The Nature of Gods

[Unome]

Anyway, you're intellectually dishonest. Your comments are made of amalgamated assumptions ie. "Southern Europeans created monotheism to justify their political system".
Kudos.

It's intellectually dishonest to disagree with somebody and not explain yourself, as you did in your first response. Then I pressed you for reasoning. Your reasoning is lacking. "Monotheism began somewhere else" is still not a proper counter-argument, explain exactly how and why. Until you do that, you're just practicing flashy dialectic acrobatics. You either have a reason to disagree, or not.

Besides the important aspect of the point is the consolidation of religious power in Southern European history & civilization. People admit today that Christianity includes a conglomeration of European pagan traditions. That is partial admittance. Next people need to understand what monotheism and why it's necessary.


To others reading this,

There's a big difference between monotheism as "One God over all other gods" versus "Only One God exists". Both statements and belief-systems can be considered monotheistic. So the topic is not just one definition of monotheism. In European history, specifically, all other gods (than the christian god) were displaced and relegated over time, eventually outlawed altogether (by the catholic church).

That was the Dark Ages.

[Dictator]

It's intellectually dishonest to disagree with somebody and not explain yourself, as you did in your first response. Then I pressed you for reasoning. Your reasoning is lacking. "Monotheism began somewhere else" is still not a proper counter-argument, explain exactly how and why. Until you do that, you're just practicing flashy dialectic acrobatics. You either have a reason to disagree, or not.

Besides the important aspect of the point is the consolidation of religious power in Southern European history & civilization. People admit today that Christianity includes a conglomeration of European pagan traditions. That is partial admittance. Next people need to understand what monotheism and why it's necessary.


To others reading this,

There's a big difference between monotheism as "One God over all other gods" versus "Only One God exists". Both statements and belief-systems can be considered monotheistic. So the topic is not just one definition of monotheism. In European history, specifically, all other gods (than the christian god) were displaced and relegated over time, eventually outlawed altogether (by the catholic church).

That was the Dark Ages.

Monotheism is not something that is created. It's something that happens.
It's the same thing with Polytheism, native Americans were Polytheists. But they had no contact whatsoever with Europeans, or Africans, or Asians.
You want an example of Monotheism older than the Roman Empire? Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

You're creating excuses with the purpose of undermine my comments, but all you can do is create even more assumptions and half-truths.
I'm not practicing flashy dialects acrobatics, you are. Do you even read your own comments? Someone with a basic religion, or even history, knowledge would laugh at what you write.

And to others, if there's more than ONE god, it's not MONOtheism, it's POLYtheism.

[Unome]

Monotheism can mean either:

1. Only one god exists.
2. One god exists and rules above/before all other gods.

Christianity adapted to the second definition. This is why Christ is referred to as "King of Kings", or "God of gods". Before the consolidation of pagan gods occurred, Europeans were polytheistic and believed in many different gods or different interpretations of god. Over time this changed, up until present. There is still much debate, disagreement, and conflict about these theological points.

For example some Moslems say "There is no god but allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his prophet".

So Islam can be considered monotheistic as abrahamism tends to be.


Now the "utlimate origin and starting point" isn't a big deal to me. My point is about Southern European civilization and history, and the cause and development of monotheism from there. It's obvious that monotheism coincided with Roman Imperial rulers. Christianity began as a politickal dispute as well as religious, "Render unto Cæsar what is his, and render unto God what is his." (original separation of Church and State) This popular expression connotes the power of the roman emperors.

Christianity coincided with jewish/israelite rebellions against the roman civil power structures.

[Dictator]

Monotheism can mean either:

1. Only one god exists.
2. One god exists and rules above/before all other gods.

The first is monotheism. MONO + THEISM.
The second is not.

Christianity adapted to the second definition. This is why Christ is referred to as "King of Kings", or "God of gods". Before the consolidation of pagan gods occurred, Europeans were polytheistic and believed in many different gods or different interpretations of god. Over time this changed, up until present. There is still much debate, disagreement, and conflict about these theological points.

hahaha

For example some Moslems say "There is no god but allah and Muhammad (PBUH) is his prophet".

So Islam can be considered monotheistic as abrahamism tends to be.

Prophets aren't God.

Now the "utlimate origin and starting point" isn't a big deal to me. My point is about Southern European civilization and history, and the cause and development of monotheism from there. It's obvious that monotheism coincided with Roman Imperial rulers. Christianity began as a politickal dispute as well as religious, "Render unto Cæsar what is his, and render unto God what is his." This popular expression connotes the power of the roman emperors.

I'm not denying that monotheism happened in the Roman Empire. But that doesn't mean that the Roman Empire is the creator of christianity, or monotheism. Because it's not.

[Unome]

I'm not denying that monotheism happened in the Roman Empire. But that doesn't mean that the Roman Empire is the creator of christianity, or monotheism. Because it's not.

They created monotheism as almost every "Westerner" knows monotheism today. They are responsible for the most popular conceptions and understandings, yes. To claim that monotheism begins or created elsewhere will require more explanation than just a wiki-link, explain what you mean in your own words using your own beliefs and thoughts. That would be more convincing and intellectually honest.

I have a better argument because it's obvious to correlate the parallel between the rise of monotheism with the rise of imperial roman civilization. It's the same as a transition from democracy (rule of the many) to autocracy (rule of one), just as polytheism (many gods) would transition to monotheism (one god).

If you want to be very technical about these definitions then "pantheism" is the proper definition for one god above, ruling, or more powerful than all other gods. Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, and the christian God all refer to this same concept, a "most powerful god".

Omnipotence.

[Dictator]

They created monotheism as almost every "Westerner" knows monotheism today. They are responsible for the most popular conceptions and understandings, yes. To claim that monotheism begins or created elsewhere will require more explanation than just a wiki-link, explain what you mean in your own words using your own beliefs and thoughts. That would be more convincing and intellectually honest.

I have a better argument because it's obvious to correlate the parallel between the rise of monotheism with the rise of imperial roman civilization. It's the same as a transition from democracy (rule of the many) to autocracy (rule of one), just as polytheism (many gods) would transition to monotheism (one god).

If you want to be very technical about these definitions then "pantheism" is the proper definition for one god above, ruling, or more powerful than all other gods. Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, and the christian God all refer to this same concept, a "most powerful god".

Omnipotence.

You don't have a better argument, you have a supposedly well articulated lie. No one in this forum, or the world, beside you, believes that the Roman Empire created Monotheism. And no, a wiki link is enough to prove that monotheism was in another place hundreds of hundreds of years before the Roman Empire.

Bullshit (That way you may understand this comment, since yours always end with a "key word" or phrase that is irrelevant).

[Séamus]

Christianity adapted to the second definition. This is why Christ is referred to as "King of Kings", or "God of gods".

Christ is titled 'King of Kings' to indicate that He is the ruler of the spiritual realm and that His authority is supreme to any man's. The term has nothing to do with Him being considered supreme to other Gods, because Christianity affirms the existence of only one God. The concept of Christ as the King of Kings is not related to the Persian practice of referring to the Shah as the 'King of Kings' during the First Persian Empire; it's a concept pegged to the spiritual, as opposed to the physical, realm.

[Unome]

You don't have a better argument, you have a supposedly well articulated lie. No one in this forum, or the world, beside you, believes that the Roman Empire created Monotheism. And no, a wiki link is enough to prove that monotheism was in another place hundreds of hundreds of years before the Roman Empire.

Bullshit (That way you may understand this comment, since yours always end with a "key word" or phrase that is irrelevant).

I hope that this is not the height of your ability to disagree with me…?

I expect more from you.

[Unome]

Christ is titled 'King of Kings' to indicate that He is the ruler of the spiritual realm and that His authority is supreme to any man's. The term has nothing to do with Him being considered supreme to other Gods, because Christianity affirms the existence of only one God. The concept of Christ as the King of Kings is not related to the Persian practice of referring to the Shah as the 'King of Kings' during the First Persian Empire; it's a concept pegged to the spiritual, as opposed to the physical, realm.

The same analogy can be used with Zeus, Odin, and Jupiter, who were each considered a "highest god" above all other gods.

Monotheism begins as a consolidation and monopoly of power, either spiritually or materially.

[Ragnarök]

That would be an ecumenical matter.