushner.

[edit]
Opposing views
Gnosticism holds the inverse idea of panentheism: it regards matter as evil and ultimately flawed, and thus not a part of God. Gnosticism claims that matter came about through emanations of the supreme being, but this event is held to be more of an accident than of being on purpose.

0 Replies

Polytheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

Polytheism is belief in, or worship of, multiple and equal gods or divinities. The word comes from the Greek words poly+theoi, literally "many gods." Most ancient religions were polytheistic, holding to pantheons of traditional deities, often accumulated over centuries of cultural interchange and experience. Present-day polytheistic religions include Hellenismos, Shinto, some forms of Wicca, Vodun, and Asatru. Buddhism and Hinduism are regarded by some non-practitioners as polytheistic although this view of the religion is rejected by many believers. Some Jewish and Islamic scholars regard the Christian doctrine of the trinity as bordering on polytheism, a view that Christians in general strongly reject.

0 Replies

I stand corrected, Ms. D. Thank you for the insights.

0 Replies

Well - don't stop talking already!

They was just clarifications!

0 Replies

Re: The Trouble With Monotheism??????
There is one god, and her name is Eccles.

To (attempt to) answer your questions:

2) People are and have always been stupid, greedy and frightened of people differrent from them. Although having a god is a useful way to justify violence (people will often go to extremes when they believe they are doing it for goed or a higher purpose) which is actually for a political end, it isn't necessary. Think of Dubya and his story about the weapons of mass destruction.

3) Most monotheistic cultures are patriarchal. It's seems natural that people would avoid making a all- poweful god from somebody who is considered less important and weaker. For example, most all-powerful gods don't have syphilis.

Also, the religions (Islamicism, Christianity and Judaism) which feature monotheism stem from the same source. Also, pantheistic (HInduism) religions as well as religions which feature no godlike figure ( Buddhism, if you consider it a religion and not a philosophy) have been extremely successful. It's only that Western society (along with Catholicism) successfully invaded and destroyed lots of other culturess a while back. COLONISATION RULES!!!! SO, perhaps the answer to your question is : " because we had better weapons".

Are you sure that the Aztecs were monotheistic? I was under an impression to the contrary.

0 Replies

So what would the world look like if there was no god or gods? Would it be extremely different? Would people find other ways to ally themselves together and other excuses for violence? Would there be more violence? Would there be more violence in some places and less in others?

What would the world be like if there was only monotheism (a all of it the same (b a few different forms.

0 Replies

In that i've always held that benefit of clergy has never made a bad man good, nor the lack thereof made a good man bad, i'd suspect that there would be little difference in the world.

0 Replies

The Trouble With Monotheism??????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know