07-29-2003, 07:36 AM
... these are hairs.
The idea of "false gods" is rather vague; it can mean either that there is a true (existing) god, or a true (correct) god. Since the other gods were either non-existent or non-deserving of worship, the Jews were either way monotheists since they only worshipped one god. I'm not sure if it denies the possibility of other gods; one disadvantage of that interpretation is that it means that, in the Jewish theology, only Jews have a god, whereas everyone else only has lies. Since it's a non-proselytizing religion, that means most people are just plain screwed. That's a fine idea, for a single ethnic group, the chosen people. But Christianity and Islam have much more sophisiticated mechanisms for incorporating other groups, and that bodes well for social organization, and therefore for civilization on a large scale.
I seriously disagree about Christianity. The whole package was sold to the Romans on precisely the idea that it wasn't really "pure" monotheism, but retained many of the ritualistic ideas of the old systems. So, while the message of Jesus Christ (the wisdom of the desert, as I said way back when in a more lucid moment) was fundamentally Monotheistic, in the same sense as Islam, it hedged its bets very early on, especially in the Catholic tradition. Later versions returned closer to the original Monotheism, but those didn't arise until a millenium after Islam.
Islam, on the other hand, is unquestionably a pure Monotheism. There is only one god, as every Muslim hears every day, over and over. He had no son, no saints, nothing. Just him. All manifestations were simply aspects of him; his Koran is a part of him just as is his Wrath or his Mercy. Mohammed is no more than a dude through whom it was transmitted. Allah is lord of all people; other religions are merely poorer reflections of his glory.
Not that I believe a word of it, of course. But it is philosophically cleaner, a more refined version of the earlier concept.
Jester
The idea of "false gods" is rather vague; it can mean either that there is a true (existing) god, or a true (correct) god. Since the other gods were either non-existent or non-deserving of worship, the Jews were either way monotheists since they only worshipped one god. I'm not sure if it denies the possibility of other gods; one disadvantage of that interpretation is that it means that, in the Jewish theology, only Jews have a god, whereas everyone else only has lies. Since it's a non-proselytizing religion, that means most people are just plain screwed. That's a fine idea, for a single ethnic group, the chosen people. But Christianity and Islam have much more sophisiticated mechanisms for incorporating other groups, and that bodes well for social organization, and therefore for civilization on a large scale.
I seriously disagree about Christianity. The whole package was sold to the Romans on precisely the idea that it wasn't really "pure" monotheism, but retained many of the ritualistic ideas of the old systems. So, while the message of Jesus Christ (the wisdom of the desert, as I said way back when in a more lucid moment) was fundamentally Monotheistic, in the same sense as Islam, it hedged its bets very early on, especially in the Catholic tradition. Later versions returned closer to the original Monotheism, but those didn't arise until a millenium after Islam.
Islam, on the other hand, is unquestionably a pure Monotheism. There is only one god, as every Muslim hears every day, over and over. He had no son, no saints, nothing. Just him. All manifestations were simply aspects of him; his Koran is a part of him just as is his Wrath or his Mercy. Mohammed is no more than a dude through whom it was transmitted. Allah is lord of all people; other religions are merely poorer reflections of his glory.
Not that I believe a word of it, of course. But it is philosophically cleaner, a more refined version of the earlier concept.
Jester