Questions about religions

[Cheetah]

Also add the Virgin Mary and the saints.

 

[Flying Pig]

Also add the Virgin Mary and the saints.

Which is Catholicism, and therefore Frequently Rather Strange.

 

[NovaKart]

What I meant by universal was that the same God was the creator of the whole earth and there weren't different gods for different countries. I mean of course other countries have their own religions but if you're a Christian you think he's the God of all mankind, not just your people.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A lot of so called polytheistic religions have monotheistic elements. Most of the native African and American religions have a supreme deity far above the lesser divinities, although the lesser spirits are considered more influential in daily life. While the masses in Meso-America were polytheists, the elites (including priests and philosophers) where very much Panentheistic. Greek Philosophy contained a conception of a monotheist supreme being quite distinct from the Pagan gods.

Hinduism is a broad collection of beliefs and traditions indigenous to India. It spans polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, monotheism, monism, atheism, and agnosticism.

 

[Cheetah]

What I meant by universal was that the same God was the creator of the whole earth and there weren't different gods for different countries. I mean of course other countries have their own religions but if you're a Christian you think he's the God of all mankind, not just your people.

Ah. Well, yeah. That goes with the whole proselytising-thing.

 

[civ2]

Poly vs mono:
From the "Orthodox" (though I don't consider "non-Orthodox" as truly Jewish views) JEWISH point of view (and I will stick to it frequently, cause I'm a representative of it here), there's NOTHING but G-d, not just "no other powers".
And "nothing" means literally, NOTHING.
Therefore, any type of "attributing power" to anything (regardless how divine or mundane) is in a way denying G-d's Unity.
Non-Jews have much lesser requirements - only to not deny G-d's existence.
Therefore, many "non-pagan" religions are ok for non-Jews while very "not ok" for Jews.
I said all this to counter the notion that anything that has at least an "alpha god" is considered monotheism.
I disagree with it very strongly.
You either believe in the One G-d, Creator of the World Who is "Omni-Omni" (like someone wrote recently, I liked it very much) - or you don't have true monotheism.
Period.
Again, just my opinion as a religious Jew.

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah, I'm not gonna try to get into any kind of debate to define 'monotheism'. As far as I'm concerned, it's more or less impossible to get two humans to agree on exactly what that means and what a monotheistic god constitutes.

I'm just noting that the exact difference between monotheism and polytheism is debated.

 

[civ2]

Yeah, I'm not gonna try to get into any kind of debate to define 'monotheism'. As far as I'm concerned, it's more or less impossible to get two humans to agree on exactly what that means and what a monotheistic god constitutes.

I'm just noting that the exact difference between monotheism and polytheism is debated.

Unfortunately, I totally agree.
Why "unfortunately"?
Cause this leads to lots of misconceptions...

 

[timtofly]

Maybe some people would take issue with this but I think possibly the reason Christianity took over from paganism is that it offered a more universal belief instead of localized gods and that it offered eternal salvation. That may also be true of some of the other cults that went around the Roman Empire at the time and I think the Greeks and Romans did believe other countries gods were local variations of their own god so I'm not entirely convinced of this hypothesis.

People may take issue with this, but Christianity did have the "Roman" sword to back it up in a "peaceful" manner "somewhat". I would like to point out however that Judaism and Christianity were never started as a "religion". They both had the knowledge of the "uknown" and it was a clear concept. Yes the unknown G-d was known. It was only after humans determined "governmental" control was better and the "known" be made mysterious that they became religious. Islam was a rebellious upstart, probably meant to bring the "known" back, but it was even less merciful than both of the others. Hindu and all the other eastern religions were humans attempting to grasp the unknown and have been around the longest.

BTW it is human's "religion" and fear of loosing control that held science back, not G-d, nor any follower of G-d. Any modern contention comes from the fact that science has been used as a tool to explain G-d away. If one uses science to "find" or disprove G-d it does become religious. If one uses science for the purpose it was intended, then there would be no "clash" between it and religion. Religion would remain to seek the "unknown", G-d. Science would continue to find out all that can be known. G-d only reveals Himself to those He so chooses to, and then, even they seem to reject G-d. That has been the pattern of history.

Egyptian mysticism was "short" lived. Babylonian mysticism was "short" lived. Persian mysticism was "short" lived. Greek mysticism was "short" lived. All because there was a power struggle between these powers for dominance. Rome was the final world ruler that adopted Chrisitanity and allowed its spread. It also stopped a major world dominator from coming to the forefront until science provided another means of producing regional, and then statewide, and eventually global warfare to succeed.

 

[Samson]

Poly vs mono:
From the "Orthodox" (though I don't consider "non-Orthodox" as truly Jewish views) JEWISH point of view (and I will stick to it frequently, cause I'm a representative of it here), there's NOTHING but G-d, not just "no other powers".
And "nothing" means literally, NOTHING.
Therefore, any type of "attributing power" to anything (regardless how divine or mundane) is in a way denying G-d's Unity.
Non-Jews have much lesser requirements - only to not deny G-d's existence.
Therefore, many "non-pagan" religions are ok for non-Jews while very "not ok" for Jews.
I said all this to counter the notion that anything that has at least an "alpha god" is considered monotheism.
I disagree with it very strongly.
You either believe in the One G-d, Creator of the World Who is "Omni-Omni" (like someone wrote recently, I liked it very much) - or you don't have true monotheism.
Period.
Again, just my opinion as a religious Jew.

Interesting. Can I conform you REALLY mean nothing, so no air, sea, earth, animal, plant or human being, that is not G-d?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Hinduism is no more polytheistic than Christianity; their 'gods' are just aspects of the one 'true' God, who is so complicated that there's no way you could understand the entire picture - in the same way, we have the father (the creator, lawgiver and Big Guy in the Sky), the Son (the compassionate, human, guiding aspect) and the Holy Spirit (the part via which God directly influences people) - they're all the same God.

I am realy start to think that hindu cosmic gods are what is in abrahamic religion called the seraphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraph#In_Christianity

 

[Theov]

Poly vs mono:
From the "Orthodox" (though I don't consider "non-Orthodox" as truly Jewish views) JEWISH point of view (and I will stick to it frequently, cause I'm a representative of it here), there's NOTHING but G-d, not just "no other powers".
And "nothing" means literally, NOTHING.
Therefore, any type of "attributing power" to anything (regardless how divine or mundane) is in a way denying G-d's Unity.
Non-Jews have much lesser requirements - only to not deny G-d's existence.
Therefore, many "non-pagan" religions are ok for non-Jews while very "not ok" for Jews.
I said all this to counter the notion that anything that has at least an "alpha god" is considered monotheism.
I disagree with it very strongly.
You either believe in the One G-d, Creator of the World Who is "Omni-Omni" (like someone wrote recently, I liked it very much) - or you don't have true monotheism.
Period.
Again, just my opinion as a religious Jew.

Your reasoning is beyond blindfolded arrogance.
Let's put this in a day to day situation and swap religion with a car...
"I think my car is the nicest car, so anyone who thinks another car is nice, can't think it's nice because it's not my car."
And to get even further on it: 'your car' is probably the car your dad rode, the only car you've ever driven and you have probably never even considered to even look at other cars on the inside.

 

[civ2]

http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1029171/jewish/Chapter-2.htm

From the foregoing [exposition] the answer to the heretics [is deduced], and the root of the error of those who deny individual Divine Providence and the signs and miracles recorded in the Torah is revealed. They err, making a false analogy, in comparing the work of G-d, the Creator of heaven and earth, to the work of man and his schemes. For, when a goldsmith has made a vessel, that vessel is no longer dependent upon the smith, and even when his hands are removed from it and he goes away, the vessel remains in exactly the same image and form as when it left the hands of the smith. In the same way, these fools conceive the creation of heaven and earth. But their eyes are covered [and they fail] to see the great difference between the work of man and his schemes— which consists of making one thing out of another which already exists, merely changing the form and appearance from an ingot of silver to a vessel— and the making of heaven and earth, which is creatio ex nihilo.

Indeed, this is an even greater miracle than, for example, the splitting of the Red Sea. For then, G-d drove back the sea by a strong east wind all the night and the waters were divided and stood upright as a wall. If G-d had stopped the wind, the waters would have instantly flowed downward, as is their way and nature, and undoubtedly they would not have stood upright as a wall, even though this nature of water [to flow downward] is also created ex nihilo, for a stone wall stands erect by itself without [the assistance of] the wind, but the nature of water is not so.

[Thus, if for the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea the continuous action of G-d was necessary] how much more so is it in the creation of being out of nothing which transcends nature and is far more miraculous than the splitting of the Red Sea, that with the withdrawal of the power of the Creator from the thing created, G-d forbid, it would revert to naught and complete non-existence. Rather, the Activating Force of the Creator must continuously be in the thing created to give it life and existence. [These Forces] are the "letters of speech" of the Ten Utterances by which [beings] were created.

http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/1029174/jewish/Chapter-3.htm

Now, following these words and the truth [concerning the nature of the Creation], every intelligent person will understand clearly that each creature and being is actually considered naught and absolute nothingness in relation to the Activating Force and the "Breath of His mouth" which is in the created thing, continuously calling it into existence and bringing it from absolute non-being into being. The reason that all things created and activated appear to us as existing and tangible, is that we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of G-d and the "Breath of His mouth" which is in the created thing. If, however, the eye were permitted to see and to comprehend the life-force and spirituality which is in every created thing, flowing into it from "That which proceeds out of the mouth of G-d" and "His breath," then the materiality, grossness and tangibility of the creature would not be seen by our eyes at all, for it is completely nullified in relation to the life-force and the spirituality which is within it, since without the spirituality it would be naught and absolute nothingness, exactly as before the Six Days of Creation. The spirituality which flows into it from "That which proceeds out of the mouth of G-d" and "His breath"— that alone continuously brings it forth from naught and nullity into being, and gives it existence. Hence, there is truly nothing besides Him.

An illustration of this is the. light of the sun which illumines the earth and its inhabitants. [This illumination] is the radiance and the light which spreads forth from the body of the sun and is visible to all as it gives light to the earth and the expanse of the universe. Now, it is self-evident that this light and radiance is also present in the very body and matter of the sun-globe itself in the sky, for if it can spread forth and shine to such a great distance, then certainly it can shed light in its own place. However, there in its own place, this radiance is considered naught and complete nothingness, for it is absolutely non-existent in relation to the body of the sun-globe which is the source of this light and radiance, inasmuch as this radiance and light is merely the illumination which shines from the body of the sun-globe itself. It is only in the space of the universe, under the heavens and on the earth, where the body of the sun-globe is not present, that this light and radiance appears to the eye to have actual existence. And here, the term YESH ("existence") can truly be applied to it, whereas, when it is in its source, in the body of the sun, the term YESH ("existence") cannot be applied to it at all, and it can only be called naught and nonexistent. There it is indeed naught and absolutely non-existent, for there, only its source, the body of the sun, gives light, and there is nothing besides it.

The exact parallel to this illustration is the relationship between all created things and the Divine flow [of the life-force] from the "Breath of His mouth," which flows upon them and brings them into existence. G-d is their source, and they themselves are merely like a diffusing light and effulgence from the flow and spirit of G-d, which issues forth and becomes clothed in them and brings them from naught into being. Hence, their existence is nullified in relation to their source, just as the light of the sun is nullified and is considered naught and complete nothingness and is not [even] referred to as "existing" at all when it is in its source; only beneath the heavens, where its source is not present [can it be called "existing"]. In the same manner, the term YESH ("existence") can be applied to all created things only [as they appear] to our corporeal eyes, for we do not see nor comprehend at all the source, which is the spirit of G-d, that brings them into existence. Therefore, it appears to our eyes that the materiality, grossness and tangibility of the created things actually exist, just as the light of the sun appears to have actual existence when it is not within its source.

But in the following, the illustration is apparently not completely identical with the object of comparison. For in the illustration, the source [the sun] is not present at all in the space of the universe and upon the earth where its light is seen as actually existing. Whereas, all created things are always within their source, and it is only that the source is not visible to our physical eyes.

 

[say1988]

I would be curious as to why different portions of the pan-Indian population took to Islam, since there are large Muslim populations in the northwest (Pakistan) and eastern (Bangladesh) areas of the subcontinent.

From what I understand (in what is no doubt horribly over simplified), most of the North did have large Islamic populations at one time, then a resurgence of Hinduis pushed north and took the middle of it. Also, there was far more overlap up through the partition.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Your reasoning is beyond blindfolded arrogance.
Let's put this in a day to day situation and swap religion with a car...
"I think my car is the nicest car, so anyone who thinks another car is nice, can't think it's nice because it's not my car."
And to get even further on it: 'your car' is probably the car your dad rode, the only car you've ever driven and you have probably never even considered to even look at other cars on the inside.

As someone nicely put it: there can be no quarrel among different faiths as long as everybody minds his own bussiness...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Maybe some people would take issue with this but I think possibly the reason Christianity took over from paganism is that it offered a more universal belief instead of localized gods and that it offered eternal salvation. That may also be true of some of the other cults that went around the Roman Empire at the time and I think the Greeks and Romans did believe other countries gods were local variations of their own god so I'm not entirely convinced of this hypothesis.

The hopelessness necessary to demand eternal salvation is only possible in dire and dangerous conditions which existed in the twilight of the Roman Empire.

 

[Ronojoy1917]

From what I understand (in what is no doubt horribly over simplified), most of the North did have large Islamic populations at one time, then a resurgence of Hinduis pushed north and took the middle of it. Also, there was far more overlap up through the partition.

The northwest and the east had historically had larger muslim populations and they were the only parts of undivided area that had a muslim majority. That's not to say there weren't many muslims in other parts of India, just that they weren't in the majority. The reason why the northwest had more muslims goes way back I think even a thousand years to when Islam was still spreading fast through Persia, Afghanistan, Central Asia and northwest India. In the east, I think (not so sure), that it was because of trade, much like how the oldest Islamic community in India is on the Malabar coast in the south, originally merchants who sailed over. The merchants brought missionaries with them, and converted locals. I'm guessing this was the case because the east and south were more engaged in Indian Ocean trade especially with Southeast and East Asia.

 

[Flying Pig]

The hopelessness necessary to demand eternal salvation is only possible in dire and dangerous conditions which existed in the twilight of the Roman Empire.

That's true. Most of the time people don't just pick and choose religions based on which gives them the best deal!

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That's true. Most of the time people don't just pick and choose religions based on which gives them the best deal!

For most of history, they had no choice.

 

[warpus]

Seems to me like "at the right place, at the right time" applies to the Abrahamic religions.

Or maybe the Abrahamic God actually exists and stuff