Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#11

Post by whateverboat »

teleforce wrote: post #9
roncesvalles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

You do not understand science and mitochondrial eve, or Y-chromosonal Adam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_a_fixed_...

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#12

Post by michaelsbradley »

krapp wrote: post #7
roncesvalles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects…

> the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention)

The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.

Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#13

Post by krapp »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #12
krapp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects…

> the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? E…

>So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history.

I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity.

>Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.

Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice.

I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#14

Post by arcxi »

spicymaki wrote: post #10
teleforce wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

Buddhists do not usually worship the Buddha like God. Buddhists revere him as wise teacher, especially in modern times.

My impression is that it's mostly Western secular interpretation while the largest branch of Buddhism and the most predominant in Asia currently is Mahayana where Buddha, or rather Buddhas (as it has many others besides Siddhartha Gautama), are seen as omnipotent spiritual beings with supernatural powers, who are accessible through prayer after apparent death of their human form, which seems close to our traditional concept of deities.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#15

Post by Philadelphia »

teleforce wrote: post #9
roncesvalles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

This is entirely incorrect about Jewish belief.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#16

Post by Tklaaaalo »

roncesvalles wrote: post #6
pfannkuchen wrote: post #3

> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

Probably also build-in indoctrination from early on.

And the zeitgeist at that time was probably also that the richer people were only able to spend time of doing religious things; richer = more influence

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#17

Post by Koshkin »

whateverboat wrote: post #11
teleforce wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

You do not understand science and mitochondrial eve, or Y-chromosonal Adam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Not_a_fixed_...

In American English, 'Adam' and 'atom' are pronounced the same.

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#18

Post by dormento »

teleforce wrote: post #9
roncesvalles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

(op, i just realized you might be mentioning things other's believe, and it might not be an opinion of your own. In this case, I'm sorry if i came as too blunt, its just that i come from a background of religious extremist and i'm particularly picky about some things. I can remove it if you wish, but I'd rather take the criticism.)

This reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong . Its a classic categorization mistake. Its not exactly wrong (its also not right, mind you...), its just non-constructive and almost not worthy of a reply. But since this is a discussion forum, I'll bite.

It judges others on their "ignorance", while embracing it. It talks about religious "narratives" and compares it to belief in the "one true capital G god" (the "real" truthy truth). Meaning it puts one set of beliefs (subjective experiences) above all others, and seems completely unaware of the contradiction while doing so.

It also misunderstands the concept of a mitochondrial Eve. She was not the first, and not the only one alive at the time, she was just the one whose direct lineage survived. Before her there were others. The name "Eve" is doing a lot of work here...

> Fun facts all of the main major religious scriptures Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist has description or prophecy of Muhammad one way or another.

You mean that $HOLY_BOOK also has a description of the prophecy of the One True Prophet Bob? It must be true, because I'm pretty sure it is.

There's also your point about monotheism.

> overtime by ignorance, people started worshipping idols alongside the original God.

Being someone with a certain admiration for the scientific method, i'm inclined to point out that as far as the history of religion goes (and please correct me about this statement), monotheism seems to be a more recent development (I'm pretty sure hn has people far more qualified than me to add substance here).

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#19

Post by dormento »

Philadelphia wrote: post #15
teleforce wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Abrahamic narrative is that everyone started from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve believe in one single God in the heaven. Adam was sent down from heaven to the earth, to be the successor (Arabic caliph) to the "one" God. In Semitic language "one" is literal one, not 2 or 3. For example the name Allah in Arabic and Hebrew by definition does not has plural equivalent or gender, like Gods or Goddest. But overtime by ign…

This is entirely incorrect about Jewish belief.

To be fair, it is entirely incorrect about almost everything. I say almost because it deals in dogma, which is usually not even worth discussing, but the other smaller part is "not even wrong".

Re: What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

#20

Post by dormento »

krapp wrote: post #7
roncesvalles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not…

Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects…

> Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.

Good point. There are many "local versions" of Mary, for example, in Latin America. All of them display unique traits indicative of "synchretization" (sp?) of say african Orishas, probably dating back to the time of the slave trade.

Post reply on HN