Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

[frekk]

If Judaism is strictly monotheistic or not, would the historians and prophets not mention the gods of other groups

Err ... you might want to take another look at the OT! The entire book is an account of the struggle between the monotheists of the new religion and the polytheists of the Ba'al gods, within Hebrew/Canaanite society. The gods of the polytheists are mentioned alot (to say the least!)

 

[Dr. Salazar]

I know quite well that nationalism was the cause of the Kamikazes, not religious fanatacism. However religious fanaticism was a cause of the war in general, It was the reason that Japan felt it had the moral right to muck about in China. Imperial Japan was the most influential theocracy of the twentieth century, which revolved around state shinto a polytheistic religion. I'm not pointing to the kamikazes, I'm pointing to Hirohito and Tojo and Konoye and the whole Japanese nation as well.
Then on the other side of the globe you have one Adolf Shicklegrubber. Little known fact was one of the bat**** ideas that this man followed was that abrahamic religions were an early attempt at Bolshevism by the Jews.
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew."--Adolf Hitler
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless— A negro with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation."--Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler wanted Germany to return to worshipping the Norse Gods. So Polytheism played a major role in both aggressors in the second world war. The idea that monotheism is the only one to produce violent bigotry its results, is in itself bigotted

 

[Crayton]

Okay, the 'kamikaze' thing was a joke. I did like the information provided about them though.

My comment about the Old Testiment is directly in-line with what you said frekk. Maybe my grammer was confusing. The point was aimed at those who thought the mentioning of Ba'al and other gods was evidence that Judaism was not strictly Monotheistic. The historians and prophets could not help but at least the 'mention' these gods.

I also commented on the fact that humanity perceives the world as leading to multiple ends. When a person also views the world through monotheism it is natural that strict monotheism is lessened just enough (father, son, holy spirit) to get the mind around such inconceivable notions as infinity, absolute power, absolute truth, etc...
I'm saying these notion don't exist (I believe they exist) our human minds just can't comprehend them.

 

[frekk]

My comment about the Old Testiment is directly in-line with what you said frekk. Maybe my grammer was confusing. The point was aimed at those who thought the mentioning of Ba'al and other gods was evidence that Judaism was not strictly Monotheistic. The historians and prophets could not help but at least the 'mention' these gods.

Little known secret about the word "Ba'al" : it isn't a god, it's a title. It means "the Lord" or "Master". In Canaanite mythology all the gods, and many of the worldly rulers, were referred to with the title Ba'al, as in Ba'al Melqart or Ba'al Haddad or Ba'al Zebub, and the chief god, Ba'al El (of which Belial is a corrupt derivation). You could render "the Lord, God" as "Ba'al Yahweh", although in modern Hebrew it more properly means "master". Plural, Baal is rendered Baalim, feminine it is Baaloh - plural femine it would be baalohim ... which also relates to some interesting questions about what, exactly, "Elohim" (God's name in the first 5 books of the Bible) refers to.

Incidentally, Ba'al is still used as a kind of title in its "mortal" sense in Judaism. For instance, the founder of Hasidism, Israel Ben Eliezer, acquired the title "Ba'al Shem Tov", meaning "Master of the Good Name". A Jew returning to orthodoxy from a secular life is referred to as a "Ba'al Teshuvah," meaning "Master of Repentance". A ba'al can still just refer to a husband, or master of any kind.

 

[Dr. Salazar]

Sorry, but Japan didn't embark on expansion for religious purposes, nor to bring religion to their new flock.

They made Shinto the state religion of Manchuria. That seems to indicate bringing their religion into the new flock.

They wanted what every other imperialist nation then wanted, and still want, BTW. Access and control of resources and markets and independence from the control of other imperialist powers. That is proven historical fact.

They same could be argued for the crusades. One should look at the justifications the Japanese used. They felt that because the emperor was with them, and the emperor was the source of their morality that fighting the war was moral.
The same thing applies to the crusade. The average soldier in the crusade was looking for his share of loot from the middle east to provide for him during the economic slump the crusades were fought from. Spread the religion came after getting muslim gold.
Ultimately all religious wars are fought for non-religous reasons. Religion is then painted over the war by a leader (Whether The Pope, Osama, Hirohito), to make the thought of killing other people easier to swallow.