[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Monotheism vs. Polytheism

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Monotheism vs. Polytheism Reply with quote

Monotheism vs. Polytheism


Within the thread ďTribute to RussellĒ I touched upon the concepts of Polytheism and Monotheism briefly. This is a noteworthy comparison in and of itself, and so I will now review it again in its own thread, and further expand upon it.

It is a most curious finding that theists today contend that polytheism is not only historically archaic but also intellectually archaic as compared to monotheism. They hold that monotheism is morally and logically superior to polytheism. So let us explore them both in order to reach an educated conclusion.

I. Intellectual and Moral Comparisons:

Religions of all forms were initially created in order to fulfill a function. That function has primarily been to provide explanations regarding the world. The explanations have ranged form physical to philosophical in nature. From the basic physical explanation of lightning to the most complex philosophical explanation of the existence of the universe, religion has served as the source of the explanation.

It was this query and search that gave birth to religion. It was this same search that incidentally also gave birth to science Ė but that contrast is the topic of another discussion.

Since all humans share the search for explanations about the world, independent but amazingly similar pathways to religion emerged in different parts of the world. An examination of history reveals that uniformly this pathway led to polytheism. The only exceptions are to a small extent Zoroastrianism and a larger extent Judaism, which I will return to shortly. The point is that if a culture is not influenced by anotherís religion and is allowed to independently invent its own religion, in the overwhelming majority of cases that religion will be polytheistic.

So then the question emerges as to why the natural inclination of man is toward polytheism. The answer lies within the initial fundamental role of religion itself. Religionís primary initial role has been to provide explanations regarding nature. The universe and the questions it poses are quite diverse. Thus, diverse answers are given in response, which are in turn linked to diverse sources, or Gods. A God is assigned to explain the behavior of water or the seas, another to explain lightning, another to explain the sun, another to explain death, and so forth.

The other commonality of various religions has been their anthropomorphisms. ďDid God create man in his own image, or did man create God in his own image?Ē pondered Nietzsche. In all religious motifs the Gods are more powerful and immortal representations of men. In this way, man attempts to better relate to nature. Furthermore, the anthropomorphism of the Gods allows man the opportunity to plead with them and perhaps persuade them to act in his favor. Man can plead to a different God as the circumstance and subject dictates.

Manís social structure is also reflected in his Gods. As manís social world is structured and tiered, so is his Godsí. Some Gods are more powerful and dominant than others. Usually, there is a supreme God, such as Zeus. As in real life, a certain person may have his favorite God, and vice versa.

A multitude of Gods provides variety of choice. One may not fair so well with one particular God, but has the opportunity to plead with another which may view his cause more favorably. The variety of choice of polytheism also carries a balance. The Gods balance each other out, and absolute and irrefutable power is not in the hands of one, but many. In a way, polytheism compares to a democracy at best or an oligarchy at worse in contrast to monotheismís absolute dictatorship.

It is within monotheism that one finds the concepts of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. Within polytheism, no one God has all the powers and therefore lacks authority over every aspect of the world. In this respect, the shortcomings of the world are at least a little more understandable since no being has complete power. So from a logical perspective, it is actually more difficult to disprove the polytheistsí Gods than it is to disprove the monotheistsí God. A great pitfall of monotheism is the inability to reconcile an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God with the flawed, imperfect world and the evil within it. Within polytheism, there is a logical shield that provokes the defense that the multiple Gods interact in a manner that causes such shortcomings in the world. No God has complete authority over everything.

From the perspective of practice, since these Gods donít truly exist one may wonder why such a distinction is even relevant. It certainly is not relevant in the sense of the Gods themselves, but becomes very relevant in the effect that such a belief system has upon the men that practice such a faith. Polytheismís multiple Gods impresses better religious tolerance upon men. If there are ten Gods, it is possible that there are a hundred. If a hundred exist in oneís country, perhaps a thousand more exist outside of it. The religion of other men does not provoke contempt. The Gods of other men are not seen as diverting, heretical and evil. The men that believe in those Gods are not in turn branded as heretical and evil and dealt with accordingly.

In ancient times religious wars and persecution were unheard entities. With the arrival of Judaism, Christianity and Islam did such horrific practices bare fruition.

Within the context of religious tolerance also lies a large domain of morality. Religious intolerance leads to ethnic intolerance, political intolerance, and general intolerance of all others except oneself. Religious intolerance is the doorway to dictatorship, sadism, and oppression in all of its forms.

ďI AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME.Ē This is the first commandment. The first commandment, which usually signifies the most important of all other entities within a list. The very first, and probably the most important commandment of theism is to denounce all other Gods. Within this first commandment lies religious intolerance of all others. Polytheism is thus fiercely opposed by the monotheist, even though the polytheist cares nothing about the monotheistís God.

One wonders how monotheism which is not morally superior managed to dominate the world while polytheism faded away. Again, the answer lies within monotheismís intolerance. The very thing that made monotheism morally inferior was also its vehicle of expansion. Via intolerance and force, all others were squeezed into oblivion. Monotheism spread first against polytheists, but when they ran out, the different sects of monotheism opposed each other and engaged in a never ending struggle to dominate and extinguish the otherís light. It is a struggle that has been ongoing and has no end in sight.

The first completely monotheistic religion to develop was Judaism. However, it obtained some of its framework from several other religions, one of which was Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was the first religion to divide the universe into two camps: Good and Evil. A Good God versus a Bad God epic was born. Duality thus developed in its infancy.

Prior to this Zoroastrian concept, purely good Gods and purely evil Gods did not exist. Some Gods were more righteous than others, and by nature were the masters of certain domains that one may consider more or less desirable, but none were purely good or evil Gods.

Citing the Greek pantheon as an example, no God acted always righteously and no God acted always deviously. The God of the underworld was Hades, brother to Zeus. Hades was not evil by any stretch of the imagination. He was simply the God that was allocated the position of ruling over the underworld and dead menís souls. Zeus was no more virtuous than Hades, or any other God for that matter.

This is in stark contrast to the Zoroastrian concept of Good God (Ahura Mazda) Bad God (Ahriman). By associating virtue and goodness with one God and evil and darkness with another, a polarization occurred in the history of religion that would have disastrous consequences. The polarity of good versus evil destroys shades of gray and tolerance. It beckons humanity to take up arms and join the forces of good (which is defined differently depending on who is doing the defining) in battle against the forces of evil. It sets up an artificial showdown which ought not exist. It serves as a valuable excuse to conveniently call others servants of evil so that their extinguishment may be justified. It allows fascists, conquerors, and oppressors to simply invoke divine guardianship over the good cause in order to wield their ruthlessness over their enemies without any other rational explanation offered.

This first appearance of duality of good and evil in the Zoroastrian Gods served as a precursor to the framework of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which expanded this concept and carried out all of the above inhumanities in the name of a Good God.

Going back to the Greek Gods, they were very similar to humans, in that in different circumstances they acted with good intentions, whereas in others acted with poor intentions. In one story, a particular God may be the protector of a hero or people, whereas in another incident that same God may be the antagonist of the story. The Gods themselves acted morally or immorally, and morality was not at all intertwined with the Gods.

Morality was a very distinct concept from the Gods themselves and existed independently from them. This is a very important distinction between monotheism and polytheism.

Within polytheism, since Gods were neither good nor evil, morality did not need to be mixed up with them. However, as the monotheistic God developed, which was defined as a good God, it forced that God to be fused with morality. There was no other way around it. If out of the concept of duality, only a Good God remains along with his nemesis (the Devil), then the goodness of that God must be emphasized and defined in order to explain his nature and the ultimate explanation as to why only that one God exists. How else can the goodness of that God be explained and emphasized, if he is not married to morality?

As a side note, it is worth mentioning that by invoking a God that is concerned with morality, monotheism falls into yet another logical pitfall when attempting to explain Godís existence based on the moral argument. I will not repeat the argument and its pitfall, but for those interested in reading about it they may refer to my post ďTribute to Russell,Ē Part 2 (Why I Am Not a Christian), Section D: The Moral Argument For Deity.

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8229

In short, out of ďGood God Bad GodĒ was born monotheism, which was subsequently forced to maintain its one Godís hold on morality. Ironically, monotheismís forced grasp for morality is a reason for its own ultimate immorality.

Monotheism forcibly mended morality with its own God, causing strict definitions of the morality mandated by its respective God, which the clergy of each religion were more than happy to deal out. The so-called religious experts materialized and using nothing more than the cultural trend of the time began carving laws into stones that were subsequently enforced upon the population whether that population liked it or not. As these laws were presented to be from their particular God, they were seen very stringently and thus resistant to change. With changing times and sociological evolution conflicts arose between the evolved notions of morality and the old, dogmatic laws. Given the monotheistís characteristic intolerance of others, it is no surprise as to which party usually was on the receiving end of Godís justice and moral code. In short, the monotheistic claim to morality has historically caused the monotheistic religions to act immorally secondary to the intolerance that such a claim to morality enticed.

II. Polytheism within Monotheism:

In the above paragraphs, the intellectual and moral inferiority of monotheism was explained. Now, let us explore another aspect: monotheismís secret incorporation of polytheism within its practice.

No coherent argument has ever been presented on the inter-relationship of the Christian Trinity Ė the God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Many attempts at explanation have been given by the theists on the matter, but each sounds just as contradictory and illogical as the next. The vaguest of all is the Holy Spirit. Isnít Godís role to act as the ďHoly Spirit?Ē How is another God-like spirit entity both a part of God, yet distinct from him? Furthermore, if God has a Son through a mortal mother, is that son not a half-God, half-mortal, or Demi-God? Here are three different Gods, clearly a part of polytheistic belief, yet billed as a single God within monotheistic beliefs. A God which has reproduced has clearly become pleural, thereby falling within the realm of polytheism. Yet, Christians avidly deny this. The Christian reluctance to abandon the concept of the Trinity, all the while maintaining its grasp to monotheism serves as yet another of its logical inconsistencies.

This inconsistency is not limited to just the concept of the Trinity, or even to Christianity alone. The dozens and dozens of Saints show the unconscious acceptance of polytheism within Christianity. These Saints are seen with a certain super-human quality about them. Miracles, guardianship, and supernatural events are linked to them. Specifically, each is a ďpatron saintĒ of a certain act, event, or group of people. Is that not how the Gods of a Pantheon were viewed? Each with his or her own specialty and area of protection?

Added to this are the angels. What exactly are angels? They belong outside of the natural and physical world, and are Godís workers / helpers / collaborators. They certainly have supernatural and super-human abilities. They are therefore Gods, if only subservient and less powerful ones than the supreme God. This is flagrant polytheism.

The concept of angels applies to Islam as it does to Christianity. Idolatry was strictly prohibited in both religions specifically as an attempt to eliminate other polytheistic religions that relied heavily on pictures and graven images. Last year, the Moslems were in an uproar because the image of Mohammad was depicted. They claimed it was because his image is not to be portrayed, but the real reason was that they did not like the manner in which it was portrayed.

I recall pictures of Mohammad and Ali hung up on frames everywhere I went as a child in Iran. Every male in my family also had a golden neck-chain with a picture of either Ali or Mohammad on it. An image of religious people carved on a piece of gold, and displayed on the neck for all to see. Is that not idolatry, and in following of pagan polytheistic practices? The same is true with Christians, who have graven images of Jesus on a cross, and pictures of Saints in Churches.

In line with the Christian Trinity is the close analogy of Aliís divinity. The Shia hold him as almost Godís equal.

Ali khoda neesdt
Vali as khoda joda neesdt

Meaning Ali may not be God, but he is not separate from him. Is that not calling him a God in his own right, only slightly inferior to the supreme God?

These examples of the secret incorporation of polytheism into monotheism are cited to illustrate the natural human desire and attraction to polytheism as opposed to monotheism, as well as monotheismís hypocrisy and self-deceit. Although polytheism was forcefully driven out of menís lives, there is a curious attraction that it still maintains.

III. Conclusion:

The intellectual and moral poorness of monotheism as compared to polytheism have been demonstrated in this essay. From a developmental standpoint, it is shown that manís natural tendency is towards polytheism. However, the reason why monotheism replaced polytheism had more to do with the incorporation of politics into religion than the merits of monotheism itself.

Since monotheism bestows upon ruling religious and political classes a right to dominate, punish, and expel rivals by virtue of a defined moral code unique to its God, it becomes an extremely powerful political tool indeed. Furthermore, its inherent intolerance of other religions has served as the ultimate enabling force used to eliminate the competition, causing the emergence of monotheism as the dominating belief system of the world.

Monotheismís illogical and unnatural existence is further highlighted by its own hypocrisy of containing polytheistic elements within its own ranks, all the while denouncing polytheism as a cardinal sin. It condemns polytheism as a matter of religious decree in attempting to maintain its authority and justification for existing, although it cannot control the basic human attraction to multiple Gods and sub-specialized domains of the divine. It has extinguished formal polytheistic religions, yet adopted polytheism within itself; a most illogical stance.

Zoroastrianism was the primary influential religion which laid the framework for the subsequent monotheistic religions. It was not, however, a purely monotheistic religion. Although it incorporated morality for the first time into religion by inventing a Good God and an Evil God, it still held to a pantheon of Gods, that through the passage of time lost their significance to some degree.

It is most curious to see modern Iranians and Zoroastrians maintain that theirs is a monotheistic religion from a time before Judaism. This reflects the domineering effect that monotheism has had in this world, to the point that a religion such as Zoroastrianism feels compelled to emphasize its own monotheism and de-emphasize its elements of polytheism in order to be more palatable as well as less persecuted. As there is neither intellectual nor moral superiority to monotheism, a drive to portray a religion such as Zoroastrianism as monotheistic is driven more by political pressure than truth or progress.

Since the disappearance of polytheism, almost all people would scuff at the notion of a polytheistic pantheon. Rightly so, because with manís current knowledge the concept that a God dwells in the sea, a volcano, Mt. Olympus, or Damavand is ridiculous. Polytheism is nothing more than mythology. Yet, it is a mythology that intellectually and morally is superior to monotheism.

That a mythological polytheistic religion is found to be superior to oneís own monotheistic religion should act as a wake up call to all members of such a religion. Nevertheless, that wake up call will go unheard by most, because after all, it is a call based on reason and logic. Two entities that are in short supply within the environment of the monotheist.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam


Last edited by AmirN on Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
ďDid God create man in his own image, or did man create God in his own image?Ē pondered Nietzsche.


Or is man really God and just to stupid to realize it? pondered Oppie....(Chuckle)...now that should be good for a hundred pages of debate for sure!

Or perhaps Darwin had things ass backwards and it should have been the theory of de-evolution....since apparently a new and ethicly infantile species of man has been discovered leading the nation of Iran....paleotologists have a name already picked out...

Spasticus Autisticus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyrizian



Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 226
Location: Houston TX

PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL! Oppie, you are too much! But seriously, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Quote:
Or perhaps Darwin had things ass backwards and it should have been the theory of de-evolution


Second law of thermodynamics states that "all things tend towards disorder" so I don't doubt it. Antar is living proof that mankind is falling apart...
_________________
You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior...but everyday I hear people crying for one. -Superman
To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him. -Earnest Renan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

So they took DNA samples in a field study of Entropomorphicology.

And did video documentation of the case study in question.....

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/video.jpg

....which confirmed their analysis in my post above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anusiya



Joined: 01 Apr 2006
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got to be honest, I actually really like reading AmirN's posts ...

one thing came to my attention:
Quote:
I recall pictures of Mohammad and Ali hung up on frames everywhere I went as a child in Iran. Every male in my family also had a golden neck-chain with a picture of either Ali or Mohammad on it. An image of religious people carved on a piece of gold, and displayed on the neck for all to see. Is that not idolatry, and in following of pagan polytheistic practices?...

Meaning Ali may not be God, but he is not separate from him. Is that not calling him a God in his own right, only slightly inferior to the supreme God?


I actually asked my dad about that a while ago when I first saw a painting of Mohammed (in a very good light), and he said that it shouldnt be there because the reason the pictures is prohibited is (a) it may lead to idolatory as in the Ali example above and (b) they don't actually look like that (photographs appear to be ok as they dont distort the appearance and you cant paint them in all sorts of holy scenes)
_________________


Last edited by anusiya on Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cyrizian



Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 226
Location: Houston TX

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow! This makes no sense. Doesn't the quran teach that images of Muhammed, Ali, Hossein, etc. can lead to idolatory? Why are people in Iran putting up images of them? For such a hardline country to so completely break one of the most stressed quranic laws should be heresy or at least some kind of sin, shouldn't it?

This is yet another reason why I believe all muslims are bold faced liars or, at the very least, hipocrites. They always seem to say one thing and yet do another...


More and more I find myself asking the question "Can the world trust Muslims?" And so far the answer is an emphatic "NO."
_________________
You wrote that the world doesn't need a savior...but everyday I hear people crying for one. -Superman
To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him. -Earnest Renan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cyriz,

To divide Islam into sects is also "harim" , but it happened...

Amir and I went round and round about whether the Mullahs represent "true Islam" or not....and I still say that the sect that is in power does not represent Islam, is not Islam, and has corrupted Islam in the minds of many..

I suggest both you and Anusia check out the video that I provided in the link posted above as evidence of that.

Anusia,

Perhaps your dad should too, ...My answer to Antar's wrong thinking-ness is that raising a family, growing old and watching your kids thrive and prosper in peace, and knowing the joy of this over time, having contributed to its manifestation , having created one's reality , a new generation, ....is the ultimate artistic endeavor.

I'd be very surprised if your dad didn't agree with me on this.

La Familia, Solidarity, .....no question a man (or woman) would give their life to save one's family, but that would not be art, rather shear and tragic neccessity in extreme circumstance.

Antar is putting a cause above family to the extent that it appears that the leadership of a nation advocates national suicide on an artistic basis, for meglomaniacal ends, and he should be given a one way ticket to a padded cell in hell....the Islamic version of hell that is.....at the hands of the global umma itself.

This is the bit that really convinces me Antar is a taco shy of a combination plate....Islam is already global....What exactly is the guy's malfunction?....unless of course he is advocating a global purge of all non-Muslim people, then that is public advocation of Genocide on a global scale and will not be permitted to occur. The incitement , inducement, rationale, however you wish to characterize Antar's advocacy of Martyrdom in the context of this video... is in and of itself, evidence of, and grounds for inditement on charges of intent to commit mass murder, in an international court of law.

Those of the Muslim faith, as well as those Iranians who read this have my great sympathy and support for the choice that you must now make in favor of freedom....as individuals, to preserve your families, nation and the umma itself from those who lead a great nation and people over oblivion\'s cliff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Philosophy and Religion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group