Is Monotheism Superior to Polytheism?

[Exarch]

13- And yes, i consider monotheism a superior form of spirituality, .

from another thread; now i'm curious to know why some ppl would consider monotheism to be better than polytheism? do they think that monotheism will put ppl on the path to accepting their own monotheistic religion by thinking 'oh allah, YHWH, FSM, they're one and the same"

discuss

[removeduser_487563287433]

No... it's not really. I would argue that monotheism provides more potential for conflict. If you believe there's loads of Gods then it's hardly going to be a surprise that the people over the hill have different ones. If you believe there's only one god, and a particularly successful civilisation is contradicting you or believing in a different one... well, that's a crusade.

[Scorch]

In fact religion, if you could really call the polytheistic belief systems we see prior to the rise of monotheism religions, wasn't always such a violent catalyst for conflict. When, as it was in the Mediterranean, there is a process whereby cultural exchange dictates that, in fact, most of the Gods of almost every civilization in the Mediterranean world have very similar roots and traditions, it acts as a catalysts for cultural exchange, literary engagement and the development of thought and trade. Wars were fought for political reasons prior to the rise of monotheism.

[removeduser_487563287433]

In fact religion, if you could really call the polytheistic belief systems we see prior to the rise of monotheism religions, wasn't always such a violent catalyst for conflict. When, as it was in the Mediterranean, there is a process whereby cultural exchange dictates that, in fact, most of the Gods of almost every civilization in the Mediterranean world have very similar roots and traditions, it acts as a catalysts for cultural exchange, literary engagement and the development of thought and trade. Wars were fought for political reasons prior to the rise of monotheism.

Exactly. It amazes me that the Abrahamics generally don't have the intelligence to say, "Hey look we have exactly the same God, we just wear different hats."

[Monarchist]

It amazes me that the Abrahamics generally don't have the intelligence to say, "Hey look we have exactly the same God, we just wear different hats."

I'm one of the Abrahamics who rejects that blanket statement. Speaking for myself: there is no God but the One in Heaven; every other religion echoes that. When you look at single polytheistic religions, they really tend to fall into one category: celestial monarchy. Greek paganism, Roman polytheism, and every other facet thereof had some central god surrounded by others. They all may have been nominally "equal", but Zeus obviously towered over Athena and others. This rule applies equally to Jupiter, who was depicted as sitting on the heavenly throne with all the other Gods around him. I never heard of a Polytheism that expounded a Democracy of the Gods!

It's quite amusing to look at Christian art from early codices, wherein each codex usually had a coloured frontispiece. On that piece was usually an image of Christ, but it was an ancient image; sans the halo and cross, it might have been a picture of Zeus or Jupiter or Ahura Mazdā. The Christians quite cleverly stole the original pagan images of cosmic government to use for Christ. It was a good move, obviously, as the imagery spread quickly across the Roman Empire, which was used to those images (albeit in a different form). Heavenly propaganda! Well, why not?

I'm just trying to say that polytheism is almost always monotheism, with a few added characters. Zeus was YHWH was Jupiter was Ahura-Mazda was Brahma was Vishnu. The list of religions with one supreme god with many ulterior gods is a long one. Perhaps it's the same deity we're all trying to explain and reach? I tend to think so, citing the commonality of the One-God, even when surrounded by many lesser entities. Whether Hindus talk to it or Jews pray to it, it's still the same God with different interpretations thereof.

[Banana Jelly]

No... it's not really. I would argue that monotheism provides more potential for conflict. If you believe there's loads of Gods then it's hardly going to be a surprise that the people over the hill have different ones. If you believe there's only one god, and a particularly successful civilisation is contradicting you or believing in a different one... well, that's a crusade.

That's why there were god's of war, god's of victory over war's and other god's like that for polytheistic religion, and it makes them much more non-violent then us. Because the Spartan's believed that they had to go to war, also to please there gods.

When we come to Islam, its failure starts by insisting that there is only one God, who has no Spirit and no Saviour thus cutting away two most essential elements to salvation.

Thats right basics, thats why I keep telling you Christianity seems fishy and very polytheistic with the trinity.

[Seleucos of Olympia]

That's why there were god's of war, god's of victory over war's and other god's like that for polytheistic religion, and it makes them much more non-violent then us. Because the Spartan's believed that they had to go to war, also to please there gods.

The Spartans avoided war unless it was absolutely necessary to their political agenda. They thought it would be unwise to "train their enemies" by fighting battles with them too frequently. They had the same gods as all the other Greeks and, although they alone of all Greeks sacrificed puppies to Ares, there was no temple for him in Sparta, unlike many other gods (especially Athena).

The single greatest difference between ancient European polytheism and subsequent monotheism, from my perspective, is the handling of the idea of divine perfection. In the old pantheon, all the gods were created within the world, and as such were imperfect. In monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, later Islam), God existed outside the world, created the latter and was perfect. In the former system, there were many attempts to explain that problem of perfection, often casting Zeus in the role of the perfect creator, in later times, but there was still the great philosophical problem of a perfect being interacting with an imperfect world. The Christians brushed aside such concerns with an abandon that I find philosophically suspect, and cast the Judean god (who was far from perfect in his old role) as that perfect creator, who furthermore interacts with this world as a trinity. We can see an evolution of ideas, but that hardly makes monotheism "superior", since polytheistic systems had undergone a similar evolutionary process, culminating in even more intricate theologies, such as Neoplatonism.

[Dr. Croccer]

In fact religion, if you could really call the polytheistic belief systems we see prior to the rise of monotheism religions, wasn't always such a violent catalyst for conflict. When, as it was in the Mediterranean, there is a process whereby cultural exchange dictates that, in fact, most of the Gods of almost every civilization in the Mediterranean world have very similar roots and traditions, it acts as a catalysts for cultural exchange, literary engagement and the development of thought and trade. Wars were fought for political reasons prior to the rise of monotheism.

Not really. This was mainly, and pretty much only, the case with the Greeks and Romans. They largely viewed other religions as differing interpretations of their own (this wasn't rare with monotheism either. Christian missonaries tried to convince Pagans during the Middle Ages that all their Gods were in fact one, and later they tried to convince the Chinese that their Confucian vision of Heaven was comparable to the Christian vision of God). Other Polytheistic religions, like Germanic Paganism, African religions, Mesoamerican religions, Hinduism, Maori religions, etc were as blood thirsty and aggressive as any monotheistic religion, in many cases even more so.

[Pious Agnost]

Less gods = Less opinions to differ to yours.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Polytheism can exist alongside other Polytheistic beliefs. Take the Roman and Persian Empires for example. Although the Roman example is more well known, we have hundreds of cults and beliefs that coexisted relatively peacefully up until the 4th century. Judaism was around a lot longer than Christianity which is in all respects just a cult of Judaism. What allowed the Jewish beliefs to coexist in the Roman Empire without trying to convert the masses as the Christians later did.

Christianity could not accept any other religion that opposes its view on a one single all knowing god. Even though it was given freedom to worship it had to take more. It had to outlaw other peoples rights to worship as well. How do you explain the growth of Monotheism in a pagan empire and the death of Paganism in a Monotheistic Empire. The Christians would claim that they were persecuted at the hands of the Pagan Emperors, in arenas. They may have been on a case by case basis. But there was never a Imperial campaign to wipe out or convert every last Christian as much as the Christian did. From the mid 4th century it really only took a little less than 60 years for Monotheism to become the dominant religion and for Pagan beliefs to be outlawed. Compared the growth of Christian beliefs in a pagan society.

Now Julian the Apostate comes to mind. But was his ultimate goal to outlaw Christianity or just return the Empire to its roots, of a Pagan Society.

After Julian enter Constantinopolis, despite his rejection of Christianity, his first political act was to preside over Constantius' Christian burial, escorting the body to the Church of the Apostles, where it was placed alongside that of Constantine.

The guy was no Theodosius. I believe he appointed both Christians and Pagans to seats of power, but the guy was great in other ways as well. He idealized the perfect ruler as being first among equals or subject to the same laws as the people. He viewed Constantine as of eroding the power of the empire, for the degrading state the empire was in. Julian did not seek absolutism but devolved most of the power to the cities and dismissed much of the Bureaucrats.

My point is... here we have the last Pagan Emperor after the first Christian Emperor. The later made many choices that directly affected the freedom of worship while the former sought a balance between the two and made no laws or decrees that could match the anti-paganism laws of later emperors.

Truly the world would be a better place had Julian survived.

[SorelusImperion]

No... it's not really. I would argue that monotheism provides more potential for conflict

It depends on the individual's interpretation of his faith. It is pretty easy for a monotheist to assume that the many gods of the strange foreign folks living abroad are mere aspects of the one true god he is worshipping. Similar to how you said it in this sentence:

"Hey look we have exactly the same God, we just wear different hats."

In turn if you look at the Atztecs you'll find A LOT of religiously motivated violence commited by a polytheistic society. I am also sure we could find a quite a few examples of wars lead in the name of "god" if we look at ancient Europe though of course the religious reasons were "Esus demands more blood" rather than ""they don't believe in our gods".

[removeduser_487563287433]

Sure, I think it's a fair point that my post was eurocentric. Even with Indo-European polytheism you can see conflict occuring as some cultures moved away from practices such as human sacrifice. The Romans made human sacrifices as late as the Second Punic War, which sits very uneasily with their Carthaginian targetted propaganda.

[basics]

" now i'm curious to know why some ppl would consider monotheism to be better than polytheism? do they think that monotheism will put ppl on the path to accepting their own monotheistic religion by thinking 'oh allah, YHWH, FSM, they're one and the same""

Exarch,

If we consider the Christian God it can be seen that He functions by having three distinct personalities in the one entity. And if we look at Judaism we see that the very same God is quite apparent without the need of a Saviour in the sense of the aforementioned God. But that is not down to God, rather the Jews, still bound in the Law, see Messias as a worldly figure who doesn't give them eternal life but one who gives them wordly supremacy.

So their God is the God of the Christian and always has been. That in part they have been blinded to Jesus Christ is the reason why their form in Judaism has never as yet been complete. Since it is God that sanctifies it follows that some of them will know and accept Jesus Christ right up until the eve of the last day. They can't see it but God has reserved for Himself a remnant from out of that people.

So we find in Christianity and Judaism that their God is active, is always working, to bring men and women to Him and them that are converted live by that power for the rest of their lives. Indeed it is a way of life that others cannot fathom. It must be remembered that men cannot choose God, rather that God chooses them so not all Jews will be saved any more than all Gentiles will be.

When we come to Islam, its failure starts by insisting that there is only one God, who has no Spirit and no Saviour thus cutting away two most essential elements to salvation. Indeed it rests on God at some point after death having mercy where according to His Law none can be given after death. There is no one to resurrect them to eternal life since they died in their sin, it never having been erased before death by a Saviour.

Thankfully, since it is God who does sanctify and does so through revelation of Jesus Christ, no matter what a man is, be sure that He will and does save men and women out of Islam or any other set of beliefs that permeate this planet. So is God the same for all? In terms of who saves who, He certainly is. Any separation comes in the minds of men where their imagination conjures up what Scripture calls another God, another Jesus and another Spirit.

It is written that there is only one Faith, one Spirit and one Lord over all.

[Fiyenyaa]

It is written that there is only one Faith, one Spirit and one Lord over all.

The opposite is also written.
You're going to have to come up with a better reason than that.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The Celts, Gaels, Germans continued ritual human sacrificing much longer than near eastern and Roman cultures. In fact, there is very little evidence to support any conclusion that the Greeks had human sacrifice.

In Rome the most brutal of the human sacrifices were to bury POWs and Vestal Virgins alive as an offering to the gods of the underworld. Archaeologist have found human remains below buildings. Other rituals that were more common were gladiatorial matches of ritual combat to the death, ritual strangulation of captured war leaders (Vircengetorix), Criminals could be executed as an offering to the gods. Human Sacrifice was official but largely symbolically banned in 97 BC. By then it had become extremely rare. Personally I could imagine the human sacrifices to Manes was rare in itself by cults around the Empire. And not something sponsored by the government.

In Greece there are 3 sites that support human sacrifice but they date to the Pre-Hellenic Minoan civilization.

The Wicker man is quite well known use of human sacrifice among the celts and the druids. Often those killed were nothing more than peasants or warriors captured in battle. Which ever was easier.

According to Greek and Romans sources the Carthaginians sacrificed infants, and numerous bones have been found in Carthage. However, this issue is still highly controversial.

In the Bible, Genesis, Qur'an there are numerous references to human sacrifice. For Example. After a battle with the Israelites the King of Moab offered up his first born son and heir as a burnt offering to the gods.


EDIT: I forgot to add archaeologist discovered the remains of a person sacrificed to Odin in the 11th century. Somewhere in Scandinavia.

[removeduser_487563287433]

A fair summary. It would be extremely unusual if the ancient Jews didn't practice human sacrifice, as their neighbours seem to have done so.

[Cornelius Plautus]

A fair summary. It would be extremely unusual if the ancient Jews didn't practice human sacrifice, as their neighbours seem to have done so.

There does seem to be a lot of stigma attached to what the ancient Jews did or did not do. It would make sense for them to sacrifice either people or animals to God, because at that point in history, sacrifices did take on a more literal meaning. I find this doubly true when I hear (common?) misconception that the Jews never fought, or had their own fighting forces in the Ancient World, which is obviously untrue since the Old Testament is choc full of warrior heroes like Joshua and Gideon, and, of course, Flavius Josephus informs us of the Jewish Wars, during which -apparently- the Jews were something of a considerable enemy to Vespasian and Titus.

In my opinion, polytheism and monotheism are simply worship choices, and to call one superior to the other is to insult some rather civilized cultures. Say what you will about the decadent lifestyles of some of the Romans, but their contributions to Western Society make them a clearly civilized people. Of course, there are also the Indians, whose polytheistic Hindu beliefs have supported an amazing society over the Ages, even when the British Empire had annexed them as a territory.

When people speak of the savageries of polytheists, it is important to remember that contemporary monotheists were no Saints, either. Christian and Muslims who demanded conversion could be commensurately barbaric to their polytheistic counterparts, save that they killed those who refused to convert in the name of God, rather than dedicating the sacrificed lives of their victims to one of many deities.

[MaximiIian]

if you could really call the polytheistic belief systems we see prior to the rise of monotheism religions,

I don't see why you couldn't. They fit pretty much all the conceivable definitions of a religion.

Speaking for myself: there is no God but the One in Heaven; every other religion echoes that.

Or it could be monotheism taking the notion of a chief god and blowing it out of proportion into "the only god" territory. Considering that monotheism arrived fairly late on the scene and mostly sprang out of a small set of closely related cultures.

In my opinion, polytheism and monotheism are simply worship choices, and to call one superior to the other is to insult some rather civilized cultures.

I tend to believe in this principle. I myself am a polytheist, and I believe polytheism to be true; but this doesn't necessarily mean that I think I am only and always right. My opinions are a reflection of my personal experience, which points to polytheism for me. Others' opinions might point them elsewhere, and as I have the possibility of error, I am in no place to judge.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

I just think he means it's easier to keep track of who's who. Otherwise I see nothing superior about it or anything else.

[Monarchist]

I just think he means it's easier to keep track of who's who. Otherwise I see nothing superior about it or anything else.

This recalls to mind: Whatever you are, be a good one.