Why the fuck is monotheism so much more popular than polytheism?
Most polytheist religions in history faded away into insignificance. The only one still existing today is hinduism and even those who believe in it don't seem to take it really serious. Monotheistic religions on the other hand always spreaded like a virus. Christianity immediately infected the enitre Roman empire and populations beyond its borders. Islam instantly created a huge as fuck caliphate and is still spreading rapidly today.
What makes monotheism such a strong meme?
>>1209481
Monotheists can't into polytheism, but polytheists can into monotheism
Its that simple desu
>>1209481
>Monotheistic religions on the other hand always spreaded like a virus. Christianity immediately infected the enitre Roman empire and populations beyond its borders.
>implying Christians are monotheists
>>1209481
>The only one still existing today is hinduism
And folk chinese. And Shinto.
>Monotheistic religions on the other hand always spreaded like a virus.
Because Christians & Muslims were vicious cunts.
>is still spreading rapidly today.
So is irreligiosity and atheism.
>>1209481
There are different varieties of Hinduism, too, and not all are polytheistic, only the ones which refer to much older traditions.
>>1209496
>implying Christians are monotheists
Wholes that are wholes combine to become a whole.
>>1209498
Shinto has spirits, but not every practitioner of Shinto views these as deified beings. Many are atheist.
>>1209498
But muslims (and christians of the past) were willing to die for their god. How can a meme be so strong that you sacrifice your life for it? Show me an atheist who does this for atheism.
>>1209509
>and christians of the past
Africa would like a word with you
>>1209505
>implying Christians don't have a fuck huge pantheon of saints to worship and praise
Jupiter may be king of kings, but the rest get their love too.
>>1209481
>Christianity immediately infected the enitre Roman empire and populations beyond its borders
Less than 5% of the empire was Christian when Constantine declared it the state religion
>Hinduism polytheistic
RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>1209516
>worshiping saints
Hmm, I think to this, there is "worship" which is to God, and there is "worship" which is to venerate. It's appropriate to venerate saints and the virgin Mary, you can even, in a way, "pray" to them, but if a person is actually "worshipping" saints, they have a slightly missed idea of the intent.
>>1209516
Anon, don't play protestant retardation here.
A Saint doesn't get worshiped, it is respect, not worship. To worship implies that it is God.
>>1209496
>Implying the trinity are three separate gods instead of three aspects of the same God
>>1209516
>Implying the "pantheon" of saints are deities instead of the venerated faithful
>>1209526
to add, it's a commonly used term to "worship" your personal heroes or favorite artists or athletes. You're not actually praying to these people.
Or maybe you are, but you get the idea, there are different connotations.
>>1209518
Constantine didn't name it the state religion. Theodosius I did.
Constantine just ended the persecutions from Galerius.
>>1209509
There were also willing to be assholes for their god.
>>1209509
There is hindu militarism, buddhist militarism too, what's your point?
>>1209505
Hinduism is commonly considered a polytheistic religion, but its three principal gods of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, known collectively as the Trimurti, are actually considered to be three different aspects of the same divine force. Similarly, Christianity posits that there are in fact three gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that are all different aspects of the same divine force.
it's literally just an issue of semantics. Christianity is polytheistic
>>1209565
It's by far not as widespread as monotheistic militarism. Hinduism pretty much stayed in India. Christianity on the other hand has been spread all over the world, and islam is currently conquering Europe and America.
>>1209578
>Similarly, Christianity posits that there are in fact three gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that are all different aspects of the same divine force.
What part of Whole that are Wholes become a Whole in which the first Wholes were already in one Whole don't you understand?
>>1209589
The part where that doesn't make a lick of sense.
The trinity as the christians can describe it can only be understood through faith.
>>1209589
Every part.
>>1209596
>The part where that doesn't make a lick of sense.
Do you want me to keep telling you about the whole that are wholes which are not parts but they are wholes that come together to become a whole in the sense that one in three is really just one with three having the facets of the three but that doesn't make them a part mind you.
Think of it like a mishmash of three whole jigsaw puzzles together into a thing that just works.
>>1209608
>this word soup involving wholes
Formulate properly how you see the trinity.
>>1209481
Because with multiple gods your suspension of disbelief is spread too thinly?
>>1209616
It's three wholes that are actually one whole. Think Voltron but get rid of the part where they need to combine.
Christianity is monotheistic. Sitting there with a mantra repeating otherwise doesn't make it so.
>>1209608
>whole that are wholes which are not parts but they are wholes
You don't get to just say shit that contradicts itself and claim that it doesn't.
>>1209622
>three wholes are one whole
The three wholes are then parts of the one whole.
>>1209632
That's wrong, the three wholes are not parts, because that's heresy, the three wholes are actually one whole.
>>1209639
What you're talking about does not make sense.
What do you mean when you say "three wholes"?
>>1209645
>What do you mean when you say "three wholes"?
Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the three wholes. Three whole things that are actually just one whole.
>>1209481
Polytheism = making comic book superheroes out of trees n shit
Monotheism = of some philosophical substance. This is why people discuss whether or not God exists but not whether or no Zeus is chucking lightning at us.
>>1209645
I think he's fucking with us
>>1209646
I'll repeat the question. What do you mean when you say "three wholes"?
Because what you're talking about so far makes no sense, mathematically or logically.
Pagan religions don't promote evangelicalism aka spreading your religion
>>1209653
>I'll repeat the question. What do you mean when you say "three wholes"?
When you have God, the Father, he is one of the three wholes, but also inbuded in him is Christ the son and the Holy spirit, like wise Christ the son has God the Father in him and the Holy spirit and the Holy Spirit has God the Father and Christ the Son.
>>1209648
>Monotheism = of some philosophical substance.
>HURRR UR BURNING NOW COZ YOUR GRANDMA ATE AN APPLE DURRR
Anyway, the success comes mostly from monotheism's eschatology, which ruthlessly simplified the world into a good-evil dichotomy that every hillbilly can understand, but more importantly, monotheism (mainly Christianity and Islam, that's why they're the two most dominant ones) had a very aggressive marketing campaign. It took the form of 'buy this or I'll murder you', which tends to be very convincing
>>1209532
>three aspects of the same God
That's wrong.
>>1209578
>Hinduism is commonly considered a polytheistic religion
That doesn't mean it is one.
>Similarly, Christianity posits that there are in fact three gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
No, Christianity says that there is one God who is three consubstantial persons of the same divine essence and will. There are not three aspects, forms, parts, modes, etc. of one God
>>1209669
>le epik caricature
>>1209649
No he's actually explaining the trinity. It's just a logical impossibility. The "lesser wholes", within the context of the "greater whole", are parts. But that's Partialism which is a hersey so the parts also have to be god in and of themselves. This is where the contradiction lies, as the identity of what "god" is seems to be in 3 places at once.
>>1209666
bro you're saying that
A = D
B = D
C = D
while at the same time claiming
A =/= B =/= C
this makes no logical sense
the central tenet of Christianity, perhaps the only thing that is common to all of its various branches, makes no logical sense
>>1209648
>he doesn't understand the gods as platonic forms
>>1209666
So basically the three parts are identical?
>>1209579
There were Hindu temples from Azerbaijan to Sulawesi. Hinduism dominated all over Indonesia before Islam took hold. It most definitely did not stay contained in India, that's just where it only survives in large numbers to today.
>>1209671
wait, so you're saying that God = A + B + C (which seems pretty polytheistic in nature)
while simulataneously positing that A = D, B = D, and C = D
but A =/= B =/= C
???
>>1209680
>platonic forms
>having any relevance to existence
Quit drinking the kool-aid, it doesn't make you look "kool".
>>1209674
>making comic book superheroes out of trees n shit
>not a caricature
Good one Christcuck. Now go back to your dissertation on how 1 is really 3
>>1209694
Just pointing out that "polytheism has no philosophical substance" is a stupid notion. Seeing as how the foundation of western philosophy was built with its influence.
>>1209707
That much we can agree on. Christcucks are mad delusional about being superior to polytheists.
>>1209708
>It just works.
It doesn't work with any measure of human reasoning. It's a square circle or a married bachelor, a contradiction.
This is why every mainstream church claims that it can only be understood through faith and is impossible to understand through reason.
>>1209708
You need to redefine what the word "part" means, and what the word "whole" means to make this nonsense work.
So, go to >>>/trash/ where you belong.
>>1209481
>Why the fuck is monotheism so much more popular than polytheism?
Simplicity. Let me give you a few examples:
1. Cosmogony, in which the universe has one origin, principle, beginning, make any and all other gods secondary by definition. Though (Neo-)Platonism, with forms and emanations are somewhat compelling in explaining further divine beings as a byproduct of the One's overabundance of power (read the Enneads for more).
2. Memorizing the names, in which you have an easier time memorizing "God" and few short prayers containing such name, as it's the only name you absolutely need to know in order to pray, rather than, say:
Jupiter, Juno,
Neptune, Minerva,
Mars, Venus,
Apollo, Diana,
Vulcan, Vesta,
Mercury, Ceres.
And that is just Ennius's and Livy's dodecatheon.
The indigitamenta were huge lists of lesser deities with minor, but specific functions. Why bother looking for Terminus's titles to address him, when you can get rid of the bureaucracy, and just ask "God" to protect your borders?
3. Theomachies. In polytheisms, gods fight one another. Whose side are you even supposed to take? And how can there ever be peace on earth when even in heaven there is murder? One God gets rid of that.
>>1209708
>Nigga it's God, shit doesn't need logic to explain it. It just works.
>>1209722
>It doesn't work with any measure of human reasoning.
Because we're humans, so we can't understand what it means. Shit man I gave you the facts and now you're chimping out over the fact that you can't understand it.
>>1209723
>You need to redefine what the word "part" means, and what the word "whole" means to make this nonsense work.
How about no.
>>1209736
You can claim that it's true all you want, just don't claim that it's understandable.
>>1209736
>How about no.
Off you go, retardo. And ask god to make a rock he can't lift while you're at it, if you think he doesn't have to obey logic.
>>1209742
>You can claim that it's true all you want, just don't claim that it's understandable.
But it is understandable, because I understand it.
>>1209747
>Because we're humans, so we can't understand what it means
>>1209724
Hmm, polytheists in most cultures generally appealed to one patron god or goddess and respected others within the pantheon. You didn't usually see a "Priest of Ra, Set and Anubis", or a city state with "multiple ba'al, or a big temple to "Zeus, Aphrodite and Hermes". It was one at a time, while being aware of the rest and the position and function of each.
That might be the biggest misunderstanding on polytheistic beliefs. No, I'm not one, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
>>1209481
>Why the fuck is monotheism so much more popular than polytheism?
It's simple. They had control over the better, more expansionist civilizations on the planet. This came down to these monotheist religions seeing themselves as a force for universal proselytization before they became a force for civic order and justice, which led them to form political alliances with conquering tribes of Franks, Scandinavians, Slavs, Berbers, Arabs, and Turks.
Polytheist faiths were almost always just civic order philosophies by comparison, usually limited to an enlightened class or ethnicity.
>>1209752
I understand to the best of my abilities, sorry for clarifying.
>>1209752
Why does your friend have a quail egg on her head?
>>1209763
When you described your 'understanding' though it was a logical contradiction. If it doesn't obey the laws of logic how well can it actually be understood? How much 'understanding' do you have of a square circle? It seems to me, you have understanding of a contradiction up to the point that you realize it's a contradiction, and that it doesn't make any sense.
If you're saying you understand through faith, just admit that right off the bat instead of butchering logic with statements like "wholes that are wholes and not parts but make up a whole but are wholes themselves". If you were to set this up within symbolic logic, which this anon did for you, >>1209692
it becomes apparent that this is, to put it generously, beyond human understanding.
>>1209792
>It seems to me, you have understanding of a contradiction up to the point that you realize it's a contradiction, and that it doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make sense, the fact that I defend the contradiction or the fact that the contradiction is still there?
>
If you're saying you understand through faith, just admit that right off the bat instead of butchering logic with statements like "wholes that are wholes and not parts but make up a whole but are wholes themselves"
No, you want me to explain it I'll explain it, it should be led that it can be understood by faith but if you want the actual answer I'll give it to you.
>>1209754
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0o0Jjtvq0Y
>>1209815
With the contradiction still there the statement doesn't make any sense logically. I would say you can't really understand a contradiction since it doesn't adhere to any rules of logic. If I gave you a math problem where 1 + 1 = 1 you would probably say "I don't get it", or something similar, you CAN'T get it.
What understanding through faith means can be defined by the church, but you certainly can't understand it any other way.
>>1209754
>or a big temple to "Zeus, Aphrodite and Hermes"
The Capitoline Triad are Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, or in the earlier version Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus.
Their temple (singular) was on Capitoline Hill.
People need to stop getting their history of theology from Dungeons & Dragons role-playing books.
>>1209844
>What understanding through faith means can be defined by the church, but you certainly can't understand it any other way.
And Church states what I literally just said.
It's because
1. Monotheistic religions tend to be far more "active" in their beliefs and in their roles as social institutions, which is obviously a very attractive trait for those in power seeking to spread their influence/control, and
2. Monotheism is a much more accessible and easier to grasp notion of religion than most polytheism is. If you were trying to convert someone and they asked you what your faith says about the creation of the world, they'd probably be far more likely to believe you if you said "there was one god who made everything" than if you said "well there was a god, who then gave birth to a son, and then he ate his son, but his son broke his own arm off and used that to make a sister.." etc. etc.
>>1209858
Fair enough then, the actual answer doesn't make sense.
>>1209678
Not him, but i don't think they're talking about numbers here.
I.E
Han Solo = Harrison Ford
Indiana Jones = Harrison ford
John Book = Harrison Ford
Han solo =/= Indiana Jones =/= John Book
>>1209896
>Han Solo = Harrison Ford
You know this isn't actually true, right?
>>1209902
>Han Solo isn't played by Harrison Ford
>>1209896
That's modalism, a heresy.
Face it, Christian trinitarianism is a weird one. The whole point of it is that it's not supposed to make sense, but the idea is is that God is above even human conceptions of *being.*
Please don't call Christfags polytheists. If their theology says it's monotheistic, then it's monotheistic. Honestly, why bother taking issue with a logical contradiction in the description of God when you don't even believe in God in the first place?
>>1209912
Do you recognize a difference between the words "played by" and "is"?
>>1209914
>The whole point of it is that it's not supposed to make sense, but the idea is is that God is above even human conceptions of *being.*
Bingo.
>>1209853
>Thinks the exception to the rule is grounds for gotcha
>Thinks Romans did anything but fuck up everyone else's good ideas.
Actually, I think the Roman empire was a little like World of Warcraft, without the pokemon and pandas, but it did have the Arenas, Farmville and Garrisons.
Actually, I'm kidding. It was more like Monopoly.
>>1209896
That's Modalism though, implying that the father, son, and holy spirit are just suits that god wears.
>>1209927
They aren't though. Don't think of it as numbers or people.
>>1209914
>face it
I'm not defending anything, i'm not a christian. Just shed a different perspective on it.
>>1210003
Sorry, I meant to add "anons" after that. I wasn't talking to you specifically, more just the other guys in this thread who are trying to apply logic to a subject that explicitly rejects logical categorization.
>>1209983
You can't really think of it as anything senpai, it doesn't make sense. That's the whole point.
>>1210041
>it doesn't make sense.
It make sense in a sense if you explain it and never dwell on it.
>>1210053
You mean accept it without thinking about it, i.e. faith.
tip tip i don't give a shit
>>1210057
>tip tip i don't give a shit
You should, being an atheist is bad.
>>1209481
Patriarchy
>>1209509
It would make no sense for an atheist to sacrifice themselves for atheism, an atheist believes that they cease to exist after death.
Why would they rob themselves of the opportunity to continue experiencing and enjoying things just so they could feel self-righteous for a few moments? It'd be the ultimate cuck move desu.
The only reason I can think of that an atheist might sacrifice himself for atheism is if he really cares about the well-being of future generations and thinks he can help ensure it by making sure they know the truth and do not have their actions restricted by arbitrary religious rules.
>>1209708
>It just works.
>>1212967
>Todd Howard
>not King Crimson
Come on.
>>1209481
Name one relevant non-Abrahamic monotheistic religion
>>1213031
Zoroastrianism.
>>1209481
Because monotheism, by nature, is universal. If there is one and only one God, then said God must be the supernatural ruler and creator of everything. Thus, said form of worship is accessible to just about anyone, because the monotheists will likely have a view that everyone should acknowledge this deity.
Polytheists, on the other hand ,while not necessarily being so, often have a "these are the gods of people X, and those are the gods of people Y" and thus rise and fall with ethnic groups, and can't easily survive if something destroys the ethnic base of worship.
>>1213513
Heavily influenced by Judaism
>>1213617
More like the other way around, since Zoroastrianism has been around for several centuries longer than Judaism has
![56213dab84c34.image[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JPqzYZK.jpg "56213dab84c34.image[1].jpg")
>>1209530
>respect
I think it goes a bit further than respect, dude
>>1209534
"worshiping" my personal heroes doesn't involve me prostrating myself before them and crying my eyes out while requesting them to put in a good word with God for me. Nor would I keep their body parts in a golden reliquary and fondle them in the hopes that they'd heal my illnesses.
>>1213634
Zoroastrianism was polytheistic before contact with the Jews
>>1213670
No, it was and still is dualistic, before and after Judaism.
>>1213682
Not him, but there's no real evidence for that. The Gathas, as noted above, seem to be extremely polytheistic, referring to dozens of gods.
You don't have any reference of an authorotative Zoroastrian holy text until the 2nd century AD, and the oldest manuscript extant is something like the 12th century. That's a long, long time for a belief system to radically change, given that the Avestas were probably composed in like 1,000 B.C.ish or so.
>>1213685
>You don't have any reference of an authorotative Zoroastrian holy text until the 2nd century AD, and the oldest manuscript extant is something like the 12th century. That's a long, long time for a belief system to radically change, given that the Avestas were probably composed in like 1,000 B.C.ish or so.
So? Oral traditions are still traditions. It's not like anything in Judaism was set in stone at the time, demonstrated by today's Book of Genesis being a compilation of at least 4 different versions, and Deuteronomy added to the Torah centuries after the first books were compiled
>>1213670
I would also make this assertion, but ALOT changed after the "liberation" of Hebrews by Cyrus II post exile (Babylon). Hebrew faith previously didn't have a concept of a duality between Heaven or Hell (Some still did not because they observed only Torah and the rest of the writings, as the prophetic works were not considered on the same level as Torah), "end times" (wars in heaven and final judgement) and other "anticipatory prophecy concept" (wherein prophets were speakers of God's truth, not people with apocalyptic future perspective).
The division is clear by the era of Jesus. The various sects of Judaism in his day (the most prominent of which Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene) were quite literally divided among acceptance of these works. Many academics, if they were challenged to place Jesus and John the Baptist in one or another, generally associate them with the Essenes, who were very involved with the prophetic and other scriptures outside the Torah. The Pharisees observed them but did not incorporate the idealism to the extent of the Essenes. The Saducees were aware of the writings' existence, but didn't put much thought into them. So this is how academics understand Zoroastrian philosophy influenced Judaism.
There were also various sects of Zoroastrian believers. According to Gospel, we see "wise men from the east" or "Magi", having interpreted cosmic signs, appear shortly after Jesus' birth in the vicinity of Bethlehem. "Magi" was the title or label for "priests of Zoroastrianism". So there appears a genuine fusion going on.
>>1209532
>aspects
That's Sabellianism
>>1213711
And the oral tradition of Judaism is that they were monotheists from the get-go. Clearly, you don't hold that one as being too credible. (And I don't blame you)
To claim that Zoroastrianism was really the first monotheistic religion, at least in that part of the world, and it was they that influenced Judaism, requires an enormously low degree of skepticism placed on their own claims as opposed to literally everyone else's religious claims.
>>1213737
Believing that it was Judaism that influenced them requires an even lower degree of scepticism.
>>1213740
Who says Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism? Or that one requires the other?
All I'm saying is that evidence for Zoroastrian monotheism prior to about AD 150 or so is basically nonexistant, and relies pretty much entirely on an oral tradition of a very interested party. It's easily possible for any monotheistic element to have appeared far later, and quite possibly independently. Or influenced by some bizarre chain of events from one to the other and back again.
Pro-tip:
Every Religion or supernatural belief ever involves many relevant figures of varying levels of importance and power with an ultimate being sitting at the top.
>>1213663
>anon has no respect for the dead
Pig disgusting
>>1213737
And the oral tradition of Judaism is that they were monotheists from the get-go
>>1215451
It does. You ever hear of the Midrash? Now, it's not very credible, but Jewish oral traditions extant today insist they were always monotheist from the times of Abraham.
>>1209579
>Islam currently conquering America
not on Trump's watch.
I like how nobody on this thread actually answered the question in a succinct manner.
Monotheism is more popular because people like simplicity. It's an easier package to sell.
>>1213737
Hmm. The Hebrews, by and large, were not monotheistic. In the period you'd concretely call them "Jews", the Hebrews were not monotheistic. They worshiped false gods, built shrines to ba'al (plural) and had Asherah poles, and all this is in the OT.
Also, while I understand it's easy to dispute Adam and Eve ( I see them as the first "people" into whom God breathed souls ), and it's easy to dispute the world deluge ( I think it happened but was localized and the interpretation to think it was world-wide is poor ), it's difficult to write off Noah, who as another name is mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Now I know as well as you some parts of epics are contrived ( looking at you Cyclops and Sirens in Homer ), but something happened there upon which it's likely details were a bit embellished.
So, anyway, "factual Noah" would have been around 2600ish BC ( ? ) and he would predate anything related to Zoroaster. AND anyway, ancient tradition held, to the oldest reckoning of origin, that Zoroaster was a contemporary of Abraham. So, I agree, the Hebrew variety was probably older.
>>1209505
Pantheism
>>1215861
Bitch, what fucking part of Wholes that are Wholes combine to become a Whole don't you get?
One God strikes fear more easily into people
