The Greeks and Romans, the Hindus, and the Egyptians all imagined many different gods who hang out together, the way people throughout the world do. These cultures envisioned social gods with busy existences who like pleasure, food, sex, art and other good things of life. As with people, the social ties among the gods loosely constrain their destructive impulses. Mostly these gods are so involved with each other they only sometimes notice the lesser beings, just as people only sometimes notice their household animals.
The multiple gods of great cultural systems, and the gods and spirits of many tribal cultures as well, are familiar, understandable. They project the human world into the sky, the same way science fiction does (except, of course, science fiction understands it is offering fiction).
2006-09-25
Is Monotheism the Problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Maybe monotheism is the -- or a -- problem. The Jewish religion certainly offers little appeal. It's racist, for one thing: you have to be born into it, and your birthright makes you one of "god's chosen." And there's lots of horrible things that "god" supposedly commands the Jews to do, such as massacering every sole in Canaan, the area renamed to Judea, Isreal, Palistine, then Isreal again.
But that Jesus dude sure seems to have set a wonderul example, a Gandhi/MLK-type person. Most of what you and I object to about USA christians I reckon Jesus would reject, including punishing doctors for performing abortions. I reckon he would have even opposed responding to 911 by invading any nation; he may even object to punishing anybody on this earth for any crime.
I accept your observation that Jesus did not start a religion; others after him started variouis Christian religions based on his teachings and other activities. These would include christian religions in Iraq, Egypt, and Ethiopia... and of course in Rome (much later). Of course I agree with you in rejecting all the super-natural claims about Jesus (manifesting from a virgin womb, transforming water into beer or wine, walking on water, the holy trinity, rising from the dead, etc.). But unlike the story of Mohammad or many of the old testiment/tulmud charactors, I admire Jesus and his teachings.
Many years ago "christians" in the name of "christianity" committed ennumerable acts of savagery. Outside of that weird, isolated cult in Africa ("Chilren of God"?) and a few bizarre sects in the US, I can't find anybody doing such things today, and nothing on a widescale. But the savagery today committed in the name of Islam is both widespread and based directly on the actions and teachings of the founder of Islam, Mohammad, who appears to me to be one of the worst people who ever lived.
Maybe monotheism is the -- or a -- problem. The Jewish religion certainly offers little appeal. It's racist, for one thing: you have to be born into it, and your birthright makes you one of "god's chosen." And there's lots of horrible things that "god" supposedly commands the Jews to do, such as massacering every sole in Canaan, the area renamed to Judea, Isreal, Palistine, then Isreal again.
But that Jesus dude sure seems to have set a wonderul example, a Gandhi/MLK-type person. Most of what you and I object to about USA christians I reckon Jesus would reject, including punishing doctors for performing abortions. I reckon he would have even opposed responding to 911 by invading any nation; he may even object to punishing anybody on this earth for any crime.
I accept your observation that Jesus did not start a religion; others after him started variouis Christian religions based on his teachings and other activities. These would include christian religions in Iraq, Egypt, and Ethiopia... and of course in Rome (much later). Of course I agree with you in rejecting all the super-natural claims about Jesus (manifesting from a virgin womb, transforming water into beer or wine, walking on water, the holy trinity, rising from the dead, etc.). But unlike the story of Mohammad or many of the old testiment/tulmud charactors, I admire Jesus and his teachings.
Many years ago "christians" in the name of "christianity" committed ennumerable acts of savagery. Outside of that weird, isolated cult in Africa ("Chilren of God"?) and a few bizarre sects in the US, I can't find anybody doing such things today, and nothing on a widescale. But the savagery today committed in the name of Islam is both widespread and based directly on the actions and teachings of the founder of Islam, Mohammad, who appears to me to be one of the worst people who ever lived.
"Of course I agree with you in rejecting all the super-natural claims about Jesus (manifesting from a virgin womb, transforming water into beer or wine, walking on water, the holy trinity, rising from the dead, etc.)."
Who says I reject the "supernatural claims about Jesus"? Some of them perhaps, but laying on of hands for healing is a time honored tradition in many faiths.
"I can't find anybody doing such things today, and nothing on a widescale."
This is because you don't attribute US attrocities to Christianity, but a government that is influenced heavily by an evangelical base is a big part of the problem with the world today.
Bush isn't fighting in the name of christianity, and he isn't tyring to stop people from practicing other religions, or no religion. Only you attribute Bush's actions to christianity; he does not. If Bush wins, all people in Iraq will have the freedom to practice any or no religion.
"Laying on of hands for healing is a time honored tradition in many faiths."
So are claims of virgin births and resurrections... and moon gods. Does that make them accurate?
The Romans practiced polytheism, and they were as brutal as anybody; same for the Viking, Egyptian, Mongol, Zulus, Visigoths, Persians, Babylonians and Mesopetanians, various ancient Indian empires, Ethiopian empires... and the Aztecs, Myans, and other American Indian empires: all polytheists, all at the absolute unsurpassable peak of savagery at some point in their day. I concede that in Mohammad's world, his polytheist opponents were much less savage than he was. He killed for more minor offenses than they did, for one thing. And they didn't execute their prisoners. Women in Mecca had more rights and freedoms before the wicked muslims took over.
Thus I don't
Post a Comment