polytheism vs monotheism

Originally posted by King Kandy
The two you mentioned are more than twice as big as all other christians and jews combined. I don't see any reason why protestants should set the standard when they are a minority on that issue. Islam is super-strict not just about not depicting god, but throughout history on depicting humans at all.

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.

The term "Three Great Monotheisms" is understood to mean Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Zoroaster...whatever, has been dead for a long time. It's just like the Greek and Egyptian religions: confined to history books.

The numbers of Catholics doesn't change the fact that they're breaking the Commandments. The rule against images of god exists, even though not everyone follows it.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The term "Three Great Monotheisms" is understood to mean Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Zoroaster...whatever, has been dead for a long time. It's just like the Greek and Egyptian religions: confined to history books.

The numbers of Catholics doesn't change the fact that they're breaking the Commandments. The rule against images of god exists, even though not everyone follows it.

You said christians don't make images of God. You are provably wrong. Yeesh, just back off already. You lost this one.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Zoroastrianism still exists today.

You said christians don't make images of God. You are provably wrong. Yeesh, just back off already. You lost this one.

Anybody can draw anything. But the rule exists.

There are ancient Persian paintings of Mohammed and Gabriel. Some modern Muslims would say thats a sin, and they'd be right. Any person can draw Mary or Jesus; big deal. But the fact remains that they're ignoring their own religious laws. As opposed to Hinduism, which has no qualms about drawing all those four-armed characters.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Anybody can draw anything. But the rule exists.

There are ancient Persian paintings of Mohammed and Gabriel. Some modern Muslims would say thats a sin, and they'd be right. Any person can draw Mary or Jesus; big deal. But the fact remains that they're ignoring their own religious laws. As opposed to Hinduism, which has no qualms about drawing all those four-armed characters.

So then, objectively speaking; Protestants are more accurate in their practice because their churches don't have any images.

Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then, objectively speaking; Protestants are more accurate in their practice because their churches don't have any images.

Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

My foundation is how it is practiced by most believers. Meanwhile, you said this:

"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."

Well, obviously that's not the case. Like I mentioned, tons of monotheists have drawn God. So that "concept", obviously is hardly a dominant trait in monotheism.

Ahem. I might point out that the "don't mix fibers" law was confined to a specific people at a specific time in the Bible and is no longer expected to be carried out today. Just tossing that out there.

I've never heard the law about not drawing God, though. Is that in the Bible somewhere?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

You can't ignore it no, but he's awfully quick to ignore that it's possible to interpret a text at all. Many religions have specific texts regarding their reading of the foundational ones.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ahem. I might point out that the "don't mix fibers" law was confined to a specific people at a specific time in the Bible and is no longer expected to be carried out today. Just tossing that out there.

Romans 6 says that The Law (the whole thing, not any particular sections) no long applies. Are you sure you're comfortable getting rid of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've never heard the law about not drawing God, though. Is that in the Bible somewhere?

Dude, no graven images.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Romans 6 says that The Law (the whole thing, not any particular sections) no long applies. Are you sure you're comfortable getting rid of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Honestly, I have not done a whole lot of research on this particular subject, but I don't think that was intended to remove every law. I don't think the Bible tells us that we can now just do whatever we want.

As for the "mix fibers" part. I think that was intended to pertain to a very specific people. Not meant to be a law that covers everyone. Something about setting themselves apart.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dude, no graven images.

😱

Ah, that's what graven images means....

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

true

but the problem with looking solely at those texts, or putting more weight in their literal translation over interpretation is that you essentially are saying that only the most extreme and literal versions of a religion are the ones that are following the word of the religious code, when in many cases, it is a minority of those who identify with the religion or academics who interpret the texts that feel the literal interpretation is the most accurate.

For instance, few people would argue that there are no provisions for holy war in the Qu'ran, and in many ways, Muslim extremists can point to those passages, and it is sort of undeniable as to what they say. That is relevant, sure, but how relevant is it when conferences of the most accredited Qu'ranic scholars come together to say the extremist interpretation of holy war is not in accordance with the tradition?

I tend to feel common practice and interpretation can trump literal "word of the book" type theories of what religions are.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wow, one law. I just brought up "don't mix fibers", there are lots of rules that people do not observe much. Again the catholic church is the oldest church. christianity historically never banned images. Yet you would select a much later movement as "more accurate". That rule does not apply to the bulk of christians.

My foundation is how it is practiced by most believers. Meanwhile, you said this:

"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."

Well, obviously that's not the case. Like I mentioned, tons of monotheists have drawn God. So that "concept", obviously is hardly a dominant trait in monotheism.

Forget the believers, look at what the book says. In fact, Catholicism is arguably barely even a monotheistic religion. At speaking engagements, Richard Dawkins will often half-jokingly list off some polytheist religions, like the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and then throw the Catholics in there, which always draws applause and laughter from the crowd. But the man has a point. You see, when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the majority pagan populace. The church leaders had a dilemma; so they reconciled it by incorporating age-old polytheist practices such as the act of worshipping saints (ie: different gods), which is quite literally a pantheon. By doing all of this, they blatantly ignored the teachings of Jesus and the Books of Moses. They had to appeal to the pagan masses, and all the while keep up the appearance of monotheism.

At the end of the day; those practices (along with self-proclaimed Christians who still worship saints to this day) are violating the Ten Commandments. Prostrating before the icon of a Rennaissance-style painting, and praying to that obvious idol is about as un-Christian as it possibly gets. The founders of the Roman Catholic Church =/= the core teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by TacDavey

😱

Ah, that's what graven images means....

🤨 ^Wow. Fail of the century.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Forget the believers, look at what the book says. In fact, Catholicism is arguably barely even a monotheistic religion. At speaking engagements, Richard Dawkins will often half-jokingly list off some polytheist religions, like the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and then throw the Catholics in there, which always draws applause and laughter from the crowd. But the man has a point. You see, when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the majority pagan populace. The church leaders had a dilemma; so they reconciled it by incorporating age-old polytheist practices such as the act of worshipping saints (ie: different gods), which is quite literally a pantheon. By doing all of this, they blatantly ignored the teachings of Jesus and the Books of Moses. They had to appeal to the pagan masses, and all the while keep up the appearance of monotheism.

At the end of the day; those practices (along with self-proclaimed Christians who still worship saints to this day) are violating the Ten Commandments. Prostrating before the icon of a Rennaissance-style painting, and praying to that obvious idol is about as un-Christian as it possibly gets. The founders of the Roman Catholic Church =/= the core teachings of Jesus.

don't you think it is odd that Dawkins feels he has the right to claim what a specific religion means to the 1b+ people who follow it, even if that is not how they, themselves, see it, especially considering it is a religion he, himself, is not a part of?

wouldn't you see even the most half-hearted follower of catholocism as an infinitely more qualified source on how to interpret catholic dogma than Dawkins, or anyone who isn't a catholic for that matter?

Originally posted by inimalist
don't you think it is odd that Dawkins feels he has the right to claim what a specific religion means to the 1b+ people who follow it, even if that is not how they, themselves, see it, especially considering it is a religion he, himself, is not a part of?

wouldn't you see even the most half-hearted follower of catholocism as an infinitely more qualified source on how to interpret catholic dogma than Dawkins, or anyone who isn't a catholic for that matter?

It's not odd if he's correct. If a church has an entire wall adorned with paintings of saints, and hoards of people are prostrating before them, how can you then call that a monotheistic institution? I was raised Roman Catholic (I'm now an NDC) and I agree; he hit the nail right on the head. Even when I was a Catholic, I still didn't pray to the various selection of pick-a-card-any-card saints. I prayed to God and God alone. Even as a pre-pubescent child, I still noticed the dirscrepancy between the Ten Commandments and all the saint-worship.

I see the catholic church as "polytheist" to the extent that hinduism is. In fact, i'd say the trinity puts all christianity on that same level.

Hinduism is an interesting one. Many Hindus today say that there's ultimately only one god in their religion. All those familiar gods, like Vishnu, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and so on, are all merely avatars or "manifestations" of the one god. However, many ademics claim that this is a relatively recent belief in Hindu history. When India was conquered by Muslims, they went on a serious campaign to stamp out all pagan temples and idols of the Hindu gods. So to escape the persecution, the Hindu leaders at the time "explained" (ie: lied) to their Muslim masters that they actually only worshipped one god, and that all their colorful four-armed characters were actually just attributes of god, similar to the 99 names of Allah, in Islam.

So that's where that comes from. In fact, the world's 900 million Hindus aren't on the same page when it comes to that issue. Some say Hinduism is polytheistic, others say its monotheistic, and there's even atheist branches of Hinduism. But they more resemble Buddhism and Jainism (both of which are non-theistic religions) as opposed to mainstream forms of Hinduism.

Baloney. It says in the bhagavad gita that there is only one god, who has many names. So that was demonstrably not a correct theory. You are the one who says the scripture has more authority than the practice, so that is major league hypocrisy.

And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other?

EDIT: As well, this is where sects divide. So really, this is a point to stop generalizing.

And where is the evidence for this "covering it up" theory? Why would that even matter? (It would be in some ways analogous to the protestant reformation). That's a difference in practice and you're already telling me, practice means nothing to you, but only scripture. Unless its convenient for you to change that position. Meanwhile when I present scripture, you handwave it away. So evidence means nothing to you, either. Lord knows, you never provided any on any of your claims.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The more recent one, just like new vs old testament.

EDIT: As well, this is where sects divide. So really, this is a point to stop generalizing.

And where is the evidence for this "covering it up" theory? Why would that even matter? (It would be in some ways analogous to the protestant reformation). That's a difference in practice and you're already telling me, practice means nothing to you, but only scripture. Unless its convenient for you to change that position. Meanwhile when I present scripture, you handwave it away. So evidence means nothing to you, either. Lord knows, you never provided any on any of your claims.

I'm not handwaving the Bhagavad Gita. I own that book and I know exactly what it says regarding the matter. But what about all the discrepant Vedic scriptures? Are they to be ignored?

You made a valid point about sects. The term "Hindusim" is about as broad and complex (more, actually) than "Christianity". Hinduism has so many differing, hopelessly divided sects, that its impossible to keep up with them all.