What is it about monotheism that makes it so popular?

[More Than A Feeling]

What is the attraction of believing that there is only one supreme being, versus two or more equally supreme beings? If both of them are perceived as good, then having two wouldn't appear to make either less supreme for not being the only one. Or they could even be supreme in their respective areas like the old Greek/Roman/Norse/Egyptian gods. What was wrong with them?

I wonder how different things would be if the most popular religions in the world were polytheistic.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I always like the Greek Gods. Now I like the Mother nature as God thing.

[valerief]

2. Being an ist makes me pissed so I've always dismissed becoming an ist. nt

[msongs]

3. easier for the priest class to consolidate and control the masses when

there are not conflicting cults dedicated to multiple gods.

its all about power and money.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[More Than A Feeling]

4. Even if the priests wanted it, if it didn't resonate with people, then no priest could sell it.

Why does it seem more welcome to average people?

[rwenos]

5. If You're Going to Make Common Sense . . .

We're not going to get ANYWHERE!

I made the mistake once of suggesting that the Apostle Paul was really just filling a power vacuum when he started mouthing off beyond Jesus' teachings. There were all those believers out there, and Jesus was gone . . . Basic principle of political science -- there's no such thing as a power vacuum. Out flies Jesus, in comes Paul to "take over."

It's incredibly obvious. But Protestant clergy never seem to be able to see it, when I explain it! (Perhaps I myself am the Messiah. Or at least that's what the voices I hear when I'm alone keep telling me.) :-)

[Fridays Child]

6. Maybe having only one god is the way to...

...get rid of the female gods, once and for all.

[dweller]

9. ...

:kick:

dp

[ladywnch]

7. people like believing they are on the exclusive 'right' thing

like some how they have the right answer to everything. following one thing is easier than following several things and Americans are becoming painfully simple minded. If they have to appease several gods its just too much. much easier to put all your eggs in one basket and do what you're told than to have to differentiate between many things. Then 'they' are on the exculisive "right" path.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. That's true, it is more efficient to only have to perform rituals and follow the guidelines

of just one god.

Good answer. The path of least resistance is always an attractive one. However, what do you make of the unpopularity of atheism, which has the attractive feature of being able to sleep in on any and all "holy days of rest" (which, if you think about it, makes a lot more sense. Which is more restful, going to church, or sleeping?)

[ladywnch]

49. that's simple........if you don't believe in god you are clearly

evil, or at best, defective, so you pick the easiest route......no thinking required and benefit of strength in numbers reinforcing how right and good you are.

[qijackie]

10. Power & money are secondary...

it's all about penis size.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. The average fundie...

Is already confused, terribly, about his or her monotheistic religion. More gods would only make their heads explode. Then someone would have to clean up the mess.

I ain't doing it.

[Pierzin]

12. You are talking waaaaay to Radically for most Americans....

Even those who are members of Democratic Underground!!!
Sorry! geeeesh! to suggest that there might actually be other beleifs(or crutches!) that might work better than Christianity, Islam or Judaism, what!:scared: :scared: :grr: :hi: :eyes: :evilgrin: That's preposterous!

We Must have Monotheism! Don't you see? That way it's easier to control the masses! wow, you have too much time on your hands, you need another job to keep you busy! you're thinking too much! haha

It's an interesting question. But even back in Roman days, most of the educated classes were atheists anyways. i read somewhere they just went through the motions of being pious, but did not beleive in God(s) unless it was convenient for them!:beer: :beer: :beer:
It's because people have a need to explain why the sky is blue. It's elementary around the world. Every culture has the nedd, and every culture worldwide has explained it, has myths. Maybe it would be better here in America if we did have a polytheist beleif system, then perhaps we wouldn't have had all this horrible ignorant racist might is right history. I can only imagine such a world. :shrug:

[pinto]

13. Ya got me. Maybe it's the sense of *our* commonality that threads

throughout it all. Even in a polytheistic, agnostic or atheist framework, the sense of a common human condition seems paramount. In physics, as well, relativism recognizes that our perception, our human condition, is a constant. Beyond that, I can't say.

(aside, fwiw) I'm a Catholic, and there are many different constructs of the religion. Irish Catholics, like me, grew up with a host of saints in the respected pantheon - maybe a nod to our Celtic past. And there are Catholics in Poland and Mexico, particularly, that hold Mary, Jesus' mom, in special reverence. The Feast of Guadalupe was observed recently among Mexican Catholics and I took the opportunity to ask a Latina, Mexican co-worker about it. She said it was a basic part of their year - as much as the standard Catholic holy days - but not as big as the Feast of the Dead (she said with a wink).

[Manifestor_of_Light]

22. Mary is a big deal because they had to incorporate Goddess worship

the natives would not have tolerated an all-male Trinity with no female for balance.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Yes, this is where I fall, too

I think the attraction is to something that underlays the common human condition. A common divine, however represented, does this.

[charlie]

14. Fewer sacrifices, offerings, appeasements

I suppose. With a panoply of gods, you'd likely have that niggling uncertainty within your own tribe that you'd thrown your lot in with the wrong god this week, what with the petty intrigues and shifting alliances amongst Norse, Greek, and Roman gods. You could never rest assured you wouldn't lose your crops because you'd backed the wrong horse. If you have the One True God though, you and everybody else in your tribe can count on him for your collective fortunes, and reserve your rancor for the infidels from outside, instead of your neighbor, who's appeals to Poseiden protected him while you crashed and burned with Hades.

[EVDebs]

16. Micah 6: 7-8

KJV

""Micah 6: 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn my transgression, the fruit of my body the sin of my soul?

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?""

Genesis 15: 6 also showed that faith in God was imputed for 'righteousness', mentioned again in Romans 3, showing what is readily obvious, that all have sinned and fall short

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=31

The Greatest Commandment then becomes something that everyone knows (in their heart) but structured religious observations (read outward displays of church attendance, offerings, public displays of piety...) keep from becoming commonplace.

[WCGreen]

15. Don't you know the Baptist God is much different from the

Catholic God, and this is suppose to be under the "Christian" one god thing...

And then you have saints, angels, the holy trinity....

Oy, they worship all of them...

And remember, the Greco/Roman mythology depended on a supreme god with several lesser gods beneath....

[More Than A Feeling]

17. The rest of the gods could have shown Zeus what was up...

if he hadn't had that hundred-handed one to free him.;) Might have made an inspiring story about the power of solidarity to defeat unitary authority...

[TlalocW]

18. Look at the old myths and all the gods you had to remember

Example: A, son of B, King of C, was walking through a meadow. This angered D, goddess of meadows who turned A into a flower, who was trampled on by the horse of E, scion of F. This saddened G, god of things trampled on by horses, who in turn, changed H, daughter of I, the protector of D's temples, into a cloud... etc.

TlalocW

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Maybe this time they could be gods who know how to share and play nicely?

:shrug:

[charlie]

20. The 7 Lucky Gods

of China and Japan seem to get along alright.

[nosmokes]

21. because in the west the powers that be became monotheists and you

either went along or you ended up dead.or worse. it paid to at least pay lip service to the single god thing no matter what was in your heart. and it simply became habit. when you get totured for questioning things you learn, sooner or later, not to question things. at least not out loud in the public square downtown.

[Trajan]

23. Elegance .... Simplicity ....

Plus: if your catholic, you get to fill your 'one god' with at least THREE different 'spirit entities', which could be defined as 'deities' in their own right .....

It is the best of BOTH worlds ! ....

Polytheism is too cumbersome ... too many temples ... too many rituals .... competing theological precepts that may contradict each other .....

[soothsayer]

24. Hagel said it's just the march of consciousness understanding

itself. He says if you look at how religion has evolved, you'll see. First the sun or moon were the gods--a thing you could see and that was useful. Then the greek gods came along---human looking and as flawed as we are. Then there was Yahweh, who back in the day would walk around on the earth and stuff. Then He morphed into Jeus, who's like a personal god but better because he WAS human, but not as flawed as the greek gods, and so we understand that we, too, can be divine. Something along those lines, anyway. I'm a little rusty....!

[jgraz]

56. Chuck Hagel said that?

Dude's deeper than I thought.

[Odin2005]

25. It has to do with the history of religion and spirituality in the West Eurasian cultural zone

There seems to have been 3 periods of intense religious innovation in the history of the broad cultural zone encompassing Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (and the Americas for the last 400 years).

1. 2000-1500BC: This period is marked by the appearance of the concept of personal "salvation" or "deliverance" and cults based on deities that "die" and are "reborn" The most famous example is was the popular Egyptian cult of Osiris.

2. 300BC-700AD: In this period the innovations of Period 1 become fused with sophisticated Monotheistic ideas adopted from Judaism and Zoroastrianism. This period gave birth to Christianity, Islam, fully "modern" Judaism, Mithraism, etc.

3. 1800AD-today: We are currently living in a 3rd period of religious innovation based on various forms of Pantheism (New Age stuff), a more "mystical" form of personal religion (like Pentecostalism) and ideas imported from areas outside the West Eurasian cultural zone.

[TechBear_Seattle]

26. Primate need for domination

That's my theory. Humans are primates, and most other primates have a hierarchal social structure. Monotheism means one god, one alpha male, one certainty over who to go to when you have trouble. It satisfies a very deep, primal primate psychological need.

[More Than A Feeling]

27. So why did the concept of polytheism ever come into existence

if this supposed hierarchal structure which, based on your description, appears to have existed prior to the idea of a god (being rooted in the psyche), is a primary influence on the nature and structure of god-belief?

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Depends on the context

Most polytheistic religions derive out of animism, ie the believe that there is a spirit of fire that lives in fire, and a spirit of the clouds that lives in the clouds, etc. Inevitably, however, there is an alpha, almost always male, who rules them all and whose word is law.

Some seem to have evolved out of more monotheistic beliefs. Greek myths tell of two past ages, each dominated by a single, almost all-power god (first Uranos, then Kronos) who was overthrown by his son. Other deities came into the picture as conquest or political expediency required.

The kind of ecclectic religious belief that marked the Roman Empire, where people picked what god they wanted to follow and might be a devotee of several, is pretty unique to human history and can not be held as any kind of standard; in most societies, a person was dedicated to a single deity and that was that.

[Meshuga]

29. Is monotheism really the source of the popularity?

Or other attributes of the monotheistic religions help them with their popularity? Out of the three major monotheistic religions only Christianity and Islam are very popular.

I woundn't consider Judaism a popular religion considering that there are only 14 million Jews in the world in comparison to 2.1 billion Christians and 1.25 billion Muslims.

Out of the 14 million Jews a big chunk is either secular (don't follow religion) or are atheists.

[Zhade]

50. Just a minor correction - atheists don't follow religion either.

NT!

[Meshuga]

51. They don't...

I don't think I said atheists follow religion. I didn't include it in the parenthesis (like I did for the secular) since I thought it was a given.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. It seems from what I've read that behind much that's

called polytheism is monotheism.

For me, I think the attraction is the sense of unity. Whether one sees the divine in many guises or three or one, it's the same divine.

<shrug> I'm not sure there's something scary going on with it -- just how the religious thought, particularly in the west, developed.

[More Than A Feeling]

31. I hope you knew I was going to ask you explain further.

I'm not going to let you get away that easily!:-) How is what's called polytheism actually monotheism?

Anyway, I never intended to imply something scary was going on. The efficiency reason given above is a very plausible one, and certainly a point in monotheism's favor. Other plausible reasons are indeed more sinister, but dismissing them with "that's just how western religious thought developed", is not enough for me, or else I would not have asked the question. It's not an explanation.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Well, I'm not really any sort of expert

but from what I do know of religions like Hinduism and Krishna, which might *seem* to be polytheistic, actually have at bottom a belief that the divine is one -- just represented by different aspects.

That's the sort of idea I meant.

The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, all had pantheons of gods, but in each case there was a "head" guy, a final authority. And the different gods each represented only an aspect of the divine.

I guess there's some evidence that the monotheistic idea may originate with Zoroastrianism, but there, too, I haven't read enough to support the claim myself.

And of course, the three Abrahamic religions certainly have dominated religious thought in the West and Middle East since the Roman empire, and the almost inseperable nature of Christianity and government throughout post-Roman European history certainly has to have deeply impacted our own cultural inheritance.

Personally? As a believer, I do think there is a divine, which has revealed itself to different peoples in different ways. I think we often see part of the truth, but perhaps not all of it.

Hey, I can't promise you a cogent dissertation here, but it is an interesting thought, and I'm chewing and writing at the same time!

[Evoman]

32. Um...could it be the genocide and forced conversion of the polytheistically religious?

I'm just sayin....

[More Than A Feeling]

33. The Jews were polytheistic for the most part, in the beginning.

Even though the Old Testament makes it appear that they were monotheistic to start with, and later instances of polytheism were "disobedience", the reality is the opposite. It was monotheism that was an outlier until the OT was written in the 8th century B.C.E. The Arabs were polytheistic, before Islam. Now, you might say that King Josiah, and the political triumph of the monotheists associated with his reign were the causes of Jewish monotheism, but that doesn't explain why Muhammed, who was part of a well-off family but not an absolute monarch, was able to attract enough previous polytheists to monotheism so that he could spread it in the more usual ways that religions were spread back then.

Murder and forced conversion might be an explanation for the Jewish experience, but I don't see it being a prior explanation to the Muslim experience.

[Evoman]

34. Well, obviously monotheism had to originate somewhere.

But really, it only originate in two or three places...how many monotheistic religions can you name? Everyone else was steam-rolled by crusades and small pox blankets.

[More Than A Feeling]

35. So what's your take on a hypothetical modern day where polytheism still ruled?

[Evoman]

36. I have no idea.

Really, I don't.

[shimmergal]

92. Maybe we have some Hindu members of DU

whose take on this would be helpful?

[JerseygirlCT]

42. I don't know -- let's see:

Zoroastrianism
Jainism
Sikhism
Ba'hai
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Druze...

I'm sure I'm missing some -- anyone else?

[Evoman]

44. I stand corrected...they originated in a bunch of different places.

THEN they steamrolled over polytheism with crusades and smallpox.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I'm confused

what polytheistic religions did the Crusades steamroller?

I assume smallpox refers to Native North American beliefs... and I don't know enough about the vast array of those to answer that.

Isn't it just as likely that religious thought evolved toward monotheism? We could probably trace any development in culture to some armed conflict or authority, but is that really the truth of it? And perhaps there are movements toward a polytheistic view now with the emergence of more acceptance for pagan and other nature-based beliefs? Who knows where the majority of our culture is heading?

[Evoman]

47. Other than North and Southern American Indians?

The Aztecs had a pantheon, as did the Inca, and most of the North American Indian tribes. South Americans are now mostly catholic (and speak spanish) because of the Spanish conquering and converting everyone to Christianity. And what about the Muslim invasian of Egypt?

Why are there so many christians and muslems around the world, in every country? Was it a subtle evolution, where people decided...hmmm, maybe this monotheism thing works really well?

[JerseygirlCT]

52. You were using the term in a general sense then, not

"the Crusades", meaning the wars instigated by European politics and fought against Muslim societies in Middle East?

That's what threw me. Plenty of room to castigate the Crusaders, but the fight was at least "advertised" as against Islam, which is another monotheistic faith.

And yes, I do know that the Central and South American cultures (Aztec, Inca, etc.) had a pantheon, but I don't know enough more to sense whether that was in a similar fashion to others, where the pantheon represented differing facets of an ultimate supreme divinity...

And at least some N.A. native tribes thought in terms of Great Spirit, didn't they? While that spirit was found in all of life/nature, there was still a unifying sense of oneness there...

And while there were certainly Muslim invasions of Egypt, they followed Greek, Roman, Persian and many other invasions. Egypt was a popular place!

Certainly there's a nasty history of forced conversions -- I think even more on the Christian side than Muslim, actually. There was quite a period where Muslim governments were the most tolerant in the western world.

But all that still doesn't convince me that monotheism is some dastardly tool of oppression... but it's hard to miss the other side of it if you're not a believer yourself, I suppose.

[Evoman]

53. There is nothing in monotheism or polytheism in general that

makes them tools of oppression. Hell, the Incans were pretty damn oppressive. The christians just had better weapons.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. And still got their butts kicked...

most of the time.

Yes, I agree with you. Oppression comes in all sorts of flavors.

[toddaa]

82. Hinduism?

Technically speaking, every god is a manifestation of Brahman. Why aren't there any Hindus on R/T?

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. More correct to say they were henotheistic

Basically, they acknowledged that other gods existed, but there was only ONE god for the Children of Israel.

Take, for example, the "battle of the sacrifices" between Elijah and the priests of Baal found in I Kings 18:17-40. The priests lay out a sacrifice and call on their god to light the fire. Nothing happens. Elijah builds an altar to Yahweh, lays out a sacrifice and calls on Yahweh to light the fire. Fire comes down from heaven. The larger context is not that Baal did not exist, but that he had no power in territory belonging to Yahweh; one gets a sense that the same contest in Baal's territory would have had a different result.

[Meshuga]

40. I think that the early Hebrews were probably...

...polytheistic and henotheistic at one point in time but I don't think that the story in I Kings 18:17-40 makes a case for it. At least not for Elijah. In fact, Elijah is making a case for monotheism.

A quote of Elijah from this story is repeated 7 times during Yom Kippur service, "Adonai, hoo ha-Elohim" (The Lord alone is God) as an affirmation to monotheism.

Elijah was a big fighter for monotheism and he was often angry since he thought he was only monotheist left in the land. At one point he cries really pissed off at God saying, "The Israelites have forsaken your convenant... I alone am left."

I know the word Israel is evoked in this passage several times but it is done in different contexts. The story takes place in the Nothern Kingdom of Israel, the king and the people Elijah is trying to convince is called Israel, and the patriarchs he mentions ("The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel...") which uses Jacob's name of Israel.

"The Hebrews" were a people and the concept of Judaism as we know today did not exist at the time this passage was written. The Hebrews were a people and many of them at that time had their own set of beliefs. Among them there probably were polytheists, henotheists, and perhaps monotheists. But the way the scripture was put together it appears that the final redactors were ardent monotheists.

[Meshuga]

39. There are parellels between...

...the Sumarian legends with the stories in the Hebrew Bible and the differences being that the Sumarians had several gods while the Hebrew turned it to a one God idea. The legend of the great flood, the Tower of Babel story, Sodom and Gomorrah, story of Abraham, etc. What probably happened was that early Hebrews turned one of the Sumarian Gods into the God of the Hebrew Bible (perhaps that one God was favorable to the Hebrews).

Anyway, the idea of monotheism evolved with time so the idea of one God at that time with the priestly practices at the Temple was very different from what it is today in Rabbinical Judaism.

[MistressOverdone]

37. I have never quite gotten with the concept

of the Trinity. To me, they are three different entities. From the same source of energy, but different. So in some ways, I believe in more than one god.

And I like the pagan concept of everything having some sort of spirit. I don't think of them as gods, but part of the same creative energy.

Then there is...could it be....Satan? If he isn't a god, I don't know what you would call him. He seems to be thought of as a very powerful being who knows all your thoughts.

We won't even to INTO Santa Claus.

[kiahzero]

45. That's what people are used to

For about 50% of people, polytheism is a foreign concept they have trouble wrapping their minds around.

[Zhade]

48. Two answers, and both work.

1. It's cheaper to tithe to one god than to multiple ones.

2. The fewer fictional gods there are to keep track of, the less one is reminded that there is no real evidentiary reason to believe in any gods at all. In other words, the smaller the circle of unfounded belief, the easier it is to continue believing (which goes with the 'evolution of religious systems' idea posted above).

[jgraz]

55. Christianity isn't monotheistic

Christians have at least three gods, and potentially thousands once you mix in the saints and angels.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. That's incorrect from a Christian viewpoint -- which in this

case is really the one that matters. (Since defining the beliefs of a given religion really ought to be the job of those who espouse that religion).

The concept of the trinity is admittedly a very difficult one -- most Christians accept it without really understanding it. Heck, I wonder if anyone really understands it. And saints, angels, etc. are not worshipped as God, but venerated (that is, admired, emulated).

[jgraz]

58. Christians also believe Jesus rose from the dead

That don't make it true.

The fact is that Christians are pantheists in much the same way as the Greeks were. They have one "boss god" and a bunch of lesser deities. They also have a god-trickster in the form of Satan who, according to the mythology, has almost all the powers of the boss.

No matter how Christianity has been marketed, being a Christian usually means believing in any number of entities who may be prayed to and who can apply various supernatural powers to the benefit or detriment of believers. In short, if it quacks like a god, it's a god.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Makes it absolutely true that that's what Christians believe

and beyond that, there's simply no way to bring "proof" into it. You can't measure belief with physical reality.

You're free to redefine Christianity's beliefs any way you like, but they cease being Christianity's and become your own view at that point.

[jgraz]

61. many > 3 > 1 is not open to debate

If you pray to three gods, some angels and saints, you can't say you "believe" that you don't and pretend that's just your viewpoint. Math is funny that way.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. Praying to something does not equal that something being

God, however. Which is where your arguement falls down.

[jgraz]

64. This is where we leave logic completely in the dust

I didn't say "God" I said "a god", which is different. If you won't acknowledge simple math and basic English definitions, it's going to be very difficult to have any sort of coherent discussion.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. I don't equate saints or angels with "a god", however

so we probably will have a hard time with this.

In the Christian view, they are not God, any more than you or I am. Do Christians pray to them? Sure, sometimes. They are not praying in worship, however, but in an intercessory way -- "hey, you're there already, with God, can you put in a good word for me?"

I'm not expecting you to accept or even wish to understand the Christian viewpoint on this. In fact, though Christian myself, I often veer off from orthodox belief. (That's small "o").

But I do think the people claiming the particular belief are the ones to define it. We can choose whether we agree or not. We can give the generally accepted beliefs and show where someone differs. But I don't think either you or I get to define what someone else believes.

[jgraz]

66. heh -- this is the question that almost got me kicked out of confirmation class

The definition is difficult to avoid and even the monsignor couldn't quite wiggle out of it. All of the arguments you're making could be made about the Greek pantheon. At some point it just becomes empty semantics. The biggest problem for Christians is Satan, who is apart from God yet has all the powers of a god.

I guess I really don't understand what's so inherently beneficial about presenting your religion as monotheistic. Is there something in that designation that makes a religion superior to others? Why not just acknowledge that you worship many deities, some extremely powerful (God, Jesus, etc) and some not so powerful (St. Doogie, patron saint of shoelaces)?

[Evoman]

67. That really is the kicker....why cling to monotheism, as if doing otherwise would make your religion

bunk? God didn't say, after all, that you couldn't believe in other gods...he just said don't put other gods before me. Why is it so important to be monotheistic?

[jgraz]

69. I wonder if it has its roots in racism

Not to say -- at all -- that monotheists are racists. But when I asked my monsignor about this many years ago, he said that monotheism is what "separates us from the savages," from which I presume he meant Africans and other aboriginal peoples.

Perhaps it's just that simple: white people tend to be monotheist, while brown, black, red and "yellow" people tend to have more polytheistic religions. Over the years, that could have translated into a simple prejudice toward monotheism in western culture.

[JerseygirlCT]

72. That might have become entrenched in the culture, but I suspect

it's not about monotheism causing racism in those examples, but dominant cultures who happen to be monotheist using their position to denigrate other beliefs. I don't think there's anything at all inherent in the belief that connects to racism, IOW.

Your monsignor sounds like a real winner. Glad I avoided those types in my Catholic education.

[jgraz]

75. "Your monsignor sounds like a real winner"

Heh -- he was actually fairly a nice guy for a pre-Vatican II priest trying to manage a group of rowdy 16 year olds. And, I have him to thank for setting me on the road to atheism.

[Meshuga]

73. Geography might play a bigger part

I think you either misunderstood your monsignor or your monsignor doesn't really grasp monotheism and what is meant by humans being made in God's image. According to monotheistic religions all humans were created in God's image (not physical image) but we were endowed with rationality that other creatures don't share.

If "what separates us from the savages" is meant to separate from other humans then this person has some serious issues.

I don't know of any scientific studies that shows the demographics of the different religions as far as race. But my perception is that religion preferences is not based in skin color but perhaps geography plays a big part in this.

The white Europeans were not the one's who introduced the idea of monotheism.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. I don't know. It's not a decision I made

"I'd better be monotheistic"

It's what I believe. I believe there is one God. I believe we often see that God differently, and that doesn't trouble me a bit, until people decide that those differences are worth causing harm to one another about.

You could look at the sky and see "grey". I could see "blue". Same sky. Why fight over what are just different perceptions of the same thing?

[JerseygirlCT]

70. Why not? Because it's not true, that's why

Are you going to tell me what I believe, what I worship? That seems a bit strange.

I don't believe in Satan, if that helps you any.

I don't worship saints. Their lives may be certainly be edifying and instructional, but I don't worship them.

I'm not a Christian eager to have Jesus be my best buddy. That whole newer development in Protestantism is sort of icky to me. I believe in God. I believe there is one God. I'm completely comfortable with the idea that that one God interacts with different people and cultures differently. I fully believe behind many different religious interpretations of God is the same divine -- it's our human inability to grasp the entirety of that divine that causes the idea that there are different gods.

If the person on one side sees God in nature, I still think it's the one. If the person on the other side sees God in the Hindu pantheon... still God. <shrug>

[jgraz]

74. Ah, I think we're drifting from the main subject

Which is what traditional Christianity and, specifically, Catholicism preaches, as opposed to what you yourself believe.

You personally may choose to believe in only one god and, of course, it's impossible (and pointless) to debate what's going on inside another person's head. However, most Christians follow a theology that has very little resemblence to true monotheistic religions like Judaism. The actual practice of the religion involves the worship of at least two gods (Jesus and the big guy), and almost certainly includes prayers to saints, angels, and a few dead relatives.

Ay any rate, I choose to define polytheism as the belief in the existence of -- and supposed interaction with -- more than one supernatural being. I'm guessing that most folks would agree (until they realize what that says about their own religion, that is).

Edit: I forgot to finish a

[Meshuga]

62. Some Christians make promisses

and offering to saints as exchange for favors. Praying to an image seems like worshiping to me. I think saints are more than venerated.

[Zhade]

59. And a whole lot of other borrowed concepts, too.

"What's original about Christianity isn't good, and what's good isn't original."

[Dervill Crow]

68. Wicca honors both God and Goddess.

I'm not Wiccan, myself, but I like the symmetry.

[MistressOverdone]

76. Much easier than

having to memorize a whole slew of gods and goddesses, and their likes, dislikes, relationships, etc. Just roll 'em all up into one big one.

[jgraz]

77. Spoken like someone who has never attended Catholic Sunday school :)

[MistressOverdone]

78. You are right about that

although I did take piano lessons from the nuns at the local Catholic school and got saints cards and got my knuckles rapped when I asked why one saint was holding fried eggs. Evidently they were her eyeballs.

[jgraz]

79. Santa Lucia!

Not only raised Catholic, but Italian/Catholic. We all learned about Santa Lucia.

[MistressOverdone]

85. Well damn

they look just LIKE fried eggs! Plus, she still has eyes. I think.

[jgraz]

86. mmm....eggs

Never underestimate the Catholic church's ability to bring the crazy.

[toddaa]

83. Corporate Buyouts

Consolidation and hostile takeovers have left us with God, Inc.

[Az]

80. I suspect it is a neurological anamoly that makes monotheism stick around

Polytheism fades away as we learn more about the nature of the things around us. But monotheism is more internally exploratory than an explanation for what is going on in the world around us. And this internal dialog is enabled by our own brains and their method of coming to know other people.

See we do not experience other people's minds directly. In fact we are not even certain that there is anything inside other people. They could be puppets for all we know going about acting like a human being. So what our mind does is projects our own sense of identity onto people we meet. As we learn more about them we build an internal construct of them within our mind and that is what we come to know.

This form of projection is not limited to people. We project identity onto our pets and even inanimate objects that we interact with on a regular basis (computers, cars, etc). We attribute identities to these things as a means of understanding how to interact with them.

The monotheistic god is much like this. It is an identity we create in our mind to which we assign attributes we observe in the world around us that we have come to believe are the results of this entity in action. We can imagine interacting with this entity. But unlike the other people we meet and know we have no direct external body to relate these thoughts to in our mind. Thus to the mind imagining a conversation with God is no different than actually having a conversation with God.

This can even be exasterbated by the fact that the mind can lose contact with itself. We are not born knowing ourself. We have to learn to distinguish self from the world around us. This all gets referenced based on our spacial sense of location which is regulated by a specific part of the brain. If this function shorts out (which is possible through a number of ways) we lose our sense of self.

While our sense of self is shorted out the mind continues to function. But the brain no longer knows who to associate the ideas flowing through it with. Thus it attempts to distinguish which entity it has learned of could be responsible for such communication. Depending on the culture one grew up in this experience can be related to god, the universe, ancestors and numerous other explanations. The mind tags the ideas as being communication with whatever entity it decides is responsible for them.

This experience can be quite profound as such an unusual sensation is going to cause the mind to pay a great deal of attention to it. This results in a strong emotional relevance to the event which amplifies its meaning.

This state of mind can be reached by numerous methods including drugs, aclohol, exertion, sex, meditation, fasting, pain, and a host of other methods. You will find that many monotheistic religions involve a number of practices of communion that can initiate a shift in the state of the participants mind. It is this state of revery that they are trying to achieve. Communion with God is just switching off the self and experiencing the flow of your subsconscious untagged by identity of self.

[TreasonousBastard]

90. Getting close to the "God of the Gaps" dilemma...

"Polytheism fades away as we learn more about the nature of the things around us. But monotheism is more internally exploratory than an explanation for what is going on in the world around us. And this internal dialog is enabled by our own brains and their method of coming to know other people."

Ancient Western gods often had a "boss" god and a whole slew of assistant gods to run things. As we learn more about the physical universe, we realize that there's no Apollo riding a blazing chariot (which we probably supected all along) and the concept of God becomes smaller.

Using God to explain HOW the world works is a basic fallacy and leads to all these micromanaging lesser gods floating around, most of whom will disappear with greater knowledge. The need for and credibility of the boss god also is reduced as his minions are found to be myth. Even in monotheism, this sort of god is reduced a bit every time we learn something new. This is no more than using magic to explain phenomena.

However, using God to explain WHY the world works is answering ancient philosphical questions annd leads to a very different kind of God. It naturally leads to a more or less monotheistic deity who is more of a spiritual presence than a physical one.

Locke talked of tests of rationality for religion, but Maimonedes put it much more simply-- when science and scripture conflict, either the science is wrong or our interpretation of scripture is wrong.

[TRYPHO]

81. because Kids understand what "one" means?

Simple works?

My kids blame/thank/beg/blaspheme/blame/pray/negotiate/blame god (they call god "hashem") for all sorts of things. I have no idea what they think "hashem" - (literally translated is Ha - the, shem - name) is. however they are very clever at saying:

"Hashem told me to eat it"
"Hashem told me to smack her"
"Hashem told me I could stay up and watch TV"

They also say things like:
"I hate you, you stink, you're fat, and you only love your computer"

But they aren't old enough to realise I have all the money!

Simple things work.

1 is a very simple, working, theory.

1 to govern them all - my precious!

TRYPHO

[stevebreeze]

84. why do sports fanatics argue over who is the best home run hitter?

We as a species categorize contrast and compare. If there is only one God he/she is the greatest. No need to argue over weather it's Zeus or Odin.

[jgraz]

87. That's easy -- Jesus

[stevebreeze]

88. OK so Jesus or God the Father?

religion is so self contradictory in many ways.

[jgraz]

89. One's thing's for sure: God or Jesus, the Cubbies would trade him

[shimmergal]

91. It's Occam's Razor applied to the religious sphere

where it doesn't necessarily "work" very well.