Polytheism: Between Fantasy and Reality
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30540
Printed Date: 27 April 2024 at 1:13am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Polytheism: Between Fantasy and Reality
Posted By: islamispeace
Subject: Polytheism: Between Fantasy and Reality
Date Posted: 30 July 2014 at 3:37pm
One of our esteemed (and I use the term lightly) forum members has made some strange comments about polytheism, most of which were made in an attempt to disparage monotheistic belief, and especially Islam. The identity of this person will not be revealed. Let us call him R. Webb. Um, no never mind. That's too obvious. Let us call him Ron W.  Here are some of his strange comments, along with my responses to him: A. "Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods. They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god. No, for true intolerance you need monotheism." [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187320#187320 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187320#187320 ] My Response: "First of all, if polytheists are "tolerant of other gods", then why did the pagans of Arabia persecute the early Muslims for being monotheists? The first martyr of Islam was a woman named Sumayyah (may Allah be pleased with her) who was tortured to death by Abu Jahl. There were many others who followed. Second, what about the Roman persecution of both Jews and Christians? While it is true that the Church has greatly exaggerated the history of the Roman persecution of Christians, there is little doubt that there were intermittent periods of persecution. The Romans were not only polytheists, but they also worshiped the emperors. Pliny the Younger described in a letter to the emperor Trajan how he tortured Christians who refused to pay homage to the Roman gods and to the emperor: "Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. [...] Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged." ( http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp ) Third, what about the Seleucid persecution of Jews? The Seleucids were Greek polytheists who ruled over the Holy Land for almost 300 years. One of the most infamous Seleucid rulers was Antiochus Ephiphanes IV. The title "Epiphanes" means "God manifest". In other words, Antiochus considered himself to be divine. He also was a polytheist. Here is how the late scholar Geza Vermes described some of Antiochus' persecution of the Jews: "In 169 BCE Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem and looted the Temple. But when in 167 he actually prohibited the practice of Judaism under pain of death and rededicated the Jerusalem Sanctuary to Olympian Zeus, the 'abomination of desolation', the opponents of the Hellenizers finally rose up in violent resistance" ("The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", p. 51)." [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187373#187373 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187373#187373 ] B. "These were more for political reasons than religious. Besides, nobody is saying that all polytheists are tolerant to all others all the time. (Shall I list the many, many instances of Muslim persecution of minorities, contemporary and historical?) I'm just saying that if Satan wanted to cause chaos and religious conflict, he would be better off backing monotheisms that insist on the supremacy of their own God and are hostile to all other gods, rather than religions that accept lots of different gods and a diversity of worship practices." [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187440#187440 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187440#187440 ] My Response: "Backtracking again? Well, who can blame you? After all the embarrassment you have suffered due to your i-d-i-o-t-i-c ramblings, backtracking is all you can really do. Shall I repeat what you wrote originally? Here is what you stated: Besides, the thing about polytheists is that they are by definition tolerant of other gods. They feel no particular need to go to war against a neighboring tribe of village just because they worship a different god. No, for true intolerance you need monotheism. Awkward!! Anyway, it is true that the Romans and Seleucids had political reasons to persecute both Jews and Christians. But, the fact is that they also forced them to conform to the pagan religious system. Pliny the Younger forced Christians to worship the gods and the emperor! Antiochus IV forcefully desecrated the Temple and forced Jews to conform to the Hellenistic culture. That is why it is referred to as "forced Hellenization". So clearly, polytheists are just as capable of intolerance. Satan had no reason to start a monotheistic religion in order to promote religious violence. In fact, as I already pointed out (and which you are now ignoring), Satan already had a chance to cause more violence. If he had started Islam, he would have further exploited the tribal rivalries that were causing tremendous bloodshed in pre-Islamic Arabia. Unfortunately for you, Islam preached against tribalism! Why would Satan have done that? It just doesn't line up, does it?  " [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187497#187497 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187497#187497 ]C. ""Fallen by the wayside"? Because you found a couple of conflicts that you think can be attributed to polytheism? The most common polytheistic religion today is Hinduism: "Hindus have welcomed, embraced and lived peacefully among other religions for centuries. During those same centuries, Hinduism itself evolved into hundreds of strains, and thus Hindus are fully at home with many different traditions and viewpoints within their own faith. Hence, they are naturally tolerant of other religions, respecting the fact that each has unique beliefs, practices, goals and paths of attainment, and not objecting when the doctrines of one conflict with those of another. Hindus readily accept the idea that it is not necessary, desirable or even possible for everyone to hold the same beliefs. And certainly such differences should never be cause for tension, criticism, intolerance or violence." http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/ - http://www.himalayanacademy.com/blog/taka/2011/09/10/how-do-hindus-view-other-religions/ Compare that to any of the monotheistic religions, all of which regard themselves as supreme and the only acceptable religion." [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187548#187548 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187548#187548 ] My Response: "So you present someone's opinion of how Hindus view other religions and think that it somehow proves your point? I don't doubt that the majority of Hindus would not think to hurt someone who didn't follow their religion, but that's the case with every religion! In theory, Hinduism may be accepting of "other" gods, but the reality shows that this was not always the case. Shall I educate you on some more history by showing that Hindus have and do persecute people of other religions? Let's have a lesson on Hindu persecution of Buddhists, just as an example (unfortunately, Muslims have also persecuted Buddhists): http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#iii1 - http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#iii1 1. "The Pallava dynasty in Southern India ruled the northern Tamil Nadu region and the southern Andhra Pradesh region from 275 CE to late 13th century. The Pallavas were followers of Hinduism but were generally tolerant to other faiths. However, at least two attempts of overt persecution of Buddhism took place. Simhavarma, known to be the father of Naravarma who reigned from 404 CE, and Trilochana are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them." 2. "Prior to this period, Buddhism flourished under the Gupta Empire. There was great development of Hinduism, but Buddhism was still prominently practiced in the Ganges Plain. However, this was the period when Hindus, especially Shaivites, took aggressive action against Buddhism. At least two kings, the Hephthalite king Miharakula in the early 6th century and the Bengal king Sasanka in the early 7th century reportedly have persecuted Buddhism." 3. "Sasanka of the Gauda Kingdom of central Bengal in the early 7th century also worshipped Shiva and endeavored to extirpate the Buddhists from his dominions. Having murdered Rajyavardhana, a Buddhist king of Thanesar, he have put thousands of Buddhist monks to death, particularly all those in the area around Kushinagar were known to be slaughtered. http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#9 - (9) He also cut down the holy bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya, the act for which Hsuen-Tsang maligned the king, and managed to break the stone carved with the footprints of the Buddha at Pataliputra in about 600 CE, http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1112/sbk/sbk2.html#10 - (10) Nevertheless, Buddhism survived from Sasanka's persecution as the Emperor Harshavardhana of Harsha Empire, a great patron of Buddhism, defeated Sasanka and saved Buddhism." So clearly, Hindus have been known to exhibit intolerance of other religions. Even in modern times, Hindus extremists have been known to persecute Christians and Muslims in India. They have even been known to persecute Jains! Describing the historical persecution of Jains, Dr. K. Prabhakar Rao states: "Jainism which was a major religion in Telangana disappered almost completely and this is the reason forcomin up of scores of siva temples in Telangana and other Andhra areas.Even fall of Kakateeya rule was partly due to the outcome of conspiracies of jains who suffered during the later years of their rule." ( http://kuntamukkalaprabhakar.blogspot.com/2007/12/fall-of-kalyani.html - http://kuntamukkalaprabhakar.blogspot.com/2007/12/fall-of-kalyani.html ) Oh and let's not forget the historical rivalry that has existed among Hindus themselves. As anyone with even a basic knowledge of Hinduism knows, the two major sects are Vaishnavites (who worship Vishnu) and Shivaites (who worship Shiva). Throughout history, the rivalry between the two sects has sometimes erupted in violence. For example, the Chola king Kulottunga (who was a Shivaite) severely persecuted Vaishnavites during his reign (Alain Danielou, "A Brief History of India, p. 178)"." [ http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187620#187620 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30031&PID=187620#187620 ] Is anyone else as shocked as I am at the atrocious ignorance of history? And why is an atheist so defensive of polytheists anyway?  ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Replies:
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 31 July 2014 at 3:47am
|
I don't think Rom Webb is serious when he answers any of the posts here. He quickly googles a word and post the reply that he receives. I think he's lost and confused and in need of guidance. Having said that what he says here are very *****ic as if he doesn't think before he types. But still I really think he's searching to fill his heart which is void right now. If only he looks into Islam with an open and honest heart..... |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 4:29pm
Your sections A and B are spam. I'm not going over that territory again. As for C:
The article I referenced was published in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_Today - Hinduism Today , a major international magazine with an excellent reputation. If you have a better source, let's have it.
At the risk of spamming myself, I can only repeat: nobody is saying that all polytheists are tolerant, all the time. Polytheists are people; and sometimes people are intolerant, even if their religion encourages them not to be. I was talking about the religion itself, not the people who practice it. If Satan wanted to invent a religion for the purpose of causing intolerance, conflict and chaos, monotheism would be a far better choice than polytheism. By definition, polytheism accepts the existence of multiple gods and therefore a diversity of worship practices; whereas most monotheisms teach that their god is the only possible god, and the worship of all other gods is evil. In other words, monotheisms teach their followers not to tolerate other gods, and by extension not to tolerate those who worship other gods. And although there are certainly exceptions, in my experience that is the usual result. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
So you present someone's opinion of how Hindus view other religions and think that it somehow proves your point?Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 August 2014 at 6:04pm
Well what can we say about your source of "excellent reputation" when it failed to point out that the obviously embarrassing fact that even among Hindus, there have been conflicts between different sects (e.g. Vaishnatives vs. Shivaites)? Clearly, there are Hindus who feel that despite the various deities they all believe in, certain ones are better than others.Furthermore, just because polytheists believe in multiple gods, that does not mean that one polytheist culture would accept the pantheon of gods from another culture.
We have already seen enough of your "experience". Your "experience" is based on ignorance and childish misconceptions.  Now, let us come back to the Vaishnavites and Shivaites, to show the irony of your statement that "polytheism accepts the existence of multiple gods and therefore a diversity of worship practices". While this may be true in theory, the example of the Vaishnavites and Shivaites shows that even among polytheists, certain gods take precedence over others. So, Vaishnavites don't reject the "existence" of Shiva; they simply reject that he is more worthy of worship than Vishnu. The Shivaites feel the same way about Vishnu. The irony of many polytheistic religions is that, despite the fact that they believe in multiple gods, they still inevitably believe that one particular god is "supreme" or more powerful than all others. Hence, in the Greek pantheon, Zeus was the "king" of the gods and the most powerful of them. In Norse mythology, Odin was the "all-father". And of course, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the pagans believed in lesser gods, while still believing that Allah was the supreme deity. So, in spite of their polytheistic beliefs, these religions still acknowledge a monotheistic hierarchy. After all, there can only be one "supreme" deity, the "king" of the gods. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 08 August 2014 at 10:16pm
Here is some information on the controversies that sometimes erupted between Vaishnavites and Shivaites, which also illustrates the point I made about the irony of seemingly monotheistic principles being practiced by polytheists. Discussing the persecution of Vaisnavites under the king Kulottunga, M. L. Ahuja http://books.google.com/books?id=XAZWJcBaH9EC&pg=PT73&dq=vaishnavites+only+deity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0qvlU4fnHY61yAT72IHQCw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=vaishnavites%20only%20deity&f=false - states : "He wanted to make the leader of Vaishnavism sign a declaration that Shiva was the only deity worthy of worship." And according to a Hindu website: "Smartism, a denomination of Hinduism is a monist as well as a monotheist religion that understands different deities as representing various aspects and principles of one supreme entity, Brahman or parabrahman. After all, Swami Vivekananda, a follower of Ramakrishna, along with many others, who brought Hindu beliefs to the West, were all Smarta in belief. Other denominations of Hinduism do not strictly hold this belief. Only a Smartist would have no problem worshiping Shiva or Vishnu together as he views the different aspects of God as leading to the same One God. It is the Smarta view that dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu as the one true God, worthy of worship and other forms as subordinate." ( http://www.crystalinks.com/indiadieties.html - http://www.crystalinks.com/indiadieties.html ) I also forgot to mention that in the old Chinese religion, which was polytheistic, there was still a monotheistic "hierarchy". Like the pre-Islamic Arab pagans, the Chinese worshiped many "lesser" deities, but they still acknowledged a supreme deity known as "Shang-di", loosely translated as "Emperor of Heaven". The interesting thing about Shang-di is that he was never represented by idols! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 12:12pm
Well, it's called "Hinduism Today", not "Hinduism in History"; but of course they do cover contemporary conflicts and disagreements, http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1245 - including the one you mentioned .
Of course not. But they could, without being ideologically inconsistent; whereas a monotheistic religion could not. That's all I was saying. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 1:12pm
Well, who cares if "they could"? How is that relevant? We are not concerned with theory. We are concerned with reality, and the reality is that polytheists are just as likely as monotheists to show intolerance. Also, polytheists are ironically very likely to embrace some sort of monotheistic outlook, as the examples above have shown. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 1:46pm
It was relevant in the context of the original discussion in which I made the comment. We were discussing why a malevolent supernatural being (i.e., Satan) might want to supplant a polytheistic religion with a monotheistic one. There are theoretical advantages to a monotheism if intolerance and conflict is your goal. I disagree that polytheists are just as likely to be intolerant in practice, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Anecdotal evidence is not going to convince either of us. If you look around the world at all the religious conflicts, it seems to me that the vast majority of them involve monotheism (and most of those involve Islam), but I admit that at least part of it may be due to the prevalence of monotheism in general.
The recognition of one particular god in a pantheon as supreme among the gods does not make it a monotheism. (My goodness, do I need to explain this to a Muslim?) ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 11 August 2014 at 3:14pm
And I refuted this absurd argument with the facts mentioned on this thread. You are still stuck on theory. I am referring to reality!
What I have shown is evidence that polytheists can and do persecute people of other religions, even co-religionists and other polytheists. Therefore, I conclude that polytheists are just as like as monotheists to persecute people of other religions. If you want a more modern example, just look into Hindutva organizations in India like the RSS and Bajrang Dal.
Once again, your idiocy overwhelms your reason. I didn't say that it was "monotheism". I said that it was a "sort of monotheistic outlook". Think about it. Why would there be a "supreme" god and what does that mean? A "god", as I understand the definition, is a supreme and all-powerful being. Therefore, if a being is characterized as a "god", then it should already be "supreme". To say that a particular god is a "supreme god" would be like saying that this god is a "supreme, supreme being". That makes no sense. That is why polytheism in general makes no sense. If a deity is not all-powerful when compared to another deity, then it is not a deity and it is not worthy of worship. This is the folly of polytheism. That is why polytheistic religions shoot themselves in the foot when they acknowledge the existence of "supreme" gods, who are "higher" than other deities. Therefore, it reflects a monotheistic outlook. It is one of the great ironies of polytheism. Get it?  ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 1:49pm
The logical leap from your first sentence to your second is an unjustified generalization. Just because some polytheists persecute other religions, does not mean that polytheists in general are just as likely as monotheists to do so. Of course, you can always find examples of intolerant polytheists, as I have acknowledged several times. However, if we want to start trading anecdotal examples of religious intolerance, I could easily overwhelm this discussion with examples of Muslim (or those claiming to be Muslim) intolerance, without even mentioning Judaism or Christianity. I'm not going to go there, for obvous reasons, but you know it's true.
I'm sorry, but your understanding of the definition is wrong. The word " http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t - god ", in lowercase, refers to "a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force." Polytheist religions often have a hierarchy of gods, but even the one at the top of the hierarchy is not necessarily all-powerful. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 12 August 2014 at 8:43pm
Still not getting it, huh? Polytheists can and do commit persecution of others, so it is absurd to claim that Satan would have tried to start a monotheistic religion (and discourage polytheism) because he wanted to promote "intolerance". Polytheists can also be intolerant. I am sure Satan would have known that.
Oh the hilarity! The same source also states:"1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love - love , Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle." Here is another definition: "(god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god an incarnation of the god Vishnu" ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/God - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/God ) So, by definition, a "god" is "superhuman" and has "power over nature". In any case, I have provided examples of polytheistic religions which nevertheless believe in a "supreme" deity, who is superior to all others. Shang-di in the Chinese religion is a perfect example. Even among some Hindus, Krishna is the supreme deity, and all the others (Shiva, Vishnu etc.) are "lesser" gods or "demi-gods". And of course, for Vaishnavites, Vishnu is superior to Shiva. For Shivaites, Shiva is superior to Vishnu. So we can see the tendency, even among polytheists, to look toward a monotheistic hierarchy. Some literally believe in a "supreme" deity, while others tend to emphasize the superiority of one particular god over another. It is all too common for a polytheistic religion to still believe in a "supreme" deity, who rules over all other deities. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 17 August 2014 at 2:38pm
|
Some more facts for the enlightenment of ignorant atheists and their crackpot theories: I previously mentioned how Hindus have been known to persecute Jains. According to http://www.jaina.org/?Myths - JAINA (Federation of Jain Associations in North America): "As long as Jainism was clubbed with Hinduism, it got a raw deal having no separate recognition amongst the scholars. Also despite of general doctrinal tolerance in the Hindu tradition, history shows instances of persecution against Jains such as in Tamil Nadu in the 7th century, AD when Hindu Shaiva poets and teachers popularized the notion of Jains (or Samanars in Tamil) as villains opposed to the Shaiva creed. Hindu Saints like Adi Shankaracharya and Swami Dyayanand Saraswati led vitriolic attacks against Jain philosophy. Many Jain temples were destroyed and Jains killed. Today, a concern of modern Jains in post-independence India has been the preservation of ancient pilgrimage sites and holy shrines which in recent decades have come under pressure from certain fundamentalist groups - in the case of Girnarji, Hindu devotees of the deity Dattatreya. Bhagavan Neminatha's charana were established at Girnarji for many thousands of years. Now, Hindus have taken over the 5th and the 3rd hill, thus wiping out extremely important Jain heritage from Gujarat." Also, as I have stated, there is a difference between the practice of polytheism in "theory" and in "reality". Hence, even though by "definition", polytheists believe in multiple gods and allegedly would be more "tolerant" of "other" gods, this simply is not the case in reality. We can see this once again in Jainism, which is a polytheistic religion. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Jains do not worship the same gods as Hindus. According to JAINA: "The Worship is just a small part of Jaina philosophy. It is much more than way of worship, namely :- * it has its own Gods worthy of worship - Tirthankars, * separate set of rituals different from Hindus for e.g. Jains don�t believe in ritual of shraddh for ancestors, * it has a totally different shastras and agamas. The philosophy of worship i.e. bhakti is also different. Bhakti in Hinduism believes in surrender to some higher entity, while bhakti in Jainism is merely instrumental in self-realisation. Emphasis is more on securing samyaktva i.e. rationality rather than ritualistic worship." In fact, JAINA notes that from a Jain perspective, the Hindu "gods" are not worthy of worship at all: "Concept of Kuldevis and praying to Gods like Ganesha who are not vitraag is not in conformity of Jain Philosophy. According to Jainism these deities have attachment and passions." It also notes that even though Jain scriptures mention characters like Rama (who are mentioned in Hindu books), this is not indicative of some link between Jainism and Hinduism: " Jain have their own version of Ramayana and Mahabharata based on Jain philosophy. According to Jain puranas, Rama and Lakshmana were the 8th Baldev (or Balbhadra) and Vasudev(or Narayana) and Balarama and Krishna were 9th Baldev and Vasudev. Rama and Krishna are not Avatar�s of Vishnu as per Jainism. Just as Hindus believe their version, Jains believe this version to be true." So, it is beyond conclusive that there exist realistic differences between various polytheistic religions, and that these differences have often times led to physical violence and hatred. Hence, for some ignorant buffoon to suggest that Satan would have chosen a monotheistic religion to spread "intolerance" because polytheism is somehow less likely to promote intolerance is patently absurd. The fact is that Satan could just as easily have created hatred and intolerance between various polytheistic religions. Moreover, to promote a monotheistic religion in favor of polytheistic and idolatrous religions would run counter to Satan's ultimate goal of leading mankind astray with deviant and false beliefs. What is more deviant than worshiping idols and false gods? ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 7:54am
Exactly. So what point are you trying to make? ---
True; but
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. You have shown that polytheism can be violent and intolerant (a fact which I have acknowledged from the beginning). You have not shown that it is more likely to be violent and intolerant than monotheism. In other words, you have not addressed my theoretical claim that it is less likely to be so.
And yet, looking at the many instances of hatred and intolerance that you see in the news today, how many are due to polytheism? And how many to monotheism?
Circular argument. How do you know this, without assuming your conclusion? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 18 August 2014 at 9:47am
1. That your "definition" was deliberately simplified and deceptive. 2. That by "definition", a "god" is a "supreme being" with "superhuman" powers. Hence polytheism, with its multitude of "supreme beings" simply makes no logical sense, because all "gods" cannot be "supreme" when compared to the other "gods". There can only be one "supreme" being, by definition. You can't have two "supreme courts", can you?
All you have been doing is positing "theoretical" claims, with no proof, and yet you ask me for proof? The burden of proof is on you to prove that polytheism is "less likely" to be "violent and intolerant" than monotheism. I have shown that polytheists are also capable of violence and intolerance, so your argument that Satan would have preferred to start Islam (at the expense of polytheism and idolatry) in order to spread "intolerance" is absurd, because he could have just as easily done that with polytheism, given that polytheism also has a history of intolerance. Moreover, Satan could have simply further exploited Arab tribal rivalries, yet with the coming of Islam, tribalism was abolished. Satan would have also refrained from forbidding things like female infanticide, rape (which was a common tactic used by victorious tribes to humiliate the losing tribe), killing of civilians and non-combatants etc.
We already know that you are not exactly in touch with reality, so your reference to what we "see in the new today" is not particularly impressive. I already told you about Hindutva organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal. Also, polytheism is not as prominent as monotheism. While it tended to dominate the global religious landscape in the ancient world, that is no longer the case. But, given the numerous precedents in history, it is not hard to imagine that if polytheism was as dominant as it once was, that it would be just as likely as monotheism to exhibit hatred and intolerance.
Ummm, because Satan is a figure found in monotheistic texts, not polytheistic ones? So naturally, all that we know about him comes from the former, not the latter. Which Satan are you referring to? Given the logical absurdity of polytheism, as well as the obvious human characteristics of many so-called "gods", it is obvious to me that polytheism is the work of Satan. Monotheism, on the other hand, would not be of Satanic origin, although the different religions with their deviant beliefs may be (for example, Christianity and the belief in the trinity and the divinity of Jesus). ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 8:37am
On the contrary, defining a (lowercase) god as a "supreme being" is deliberately simplified and deceptive. The http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t - definition says "a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy." Thus, for example, Athena is supreme in matters of wisdom, while Aphrodite is supreme in matters of love. It doesn't say that a (lowercase) god is supreme in all matters, as you imply.
I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that it could be. In theory it looks likely. Whether it is in practice is difficult to assess. Just looking at modern day conflicts it certainly seems that way to me; but I don't know for sure, and I have no way of proving it one way or another. If you claim that you do know for sure, then it's up to you prove it. One thing is for sure, though: trotting out specific examples of violence and intolerance is not going to help. We both acknowledge that such examples exist on both sides, i.e. that some people on both sides are intolerant and violent. If you want to prove that polytheism is more likely than monotheism to be violent and intolerant, then you need to find a way to count or estimate the total number of violent and intolerant people on either side, divide that by the respective populations, and compare the ratios. Good luck with that.
I was referring to a hypothetical "malevolent supernatural being", which is commonly called Satan today, but which has gone by other names at other times. The fact is that we know nothing at all about him, including whether he actually exists. If you are relying on scripture for information about Satan, then you are assuming that scripture is from God and not from Satan. Isn't that what you're trying to prove? ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 9:09am
Your petty semantics will not save you. Ares was the "god of war" in Greek mythology. Does that mean that he was "supreme" in war even when compared to Zeus, who was the "king of Olympus"? Or was Zeus "supreme" when compared to any of the other "gods"? By the way, Aphrodite may have been the "goddess of love" but Zeus was also known for his sexual escapades!
That's what I said! You have only theories, nothing realistic.
When did I say that polytheism was "more likely" to promote intolerance? I said that it is just as likely as monotheism to promote intolerance. You were the one who claimed that polytheism by "definition" is more tolerant. I shot down that absurd theoretical argument by providing numerous cases where polytheists engaged in brutal violence against people of other religions. In response, all you could do was appeal to your theory, as usual.
When you refer to "Satan", you are referring to the being mentioned in monotheistic scriptures. Why would I assume you are referring to some other "malevolent supernatural being" when you specifically mentioned "Satan"?  And as I already said, given the obvious falsehood of polytheism, it is easy to conclude that Satan would be responsible for spreading polytheistic religions. He spreads falsehood in order to deceive mankind. And your atheism/humanism is just one more false ideology that he has spread. By the way, if you want to learn more about the existence of the supernatural, I recommend reading the late Dr. M. Scott Peck's book " http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408464412&sr=1-1&keywords=the+people+of+the+lie - The People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil ". Near the end of the book, Dr. Peck discussed the issue of possession. Dr. Peck was a respected psychiatrist who studied cases of possession and was even present at some exorcisms. In his view, possession is a very real phenomenon and he was convinced that Satan is real. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 7:00pm
Well, I'm no expert on Greek mythology, but I suppose it's like any other power structure. For the most part, Ares would be in charge of matters related to war, and Zeus would not be involved. However, I think it's fair to assume that Ares might hesitate to start a war that might anger his "boss". If you're really interested, why ask me? I'm sure there are plenty of resources available online.
Just like you. The difference is that I know they are only theories, whereas you think you have absolute truth because you read it in the Quran.
As I said, citing specific cases, even numerous such cases, on either side does not show in general that one side is more tolerant than the other. I could easily come up with numerous cases where monotheists engaged in brutal violence. I could probably cite enough examples against Islam alone to get me kicked off this board. What would that prove?
I am referring to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Satan?s=t - Satan , "the chief evil spirit; the great adversary of humanity; the devil." It is a hypothetical concept. IMHO it does not refer to any real being, so discussions of which evil spirit is which would be purely academic. You will naturally identify him with the being "Shaitan" described in the Quran; but to rely on that description to justify your belief in the source of the description (and hence its reliability) is a circular argument.
First, prove that the Quran is not from Satan/Shaitan or whatever evil spirit might be motivated to mislead humankind. Then you can rely on its contents. Not before. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 19 August 2014 at 8:46pm
You're not much of an expert on anything, which is why it's so funny reading your ignorant opinions. You brought the Greek gods into the discussion. I wasn't asking you a question. I was refuting your inept claims. You claimed that each Greek god was "supreme" in some regard, but I pointed out that if Ares was the "god of war", then by your definition, he would be superior even to Zeus in war. But that was clearly not the case, because the Greeks believed that Zeus was the mightiest of the gods.
Again, don't drag me down to your level. I have provided proof for my claims. You have provided nothing but crackpot theories and your personal opinions.
You're the one who claimed that polytheists are more tolerant, you dummy! I never said such a thing about monotheists. I have said that both are just as capable as the other of showing intolerance, and history proves it. You simply posited yet another *****ic theory which I disproved through realistic examples. Theory is your game. Mine is reality.
Maybe you should have read the whole page, before making a fool out of yourself again. Further down, under "Word Origin and History of Satan", it states:"...proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity..." And even further down, under "Satan in Culture", it states: "The http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/devil - devil . In the http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible - Bible , Satan is identified with the tempter who encourages the fall of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Adam%20and%20Eve - Adam and Eve ; he is the accuser who torments http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Job - Job in the hope that he will curse God; the one who offers http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jesus - Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus will worship him ( see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Get%20thee%20behind%20me,%20Satan - Get thee behind me, Satan ); and the evil one who puts betrayal in the heart of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Judas - Judas . Satan will one day be confined in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hell - hell , but until then he is free to roam the http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Earth - Earth ." So, like I said, when you refer to "Satan", you are referring to the being mentioned in monotheistic sources, and more specifically, the Abrahamic religions.
I already did prove it many times. You simply ignore it by resorting to more theory. I asked why Satan would go through the trouble of starting a monotheistic religion in a pagan land, and outlaw things like female infanticide and tribal warfare etc. You responded by claiming that perhaps he wanted to spread intolerance because allegedly, monotheistic religions are more intolerant than polytheistic ones, a claim that I thoroughly refuted by showing that polytheists are also capable of intolerance. Hence, Satan could have just as easily used polytheism to start religious wars. In fact, in Arabia, he didn't even need to start a new religion. He could have just further exploited the tribal culture to spread more violence. I also proved that polytheism is logically false and since Satan is the agent of falsehood, he would naturally want to spread polytheistic beliefs. By the way, will you be reading the book I suggested? You've got quite a reading list already! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 August 2014 at 2:40pm
No, you were asking a question. Notice the question mark above? And therein is probably the reason why you seem to think you have refuted all sorts of things when you actually haven't. You think that merely by asking a question, you are refuting or proving something. Same goes for all of your unsupported opinions which you regard as facts, or which you attempt to support by appeals to non-authorities.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mightiest", but Zeus was the king of the gods. He wasn't necessarily the mightiest warrior or anything like that.
No, I claimed that polytheism was more tolerant than monotheism. Nuance, I know; but nuance is important. It's the difference between claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion (which is at least arguable), versus claiming that Muslims are more peaceful than non-Muslims (for which I could provide an endless list of counterexamples).
"Just as capable" is not the same as just as likely. More nuance.
You can prove their capability through examples. You can't prove likelihood -- except maybe by statistics, but good luck with that.
Word origin, history and culture are all fascinating subjects, but that's not the definition.
I know you think you've proven things; but then, as I said, you think that asking a question is equivalent to proof. You may think that Satan would have promoted stuff like female infanticide and tribal warfare if he had written the Quran, but perhaps Satan is smart enough to realize that a totally immoral message would never have been accepted. You may be right that polytheists are just as capable of intolerance as monotheists; but as I said, that's not the same as showing that they are just as likely. You may be of the opinion that Satan could have just as easily used polytheism, but perhaps Satan doesn't agree with you. You may think that Satan could have got the same results by exploiting tribal culture, but maybe he wanted his message to spread beyond a single tribe. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 21 August 2014 at 3:23pm
You're right. When I asked the "question", I was assuming that I was talking to someone who actually knows something. Irregardless, the point still stands in spite of your special pleading and attacks on the so-called "non-authorities". The only "non-authority" here is you, with your crackpot theories and personal opinions.
Zeus had overthrown the Titans and freed his brothers and sisters from Chronos' stomach. I am pretty sure he was a mighty warrior. And with his thunderbolt, he was unchallenged as king of Olympus.
Your claim was just another theory, which has no basis in reality.
Actually, more semantics. We have seen that polytheists have and do persecute others, despite your theory that polytheism is more tolerant by "definition".
The burden of proof is on you, you ninny. You were the one who claimed that polytheists (or polytheism) is more tolerant than monotheists (or monotheism).
Sure, sure. Keep making a fool of yourself!
Oh, what a shock! The atheist clown resorts to yet another "damned if you do, damned if you don't" argument, not to mention yet more mindless theorizing. The "immoral message" was already "accepted". Are you so full of yourself that you cannot even realize that Satan had already made things like female infanticide accepted? It was a common occurrence in Arabia. Clearly, immorality can and is accepted. Why would Satan want to change that? Do tell, since you apparently seem to know a lot about Satan's plans!
Riiight, because apparently you are in on Satan's plans... ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 August 2014 at 11:36am
Why are the opinions of Cory Campbell and Harry Callahan any more authoritative than yours or mine, or my uncle Fred's?
Of course, but that doesn't answer the question: are polytheists just as likely to be intolerant of foreign gods as monotheists? We don't know and can't know for sure. All we know is that monotheism is by definition intolerant, whereas polytheism is not.
I have to keep reminding you that I am not making a claim. It is your claim that the Quran could only have come from God. I am simply pointing out that it could have come from many other sources, one of which could be Satan. You rebutted (in part) that Satan would not have replaced a polytheist religion with a monotheism, because the polytheists were at least as violent as monotheists. If you want to support that claim, the burden of proof is with you. All I need to show is that your claim is not well-founded -- that monotheism could be more violent, which could be a reason for Satan to have promoted it. Remember, I don't actually believe in either source, so don't expect me to prove it. I'm just saying that we don't know the source of the Quran, but that there are many possibilities. You can't just assume one possibility because you like it better.
Would female infanticide be acceptable today? Remember, Satan is playing a long game here. A religion that included infanticide may have lasted a few hundred years, but it would be outright illegal (let alone socially unacceptable) in most modern countries.
No, I don't know anything about Satan's plans. I'm just speculating. You apparently think you do, though, because you are claiming that Satan would not have done this or that if he were creating a new religion. That is how you know (or think you know) that the Quran is not from Satan. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 August 2014 at 1:10pm
As soon as you or your Uncle Fred get an article about Pol Pot published by the Haing S. Ngor Foundation, I will retract my objection to your "authority".
Which means nothing...What a shock.
I already did show that your Satan analogy makes little sense. For Satan to have started a monotheistic religion because monotheism "could be more violent" is absurd. Polytheism can and is at least as violent, and it is a logically false ideology, so Satan had no reason to undermine it in favor of monotheism.
How is that even relevant? The point is that it was acceptable at the time. Why would Satan have decided to undermine it when it already had widespread acceptance? That's like if a drug dealer wanted to expand his business, but then urges people not to buy his product! By the way, you could argue that the laws of most western countries making abortion legal is part of Satan's "long game". You could say he has adjusted his strategy and repackaged infanticide as "pro-choice" abortion.
I have provided my reasons. You have responded with speculations with no logical support. And as I said, "Satan" is a figure mentioned in monotheistic sources, so naturally, any claims about him will have be base on those sources. Even the source you quoted made that clear. ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 August 2014 at 6:12pm
As easy as that, eh? Can it be any Web site, or does it have to have the word "Foundation" in the name? 
"Can [be]" and "is" are not the same thing, no matter how hard you try to conflate them. Yes, polytheism can be violent. Particular polytheists can be just as violent as particular monotheists. But what you haven't proven, and cannot prove, is that polytheism is as likely as monotheism to lead to violence. In other words, you haven't shown and cannot show that Satan might not have increased the global level of violence of replacing polytheism with monotheism.
It's more like a drug dealer urging his customers not to overdose. As I said, a religion that included stuff like infanticide would not have been sustainable in the long term. There is a limit to how much harm you can do before people realize that you're a bad guy and just stop listening to you.
Perhaps.
You have supported your reasons with speculations about what Satan might or might not do; and I have supported my speculations with reasons why he might or might not do them. But the bottom line is that neither your "reasons" nor my "speculations" have any logical support. We just don't know, neither of us. The only difference is that I know that I don't know.
Just go through my posts and substitute "evil supernatural being" wherever I typed "Satan", and that should help. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 25 August 2014 at 7:52pm
If it's so easy, then you shouldn't have any trouble. Let me know when you do it! As I said, the "Haing S. Ngor Foundation" was founded by a survivor of the Cambodian genocide. So, it is not just "any web site".
What I have shown is that Satan had no reason to switch one for the other when it was possible to encourage violence either way. Nor would it have made sense to deliberately preach against polytheism and a tribal culture, neither of which had nurtured a peaceful time.
Except that no one was saying that female infanticide was a bad thing! It was only until Islam came that people started preaching against it. And it was only when Islam succeeded in defeating the polytheists that the practice was finally abolished. Why on earth would Satan have deliberately wanted to stop it if all was going well? That is like a drug dealer whose business is booming but who then decides to stop selling his harmful product.
Really? That's all you can say: "perhaps"? That word seems to be at the top of your dictionary!Can a person rationally be against female infanticide but be supportive of "pro-choice" abortion? Are they not really the same thing, except for the fact that abortion laws do not discriminate between the fetal genders? By the way, can a "humanist" be supportive of "pro-choice" abortion or does that run against the "greater good of humanity"?
I have supported my reasons with logic and facts, which you have been struggling to refute. Speculation is all you can do. By the way, have you read Dr. Peck's book yet? The testimony of a respected psychiatrist is pretty darn impressive, don't you think? Here is an excerpt in case you are too lazy to actually read the book: "I wrote around and let it be known that I was interested in observing cases of purported possession for evaluation. Referrals trickled in. The first two cases turned out to be suffering from standard psychiatric disorders, as I suspected, and I began making marks on my scientific pistol. The third case turned out be to the real thing. Since then I have also been deeply involved with another case of genuine possession. In both cases I was privileged to be present at their successful exorcisms. The vast majority of cases described in the literature are those of possession by minor demons. These two were highly unusual in that both were cases of Satanic possession. I now know Satan is real. I have met it." ("The People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil, p. 183).
Backtracking on your own st**idity and foolishness is not going to save you! ------------- Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162) |
