Has Monotheism Really Changed Anything?

[LiveInFaith]

The Dali Lama is self-righteous?
:bugeye:
Buddhists are self-righteous?
:bugeye:
Surely you jest?

You got me on this, but I'm no jest.
My Buddhist friend worship Buddha, inspite of they say he's not God, but they treat him as if he is God, worshipping and putting expectation toward him, in meditating. They still put burden on Buddha as higher entity.
I revise 'god' as 'higher being' then.

I don’t know about you but I find monotheists are some of the most self-righteous people on the planet. Usually thinking their God, and hence their moral code, is the only true belief.

[/QUOTE]

Too bad, it is.
Different religions, people feel self-righteous from each other. Even in the same religion, still several sects with their own self-reigteousness. But at least in same group, they agree on theirs.
What I see, this agreed in same group will reduce if the group broken. The belief in one god (or believe in Buddha for Buddhist) grouped them to agree upon their teachings.

 

[sniffy]

Self righteousness is not limited only to theists!

The problem with the religions that originated in the European/Arabian context is that they all claim to be the one true religion and are as such actively trying to recruit/convert others. This suggests that they are neither willing or able to practise tolerance.

It seems to me that the worship of anything (god, money, sex) leads us into trouble as does our fixation on insiders and outsiders which religions only appear to perpetuate.

 

[Vega]

Monotheism people have killed more people than any polytheism people did put together.

 

[RickyH]

Self righteousness is not limited only to theists!

The problem with the religions that originated in the European/Arabian context is that they all claim to be the one true religion and are as such actively trying to recruit/convert others. This suggests that they are neither willing or able to practise tolerance.

It seems to me that the worship of anything (god, money, sex) leads us into trouble as does our fixation on insiders and outsiders which religions only appear to perpetuate.

and if they learned tolerance, and were willing and had the patience to do it, it would probably work. Back to square one with my original point.

 

[baumgarten]

Monotheism people have killed more people than any polytheism people did put together.

That's because monotheism is newer, and more people have been alive since monotheism than before. How many deaths per capita have been caused by monotheism versus polytheism? Please weight your answer with respect to socioeconomic, environmental, and biological factors (such as epidemics) that affect population but whose effects are often falsely blamed on religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Monotheistic religions cannot preach or practise tolerance because to do so would be tantamount to saying there is more than one god. the monotheists have already dismissed polytheism as primitive. In a bit of a fix aren't they?

So if we can't derive moral guidance from religion, nor from our illustrious leaders where does that leave us?

On the contrary one could argue that monotheism grants the basis for tolerance because it establishes the one god from whom everything emmanates - just like essentially there is one sun - the problem comes when people have the opinion that the sun is only above their head and no one elses

Tolerance coming out of polytheism is questionable because a seperatist view is the delightful environment that intolerance thrives in

 

[sniffy]

and if they learned tolerance, and were willing and had the patience to do it, it would probably work. Back to square one with my original point.

Yes except that's a very big nigh impoissible 'if'. Therefore perhaps we need another secular way?

 

[sniffy]

On the contrary one could argue that monotheism grants the basis for tolerance because it establishes the one god from whom everything emmanates - just like essentially there is one sun - the problem comes when people have the opinion that the sun is only above their head and no one elses

Sadly the one true god approach perpetuates the 'them' and 'us' - saved and damned approach. What religion would ever be able to convert everyone under the sun?

 

[RickyH]

Yes except that's a very big nigh impoissible 'if'. Therefore perhaps we need another secular way?

How else do you deal with people who won't listen to a peaceful manner? In a more secular manner, what a joke. Sorry, but you guy need to pick up an AK-47 in a secular way of thinking about this.

 

[sniffy]

The thread is 'Has monotheism changed anything?' My answer to that is no so try getting rid of theism and find another way. Perhaps the only way to teach tolerance is to remove the issues that cause intolerance in the first place. Religion is one of those and one that could be kept seperate from affairs of state and education. What people want to worship in the privacy of their own home is then up to them. We have laws both international and local. We also have various systems of formal and informal education. Within those frameworks we can teach individuals to think for themselves instead of relying on some otherworldly diety to sort our problems out for us. It should also be possible to encourage empathy for others as is often successfully done by charity campaigners. Is it so hard to transfer this knowledge into everyday life without the need for AK47s?

Just saying everybody should be tolerant and have patience just won't hack it!

Patience is a hard thing to teach as is tolerance but if you rely on religion alone to do you're on a one track trip to a dead end.

I don't understand why you have such a problem understanding?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sadly the one true god approach perpetuates the 'them' and 'us' - saved and damned approach. What religion would ever be able to convert everyone under the sun?

Well even if you are talking of the sun you infer by default darkness - in other words it would be ridiculous to declare everythingh as "religion" that goes down in the name of religion, just like it is not a given that the sun shines on everyone 24 hours a day - there is the argument of monotheism that everyone is already converted anyway in the sense that because everyone ultimately emmanates from the same source (one god) that the only irrevocable eternal constitutional position for everyone is with god and anything else is a temporary material manifestation

what you are referring to are a certain class of practioner who has not realized the imports of monotheistic scripture - for instance there is teh quote from the gita that a person has reached the platform of knowledge where they will not fall down whent they have the vision that all living entities belong to god - if one still has the "us" and "them" vision as the ultimate insoluable definition of reality than they are neophyte monotheists

 

[sniffy]

And what are those who don't believe in god or gods? That there is no higher purpose other than to live and die?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Do you not count the search for cures for disease as a noble purpose? The creation of protection against the ravages of weather? The attempt to ensure a steady and adequate supply of food? The education of our fellow man into the mutual benefit to all of a life of peace, harmony and cooperation? The maintenance and embellishment of a social organization that facilitates that peace, harmony and cooperation? The enrichment of life with literature, music, and other cultural pursuits?

One does not need to believe in the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes.

To say that to live and to die are all there is without religion is to dismiss everything in between as a "comma." It is the logic of a certain world leader who is too illiterate to read anything between the punctuation marks.

It is also the logic of the sociopathic fringe of Islamic extremism, which teaches that this life is irrelevant because nothing truly important will happen until the afterlife.

It is a dangerous logic.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Do you not count the search for cures for disease as a noble purpose? The creation of protection against the ravages of weather? The attempt to ensure a steady and adequate supply of food? The education of our fellow man into the mutual benefit to all of a life of peace, harmony and cooperation? The maintenance and embellishment of a social organization that facilitates that peace, harmony and cooperation? The enrichment of life with literature, music, and other cultural pursuits?

One does not need to believe in the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes.

One does not need to reject the supernatural in order to work toward the accomplishment of these noble purposes, either.

To say that to live and to die are all there is without religion is to dismiss everything in between as a "comma." It is the logic of a certain world leader who is too illiterate to read anything between the punctuation marks.

It is also the logic of the sociopathic fringe of Islamic extremism, which teaches that this life is irrelevant because nothing truly important will happen until the afterlife.

It is a dangerous logic.

It is dangerous logic, which is why the vast majority of religious people do not talk or live like that.

 

[lightgigantic]

And what are those who don't believe in god or gods? That there is no higher purpose other than to live and die?

There are gradations of material life - so even though one will die they can be considered more advanced by dint of charity, exhibitions of tolerance etc etc - all of which are considered to be apadharmas or things that bear a nearness to dharma (like sub branches)