There’s no point in arguing someone like you who has zero understanding and is not ready to educate himself on the subject.
Ditto?
refuse the evidence in favour of opinions
You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.
There’s tons of books on this, and the mechanisms the theories suppose are very clearly written out in excerpts of those books, since you’re clearly nor a person with the ability to read an entire book.
Anecdotal…
First off, “oldest”?
Learn to read…“one of the oldest”
Way to avoid the topic though.
reasons for why monotheism sucks began in early henotheism, which is a word I bet my left ball you don’t even know the meaning off
Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…
won’t change the consensus on the matter, lil guy.
Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.
Atenisn mono- or polytheistic?
Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?
Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.
I don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.
You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.
We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult. Assmann claims – a point that is not fully clear to me – that monotheism marked a separation between religion and state while they remained indistinct under polytheism. In the Egyptian case, the Pharaoh acted as god’s deputy on earth. Assuming a distinction between heaven and earth, the Pharaoh maintained order on earth, on behalf of the gods in heaven. The state thus assumes religious authority and its power becomes absolute. Monotheism challenged and overthrew precisely this absolutism by introducing a separation between religion and state:
Religion is now constituted as a sphere with its own normativity, which might even override the political normativity of the state.
Criticism of monotheism has occurred throughout history. Critics have described monotheism as a cause of ignorance, oppression, and violence.
The intolerance of narrow monotheism is written in letters of blood across the history of man from the time when first the tribes of Israel burst into the land of Canaan. The worshippers of the one jealous God are egged on to aggressive wars against people of alien [beliefs and cultures]. They invoke divine sanction for the cruelties inflicted on the conquered. The spirit of old Israel is inherited by Christianity and Islam, and it might not be unreasonable to suggest that it would have been better for Western civilization if Greece had moulded it on this question rather than Palestine.
You’re just regurgitating things you literally pull out of your arse. Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t. And you’re not willing to look at the materials I giving. So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence, and the rhetoric you try to use is ridiculous as fuck: “Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire.”
That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D
Thanks for the entertainment, but please realise that you’re just doing this because you want a debate, not because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.
don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.
When you write academic papers, do you just add entire books as sources? No, you supply evidence within the book that reinforces your argument. Just simply pointing at a book and saying that is my evidence is just a poor attempt to appeal to authority.
You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.
Again, you’re pretending that giving someone a title of a book is an academically honest way to supply supporting evidence to a statement.
And based upon the “evidence” that you have supplied that isn’t behind a paywall, I’d highly doubt they’re making the same definitive conclusion you have.
My initial rebuttal still stands. We don’t have the same quality of sources or cultural context for polytheistic societies to make adequate comparative studies. Even if we did, terms like progressive and tolerance are still too subjective to blanket different social and cultural mores too.
And finally it is exceedingly rare for an actual consensus about historical social motivations. There is no overall consensus that polytheistic are more progressive or tolerant, as there is no consensus on just how impactful religion is to societies. For every 4 books you can find about this specific topic, I can find 10 more over the theory of historic materialism that claims religion is just window dressing.
We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult.
Yes professor, you see this blog I found …
The primary claim in that blog is that political and religious violence are independent of each other. This is not a provable claim.
Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t.
Again, I am talking about history. You are the one who is trying to force this conversation into a theological one. As I said, I am completely uninterested in your realm of fantasy outside of its historical context.
So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence,
Just denying something… You’re the one making the claim here.
Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire."
Lol, keep on purposely misinterpreting… You are the one who defined tolerance as less violent, and now you’re mad your definition is so easy to disprove.
That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D
Lol, do you want a redo? How about you try defining tolerance again in a way that’s less subjective?
because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.
Lol, this was about history. I’m sorry you don’t know any methodology that can be found outside of the philosophy department of a liberal arts building.
You are presenting philosophical theory as fact, which is just academically dishonest. People are free to make their case, but you are forming definitive conclusions, and you should know that’s just illogical even in philosophy.
Ditto?
You haven’t given me any evidence that supports your argument. You’re just rambling about philosophy.
Anecdotal…
Learn to read…“one of the oldest”
Way to avoid the topic though.
Lol, that excited to become eunuch? Henotheism probably isn’t going to be an unfamiliar concept if I’ve already mentioned dualism…
Lol, I’m just correctting you. You’re the one whos relinquishing themselves with ad hominem. Also, ya haven’t established there’s a consensus, you’re just saying trust me bro.
Neither… You do know that history isn’t some walled garden that only Scandinavian have access too, right?
Just because I don’t partake in your pet philosophical theory doesn’t’t mean I can’t enjoy reading history.
I don’t understand the mental gymnastics needed to say “you haven’t provided any evidence” when I’ve told you the arguments, who made them, why and where you can read more about them.
You’re pretending as if you don’t know how to use a search engine. Or open links, for that matter.
https://books.google.fi/books?id=S1tQ5Larst0C&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9P4TU-0zEs8C&redir_esc=y
Arvind Sharma, “A Primal Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization
https://devayasna.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/a-theory-of-polytheism-2/
We have noted in a previous blog that polytheism distinguished between justice and cult while monotheism merged them and projected justice itself as the true cult. Assmann claims – a point that is not fully clear to me – that monotheism marked a separation between religion and state while they remained indistinct under polytheism. In the Egyptian case, the Pharaoh acted as god’s deputy on earth. Assuming a distinction between heaven and earth, the Pharaoh maintained order on earth, on behalf of the gods in heaven. The state thus assumes religious authority and its power becomes absolute. Monotheism challenged and overthrew precisely this absolutism by introducing a separation between religion and state:
Religion is now constituted as a sphere with its own normativity, which might even override the political normativity of the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_monotheism
Criticism of monotheism has occurred throughout history. Critics have described monotheism as a cause of ignorance, oppression, and violence.
You’re just regurgitating things you literally pull out of your arse. Have you ever taken a single course of theology, or studied it independently? I can bet you haven’t. And you’re not willing to look at the materials I giving. So you’re asserting something, without an explanation, without evidence, and the rhetoric you try to use is ridiculous as fuck: “Oh polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism? Well explain the mongol empire.”
That’s honestly the “best” strawman I’ve seen this year. It’s ludicrous, and the cherry on top is that you larp someone who understands how rhetoric works. :D
Thanks for the entertainment, but please realise that you’re just doing this because you want a debate, not because you know anything about either philosophy or religion.
When you write academic papers, do you just add entire books as sources? No, you supply evidence within the book that reinforces your argument. Just simply pointing at a book and saying that is my evidence is just a poor attempt to appeal to authority.
Again, you’re pretending that giving someone a title of a book is an academically honest way to supply supporting evidence to a statement.
And based upon the “evidence” that you have supplied that isn’t behind a paywall, I’d highly doubt they’re making the same definitive conclusion you have.
My initial rebuttal still stands. We don’t have the same quality of sources or cultural context for polytheistic societies to make adequate comparative studies. Even if we did, terms like progressive and tolerance are still too subjective to blanket different social and cultural mores too.
And finally it is exceedingly rare for an actual consensus about historical social motivations. There is no overall consensus that polytheistic are more progressive or tolerant, as there is no consensus on just how impactful religion is to societies. For every 4 books you can find about this specific topic, I can find 10 more over the theory of historic materialism that claims religion is just window dressing.
Yes professor, you see this blog I found …
The primary claim in that blog is that political and religious violence are independent of each other. This is not a provable claim.
Again, I am talking about history. You are the one who is trying to force this conversation into a theological one. As I said, I am completely uninterested in your realm of fantasy outside of its historical context.
Just denying something… You’re the one making the claim here.
Lol, keep on purposely misinterpreting… You are the one who defined tolerance as less violent, and now you’re mad your definition is so easy to disprove.
Lol, do you want a redo? How about you try defining tolerance again in a way that’s less subjective?
Lol, this was about history. I’m sorry you don’t know any methodology that can be found outside of the philosophy department of a liberal arts building.
You are presenting philosophical theory as fact, which is just academically dishonest. People are free to make their case, but you are forming definitive conclusions, and you should know that’s just illogical even in philosophy.