Polytheism: Whats the snags?

[Trumble]

Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity, parts of Hindusim, and Islam are all monotheistic religions. Aren't they?

I think so. The point behind what is being talked about now (if not at the start), though, is a recurring view from some muslims here that Christianity is actually polytheistic. They can't reconcile the Trinitarian concept with monotheism.

 

[Grace Seeker]

No it doesn't. It is not a tangible thing like for example an areoplane which has many different types.

The American Heritage Dictionary has this definition of monotheism:

"The doctrine or belief that there is only one God".

Any 'different forms' you mention are actually a straying away from or (attempted) perversion of monotheism.

Monotheism is the crux of Islam. It is Islam. This is why Islam requests we worship the creator and not the creation. No prophet is allowed to be worshipped, the sun/moon, ourselves or anything else in the entire universe. Further - 'Allah' has no gender in the Arabic language or plural as in English we have 'Gods' or 'Godesses'. Allah is above having a gender or equals and there is nothing like Him i.e. He is unique.

If Allah (God) exists (as most of mankind agree to) then surely He alone desrves to be worshipped without associating any partners, rivals, or equals in that worship.

To quote you a verse pertaining to monotheism from the Qur'an:-

"And I (Allah) have not created the Jinn (spirits) and Mankind except to worship me alone".

And yet "Allah" is just the word "god"; it could be "Tankri" in Turkish or "Dios" in Spanish. There is no gender in Turkish, no plural form in Spanish. All that you have said is primarily a function not of Islam, but of the Arabic language, for Arabic-speaking Christians use the same term to talk of God that Arabic-speaking Muslims do. Yet, according to you the Christian God would be a perversion of monothesim. If you are not careful, you could have the interesting situation where an English-speaking, non-Arabic speaking Muslim would accuse an Arabic-speaking, non-English speaking Christian of perverting God when he or she speaks of Allah. Wouldn't that be ironic.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Christianity and Judism anthropormorphise God.
They say he looks like mankind? Created in his image?

Look at what you said again. The definition of anthropomorphizing is to attribute human form or personality to things not human. We don't do that. We don't say that God is like us. The arrow flows the other direction. We say that we are created in his image. He is the standard, and in some sense we are created in that image. But you will note that we never say that God is limited by any of the things that humans are limited by. So, obviously it is not that one understand God by understanding humanity, rather it is that one can understand humanity by understanding God.

I know I'll get objections, but I think it is those who project seeing and hearing unto God not as figurative terminology but literal descriptions who are the one's more guilty of anthropomorphizing. While no doubt there are some Christians (and probably Jews too) who fall into this inappropriate way to speak about God, that is not what either religion believes. On the other hand, I find such anthropomorphic views common and defended by Muslims on this board. Now, granted, those who post here are not scholars, so maybe such anthropomorphizing is not any truer of Islam than it is of Christianity, but I see frequently in the suggestion that Muslim make that because Jesus is on the cross that he can't also be God in heaven at the same time. Why not? Unless you are limiting God to having to occupy time and space in the same way that humans do. And that would be anthropomorphizing.

 

[chacha_jalebi]

^ no muslim anthromophises god, they describe him as he describes himself and thats it nothin further also it says in surah al anaam "no vision can grasp him" so like we cant imagine what god looks like, if it says he will put his foot over hell, we cant imagine how his foot looks like it will look nothin like a human foot, so thats why you just leave it as its been described


anyway on topic... if you look at the root of all religions they teach monotheism, like hinduism in their books it says there is only one god, but now they got like a million,

also one thing with polytheism, is the idols created, thats stupidity, and also god is meant to be all powerfull, why would he need partners to help him out? so it shows

 

[Grace Seeker]

^ no muslim anthromophises god, they describe him as he describes himself and thats it nothin further also it says in surah al anaam "no vision can grasp him" so like we cant imagine what god looks like, if it says he will put his foot over hell, we cant imagine how his foot looks like it will look nothin like a human foot, so thats why you just leave it as its been described

Fair enough. But if this is not anthropomorphizing, then certainly Christianity does not anthropomorphize either, for when we say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, we understand that this is figurative language, not a literal hand of any sort, so it is hardly a case of thinking of God as being like us.

 

[SixTen]

What is probably more hidden under the rubble is that - hindu's actually consider themselves monotheistic, while Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Sikhism etc consider them polytheistic. Moreover, its more interesting that, christians somtimes are bothered with them having their beliefs labelled polytheistic, yet christians (atleast a handful that I have encountered) regard hindu's, who call themselves monotheists, polytheists.

Random wall of text to get people thinking for the day.

 

[barney]

Isnt a claim that God made man in his Image anthropomorphing God?

Polytheism argued that earthquakes were the thunder god battling the Earth God and suchlike.

Theres no evidence for this of course, but yet no evidence against.

 

[SixTen]

Fair enough. But if this is not anthropomorphizing, then certainly Christianity does not anthropomorphize either, for when we say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, we understand that this is figurative language, not a literal hand of any sort, so it is hardly a case of thinking of God as being like us.

What about, God made humans in his own image. How could that be figurative?

 

[Grace Seeker]

What about, God made humans in his own image. How could that be figurative?

Well, what is meant by image? Do you think that means a physical likeness. I have a daughter who people say is just like me, but obviously physically she is quite different than me. I would suggest that the image of God that we carry around within us is a spiritual nature we have received from God that no other creature has. Because of that we can actually have fellowship with God.


There are several reason I wold like to suggest that our being created in the image of God does not refer to our physicality:

1) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). If this passage was referring to our physical appearance as having been taken from some physical attributes that God has, then it would be saying that our male and femaleness is a reflection of God's physicality, and that would mean that God was both male and female. Well, I think that Jews, Muslims, and Christians would all agree that such a concept of God is foreign to the God we all know. It certainly is contrary to Jesus' description of God as being Spirit (John 4:24).

2) Part of the injunction against creating idols is that it is impossible to create a physical object that is going to capture the true image of God simply because we cannot imbue any object with a spirit, which is what God is. Thus no idol can truly be in the image of God unless God himself were to create it. So, people might be in God's image because they are indeed imbued with a spirit, but other objects that look like people would not be -- "do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman" (Deuteronomy 4:16). What is missing is not the physical appearance, but the reality of spirit.

3) "You have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Colossians 3:9b-10). The person goes from not being like God to being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator, not by having some sort of physical makeover, but by a spiritual one.

4) In a slightly longer passage (Romans 1:18-23), Paul talks about how in the fall (when Adam refused to submit to God and substituted doing his own will for that which God had for originally willed for him in the garden of Eden) and following from it, people exchanged the glory of God for images that are made to look like mortal creatures.

So, it is that I suggest that the image of God that we were created in has nothing to do with our physical bodies, but with our spiritual selves. And that sin tarnishes that image (in biblical language we "fall short of the glory of God"), and that only by a new birth -- a spiritual new birth, not a physical one -- can we have that image restored within us. And this is one of the reasons that I believe (pulling from some other threads) that God indwells in us in the person of his Holy Spirit.

 

[chacha_jalebi]

^ but grace seeker bro, many christians refer to Jesus bein god or god sons and a off shoot if you say of god innit? thats depicting god in a human way isnt it....

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi
This might seem condescending and narrow-minded to people of other faiths, for which my apologies in advance...
But in my opinion polytheism failed for one very simple reason: it was man made and thus inevitably flawed. The same reason why all other religions will inevitably fail, except for Islam since it isn't man-made.

Oh and also what Aamirsaab said, omnipotence only works if it's exclusive. If two Gods are omnipotent one could limit the other, bringing a flaw in it's omnipotence.

 

[Grace Seeker]

^ but grace seeker bro, many christians refer to Jesus bein god or god sons and a off shoot if you say of god innit? thats depicting god in a human way isnt it....

I do respect your concern. That very issue led Apollinarious in the 4th century to suggest that Jesus wasn't ever truly human, that he only seemed to be human. Of course, the Church has always held that Apollinarious and the rest of the Docetist were in error. The Docetists for their part, argued that the idea of God taking on human flesh as an innovation of human minds.

But, according to scriptures, this is not something that humans created. This is something that God himself chose to do. It is he who took on this nature. It isn't us depicting God as human; it is God inserting himself into humanity.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Chacha, SixTen, Barney--

I appreciate the respectful way you have each asked your questions. I know that none of you agree with me, but the manner in which you have carried out this discussion is entirely agreeable. I suspect that each of my answers has probably brought more questions/comments to your mind. I welcome them, however I need to take my leave to go celebrate my birthday with my wife. I may not be able to return to it until Monday. I share that because I don't want you to think that I have just refused to answer any more quesitons. I'll check back in again later if I can and see if the discussion is still on such positive track. But, even if it has gone awry and I then elect to opt out, I want you to know I appreciated the way in which everyone has conducted themselves in this thread, and your last three questions especially. THANKS.

 

[chacha_jalebi]

i appreciate your answers and patience

tbh i never really post in this section, because i find it hard talkin about comparitive religion over the net, like you dont know how your questions or words will be taken and whether the person will get offended, so

and the Prophet (saw) whenever he preached he was so gentle, like he never forced anyone, and thats why it says in surah al imraan, " its the mercy of Allah, you deal nicely/gently with them, if you were harsh or severe with them they would have not listened and turned away"

so softness is the way, but obviosly over the net, you dont know how your words are percieved and if someone is rude you gotta respond or either ignore them, anywhoo

have a nice time away graceeee when your back i got some follow up questions lol

 

[barney]

Look at what you said again. The definition of anthropomorphizing is to attribute human form or personality to things not human. We don't do that. We don't say that God is like us. The arrow flows the other direction. We say that we are created in his image. He is the standard, and in some sense we are created in that image. But you will note that we never say that God is limited by any of the things that humans are limited by. So, obviously it is not that one understand God by understanding humanity, rather it is that one can understand humanity by understanding God.

I know I'll get objections, but I think it is those who project seeing and hearing unto God not as figurative terminology but literal descriptions who are the one's more guilty of anthropomorphizing. While no doubt there are some Christians (and probably Jews too) who fall into this inappropriate way to speak about God, that is not what either religion believes. On the other hand, I find such anthropomorphic views common and defended by Muslims on this board. Now, granted, those who post here are not scholars, so maybe such anthropomorphizing is not any truer of Islam than it is of Christianity, but I see frequently in the suggestion that Muslim make that because Jesus is on the cross that he can't also be God in heaven at the same time. Why not? Unless you are limiting God to having to occupy time and space in the same way that humans do. And that would be anthropomorphizing.

Hey Grace.
I'm approaching
the anthropromorphic thing from the position that Man invented God. That the Dolphin's beleive their God would have flippers and a bottle nose etc.

 

[جوري]

I'll answer the original Q directly from the Quran

مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَهٍ إِذًا لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ {91}​

[Pickthal 23:91] Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.


Indeed.. each God should come champion what he has created and may the most powerful of them win? A ship of this magnitude can't be steered by more than one captain.. and that is really all there is to it!


cheers

 

[Trumble]

Indeed.. each God should come champion what he has created and may the most powerful of them win? A ship of this magnitude can't be steered by more than one captain.. and that is really all there is to it!

Talk about anthropomorphism!!

Case closed.

 

[جوري]

???
analogies are used to make it easier for others!

cheers

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

This is a very interesting discussion, people.

In a strange way, I almost think Skye and the bit of the Qur'an she quotes have put their finger on it: if polytheism were true, then it's possible one of the gods could have become all-powerful and then monotheism would prevail.


How do believers know that this has not in fact happened?


I obviously come from the same perspective as barney, that all gods are man-made. I think one big reason that monotheism seems to be more popular than polytheism is that it's just simpler for people to understand. After all, simpler explanations are usually more immediately convincing than complex ones.

Peace

 

[جوري]

a 'simple' explanation satisfies the law of parsimony.. and is in fact the most logical one.
Atheism would be great if it offered a logical answer to everything in existence, while also preserving that same law, better known to you as 'Ockham's Razor'-- atheism like polytheism gives bog-standard philosophy without any concrete scientific support to its tenets...

When it comes down to it, I say we're all pretty evenly matched, but we go in different directions!


cheers