Split from here.

Oldskeptic wrote:Islam includes mandatory belief in angels, jinn, and Satan. Hardly monotheism.

Islam includes those things, but it does not hold them up as gods themselves. You can have a supernatural order and still have only one god. Such is Islam. Angels, jinn, and Satan are said to be separate from God, and owe their existence to God. Islam doesn't number them as gods at all. Not too complicated, really. "No god but God."

Monotheism means you worship one god, and only one god and that god is infallible and all-powerful and does not need the assistance of assistants. The worship of any god that has angels, demons and other whatevers helping him, is not all powerful.

Worshipping the sun, praying to the sun, or as in the case of the other thread the god invented by Akhenaten, the actual sun disc, that is monotheism.

Agrippina wrote:Worshipping the sun, praying to the sun, or as in the case of the other thread the god invented by Akhenaten, the actual sun disc, that is monotheism.

Akhenaten didn't invent the Aten. It existed during the 12th dynasty. The Aten was a manifestation of the sun, just as both Ra and Horus were. It was probably given significance by Tuthmosis IV, the grandfather of Akhenaten. Tuthmosis received support from Ra-Harakhty (a mixing of both Ra and Horus) for uncovering the sphinx, pointing to a separation of the pharaoh from the powerful religion of Amun. The importance of the sun was therefore apparently strong in his reign and a scarab exists that regards the Aten from the period. His son worshiped the Aten, so it's not too strange that Akhenaten did too. For Akhenaten the Aten was the sun disk, a combination of Ra, Horus and the Aten. I don't know if anyone knows enough about Amenhotep III's commitment was. We know Akhenaten closed down all other temples. Make of that what you will. He didn't spread the faith. The people didn't have a clue what was going on or how they should act.

Sorry, yes bad choice of words. I meant inventing the worship of the sun disc.

All I was saying that if one worshipped a single thing, like the sun, seeing it as the source of everything, that would be monotheism, any of the other religions that existed before and since are not monotheistic in the truest sense.

Agrippina wrote:Monotheism means you worship one god, and only one god and that god is infallible and all-powerful and does not need the assistance of assistants. The worship of any god that has angels, demons and other whatevers helping him, is not all powerful.

That only brings up the question, though, of why God would even need a created order in the first place. I'm not sure that our definition has to necessarily resolve all the paradoxes of theism. That's a tall order, since those paradoxes can't be resolved.

A less confusing definition of monotheism would be "the belief in one (and only one) god." It may just please this god to have angels or jinn or prophets or whatever. We don't have to get into the theological problems of why he governs the universe or delegates power in the manner that he is said to do. As long as the people who worship him insist upon him being the only god, they should be accurately reckoned monotheists.

Agrippina wrote:Worshipping the sun, praying to the sun, or as in the case of the other thread the god invented by Akhenaten, the actual sun disc, that is monotheism.

Well, Akhenaten believed himself to be the divine son and living representative of the Aten, so I'm not sure if that compromises your notion of Atenism being monotheistic. Best not to be too picky.

You can look at that two ways, either he was the representative and agent of the only god, or being the representative he was as holy, therefore there has never been a truly monotheistic religion.

Agrippina wrote:You can look at that two ways, either he was the representative and agent of the only god, or being the representative he was as holy, therefore there has never been a truly monotheistic religion.

Islam. "No god but God."

Moses de la Montagne wrote:Split from here.

Oldskeptic wrote:Islam includes mandatory belief in angels, jinn, and Satan. Hardly monotheism.

Islam includes those things, but it does not hold them up as gods themselves. You can have a supernatural order and still have only one god. Such is Islam. Angels, jinn, and Satan are said to be separate from God, and owe their existence to God. Islam doesn't number them as gods at all. Not too complicated, really. "No god but God."

I wonder what you would call a religion with angels and demons but no chief god? Polytheism comes to mind. So why would inserting a chief or most powerful supernatural entity change it to monotheism?

Catholicism also claims to be monotheistic, but it is populated with angels, demons/devils, saints, and a godhead made of three different entities.

Just because a religion claims to be monotheistic does not make it so. Having an alternate supernatural world populated by supernatural entities reeks of polytheism no matter how powerful you make your chief supernatural entity. Just having one supernatural entity that can oppose god takes the religion out of the monotheism category.

Whether Allah created all the angels, jinn, demons, and Satan does not matter. Zeus created all the other god and demi-gods, and he was the boss god, but no one would claim that this was monotheism.

I was raised a Mormon. That church claims to be monotheistic yet they worship God the father, Jesus the son, and the holy ghost as different individuals. They believe in angels, demons, and the devil.

The point that Aggie and I were trying to make is that your idea that monotheism is a unique idea inherited from Egypt by Hebrews is shown to be wrong if neither was or is monotheistic. They were different religions with different chief gods.

I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'd rather got the idea that in the beginning of Islam, Allah was just the chief honcho and other lesser gods existed but weren't to be worshipped. Like in the satanic verses - there was a temporary hiatus when worship of those godesses was allowed, but it was soon stamped on. And that, of course, brings up the question of what sort of entity Satan was supposed to be, anyway. Surely, again, a competing but lesser god who must not be worshipped.
Still, who expects consistency from religions?

Oldskeptic wrote:I wonder what you would call a religion with angels and demons but no chief god? Polytheism comes to mind.
So why would inserting a chief or most powerful supernatural entity change it to monotheism?

It wouldn't. In order for such a religion to become monotheistic, it would have to also deny the existence of any other divinity. Islam does this: "there is no god but God." Everything else in Islam—angels, jinn, prophets—are part of God's created order. They are not said to be gods. Therefore Islam meets the criteria for monotheism.

Oldskeptic wrote:Catholicism also claims to be monotheistic, but it is populated with angels, demons/devils, saints, and a godhead made of three different entities.

Just because a religion claims to be monotheistic does not make it so. Having an alternate supernatural world populated by supernatural entities reeks of polytheism no matter how powerful you make your chief supernatural entity. Just having one supernatural entity that can oppose god takes the religion out of the monotheism category.

But you're imposing your own interpretation on it. "Supernatural entities" need not be a gods as such. Christianity does not fail the test for monotheism on account of its angels, demons, and saints. It's only in the Trinity where it becomes problematic—and that's the reason I didn't make the thread about Christian monotheism. As for opposition, there's no rule (other than your own) that says a sole god can't create lesser beings with the capacity to oppose him. The fact that Allah can punish Iblis for his prideful opposition indicates that Iblis has no godhood and is ultimately subject to God.

Oldskeptic wrote:Whether Allah created all the angels, jinn, demons, and Satan does not matter. Zeus created all the other god and demi-gods, and he was the boss god, but no one would claim that this was monotheism.

Zeus, however, was himself created: he was the son of Cronos. In Islam, God is eternal and uncreated, and everything in the heavens and on earth owes its existence to the one God. In the Greek pantheon, there was a "boss god" and other gods. Islam has only one god. That's the primary tenet of the religion.

Oldskeptic wrote:The point that Aggie and I were trying to make is that your idea that monotheism is a unique idea inherited from Egypt by Hebrews is shown to be wrong if neither was or is monotheistic. They were different religions with different chief gods.

Right. And that's the problem. You and Aggie have your own queer definition of monotheism that you were trying to foist onto the conversation, even though Akhenaten (and arguably Jeremiah) insisted on the existence of only a single god.

Oeditor wrote:I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'd rather got the idea that in the beginning of Islam, Allah was just the chief honcho and other lesser gods existed but weren't to be worshipped. Like in the satanic verses - there was a temporary hiatus when worship of those godesses was allowed, but it was soon stamped on.

It would be interesting, if true. But doesn't the shahada appear pretty soon in history after Muhammad's death? And isn't the Qur'an usually keen to stress the oneness of God? It would've been a brief detour into heterodoxy if it happened. Muhammad came from a pagan scene, but he appears to have rejected most of it and taken his theological cue instead from Judaism (which by then had refined itself into a staunch monotheism) and Nestorian Christianity (which was trying its best to get away from the Trinitarian conception).

Oeditor wrote:And that, of course, brings up the question of what sort of entity Satan was supposed to be, anyway. Surely, again, a competing but lesser god who must not be worshipped.

Satan in Islam is similar to Lucifer in Paradise Lost: an arrogant angel who refused to bow down (in Milton's scenario, to Jesus; in Islam's, to Adam) and got jettisoned from heaven to earth to cause mischief—the extent of which is based on however much God is willing to permit him. He doesn't seem to be someone who can realistically "compete" with god.

As a reformed floor-headbanger myself, I can assure you that, what ever the historical legacy may be, we had it inculcated into us at every opportunity that there is only one god and that is Allah. To ascribe any divine partners to him is deemed shirk, i.e. clear heresy. That is current muslim orthodoxy and has been for centuries.

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

Oeditor wrote:I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'd rather got the idea that in the beginning of Islam, Allah was just the chief honcho and other lesser gods existed but weren't to be worshipped. Like in the satanic verses - there was a temporary hiatus when worship of those godesses was allowed, but it was soon stamped on.

It would be interesting, if true. But doesn't the shahada appear pretty soon in history after Muhammad's death? And isn't the Qur'an usually keen to stress the oneness of God?

Not something I've studied but the following extract shows the sort of thing I had vaguely in mind. It seems to be from an anti-Muslim source though - but what Muslim author would admit of the possibility?.

Surprisingly, however, one can find some Quranic verses which are telling the different story altogether! Let’s examine the following two verses:

Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators, [Quran: 37:125, Yusuf Ali]

Or is it that thou askest them for some recompense? But the recompense of thy Lord is best: He is the Best of those who give sustenance. [Quran: 23:72, Yusuf Ali]

In these two verses, Allah tells a different story. “Best of creators” means one creator who is better than some other creators. Therefore, Muslims believe there are multiple creators; Allah being the best of them all—whom Muslims must worship.

Similarly, “Best of those who give sustenance” means Allah is best giver of sustenance than the other Gods. In other words, Allah can give better nourishment or better livelihoods than the other Gods out there. Therefore, Muslims should worship to Allah alone, who can offer them the best of goodies. Allah is like a politician, who urges voters to give their allegiance to him offering them the best of goodies, if chosen.

In the above two Quranic verses Allah clearly admits the existence of multiple Gods; He being best of Them. Therefore, the Muslim claim that there is only one God is false and ridiculous in the least. Allah himself refutes this uneducated claim of Muslims.

Baal, the Moon God, whom Pagans used to worship was also another God but less powerful, weak and imperfect than Allah – may be! All those 360 idols kept in the Ka’ba and later destroyed by the Prophet of Islam, were also Gods of some quality, although inferior or less powerful than Allah.

http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/muhammads-polytheism-in-islam/

Oeditor wrote:

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

Oeditor wrote:I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'd rather got the idea that in the beginning of Islam, Allah was just the chief honcho and other lesser gods existed but weren't to be worshipped. Like in the satanic verses - there was a temporary hiatus when worship of those godesses was allowed, but it was soon stamped on.

It would be interesting, if true. But doesn't the shahada appear pretty soon in history after Muhammad's death? And isn't the Qur'an usually keen to stress the oneness of God?

Not something I've studied but the following extract shows the sort of thing I had vaguely in mind. It seems to be from an anti-Muslim source though - but what Muslim author would admit of the possibility?.

Surprisingly, however, one can find some Quranic verses which are telling the different story altogether! Let’s examine the following two verses:

Will ye call upon Baal and forsake the Best of Creators, [Quran: 37:125, Yusuf Ali]

Or is it that thou askest them for some recompense? But the recompense of thy Lord is best: He is the Best of those who give sustenance. [Quran: 23:72, Yusuf Ali]

In these two verses, Allah tells a different story. “Best of creators” means one creator who is better than some other creators. Therefore, Muslims believe there are multiple creators; Allah being the best of them all—whom Muslims must worship.

Similarly, “Best of those who give sustenance” means Allah is best giver of sustenance than the other Gods. In other words, Allah can give better nourishment or better livelihoods than the other Gods out there. Therefore, Muslims should worship to Allah alone, who can offer them the best of goodies. Allah is like a politician, who urges voters to give their allegiance to him offering them the best of goodies, if chosen.

In the above two Quranic verses Allah clearly admits the existence of multiple Gods; He being best of Them. Therefore, the Muslim claim that there is only one God is false and ridiculous in the least. Allah himself refutes this uneducated claim of Muslims.

Baal, the Moon God, whom Pagans used to worship was also another God but less powerful, weak and imperfect than Allah – may be! All those 360 idols kept in the Ka’ba and later destroyed by the Prophet of Islam, were also Gods of some quality, although inferior or less powerful than Allah.

http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/muhammads-polytheism-in-islam/

Surely those verses are exceptional, though. I recognized the first, cribbed as it is from the Old Testament tale of Elijah's god-worshiping contest with the pagans. I'd guess it more likely that the "best of creators" bit got slipped into the Quran as an unnoticed stowaway on that particular story. Otherwise why the insistence elsewhere on "no god but Allah"? Far be it for us to resolve contradictions in the Muslims' book. The question is whether the religion based upon it is monotheistic. Its longstanding cosmology & creed seem to happily ignore those verses. Wasn't the shahada an early development in Islam?

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:The point that Aggie and I were trying to make is that your idea that monotheism is a unique idea inherited from Egypt by Hebrews is shown to be wrong if neither was or is monotheistic. They were different religions with different chief gods.

Right. And that's the problem. You and Aggie have your own queer definition of monotheism that you were trying to foist onto the conversation, even though Akhenaten (and arguably Jeremiah) insisted on the existence of only a single god.

There's nothing queer about a definition of "mono" meaning one, and "theism" meaning the belief in gods, suggesting that the word means that the belief must be the worship of a single god. No religion has this. Even if the believers in any religions, and I'm going to speak about the Abrahamic ones here, have other supporters of their god. I accept that you're saying they don't actually "worship" Mary, Jesus (as an individual), saints, Mohammed, the Imams, Ayatollahs, the Pope etc., the fact that these "mortals" are elevated to a special position above that of ordinary people, puts them into the religion's pantheon. Just like the demigods and heroes of ancient pagan religions. Just my personal opinion, and I'm entitled to that as much as anyone else is entitled to believe that Jesus died and went to heaven or the Mo rode a magical horse to look at heaven, I think that if you are going to worship a god, and claim that that god is all that you worship, then that religion is monotheistic.

Moses de la Montagne wrote:Surely those verses are exceptional, though. I recognized the first, cribbed as it is from the Old Testament tale of Elijah's god-worshiping contest with the pagans. I'd guess it more likely that the "best of creators" bit got slipped into the Quran as an unnoticed stowaway on that particular story. Otherwise why the insistence elsewhere on "no god but Allah"?

Exceptional in that those bits alone are not part of a divinely authored immutable set of rules? Not a problem, of course, if - as you seem to be accepting - the whole thing is a multi-authored human construction.

Far be it for us to resolve contradictions in the Muslims' book.

But since the book and the religion claim to represent the perfect and compulsory way forward for all humankind, it's important for us to demonstrate its fallibility. (Not, admittedly, directly related to your topic.)

Moses de la Montagne wrote:

Agrippina wrote:You can look at that two ways, either he was the representative and agent of the only god, or being the representative he was as holy, therefore there has never been a truly monotheistic religion.

Islam. "No god but God."

They are just equivocating. They believe in the god Satan. Satan is a god just as Hermes or Odin are gods. Worship has nothing to do with it. Ancient Greeks didn't necessarily worship all of their gods either.