Monotheism VS Polytheism

MURAI

-
Nov 6, 2002
3,782
6
38
Canada
If you are anti-Judeo Christianity, you automatically have a bad reaction to just the word monotheism. I do not like Judeo Christianity either but a Japanese historical novelist I like wrote that monotheism originates from the Middle East where there is nothing but deserts and the belief of polytheism comes from areas with more variety in geography (forests, valleys, mountains etc). Quite an interesting view on monotheism and polytheism he brought up I think.

Seems that western culture has been defined by Judeo Christianity so it seems that they think that monotheism is wiser and more civilized and polytheism as something barbaric and shamanisitic. Thereforem their religion and civilization is more advanced some how. Even though they wont openly say this obviously. Probably, it is because they think that polytheist religions create imaginary divinities on their own and the belief of "a god that can be seen with the eye" as the true god because it's not the product of the human imagination. What do you think?
 
What the fuck ever... maybe your author would do better if he studied the relationship between dualism and having a monotheistic outlook.
 
I don't think monotheism can necessarily be classed as more advanced than polytheism. However, historically, polytheistic religions have been based more on extensive folklore and mythology in order to explain natural phenomena whereas monotheism is usually more based on faith and is more concerned with ethics.
 
I'm not massivly knowledgable on many early religions, but I do know that in early Greek philosophy you can chart the development of polytheism into monotheism. Monotheism is interlectularly superiour. That isn't to say that the Greeks invented the idea of monotheism, but it certainly was worked on in the Greek world and was adopted and developed by their thinkers. Ultimatly it took hold because it made sense for them.

I think the Japanese guy makes a pretty foolish assertion myself. The development occured because it made more sense and was more interlectularly sound and not because of the terrain in the regions where the ideas developed. To posit that kind of cause is pretty crap when put vs actual reasons why someone would want to adopt monotheism!

All in all Polytheism is pretty hard to justify. Hinduism is the last great religion to really claim any kind of polytheism but if you look into it, at least into the developed philosophy that underpins it, it goes, like the Greeks, into ultimatly accepting there is only one God, and you can hardly call the Indus valley region a deset!
 
Korona said:
I'm not massivly knowledgable on many early religions, but I do know that in early Greek philosophy you can chart the development of polytheism into monotheism. Monotheism is interlectularly superiour. That isn't to say that the Greeks invented the idea of monotheism, but it certainly was worked on in the Greek world and was adopted and developed by their thinkers. Ultimatly it took hold because it made sense for them.

I think the Japanese guy makes a pretty foolish assertion myself. The development occured because it made more sense and was more interlectularly sound and not because of the terrain in the regions where the ideas developed. To posit that kind of cause is pretty crap when put vs actual reasons why someone would want to adopt monotheism!

All in all Polytheism is pretty hard to justify. Hinduism is the last great religion to really claim any kind of polytheism but if you look into it, at least into the developed philosophy that underpins it, it goes, like the Greeks, into ultimatly accepting there is only one God, and you can hardly call the Indus valley region a deset!

I wouldnt say it makes more sense, but that it is easier to grasp, and has far fewer logical and interpretation problems. From a human and psychological standpoint, I think both Jung and Freud have proven that the old myths and gods were far more nourishing and significant to humanity than the abstract notion of monotheism.