polytheism vs monotheism

Originally posted by TacDavey
You have a being who cannot give humans everything He has. It's impossible. You cannot have more than one all powerful being. So it seems, that by your definition of free will, it simply doesn't exist.

I don't see it that way at all. I see free will as being in full control of our choices, not necessarily being able to perform every action.

Indeed, but the example I gave was not one where the person IS restraining themselves. Take a person who would certainly rape and kill a child if he got his hands on it. Even if he never got his hands on a child, and thus never carries out any physical action, I would still consider him evil.

I'm amazed that you are performing the very same action that you adamantly criticized me for performing only a few posts ago. If you feel that my response to this post was inadequate, you might want to point out why it was so, instead of just repeating yourself.

But I'm not going to wait through your posts until you decide to continue. If you don't want to respond, then that's fine. If you're just going to repeat yourself, I'm going to have to stop responding to you. I shouldn't have to waist my time and yours on a debate you clearly aren't taking seriously. I'm giving you one last chance, if your next post is nothing more than insults and a copy and paste version of your previous argument, then you may consider this discussion closed.

ONTOLOGY do you understand what this term means?

LOGICAL VALIDITY do you understand what this term means?

i feal that you are hiding your ignorance of the subject of logic under the veil of self righteous ridicule.

now please respond, or concede{i will take you not directly replying as conceding}.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You have a being who cannot give humans everything He has. It's impossible. You cannot have more than one all powerful being. So it seems, that by your definition of free will, it simply doesn't exist.

Secondly, even if he couldn't make an all-powerful being, he should at least make an effort to give beings the maximum capabilities he can. In fact, we actually have an example of this in the bible: Angels. Angels have free will according to you, so why are humans special at all?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see it that way at all. I see free will as being in full control of our choices, not necessarily being able to perform every action.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Indeed, but the example I gave was not one where the person IS restraining themselves. Take a person who would certainly rape and kill a child if he got his hands on it. Even if he never got his hands on a child, and thus never carries out any physical action, I would still consider him evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then what's so special about Heaven? By your thinking it will just be another Eden, a paradise that only sticks around until the first person to screw it up. Why would this be any different?

What's so special about Heaven is that we will be much more in tune with God than people on earth are. And that's a rather large deal. So it won't just be "another Eden".

Originally posted by King Kandy
How would there be evil without temptation?

It's still possible for evil to exist without temptation. I see no reason that evil requires temptation for it's existence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't consider it very "free" if the choice is between life or death. By that logic a dictatorship is a free country. Because the people are still free to defy, as long as they are OK with getting killed.

That isn't a nice choice, but it's still a choice they are free to make. So yes, that is still free will. We threaten to throw people in prison if they decide to murder someone. Are we taking away their free will? I don't think so. It's still a choice they are free to make.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What? But God is all good, no evil. So if we are made in his image, how does that add up at all? For that matter nowhere in the bible is it ever stated that free will is the way we were made in his image. So you are hardly following your own book. Of course this is what I would expect from someone who admits they don't actually know what happens in the old testament.

That doesn't follow. It says made in His image. That doesn't mean we are made EXACTLY like Him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Good for who? Those tough times are tough times for the people! Its not like God is the one getting sent to hell. How is it "free will", when God didn't even give us a choice on whether to accept it? By your interpretation, God just decided that he thought people would be better off with free will, and hey, those people with infinite suffering are no skin off his lip. And you laud this as an example of somehow giving people freedom.

Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Third problem: if the good outweighs the bad, why didn't God give all life forms free will? After all, the more the merrier.

God is under no obligation to make any more beings with free will. Regardless of how many beings God makes with free will you can ALWAYS ask "why not one more?"

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.

I assume you don't think you're going to hell, thus you most be acting like a mindless drone, doing whatever someone else tells you to. The alternative is hell.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What's so special about Heaven is that we will be much more in tune with God than people on earth are. And that's a rather large deal. So it won't just be "another Eden".

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's still possible for evil to exist without temptation. I see no reason that evil requires temptation for it's existence.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't a nice choice, but it's still a choice they are free to make. So yes, that is still free will. We threaten to throw people in prison if they decide to murder someone. Are we taking away their free will? I don't think so. It's still a choice they are free to make.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't follow. It says made in His image. That doesn't mean we are made EXACTLY like Him.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.

I don't like either of those options. How about free will, but no hell?

Originally posted by TacDavey
God is under no obligation to make any more beings with free will. Regardless of how many beings God makes with free will you can ALWAYS ask "why not one more?"

A question you are totally unable to answer, apparently.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ONTOLOGY do you understand what this term means?

LOGICAL VALIDITY do you understand what this term means?

i feal that you are hiding your ignorance of the subject of logic under the veil of self righteous ridicule.

now please respond, or concede{i will take you not directly replying as conceding}.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both.

You're still repeating yourself. If you think the definitions of those words refute my argument, then feel free to point that out.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well first off, you need to show that you can only have one all powerful being. In fact, this thread is polytheism vs monotheism. So if you can prove that, you solve the thread.

Not necessarily. First, polytheistic religions seldom have their gods as "all powerful". Usually they each have a set thing they hold power over. Such as the sea, earth etc etc.

As for why you can't have more than one, it's logically impossible. If something is as powerful as another then neither one is all powerful, since that would mean one holds power over everything including the other all powerful being, who happens to also hold powerful over the first. You can't have two at the same time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Secondly, even if he couldn't make an all-powerful being, he should at least make an effort to give beings the maximum capabilities he can. In fact, we actually have an example of this in the bible: Angels. Angels have free will according to you, so why are humans special at all?

When did I say Angels have free will?

Second, why is God obligated to give us the maximum amount of abilities? By the current definition of free will, it's already impossible for us to have it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But aren't these choices basically defined by what kind of actions we can perform? I can even go back to your example with the pedophile; that pedophile can't make the choice to rape a child, because apparently he does not have the capacity to do the job. So God could just have it be a situation like that.

I don't know what you mean here. The pedophile is still evil regardless of whether he actually rapes the child or not. If you're asking why God doesn't just have every person who wants to do evil have bad luck and never get to carry it out, it's because God does not want to force us to do anything. It's kinda the same thing as having Him come down on a chariot of fire.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A mythic breed. If he isn't restraining himself and still doesn't do it, obviously he didn't want it that badly.

That isn't necessarily true at all. Are you saying that anyone who wants something bad enough can always get it? That does not logically follow.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume you don't think you're going to hell, thus you most be acting like a mindless drone, doing whatever someone else tells you to. The alternative is hell.

...What? I don't understand what you mean here. I don't think I'm going to hell, thus I'm a drone? How does that logically follow?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why didn't God just create people to be that in tune to begin with?

It isn't a matter of simply being made "in tune". To be in Heaven, surrounded by God, automatically put's you more "in tune". But God doesn't want heaven filled with people who don't want to be there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Tell me a case where there was evil but no temptation.

Mmm. Depends on what you would consider "temptations". I don't know if I would consider racial hatred as something than came from a "temptation".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, I think you are taking away their free will when you send them to prison. That's the whole point of a prison; that the people will be dangerous if they have freedom, so you need to take it away.

"freedom" in the sense you are talking about is not the same as "free will". They are still in complete control of their choices. They simply aren't able to perform every physical action.

Let me ask you. Do you think you or I have free will?

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said we were like him because we could choose between good and evil. This is actually not like him at all, because god is 100% good. So that comparison fails and this is just an effort to handwave it away.

...Alright. Maybe be aren't actually like Him in that sense. I forgot why this is important to what we're talking about.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But it seems to me like that is exactly what you are. You do whatever God tells you. So if you have free will, you certainly aren't exercising it much.

On the contrary. I'm using my free will to freely choose to follow God's law. Just as you are using your free will to freely choose to follow the laws set up by your government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't like either of those options. How about free will, but no hell?

Not possible. God is also "all just". Meaning evil has to be punished.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He's under no obligation to create free will for anyone. It is a totally valid question "why make two series of free beings, but no more?"

And if He had made more, you could still be asking "why not three more?" And if He had made three more from that, you could ask "why not two more?" And so on and so forth.

It's a question that has no end. You can always ask why there isn't more.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A question you are totally unable to answer, apparently.

A question that can't be answered, as it has no end.

And I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the debate as well.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not necessarily. First, polytheistic religions seldom have their gods as "all powerful". Usually they each have a set thing they hold power over. Such as the sea, earth etc etc.

As for why you can't have more than one, it's logically impossible. If something is as powerful as another then neither one is all powerful, since that would mean one holds power over everything including the other all powerful being, who happens to also hold powerful over the first. You can't have two at the same time.

I'd settle for "all-powerful except for the original god". Why can't I be that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
When did I say Angels have free will?

Second, why is God obligated to give us the maximum amount of abilities? By the current definition of free will, it's already impossible for us to have it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Satan, like us, originally had free will. Thus, he had the ability to perform evil, and he did.

I assume you believe Satan is a fallen angel?

He's not obligated to do anything, but if his goal is to provide maximum free will, then he is clearly not doing all he can.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. The pedophile is still evil regardless of whether he actually rapes the child or not. If you're asking why God doesn't just have every person who wants to do evil have bad luck and never get to carry it out, it's because God does not want to force us to do anything. It's kinda the same thing as having Him come down on a chariot of fire.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't necessarily true at all. Are you saying that anyone who wants something bad enough can always get it? That does not logically follow.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't a matter of simply being made "in tune". To be in Heaven, surrounded by God, automatically put's you more "in tune". But God doesn't want heaven filled with people who don't want to be there.

BTW, Satan lived with God. So obviously being surrounded by God does not stop evil!

Originally posted by TacDavey
Mmm. Depends on what you would consider "temptations". I don't know if I would consider racial hatred as something than came from a "temptation".

Originally posted by TacDavey
"freedom" in the sense you are talking about is not the same as "free will". They are still in complete control of their choices. They simply aren't able to perform every physical action.

Let me ask you. Do you think you or I have free will?

I think we have limited freedom. I believe it increases when your actual capabilities increase.

Originally posted by TacDavey
...Alright. Maybe be aren't actually like Him in that sense. I forgot why this is important to what we're talking about.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not possible. God is also "all just". Meaning evil has to be punished.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And if He had made more, you could still be asking "why not three more?" And if He had made three more from that, you could ask "why not two more?" And so on and so forth.

It's a question that has no end. You can always ask why there isn't more.

A question that can't be answered, as it has no end.

And I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the debate as well.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ONTOLOGY do you understand what this term means?

LOGICAL VALIDITY do you understand what this term means?

i feal that you are hiding your ignorance of the subject of logic under the veil of self righteous ridicule.

now please respond, or concede{i will take you not directly replying as conceding}.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both.

this is getting pathetic. you neither undertsand the meaning of those terms, nor concede that by accepting so, you can not then DEBATE against something you dont understand. the second argument stands reguardless. i love it when beleivers have nothing but fuzzy language and repition as well as non sequiters to reply to the critique of their faith with.

just shows you how incredibly weak your beleifs are.

This is where I see the chief difference in our debating styles. If somebody posed that question to me, and I didn't know what those words meant, I would look them up before replying. Not just kinda shrug my soldiers and say "guess you got me there".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Let's focus on the ones that do, then.

What do you mean? I don't know of any polytheistic religions that have a full set of all powerful gods. And if there are any, they are not logically possible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd settle for "all-powerful except for the original god". Why can't I be that?

What good does that question do? Why aren't we green? Why didn't God give us four arms? These questions do nothing to help us understand the question of evil and free will. I don't understand the relevance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said that Satan used his free will to rebel:

I assume you believe Satan is a fallen angel?

Indeed. Angels did have free will at one point, but don't any longer.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He's not obligated to do anything, but if his goal is to provide maximum free will, then he is clearly not doing all he can.

That would only be true going by your definition of free will. Not mine. Your definition says that free will is only possible if the subject can literally perform every action. I disagree. By that definition, free will is an impossibility.

Instead, I consider free will as the ability to freely make our own choices. I consider "physical actions" as different from choices. At the very least, it is a different kind of choice than the one's I consider important for free will, such as morals etc. By that definition of free will, God is doing just fine.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are telling me, God is not interested in preventing evil deeds, but only in punishing them? He can create a whole universe of suffering for their pain, but he will not even create a banana peel to stop a would-be killer? This is the worst father ever. What a corrupt system.

I'm telling you God does not want to interfere in our choices if at all possible. We are free to do whatever we want.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless the guy is literally too stupid to do the deed (in which case, God has already done exactly what you said he wouldn't), then I think he would be able to do it. I am interested in real people here. Not bogus hypotheticals.

These "bogus hypothesizes" have just shown that it is possible for evil to exist without physical actions. Which was the original question.

Your assertion that people can do whatever they want as long as they want it enough is not logically sound.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why doesn't he just start everyone off there, and then let them leave if they want?

Again, for the same reason He doesn't just come down on a chariot of fire and prove He exists to everyone.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, Satan lived with God. So obviously being surrounded by God does not stop evil!

I never said it would be impossible for evil to take place. I'm not too worried though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Try and find a real world case. I'm not interested in what you think someone would do. Find me a real life person who committed a crime without a temptation.

I see no reason to do that. Do you expect me to be familiar with every criminal case that has ever existed? I gave you a circumstance in which evil can take place without temptation. Whether there is documentation of this possible situation is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see those as being a division. Their choices are limited by their actions. I see them as completely the same.

And I do not. Technically you could say that they cannot choose to perform a physical action, but at the very least you could label those as "physical action choices" which do not infringe on free will one way or another, I would say. Again, that definition does not allow for anything to truly have free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think we have limited freedom. I believe it increases when your actual capabilities increase.

Yet we cannot ever fully obtain free will by your definition.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I asked you why God allowed humans to do good and evil, but not animals. You said we were the only ones made in his image. And this does not add up at all, because as you just noted, god can't do evil.

At the very best, that would mean that my definition of "made in His image" was incorrect. Which is completely mine, by the way. There are some people who think it really means we look like God.

It isn't hard to see the difference between man and animal. While my "made in His image" definition may not have been 100% accurate, the point still remains that God made man and animal different. I don't think they truly have free will for one thing. Nor do they understand the concept of good or evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Baloney. No father would even contemplate giving their son infinite suffering.

Baloney? That isn't a valid refutation. God, by definition, is all just. That's just how it is. That means that He cannot perform an unjust action. Evil must be punished.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, that's precisely my question. I see no reason why God would not simply gift all life forms with good-evil. Since you hold that it is far more of a gain than any bad that would result.

And I see no reason God needs to give everything good-evil. Like I said, that question can be made regardless of how many things God made with free will. You can ALWAYS ask "why not just one more?" I see no reason there needs to be one more. We are enough. The free will we have already creates a practically infinite amount of diverse, free thinking creatures. What would the difference be if cats had it the same? They wouldn't be any different from us except for their physical make up. So in the end the question boils down to "why did God limit His free will creations to one body type?" Which is an irrelevant question entirely.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is getting pathetic. you neither undertsand the meaning of those terms, nor concede that by accepting so, you can not then DEBATE against something you dont understand. the second argument stands reguardless. i love it when beleivers have nothing but fuzzy language and repition as well as non sequiters to reply to the critique of their faith with.

just shows you how incredibly weak your beleifs are.

Very well. I'll be here should you ever wish to continue the debate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is where I see the chief difference in our debating styles. If somebody posed that question to me, and I didn't know what those words meant, I would look them up before replying. Not just kinda shrug my soldiers and say "guess you got me there".

I never meant to imply I was saying "guess you got me there." If he brings a point to the table that is suppose to refute my stance, it is up to him to give reason why. You don't plop your evidence on the table and tell your opponent to figure out how it refutes his argument.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, it's different if someone were to recognize that the urge to do something like that was wrong and they refrained. I'm talking about someone who doesn't care that it's wrong, and if he were to get his hands on a child he would rape and torture it. Even if he never gets his hands on a child and thus never carries this act out, I still consider him evil.

wouldn't you define that as something closer to intent rather than simply entertaining a thought?

more like, intending to rape children is evil, or seeing no harm in the act is evil even, but simply having the thought in your head isn't?

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? I don't know of any polytheistic religions that have a full set of all powerful gods. And if there are any, they are not logically possible.

What good does that question do? Why aren't we green? Why didn't God give us four arms? These questions do nothing to help us understand the question of evil and free will. I don't understand the relevance.

Indeed. Angels did have free will at one point, but don't any longer.

That would only be true going by your definition of free will. Not mine. Your definition says that free will is only possible if the subject can literally perform every action. I disagree. By that definition, free will is an impossibility.

Instead, I consider free will as the ability to freely make our own choices. I consider "physical actions" as different from choices. At the very least, it is a different kind of choice than the one's I consider important for free will, such as morals etc. By that definition of free will, God is doing just fine.

I'm telling you God does not want to interfere in our choices if at all possible. We are free to do whatever we want.

These "bogus hypothesizes" have just shown that it is possible for evil to exist without physical actions. Which was the original question.

Your assertion that people can do whatever they want as long as they want it enough is not logically sound.

Again, for the same reason He doesn't just come down on a chariot of fire and prove He exists to everyone.

I never said it would be impossible for evil to take place. I'm not too worried though.

I see no reason to do that. Do you expect me to be familiar with every criminal case that has ever existed? I gave you a circumstance in which evil can take place without temptation. Whether there is documentation of this possible situation is completely irrelevant.

And I do not. Technically you could say that they cannot choose to perform a physical action, but at the very least you could label those as "physical action choices" which do not infringe on free will one way or another, I would say. Again, that definition does not allow for anything to truly have free will.

Yet we cannot ever fully obtain free will by your definition.

At the very best, that would mean that my definition of "made in His image" was incorrect. Which is completely mine, by the way. There are some people who think it really means we look like God.

It isn't hard to see the difference between man and animal. While my "made in His image" definition may not have been 100% accurate, the point still remains that God made man and animal different. I don't think they truly have free will for one thing. Nor do they understand the concept of good or evil.

Baloney? That isn't a valid refutation. God, by definition, is all just. That's just how it is. That means that He cannot perform an unjust action. Evil must be punished.

And I see no reason God needs to give everything good-evil. Like I said, that question can be made regardless of how many things God made with free will. You can ALWAYS ask "why not just one more?" I see no reason there needs to be one more. We are enough. The free will we have already creates a practically infinite amount of diverse, free thinking creatures. What would the difference be if cats had it the same? They wouldn't be any different from us except for their physical make up. So in the end the question boils down to "why did God limit His free will creations to one body type?" Which is an irrelevant question entirely.

Very well. I'll be here should you ever wish to continue the debate.

I never meant to imply I was saying "guess you got me there." If he brings a point to the table that is suppose to refute my stance, it is up to him to give reason why. You don't plop your evidence on the table and tell your opponent to figure out how it refutes his argument.

what debate? you lost already.

btw, its obvious that your not here to debate.

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't you define that as something closer to intent rather than simply entertaining a thought?

more like, intending to rape children is evil, or seeing no harm in the act is evil even, but simply having the thought in your head isn't?

No, I don't think simply having the thought pop into your head would be evil.

Humanity's shift from poly to mono has always intrigued me. Now, polytheism still hasn't nor has ever been completely replaced. It can still be found among certain Hindu denominations, Chinese folk religions, and here in the US some Native American circles still worship their traditional gods (not to mention all those 'Neo-Pagans' in modern Western countries). But for the most part, monotheism rules the world (both literally and figuratively). And the one thing that I've always noticed is the change in the appearance and/or images of gods to god. Or should I say: lack thereof in the case of the Abrahamic religions. With the exception of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there are no images of god in the 3 great monotheisms. Walk into a synagogue, mosque or Baptist church, and you won't see any paintings or images of what god may or may not look like. But walk into any kind of polytheistic temple, and pictures of their gods are plastered all over the place. Throw a rock over your shoulder, and you'll probably hit one. Whether its a modern Hindu temple with all those blue-skinned four-armed characters, or the chisel-chested Olympians of ancient Greece. Polytheistic gods always looked a certain way. But once monotheism entered the picture, so did the concept of a god that could not possibly be conceived by the simple eyes of mere mortals. Furthermore, it was deemed unlawful and distasteful to try and put a face to the concept of god.

And that's what always interested me, and I also think its pretty cool. Polytheistic religions have a pantheon similar to a sports-team roster; you can look, select and worship who you please. But with one god; what he may look like is beyond the grasp of the feeble human mind. If the universe did have a creator, then we would never know what it/that entity may have looked like. ...as opposed to paintings of Zeus holding a lightning bolt.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
With the exception of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there are no images of god in the 3 great monotheisms.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So the vast majority of christians DO have images of god. Judaism is tiny and hardly one of the great religions of the world, except for the legacy it lends. So i'd say it seems like the monotheism = no images is a false equivocation.

They're obviously ignoring the Commandment about graven images and idols. Protestant churches and NDC churches don't have paintings of Mary or any saints. Neither does any mosque, Shi'ite or Sunni. So for a religion with 1.5 billion members, Islam is pretty uniform in that respect.

Judaism IS great for its legacy, and place in human history. There are more Sikhs and Shenists in the world, but they're mostly confined to one out-of-the-way corner of the world. Here in Phoenix I can easily find a synagogue. But a temple for Chinese folk religions? Not so much.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're obviously ignoring the Commandment about graven images and idols. Protestant churches and NDC churches don't have paintings of Mary or any saints. Neither does any mosque, Shi'ite or Sunni. So for a religion with 1.5 billion members, Islam is pretty uniform in that respect.

Judaism IS great for its legacy, and place in human history. There are more Sikhs and Shenists in the world, but they're mostly confined to one out-of-the-way corner of the world. Here in Phoenix I can easily find a synagogue. But a temple for Chinese folk religions? Not so much.

By that logic we should include Zoroastrianism as a great monotheist religion as well. It historically was way bigger than Judaism and had a huge influence on culture in many parts of the world. And they did make images of God. Or look, there are 7 million Bahai in the world. half as many as judaism. I can go to temples in the US for Bahai, but I would not call them a "great" monotheistic religion.

certain sects of Islam...

other traditions have no such prohibitions. iirc, the tradition in Turkey, one of the largest and most important Muslim nations, has for a long time depicted not only humans, but Mohammed, with no real controversy

Originally posted by inimalist
certain sects of Islam...

other traditions have no such prohibitions. iirc, the tradition in Turkey, one of the largest and most important Muslim nations, has for a long time depicted not only humans, but Mohammed, with no real controversy

oh, my mistake 🙂