One God theology --- where did it originate

[cole grey]

I would suggest that zoroaster's religion isn't monotheistic as there is (or was at some time) a possibility that ahura mazda's side could lose.
There seems to be a bit of confusion about whether ahura mazda is supreme or equally opposed to the other guy (i forget his name).
If they are equally opposed, which is my understanding, then there are multiple gods, only one good one, but still not monotheism. No self-respecting monotheist would have a God that wasn't supreme.

 

[The Devil Inside]

carl jung is a different kind of psychologist.

freud may have said some intelligent things in his time, but almost everything he ever contributed to the psychology world has been disproven.

he used to be the michael jordan of psychology, and just ended up being a charles barkley footnote in the annals of psychological history.

 

[c7ityi_]

people often think that something has been "disproven" even though it hasn't. people are so limited and ignorant. they couldn't understand freud.

 

[The Devil Inside]

im pretty sure they understood him quite well. thats why he is laughed at today, when he was respected during his life.

 

[c7ityi_]

Wrong.

 

[The Devil Inside]

ok, im sitting next to a psychology major in a european university, that just confirmed everything i said.

freud is hardly respected today. his theories have all been tossed aside as outdated.
FACT.

 

[c7ityi_]

ok, im sitting next to a psychology major in a european university, that just confirmed everything i said.

Like I care what a psychology major says. The wise are not learned and the learned are not wise. Many ordinary people know more about psychology than those who have studied. Psychologists talk a lot of bullshit, except some (Freud and Carl Jung). It's just like with those who study physics. When they study, they become more stupid, they know less and become more confused.

freud is hardly respected today.

Of course he's not respected because people are ignorant and stupid. It's just what I heard when I was in a psychology class. Everyone laughed and said he was a wacko. Stupid people ridicule geniuses. They hide behind their stupid masks. I hate them all.

his theories have all been tossed aside as outdated.

Of course.

 

[The Devil Inside]

as a side note, i have examined about 150 of your past posts, and i have decided that you frequently argue without knowing anything about a subject.

if the teachers and students of psychology dont give the man credence anymore, who are you to say they are wrong? if you were honestly interested in anything but arguing, you would pick up a copy of "american psychologist" or any of the current psychological periodicals that are at your disposal.

or better yet....do a google search on "freud modern psychology" and you will find that while much of the modern study is based in subjects he studied, he contributed almost NOTHING to the current face of psychology.

period.
welcome to my "idiots to ignore" list.
:m:

 

[Ophiolite]

Devil,while I agree with your assessment of c7ityi, I would suggest your assessment of Freud is rather harsh. It seems to be a fashion to laugh at the man and his theories, but fashion and fact are not always commensurate.
What Freud did was to open a door onto aspects of the human condition that had never been considered before. It is true that he got most of it wrong, but he should be honoured for his pioneering efforts.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i agree, ophiolite.
i was a bit too harsh on old man freud. he WAS a pioneer of sorts, and opened the door to "pop psychology". his findings DO have a place in psychology, but not nearly as big a place as the uninformed public has given him.

poll 100 americans and europeans of all backgrounds to "name a psychologist". i speculate that over 75% of them will name freud. its simply an uninformed public, swallowing what the media has fed them for the last 50 years.
*shrug*
it is important to note, however.... psychology is an IMperfect study. modern psychologists still know almost nothing about the human condition, and they mostly grope around in the dark, just like the rest of us. so i suppose i cant fault freud for his mistakes.
thanks ophiolite. i dont like to get dogmatic, and you dragged me back to being reasonable.
:m:

 

[Michael]

Like I care what a psychology major says. The wise are not learned and the learned are not wise. Many ordinary people know more about psychology than those who have studied. Psychologists talk a lot of bullshit, except some (Freud and Carl Jung). It's just like with those who study physics. When they study, they become more stupid, they know less and become more confused.

I teach medical students at Uni. Offering an option of psychiatric help is of course part-and-parcel of being a GP (I’m not a GP but I need to teach up and coming GPs).

It is widely accepted that for the majority of people - Behavioral Cognitive Therapy is the best option for people to change their life for the better. Freudian psychoanalysis is considered the poorest. It’s such a poor method of therapy that going it alone and dealing with things by oneself, with no outside help, results in a higher curative rate than to go and see a psychoanalysis!
This has lead many of us to believe that psychoanalysis is actually harmful.

As a neuroscientist this also makes sense, each time you some to think of the negative aspects of childhood you reinforce these neural connections. To actually dwell on them for years on end, would undoubtedly cement these neural connections (as almost permanent neural structures in your brain) ultimately affecting your mental health and thus physical health; hardly an appropriate strategy of neural modulation to employ if you’re looking to impact positively on a persons physical well being.

In my opinion, for most people, it is much better to accept the past and work on the future; rather than live in the past and thus have no future.

It’s funny that you should defend Freud and Jung as the unconscious is by it’s very definition an impossible state to ascertain - Much like God.

However, I wouldn’t toss Freud to the wolves, he shouldn’t be slandered in psychology class. He was a man interested in a topic that until then few had any scientific leanings toward. And he tried to put together a theory as all we scientists try. That's fair enough.

Most people today do believe in or have at least heard of the unconsciousness, whether it is or is not true, that is a testament to the lasting legacy of Freud. Much of the same can be said of Jung, as a psychoanalysts his method and ideas are equally as compelling and as likely to succeed in a better state of mental health. Hardly. But still they are theories and that's fair enough aye.

 

[VitalOne]

Monotheism orginated from Hinduism (the oldest religion), the Vedas, the Upanashinads, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and numerous Hindu scriptures are either purely monotheistic or mention monotheism.

"Truth is one, the wise call it by different names" - Vedas

"Neither the Devas nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of all Devas and sages also" - (BG 10.2)

"The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul,who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else..." - (SB 11.28.6)

Monotheism being that there is only supreme God, being, truth, or force, Hinduism clearly supports this stance only.

 

[Buddha1]

Monotheism orginated from Hinduism (the oldest religion), the Vedas, the Upanashinads, Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and numerous Hindu scriptures are either purely monotheistic or mention monotheism.

"Truth is one, the wise call it by different names" - Vedas

"Neither the Devas nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of all Devas and sages also" - (BG 10.2)

"The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul,who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else..." - (SB 11.28.6)

Monotheism being that there is only supreme God, being, truth, or force, Hinduism clearly supports this stance only.

You're clearly wrong.

The pop Hinduism being sold to the westerners by a few 'sects' (e.g. ISCKON) do show Hinduism as monotheist, and try to proselytise Christian style. But it is against the spirit of Hinduism or other great ancient spiritual traditions.

Monotheism is not exactly the same as saying there is one god with several forms (all of 33 million gods and goddesses). And there is no scope for nature worshipping in a monotheistic religion.

Monotheism is a negative term, that is responsible for the downfall of spirituality and the rise of religion (especially as a socio-political phenomen)

Hinduism is very accomodative of new ideas and sects, in fact there is no controlling 'church' or authority, and this means that anyone can represent Hinduism or start a sect claiming to represent Hinduism. Using this many sects have opened shops in the west that try to gain converts by projecting Hinduism in a typical Christian style. The main objective is money and power that comes with it.

 

[duendy]

hmmmm, but i tend to feel itis a false move to look to the East--as the Hippies did--as a way to 'get to the truth'...as with monothesism, Hinduism has a lot to answer for.....for example it doctrine of 'karma' and 'reincarnation'---tis dogma hs created such poverty. and a prticular indifference by the culture to the poverty. why? cause it is believed to be 'their karma' if they are sufering and your karma if you is rich, or comfportable

altho it may seem less offious wit ot its sole fascitic 'God' laying down thelaw, yet still it has its guru-system. te idea that men can become god-like due to 'pure birth' and/or some form of 'transcendental experience' etc

 

[c7ityi_]

cause it is believed to be 'their karma' if they are sufering and your karma if you is rich, or comfportable

but it is so... and the belief in karma may have also caused some karma...

 

[The Devil Inside]

interesting idea.
buddhist feeling almost.
but you arent a buddhist.

 

[duendy]

but it is so... and the belief in karma may have also caused some karma...

no it ISN@T 'so'....how do you know it's so? you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

actually the term 'karma' really only means 'doing'---ie., 'action'. obviously if you are going to drin a pint of gin every day your liver will rot, etc. Bt to further extrapolate and suggest that people are born so and so because of past lives is propaganda. for no one can ctually prove it. itbecomes social controlling propaganda which benefits the staus quo

 

[Buddha1]

no it ISN@T 'so'....how do you know it's so? you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

actually the term 'karma' really only means 'doing'---ie., 'action'. obviously if you are going to drin a pint of gin every day your liver will rot, etc. Bt to further extrapolate and suggest that people are born so and so because of past lives is propaganda. for no one can ctually prove it. itbecomes social controlling propaganda which benefits the staus quo

While, what you're saying is not really wrong --- the 'karma' thing may be abused to manipulate people (the lack of an authoritative power, is a great relief though!), poverty in itself is not bad.

I think you can't really love nature if you hate poverty. Because wealth and especially luxury comes from exploiting and harming nature. As long as man is 'poor' he will keep his connection with the nature.

Such a vast human population cannot be afforded a rich life for all, without ruining forests for agriculture, polluting the air with factories and vehicles, and so on and so forth. The Karma thing does help psychologically --- whether it is true or not to deal with or to accept one's fate. But not before doing your bit --- that is also Karma --- i.e. your action in this birth to change your situation. What the philosophy says is do your bit (present Karma) and leave it at that. Don't get attached to the results, because you have no control over them. They say your past karma will determine your results. It helps not to fight with your fate psychologically, when you can't control it. I've tried it myself.

But, I think the idea of being punished for things committed in the past life does seem absurd and unfair.

 

[Buddha1]

altho it may seem less offious wit ot its sole fascitic 'God' laying down thelaw, yet still it has its guru-system. te idea that men can become god-like due to 'pure birth' and/or some form of 'transcendental experience' etc

I believe men can become god like through an exceptionally spiritualistic and exemplary life. That was part of the idea of deity worship, when exemplary figures were turned into gods.

As far as Hinduism is concerned --- it's base is nature and deity worship (paganism) but it has gone through a lot of changes and influences over all these years (after all its the oldest living spiritual/ religious system). Most, but not all of the latter influences have been for the worse.

Around the same time that Christianity was taking birth to manipulate spirituality and people's faith in worship/ god, Hinduism too underwent important changes that were meant to control people (including their sexuality). There were several negative things that happened (including the caste system). But the good thing was that there was no Church like authority, and the basic structure remained that of a pagan religion. Thus it remained a flowing and changing system, that allowed people to learn and change according to new influences and information. Which means that if you have new idea or want to rejuvenate the spiritual (or social) system, you still have the power, as an individual to do it --- if you are capable and gifted that is.

Afterall, Buddha did come from Hinduism. He had the gift and power to change this world for the better.

There have been several negative influences from Christianity and Islam, but the potential remains for a true spiritual leader to rejuvenate the system.

 

[c7ityi_]

....how do you know it's so?

Cause and effect.

you mean that if someone is poverty-stricken that's her karma?....and you the rich onelookin down , that's your karma?

I can only judge myself. My life is 100% suffering and it will be so until I die. Karma is not punishment or reward, it's teaching. But in the end, life and karma is "unfair". I didn't choose to exist, yet I exist. It's not my fault. It's not Hitler's fault that he was like he was, yet he will receive bad karma for it. There are no evil humans, there are only ignorant humans.

Karma exists because of attachment to things. It's because of our mind. When we learn to do things without attachment, when we live in the present moment, we will not receive karma anymore.

But life is eternal. Buddha, Jesus, Moses, and many others attained "perfection", but for what good? Suffering still exists. What does it help that every human being on earth defeats suffering, it still exists on other planets, and life always comes back, it is impossible to destroy it.

In the end, there might be no way out of here. It's possible that sin is never-ending and the only hope is "false" hope.

for no one can ctually prove it.

Past lives have been proven many times by people who have remembered. Karma was taught by people who knew that it existed, but today it's no longer understood the same way.

and the belief in karma doesn't cause KARMA , it causes the BELIEFin karma which creates unequal awful social systems as described

That is karma.

~ the gravestonewitch