Has Monotheism Really Changed Anything?

PsychoticEpisode

It is very dry in here today
Valued Senior Member
Just an educated guess but I don't think we, the human race, are any better off with one god versus having many.

Do you think the switch to one god was made because one omni-everything god comes across as having much more power than a bunch of them combined? Or were there just too many of them to remember? Or did the multitude of deities just not deliver?

Whatever the reason for the switch, has anything really changed? Other than what or who people worship, what's different? Whether its Odin or Zeus, Allah or Yahweh, Mohammed or Christ, the answer is.... nothing changed. I think you could bring back all the gods you want and it wouldn't matter.

The only hope is that going from many to a few to one is part of a sequence that ends at zero. So I guess the next question would be....are we better off having no god(s)?
 
Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

I know what you're getting at but unifying all of the same society isn't the world. I think all that does is pit one society against the other. No different than its always been. How do we get each society to agree that it's the same god? Maybe it isn't the god that's the problem, its the prophets we need everyone to agree on. Perhaps the prophet's teachings need some agreement.
 
I think we forget that God is a personal issue. People who share a vision of God are likely to groupp together. Even within monotheists you have sects, so its not the God that's the problem, its the intransigence of the personal opinion of God. How many liberals become conservative? And vice versa?

People are different from each other and they accentuate these differences themselves.

Its only when there is competition between groups or when one decides it wants to diminish the other that problems arise.
 
A ship with two / more skipper(s) will have trouble.
Two ships with desire of controlling same area will create trouble themselves.
 
samcdkey said:
I think we forget that God is a personal issue. People who share a vision of God are likely to groupp together. Even within monotheists you have sects, so its not the God that's the problem, its the intransigence of the personal opinion of God. How many liberals become conservative? And vice versa?

People are different from each other and they accentuate these differences themselves.

Its only when there is competition between groups or when one decides it wants to diminish the other that problems arise.

Personally I have no use for religion and I have trouble tolerating it at the best of times but if the religions of the world at minimum agree to agree then I could at least entertain the notion that they aren't going to take all of us down with them. Secretly I hope that as we pare down the number of gods over the centuries that we eventually come to realize there aren't any. There seems to be an undercurrent developing, and this is only an assumption on my part, that more and more people have had it with religion. This ripple hopefully becomes a tsunami.

I see monotheism as possibly the second last step in the religious phase of man, assuming we're in one that is. The last step being complete rejection of gods. I just hope we get to that part.
 
LiveInFaith said:
A ship with two / more skipper(s) will have trouble.
Two ships with desire of controlling same area will create trouble themselves.

I see one ship sinking fast. Monotheism is like the Titanic, not enough lifeboats.
 
Nowadays, atheists seem to have common shared ideas regarding better world, but this is because just having shared opponents, theists. United against theist. Get rid of theism, how do you think the world will be?
 
I've spoken up on this issue many times here.

Religion is instinctive in humans--an "archetype" in our collective unconscious, it occurs in all cultures in all eras. Yet it is polytheistic religion that is the true instinct.

Religion is an externalized model of the human spirit, which is complex. From the pantheons of the earliest civilizations who wrote their beliefs down, through the formalized Egyptian, Hindu and Greco-Roman religions, in the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays, up through the popularized anthropology of Joseph Campbell; priests, scholars, artists and common folk have all found a rather consistent set of 23 components to our spirit. (Forgive me if I've got that number slightly wrong. It's difficult to google but no one has yet corrected me. I can't even name all 7 dwarfs, much less all 23 gods and goddesses.)

The Hunter, the Healer, the King, the Warrior, the Lover, the Reveler, etc., we recognize those as the demystified English names of the gods and goddesses of the ancients and as the stock characters in traditional drama. We also resonate to them because each one of them resides inside us.

Think of them as components of a vector that defines our personality. Some have larger magnitudes than others; that varies from person to person and explains why some of us, if we "follow our bliss," end up being the Healer--doctors, nurses, EMTs, veterinarians, etc.--while others end up being the King--managers, politicians, military leaders, etc. The magnitudes also vary from day to day. Sometimes we just need to loosen up and be the Reveler, other times someone special walks into our life and the Lover takes charge for a while, and if Wal-Mart wants to build a store in our town the Warrior will come out in many of us, not all taking the same side in the war.

Wait for it... What happens if you're extremely disciplined and never let your weaker spirits have their day? What if you believe that a good Healer must never hunt, or that a good King can never let his guard down and revel? We've all seen what happens when spirits are suppressed. They fester and turn into something dark. One day we get angry, threatened, exhausted, bereaved, or simply drunk. We turn into a "differen person," and do terrible, crazy stuff. Our friends say, "I can't believe it, he's not like that," because we've been careful to never let anyone see that part of us until that part of us got so frustrated that the only way it could gain the freedom to express itself was to do it by dishonorable means.

This elegant 23-dimensional model of the human spirit explains so much about us. It tells us why we are different ways on different days, why sometimes we must do things that most of the time we think are ill-advised or downright wrong, but are in fact normal for everyone. We don't just make peace with all of those spirits, we come to regard them as resources. We have 23 different ways to look at problems. We forgive ourselves--and just as importantly each other--for lapses when we let the wrong spirit handle the wrong situation. Only human, screwed up, next time I'll try it differently, sorry!

Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I've spoken up on this issue many times here.

Religion is instinctive in humans--an "archetype" in our collective unconscious, it occurs in all cultures in all eras. Yet it is polytheistic religion that is the true instinct.

Religion is an externalized model of the human spirit, which is complex. From the pantheons of the earliest civilizations who wrote their beliefs down, through the formalized Egyptian, Hindu and Greco-Roman religions, in the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays, up through the popularized anthropology of Joseph Campbell; priests, scholars, artists and common folk have all found a rather consistent set of 23 components to our spirit. (Forgive me if I've got that number slightly wrong. It's difficult to google but no one has yet corrected me. I can't even name all 7 dwarfs, much less all 23 gods and goddesses.)

The Hunter, the Healer, the King, the Warrior, the Lover, the Reveler, etc., we recognize those as the demystified English names of the gods and goddesses of the ancients and as the stock characters in traditional drama. We also resonate to them because each one of them resides inside us.

Think of them as components of a vector that defines our personality. Some have larger magnitudes than others; that varies from person to person and explains why some of us, if we "follow our bliss," end up being the Healer--doctors, nurses, EMTs, veterinarians, etc.--while others end up being the King--managers, politicians, military leaders, etc. The magnitudes also vary from day to day. Sometimes we just need to loosen up and be the Reveler, other times someone special walks into our life and the Lover takes charge for a while, and if Wal-Mart wants to build a store in our town the Warrior will come out in many of us, not all taking the same side in the war.

Wait for it... What happens if you're extremely disciplined and never let your weaker spirits have their day? What if you believe that a good Healer must never hunt, or that a good King can never let his guard down and revel? We've all seen what happens when spirits are suppressed. They fester and turn into something dark. One day we get angry, threatened, exhausted, bereaved, or simply drunk. We turn into a "differen person," and do terrible, crazy stuff. Our friends say, "I can't believe it, he's not like that," because we've been careful to never let anyone see that part of us until that part of us got so frustrated that the only way it could gain the freedom to express itself was to do it by dishonorable means.

This elegant 23-dimensional model of the human spirit explains so much about us. It tells us why we are different ways on different days, why sometimes we must do things that most of the time we think are ill-advised or downright wrong, but are in fact normal for everyone. We don't just make peace with all of those spirits, we come to regard them as resources. We have 23 different ways to look at problems. We forgive ourselves--and just as importantly each other--for lapses when we let the wrong spirit handle the wrong situation. Only human, screwed up, next time I'll try it differently, sorry!

Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.

*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more!
 
LiveInFaith said:
Having no god , self righteousness will rule, and tends to anarchy.
a reference to how you know this would be handy?
 
LiveInFaith said:
Nowadays, atheists seem to have common shared ideas regarding better world,
not just now days it's always been athiesm is the natural way to be.
LiveInFaith said:
but this is because just having shared opponents, theists.
no atheist thinks of the theist as his opponent.
LiveInFaith said:
United against theist.
we are all individuals with common ideas, we dont think of theists as the enemy.
LiveInFaith said:
Get rid of theism, how do you think the world will be?
a lot lot better off, people wont kill as much for a start.
and please dont come back with communism as an atheist ideology, it's not.
thats like saying all catholics are jews or muslims.
 
geeser said:
a lot lot better off, people wont kill as much for a start.
"a reference to how you know this would be handy?"

and please dont come back with communism as an atheist ideology, it's not.
Communism is an atheist ideology, not the ideology of atheists.

You see, what could be pointed out by this is that the normal assertion that religion causes violence could be applied to atheism as well, since communism has caused a lot of violence, and so by extention all atheist ideologies must cause violence. Do you see the reasoning behind this?

I don't agree with it, but I don't agree that all religions cause violence either. It's for the same reason that you would say it's ridiculous to paint the actions of a few atheist ideologues onto the hands of all atheists.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Along came montheism. This 23-dimensional paradigm was squashed into a one-dimensional scale. Everything is either good or evil. You're with god or you're with the devil. It's a rigid binary model of the human spirit that looks like it was invented by an old-fashioned computer programmer of my day who seldom ventured out of his cozy cubicle in his pizza-stained t-shirt to experience real life. It's a pathetic attempt by people who can't stand difficult problems--such as those of situational ethics--to simplify morality so it could be handed down on stone tablets that never require an update. It's an easy way for people to decide whether anything is right or wrong without having to work very hard at it. It's a foolproof guide to rewarding the right and exterminating the wrong for people who don't want to ever have to explain and defend their judgments.

Kind of sounds like the stereotypical masculine way of dealing with the world, doesn't it? The frat-boy, soldier-boy, good-ol'-boy morality that is so simple to follow that all it takes to do it right is a gun and a belly full of booze.

And what a coincidence: the one god of the monotheistic churches and, until almost yesterday, all of their priests were males.

Monotheism exacerbated the trend toward patriarchal societies. "God the father."

So the answer to this question is that monotheism has changed a lot. It has changed human philosophy from a rich one into an impoverished one that is virtually useless in sorting out real life problems. And it has made those problems worse by suppressing the feminine and creating a dangerously unbalanced civilization.

I'd like to start off by saying that, as usual, your post was beautiful. I agree with everything but what I have quoted here, and I've always had an abiding interest in the works of men like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Thank you for rekindling it.

However, with your ideas about monotheism I must argue. First, most societies throughout history have been patriarchal. Polytheism does not promote inherent equality among the sexes (not that this was your assertion), nor does it promote some kind of "balance" to a civilization, as you seem to be suggesting. Of course, since you pointed out the masculinity of monotheism I must ask that you define exactly what this "balance" is, before I continue to dissect your post. It seems at surface glance to be about the various inherent behavioral qualities that differentiate the sexes, but you are a smart man and so I don't want to go on the assumption that such is what you are talking about. It seems over simplistic, so clarification is needed.

If it is about the various differences in behavior which separate man and women, then what are these behaviors? If you could list them for me, I'd be glad. I think it's been pretty well known throughout history that, when you attempt to find inherent differences between man and woman (psychologically, not physically), then a sharp contrast cannot be identified, only inferred through experience with members of the two sexes. If I'm wrong and you have the answer, I'd greatly appreciate your opinion, since it's one of those "big questions" of life.

Black and white morality? Well, not all monotheism holds to this rigid analysis. True, American bible-belt fundamentalists tend to hold this view, but none of the major Christian Churches propogate such a simplistic view of the world, and neither do the other two Abrahamic faiths. In fact, both Judaism and Islam consider morality to be the affairs of man, not God, and that God transcends said morality. The Hebrews (originally) saw the law as belonging to the Hebrews alone. Islam extended it to all mankind. Still, though, as samcdkey (as the Muslim on this message board whom I hold to the highest intellectual standard) has stated many times, morality is man made.

So, as you see, monotheism on the whole does not hold this black and white view of morality. This is the fault of individuals, not of belief systems, and if you were able to go back in time and talk to a (patriarchal) Greek, or Roman, or Gaul, or any other ancient person for that matter, you may find a similar percentage of them engaging in the same type of black and white view of human behavior. My point, if I haven't gone off track, is that this type of view is the fault of individuals who don't want to do the hard work associated with moral dilemmas, not of the type of beliefs which guide their judgments.

Maybe it'll take your response to clear up my position.

Edit: I tend to prefer polytheism, actually. It makes life more interesting to me, and it seems to be more practical than monotheism. After all, it's very natural to look at a tree, or a river, or a grove, and personify it (turning it into some kind of deity), than it is to think of this abstraction called "God", saying only what it isn't and never what it is.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
"a reference to how you know this would be handy?"
oh do come on, get serious.
how many people now and in the past have been killed by religion.
also Statistically speaking; atheists make up a smaller percentage of the prison population than the general population and have a lower divorce rate than the major religions.
that how this is known.
Jaster Mereel said:
Communism is an atheist ideology, not the ideology of atheists.
I concur, my mistake.
Atheism has nothing to do with political beliefs. Atheism is part of the Communist and Socialist doctrines, but atheists are not necessarily Communists or Socialists. Many point to the actions of Communist Russia, China and North Korea as examples of what atheists in political power would do. Communism uses an enforced stance to squash religious decent and instill it's own supreme dictatorship.
Jaster Mereel said:
You see, what could be pointed out by this is that the normal assertion that religion causes violence could be applied to atheism as well, since communism has caused a lot of violence, and so by extention all atheist ideologies must cause violence. Do you see the reasoning behind this?
no, the point being, atheists would not replace God with an all powerful government, that would be hypocritical. There is a strong belief in the values of freedom brought by a secular government.
atheism per se, is not a violent ideology, as it basis is in humanism.

whereas most religious holy books preach violence and murder, thus religious ideology is based in violence
Jaster Mereel said:
I don't agree with it, but I don't agree that all religions cause violence
I never said that, most religions are very dangerous mind viruses, the world would be better off, theist have had power, since the first man ever spun a yarn/told a tall tale.
we are badly in need of a change.
 
Baron Max said:
Sure it's changed things. If nothing else, the worship of one god has been a unifying effect for basic human societies. Instead of everyone worshippiing their own god, all of the same society worships the same god ..unity.

Baron Max
:m:

Actually, when someone thinks that only their god is real and valid, they often loose respect for other god-theories & other religions.

In fear of loosing his sheeple to a more liberal morality, the lord made it a sin to have dealings with other gods. IOW: You don't get as much servitude and donation-money if your members leave your religion.

I think monotheism has similarities with monogamy:
Possessive, Jealous, Expecting Devotion, Reducing Freedoms, etc.
 
People blame too much on religion, and not enough on themselves.


Religion = man made concept

Most of you are wasting your time playing the blame game. It's clear enough to me that anything man does is his fault, and his choice. It's not christians, muslims, hindus, jews, or bhuddists, it's just people.

Like you wouldn't say, guns kill people, you'd say people kill people. So why is it that you'd say Religion is a problem. It's just people, and it can't be changed unless you can some how control a persons free will.
 
Jaster Mereel said:
So, as you see, monotheism on the whole does not hold this black and white view of morality. This is the fault of individuals, not of belief systems

Although the Abrahamic faiths especially do (basically) hold a rigid belief system of "black and white" ,"totally right or totally wrong" type of thinking. Studying the Old testament or Torah will confirm this idea that there is no balance between women and men at all, rather all the ignorances of the cultures who created these religions.
The early hebrew priesthood had constant problems with their populations straying away from the cult of Yahweh as they returned to their original belief in worshipping the God Baal who who was embraced by the indigenous populations in Canaan. Baal being mainly a fertlity god who was the consort of the mother Goddess Asherah. Surprisingly enough it seems likely at one time too that Yahweh also was consort to the Goddess Asherah.
The cult of Yahweh prophets being of a patriarchial mindset of course did successfully supress this feminine aspect of their belief system.

You are right thou that many cultures that embraced polytheism were patriarchial societies, such as the ancient romans and greeks.
The ancient egyptians on the other hand can be credited with having a very balanced system of worshipping both the feminine as well as masculine aspects of the divine and reflecting the same type of thinking back into their everyday lives and other aspects of their culture. Without the nonsense of the patriarchial influences of "women should pray this way","pray separately from men", "keep covered", "be very humble and submissive to men" and other endless examples of a similiar nature. So, I suppose this relates back to the question of what the "balance" part means.
 
Back
Top