christianity is not monotheistic.

[Ray]

Actually, the aramaic root ab, meaning "all fruit," and denoting parenting, is gender neutral, though the literal meaning is "O father," or "papa"-something that denotes formality and intimacy as well-a combination of love and formal respect, like "papa" or even "dad." Since he was probably denoting a personal parent, he likely did say "abba," which is really more like "dad," than "father," but he just as likely could have used abawoon, which denotes "father/mother," or "parents" in the Lord's prayer-I've seen it written that way. In Gesthemane, however, he definitely prays: "Abba,all things are possible to you, let this cup pass...."

Anyway, it's not as clear cut as some of us would like, especially when one gets into reading earlier translations in source languages. In the Greek, as well as later translations, the above verse uses "Abba, Father," it uses both-whether to denote gender or some level of respect and filial piety, who can say......

Again, since the thread is about "Christianity" then I can draw on a christian source (NT) and determine that an eye-witness heard the words that were recorded. If I were looking at it from a critical perspective then I could say "maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. Maybe the witness heard it wrong or slanted it towards his/her own belief of a male deity." I could do maybe's ad infinitum.

To add to the thread whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, John 17:11 relates where Christ prayed for his apostles to be one even as the Jesus and God are. Did he mean that they should become "one being"?

 

[elder999]

Again, since the thread is about "Christianity" then I can draw on a christian source (NT) and determine that an eye-witness
heard the words that were recorded. If I were looking at it from a critical perspective then I could say "maybe he said it, maybe he didn't, maybe he existed, maybe he didn't. Maybe the witness heard it wrong or slanted it towards his/her own belief of a male deity." I could do maybe's ad infinitum

...and? Not really sure what you're trying to say: no where have I inferred or intimated that he didn't say these things, did or didn't exist. WHat I've said is that, basically, the root of abba does not necessarily denote gender. While he is said to have said "father," it could easily and more readily have been, abawoon, or abawani: "mother/father," or, more properly, "birther," as in creator. The difference is merely semantic for most-though it does say something about the words we use and the way we should address and think about "God,"esoterically speaking.

.

To add to the thread whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being, John 17:11 relates where Christ prayed for his apostles to be one even as the Jesus and God are. Did he mean that they should become "one being"?

THis is Jesus's so called High Priestly prayer, where he is praying for the apostles and the world as an intercessor. In point of fact, he doesn't mean that the apostles (and the world) should be "one being," but one church-that they should remain united in society and in God.

Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.

 

[Ray]

...and? Not really sure what you're trying to say: no where have I inferred or intimated that he didn't say these things, did or didn't exist. WHat I've said is that, basically, the root of abba does not necessarily denote gender. While he is said to have said "father," it could easily and more readily have been, abawoon, or abawani: "mother/father," or, more properly, "birther," as in creator. The difference is merely semantic for most-though it does say something about the words we use and the way we should address and think about "God,"esoterically speaking.

He did or he didn't. To say that the word "Abba" could have been something else is to inferr that maybe he didn't say them. That's okay to hold that view, it all depends on the perspective of the holder.

THis is Jesus's so called High Priestly prayer, where he is praying for the apostles and the world as an intercessor. In point of fact, he doesn't mean that the apostles (and the world) should be "one being," but one church-that they should remain united in society and in God.

I agree, which I why I used that reference.

Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.

Exactly my point.

 

[elder999]

He did or he didn't. To say that the word "Abba" could have been something else is to inferr that maybe he didn't say them. That's okay to hold that view, it all depends on the perspective of the holder.

It's been written abba; it's been written abawoon. Depends on which source document you look at. Translated, it invariably winds up "abba." To ascribe intention to translations, though, especially the excrable King James Version, is murky at best.

Exactly my point.

But was really never mine-mine being that just because he calls "God" "father," even under the circumstances of his "birth," does not necessarily mean that he discounted a feminine aspect of "God." Might mean that the people who wrote those things down afterward-even those eye-witnesses you spoke of-did, might mean that later cultures that translated it did, might even mean that he did. You can't really say as much based on a simple view of the language, though, and that's all that I'm really saying in this instance. There are esoteric meanings and nuances to everything recorded in the New Testament, especially when it comes to the sayings of the rabbi Yeshua......

 

[elder999]

On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:

 

[Ray]

It's been written abba; it's been written abawoon. Depends on which source document you look at. Translated, it invariably winds up "abba." To ascribe intention to translations, though, especially the excrable King James Version, is murky at best.




But was really never mine-mine being that just because he calls "God" "father," even under the circumstances of his "birth," does not necessarily mean that he discounted a feminine aspect of "God." Might mean that the people who wrote those things down afterward-even those eye-witnesses you spoke of-did, might mean that later cultures that translated it did, might even mean that he did. You can't really say as much based on a simple view of the language, though, and that's all that I'm really saying in this instance. There are esoteric meanings and nuances to everything recorded in the New Testament, especially when it comes to the sayings of the rabbi Yeshua......

You said :

Whether or not that's actually happened, and the degree to which it has or hasn't happened, is, of course, open to interpretation.

And I agree. If I made it less than clear, I hope it's plain now.

 

[tahuti]

For the first post would suggest reading on Manichaeism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
Even if religious "theorists" claim 1 God, after all preaching against power of evil, common men will start seeing it as dualistic, equal power. Good read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy

There are few belief modalities dualistic/monotheistic is one god and everything else is not god so evil, basically creating wall between 2 categories, anything you encounter must fit in one of 2 categories, everything not on good side must be evil so destroy; polarity - ying yang symbol is good example, one creates another, so you need to figure how it fits with its opposite to understand it as a whole; pluralistic/polytheistic - too many different way of thinking, but any new encounter forces you to evaluate what it means.

Regarding saints, if I remember, you are supposed to think them as lenses to God, or particular aspect of God. It is bit hard to think in terms of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think God hates women.

Or maybe I am just annoyed with them right now.

I forget which.


Actually I just wanna toss this out there. I don't know why, its SLIGHTLY off topic.

Most of the Bible's teachings about women are based upon the foundation laid in Genesis. It doesn't matter whether we interpret the creation story in Genesis literally or figuratively; God's intentions for men and women are spelled out clearly.

God created the woman as a "helper" for the man:

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." (NIV, Genesis 2:18)

However, being a "helper" does not imply that the woman was inferior or subservient to the man; the same Hebrew word, `ezer, translated as "helper," is used to describe God, Himself, in Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11. In fact, God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NRSV, Genesis 2:27-28)

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." (NIV, Genesis 5:1-2)

But the man and woman, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. God gave each of them punishments before evicting them from the Garden:

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (NIV, Genesis 3:16-19)

It is not clear in what sense the husband was to rule over his wife, and this been the subject of much debate. Regardless of how Eve's punishment was originally intended, this passage is key to understanding later Biblical teachings about women. The punishments on both Adam and Eve were clearly imposed by God Himself; God did not reduce women to inferior status, nor did He command men to rule harshly over their wives. However, in the course of history, it has sometimes been thought that God's punishment of Eve was justification for degradation and subjugation of women.

 

[Ninjamom]

Yer "evil fundamentalist Christians" picket funerals of vets with signs that say "God hates fags," and "Thank God for Iraq," and do really, really stupid things like blow up abortion clinics (which could kill pregnant women receiving an abortion, and kill a fetus, which is just stupid since that's what they're trying to prevent, or at least protest) and assassinate doctors.

But hey, there's no comparison.....:lfao:

You DO realize that there is exactly one (1) "church" in the entire US that has picketed funerals, holding up signs saying "Thank God for Iraq" (which, if the church has 200 members, represents about 1 ten thousandth of one percent of the number of Christians in the US), and that 'all that violence against abortion clinics' was actually 5 occurrences, killing a total of seven people? Admittedly, that is 7 too many deaths, but it is insignificant compared with the number of adherents of Wahhabism, (the ultra-conservative sect of Islam that advocates violent jihad against the West, comprised of about 10% of all Muslims, or approximately 100 million practitioners), and the reported 12402 deadly attacks since 2001 and 857 deaths in the last month alone, attributed to their Islamo-fascist adherents.

So you are right - there is no comparison.

(Just had to point this out - I always hated 'moral equivalency' arguments in discussions about the US and the Soviet Union back in the 1970's and 1980's, and I didn't want to see the same type of thinking going unquestioned with regards to Christianity and the more radicalized branches of Islam.)

As far as the original post, jarrod, I totally agree that many individual adherents of Christianity conflate the actions of God and satan. One of the most far-reaching aspects of theology is the whole idea of the sovereignty of God - the idea that nothing that happens is outside His overarching control and care. While the free-will choices of various characters may place them individually in the categories of 'good' or 'evil' (or 'right' or 'wrong'), those actions and choices do not 'take God by surprise' or in any way alter His plan or the final outcome for the history of the world.

Someone early in the discussion mentioned the Zoroastrians and their deity, Ahura Mazda. I was privileged in college to have a friend and fellow-student who was a Zoroastrian (a rarity, since they are a dwindling and persecuted minority in their own land), and we were able to have some interesting discussions of belief. Mostly, Ahura Mazda was viewed as possessing both 'good' and 'evil' attributes, so instead of having a 'god' and 'anti-god' view, both attributes were seen as present in the one being. What I see as the important difference in Christianity is the view that God is all good and perfect, with no evil in Him. Couple this with His sovereignty, and the result is that we can be assured that, despite how things look, good will ulimately triumph over evil. This is the source of incredible peace and hope in the midst of the most difficult times.

I'll add one more thought on the topics under discussion, but only because it is Christmas time

One of the sub-discussions in this thread focussed on whether Christianity was polytheistic in regard to the unity/differences between God the Father and Jesus. The Bible (and Orthodox Judaism) are crystal clear that God is one (see for instance Dt. 6:4-5), and Jesus is equally-clearly presented in the Gospels as fully human - He was born, got tired, slept, ate, etc. It is also clear through the Bible that God promised that He Himself would save His people from their sins (see for instance, Isaiah 12:1-3, Isaiah 59 [especially vs 16], and numerous others). However, the Gospel of Matthew reports that the angel told Joseph to call the Child to be born "Jesus, because he (i.e., Jesus) will save his people from their sins." The verse continues, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:20-22).

THAT is the miracle celebrated at Christmas - God, the eternal, the infinite, the one-and-only, stepped into time and space and walked among us. He experienced life the way we do: thinking, feeling, hurting. He didn't stay far off or distant or unknowable or unimagineable. He didn't just send prophets or angels or even just a book - He came Himself! This is Jesus. God with us. Immanuel.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Tez3]

On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:

It wasn't so much that as the fact he picked us for his Chosen people, not only did we insist on a contract we then proceeded to argue about nearly everything! Hmm, we still do! Still I think that makes Jewish peoples relationship with G-d a very close and personal one where no one else can intervene. It may not be the most pious one, or even as respectful as many Christians, but it's a family thing.

 

[elder999]

So you are right - there is no comparison.

(Just had to point this out - I always hated 'moral equivalency' arguments in discussions about the US and the Soviet Union back in the 1970's and 1980's, and I didn't want to see the same type of thinking going unquestioned with regards to Christianity and the more radicalized branches of Islam.)

Actually, I think it's more important to point out that the righteous are often as stupid as a box of tire chains, and it doesn't matter what flavor of "righteousness kool-aid" they're swilling. Fact is, we wouldn't have had all that Nazi atrocity if those people weren't convinced they were in the right. Same for just about any other atrocity, really: Darfir, Rwanda, 9/11, take your pick.It seems to me that before we go looking abroad at people who bend their knees to something different and their particular flavor of kool-aid, we'd do well to see how little it would take to start mixing some of our own......

.....good post, btw.

 

[Kacey]

On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:

This is an interesting point, and brings up a question I have about Catholicism, in particular. I have no real problem with a tripartite God - 3 aspects of a single God doesn't cause me any particular confusion. But as others have mentioned, Christianity - and especially Catholicism - has quite a pantheon going, and I don't really understand how it works, or how the various levels of martyrs, saints, angels, arch-angels, devils, etc. relate to each other, and where they fall in the hierarchy compared to God. This has been touched on somewhat - but it doesn't really answer my question.

It also leads to another discussion: the one that lead to the separation between Judaism and Christianity. Jews believe that the Messiah will not come until the entire human race believes there is only one God - an occurrence that has not yet happened. That's why Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah - the conditions for the coming of the Messiah have not been met. So how does the above question about Catholicism and this one affect the question of monotheism?

It wasn't so much that as the fact he picked us for his Chosen people, not only did we insist on a contract we then proceeded to argue about nearly everything! Hmm, we still do! Still I think that makes Jewish peoples relationship with G-d a very close and personal one where no one else can intervene. It may not be the most pious one, or even as respectful as many Christians, but it's a family thing.

Of course, Jews being the Chosen people has caused all sorts of controversy over the years (after all, how dare we consider ourselves "chosen") - but all it means, in Judaic theology, is that when the world ends, all of the Jews in the world will be given their eternal disposition first. There actually is no afterlife in Judaism - the belief is that when you die, that's it, you're dead, until the end of the world, when God will gather the peoples of the world and do.... something undefined with them.

 

[Ninjamom]

...... question I have about Catholicism, in particular. ............I don't really understand how it works, or how the various levels of martyrs, saints, angels, arch-angels, devils, etc. relate to each other, and where they fall in the hierarchy compared to God.

I was brought up very-Catholic (as opposed to being just plain-old-regular Catholic ), so I can take a stab at this one.

All of the things you mentioned (angels, demons, arch-angels, saints, martyrs, etc.) are all created beings. Nothing and no one is higher than or even equal to God. Angels were created before people. Archangels are just higher ranking angels, sort of like 'generals' in the angelic armies. Neither angels nor archangels are to be prayed to or worshipped. They are other beings, created by God, that do God's will (or not - I believe they also have free will). There is some debate over whether human beings are ranked 'higher' or 'lower', but for now let's just say we're 'different', and were created for different purposes.

Martyrs are people who were killed because of their testimony of Jesus Christ. Their faith ended up costing them their lives. They are not super-beings. They are not of a higher rank. They are people just like you and me, only their faith and steadfastness even in the face of opposition are good examples worth following.

Saints are not worshipped either, and are not viewed as equal to God, or even as 'demi-gods'. In the strictest sense, a 'saint' is anyone who is in the family of God through faith. This includes all the believers in God of old, like Moses, and Abraham, and King David. It also includes all the faithful followers of Jesus, like Peter, and Paul, and Mary (even if they aren't 'Leaving on a Jet Plane' ). This makes 'the saints' the collection of all the faithful - past, present, and future.

Obviously, no one but God would know the names of all "the faithful" from all ages of time, and only God would be able to know someone's heart (to tell if an individual is really 'faithful', or a hypocrite, or a religious 'poser'). However, in certain cases, the Catholic Church has identified individuals who have shown the evidence of faith in their lives, and have proof of several miracles in direct answer to their prayers. The Catholic Church may 'canonize' such individuals, or recognize them 'officially' as saints.

In such cases, saints may be 'prayed to' in the sense of 'petitioned', or 'asked' - just like I might ask a close friend to pray for me, a Catholic might ask Saint Matthew to pray for him, and for the same reason - both my friend sitting right next to me and Saint Matthew in heaven are alive and in relationship to God through faith, and so can pray. Ultimately, it is God we are all asking for help.

The problem comes in practice - just like jarrod's original post. Even though the official Catholic position and teaching would be against the worship of any saint, that distinction is lost in practice among some rank-n-file Catholics, so in effect, many Catholics do worship saints. Also, through the years, the veneration of Mary (the earthly mother of Jesus) has grown to the point where she is officially called a 'co-redemptrix' (making her equal in redemption to Christ), and it is taught that she never died, never sinned, and is now seated as the 'queen of heaven'. (That's where I sort of made my own personal Exodus from the Roman Catholic Church)

Confused yet?

It also leads to another discussion: the one that lead to the separation between Judaism and Christianity. Jews believe that the Messiah will not come until the entire human race believes there is only one God - an occurrence that has not yet happened. That's why Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah - the conditions for the coming of the Messiah have not been met. So how does the above question about Catholicism and this one affect the question of monotheism?

Interesting, because my understanding is that the world can only believe in one God because of the Messiah (Isaiah 49:6), and others would only believe when He returns (Zech 12:10).

Of course, Jews being the Chosen people has caused all sorts of controversy over the years (after all, how dare we consider ourselves "chosen")

I always thought this begged a bigger question: "Chosen .... for what?" If God is truly sovereign (which I believe He is), then He has a specific plan for every individual, and every nation, and every people that he created (I don't see Him as making a lot of back-stage extras with no speaking parts). I think there could be nothing better in life than to find your own part in His project and jump right into it.

My own understanding is that God's plan for the Jewish nation (the 'what for' of their being Chosen) was to make Him known (see Isaiah 43:10). Their 'job description' was to make known the one true God, and I believe this happened through Jesus as the Messiah - I know that we disagree on this, but consider that 1/4 of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because of the word of this one 'Member of the Tribe'.

How does all this relate to the original questions about monotheism? At the root, all three of these faiths (Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity-as-understood-by-me) are all monotheistic, and we are all seeking to understand the same One God.

 

[Marginal]

On a side note, Christianity isn't monotheistic because Judaism isn't monotheistic. Why isn't Judaism monotheistic? because, upon closer examination, it is clear that the one God of the Old Testament suffers from multiple personality disorder....:lfao:

He even had a wife for a while. Goofy retcon.

 

[Tez3]

He even had a wife for a while. Goofy retcon.

Certainly did!

On a total side note, don't want to sidetrack this thread but do want to say last night I was watching a programme about three Catholic priests with amazing singing voices who are releasing an album of sacred songs. do rush out and buy this whatever your faith even if none as the music is wonderful!
The priests themselves, two brothers and their childhood friend came across as being open, educated and I think hopeful of the new ireland without sectarian violence. they were delightful, I thought what good rabbis they would have made lol ( rabbis is a teacher not a priest though many think its otherwise). No preaching, no 'my religion right, yours wrong' we've had in the past, just a sense of fun and openmindedness with clearly a love for their god. People may not understand what this means in Northern Ireland but I think it's hopeful.
Oh and they truned down 3 million pounds as they didn't want to leave their 'day' jobs! refreshing in this day and age! the money they do earn is going to charity.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v6g5X2hGab0&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQ1nQ0FvgQ&feature=related

Enjoy!

 

[elder999]

At the root, all three of these faiths (Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Christianity-as-understood-by-me) are all monotheistic

Perhaps they are, now, depending on how one chooses to view the Trinity, saints, and the Virgin Mary, but not "at their roots."

At their roots, they're polytheistic-by that I mean that prior to the council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., Christianity was easily polytheistic (so much so that there were arguments about it) and that Judaism had polytheistic elements prior to the rise of rabbinic orthodoxy, around 200 A.D.

The first Christians were Jews-yet they had no problem worshipping Jesus alongside "God the father." THey thought of Jesus as God's great angel-rmember, the church fathers of Nicea decided that Jesus and God were "of one substance"- so these early christians thought of Jesus as exalted to the status of God's NAME angel at his resurrection.

God's "NAME Angel?" THe early Jewish gnostics-part of the thinking that would evolve into kabbalism-believed that "God" manifested "God the creator" as a NAME angel, and it was this angel-separate from God but with God's power, that created the world.

There are 1st and 2nd century polemics about things like who is worshipping angels, who is asking angels for intercession-among both Jews and Christians. There are 3rd and 4th century polemics among Jews about what was called "the Two Powers" heresy, and then there was Nicea, and the argument abnout Jesus's substance-separate or same as God's.

My point is, early "Christianity" and Judaism were not monotheistic; they were, at best, monalotrous : they believed in many gods, but worshipped only one.It's also interesting to note that in Genesis, the word used for "God" in Hebrew, eloyhim is plural-this is why God speaks of "us" and "we"-not because he's royalty. Because of things like this, it was easy for Christianity to start as a movement within Judaism. This is what led to gnostic movements and the Sophia traditions, within Judaism and early Christianity, and what caused the rabbis to put their feet down and say that worship of YHWH was the only way, and insisting on all other forms of worship (within Judaism) be banned. Of course, that worked:Judaism, in its present form, is monotheistic, but even after the rise of rabbinic Judaism, we still find Jewish mystical texts that are very questionably monotheistic - see the treatment of Metatron (angel thought of as "the voice of God")in 3 Enoch, among other Hekhalot literature. (Some of the texts call him Metatron YHWH, after all). I sometimes think that it's only because of medieval rationalist philosophers like Maimonides that Judaism became truly monotheistic (and that's only if you focus on the rationalist tradition). The doctrine of the Sefirot in the medieval kabbalah is questionably monotheistic in the same way that the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is questionable.

How much one can say that Christianity is monotheistic is wholly dependent upon how much one believes the decision by the Council of Nicea, and, the Doctrine of the Trinity actually worked. We can say, for example, that certain Pentecostals have a Oneness belief, as opposed to a trinitarian belief, and believe everyone else to be polytheistic. There are also unitarians and modalists, and the Mormons believe that God is three separate beings with one purpose, but not the same substance.

(BTW, Jarrod, you can find quite a few fascinating books on this stuff; it's nothing new: A good place to start would be Alan Segal in Two Powers in Heaven (1977), and Jarl Fossum in The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord (1985) and The Image of the Invisible God (1995).

Lastly:Satan. While we can avoid modern thought about Satan, he is often spoken of, thought of and written about as "the God of this world," or God of earthly things(2 Corinthians, 44)-and his "banishment," is likewise written of as not a banishment to "hell," but to the earth.

 

[elder999]

Lastly:Satan. While we can avoid modern thought about Satan, he is often spoken of, thought of and written about as "the God of this world," or God of earthly things(2 Corinthians, 44)-and his "banishment," is likewise written of as not a banishment to "hell," but to the earth.

That's 2 Corinthians 4:4: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

(That's what I get for typing so early!)

See also:"prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. , and "ruler of this world" in John 12:31.

 

[jarrod]

lot's of terrific information in those posts, elder, & well explained too. thanks!


jf

 

[elder999]

lot's of terrific information in those posts, elder, & well explained too. thanks!


jf

No sweat-I've got a lot of weird hobbies-religion is one of them....:lol:

 

[sjansen]

that is a really, really good point that i hadn't thought of. let's take hinduism for example: sure there is vishnu, shiva, & brahma, but they are often spoken of as different aspects or manifestations of the same entity. now a shiva devotee might think vishnu is an avatar of shiva while a vishnu devotee might think the opposite, but they agree that they revere the same deity. yet hinduism is commonly accepted as a polytheistic religion.

jf

The funny thing is that if you talk to a hindu they may tell you their religion is also monotheistic. The other gods are just manifestations of Brahma. Buddism, Taoism, Shinto and Confusionism are not considered religions is some countries because there is no god. You can classify anything any way you want to, but all Christians, Jews and Muslims will tell you there is one god. Call him Yahweh, God or Allah if you want to.