6 ms·

What monotheism means is surprisingly hard to pin down

28 points by diodorus 7mo ago

mostertoaster 7mo ago
The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century. I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world. But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”. It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing. We just really like taxonomies.
- amanaplanacanal 7mo ago
  I don't think you have ancient Israel quite right here. Much of the old testament assumes that Yahweh is the god of Israel, and that other nations have their own gods. The idea of one most powerful god took time to develop.
pfannkuchen 7mo ago
> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?
- renewiltord 7mo ago
  The class of research invalidated by a famous tweet: > cars have windows and can move. houses have windows and can’t move. so it’s not the windows that make the car go, it’s something else entirely
- roncesvalles 7mo ago
  The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).
  - krapp 7mo ago
    Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
    - michaelsbradley 7mo ago
      > the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
      - krapp 7mo ago
        >So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity. >Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God. Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice. I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
- krapp 7mo ago
  I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade. But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.
  - elcritch 7mo ago
    Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity. Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes. Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.
vova_hn2 7mo ago
https://archive.is/tLk1S https://archive.is/tLk1S

28 points by diodorus 7mo ago

The word monotheism didn’t even exist until the 17th century. I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world. But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”. It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing. We just really like taxonomies.

amanaplanacanal 7mo ago
I don't think you have ancient Israel quite right here. Much of the old testament assumes that Yahweh is the god of Israel, and that other nations have their own gods. The idea of one most powerful god took time to develop.

pfannkuchen 7mo ago

> but there’s a reason it swept the world. Monotheism didn’t really sweep the world, though. Christianity and its sequel did. Is it critical that these are monotheistic religions, anyway, or is there something in common within the meme complex of these two religions that enabled their spread? Like we actually don’t know if the monotheism part matters at all right?

renewiltord 7mo ago
The class of research invalidated by a famous tweet: > cars have windows and can move. houses have windows and can’t move. so it’s not the windows that make the car go, it’s something else entirely
roncesvalles 7mo ago
The vast majority of religions historically have been polytheistic (or atheistic). Islam and Christianity being monotheistic was probably relevant to their expansion because they proposed a total replacement of the prevailing polytheistic belief system wherever they spread. It seems usually when polytheistic religions collide, their gods tend to merge into a syncretism. Another way to think about it is that it's not their expansion that's remarkable. It's the fact that they preserved the original system so well, despite expansion across literally multiple continents and cultures. For this it helps to have one prophet, one book, one God (, one Pope / one Mecca).
- krapp 7mo ago
  Christianity was monotheist because it began as a cult of Judaism. Islam was monotheist because it began as a cult of Christianity. It's a mistake to treat these religions as entirely separate, even though dogmatically each believes the others to be heretical. And Judaism itself was probably just cribbing from Zoroastrianism. Although I would argue the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) and many aspects of reverence for saints and angels is pseudo-polytheistic, and likely a result of the syncretism of the various pagan traditions into Christianity as it spread throughout Europe, although that came later.
  - michaelsbradley 7mo ago
    > the Trinity (which is a modern Christian invention) The theological language of hypostases in relation to the divine persons of the Trinity was worked out in the late 300s but proto-Trinitarian language is found in Christian writings nearly 200 years before that, i.e. butting up against the close of the apostolic age. So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God.
    - krapp 7mo ago
      >So, how is it you propose it’s a modern invention? That is, what timeframe constitutes “modern”? Even 300s is considered early Christian history. I consider it "modern" because it was invented when the Christian church was already established to address controversies with existing doctrine (the divinity of Jesus, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc.) It wasn't a concept that would have been recognized by Jesus or the disciples, or any Christian for centuries. It isn't in any of the Gospels except as language that was later ex post facto interpreted as referring to the Trinity. >Likewise, from the early Church onward, Christians were careful to distinguish reverence for and intercessory invocation of martyrs, saints, and angels, who are all just creatures, from worship of God. Christians can justify it however they like, to an outsider there is little if any difference between praying to a saint or angel in their specific domain and praying to a household god of that domain. In some cases these beings are direct reinterpretations of pagan deities. You have families and people "protected" by specific saints or angels, and using artifacts and symbols to summon the power of those beings which outside of the Christian context would be considered occult practice. I called these things pseudo-polytheistic because they seem to draw from similar cultural impulses and have similar features but exist within a contrary theological context.
krapp 7mo ago
I think what matters in the case of the Abrahamic religions (or any religion) is the power of the military that spreads it. Christianity was forced onto the Western world by Rome and later Spain, Britain, Portugal and other powers as a means of consolidating imperialist control and the slave trade. But remember a similar process happened with Buddhism and Confcucianism across Asia. Native religions were oppressed and state religions established.
- elcritch 7mo ago
  Partially true, but it's more complicated than this. Especially for Christianity. Christianity did spread initially through the Roman empire despite broad persecutions by the state until Constantine legalized it. There's also evidence Christianity spread to Europe in the 2nd century before Constantine. It also spread to Ethiopia, Assyria, and even India, mostly by trade routes. Christianity afterwards did spread with various European empires, but it also acted as a restraining hand as well. Some Christian missionaries went against the colonial states, in particular Protestant ones.

vova_hn2 7mo ago

https://archive.is/tLk1S https://archive.is/tLk1S