Monotheism and intolerance

[Zaphod222]

Finally, somebody tells the truth that I hesitate to these days...

What truth?

Are the Copts in Egypt oppressing anybody?

Are the Christians in Nigeria oppressing anyone?

Are the Catholics in the Philippines oppressing anyone?

This bone-headed relativism is really getting about about as ridiculous as 9-11 troothing.

Get real! There is one particual religion that stands out all over the world by its demand to take political power and replace the constitutions of countries with its holy book.

Not "all Abrahamic religions". That is such a pathetic politically correct excuse.

[Frank Merton]

I don't know about the others but I would be careful about making claims on the behavior of the Catholics in the Phillipines.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I have a feeling this thread was started so they people could say "wow. Geez, OP, you are so right. Your insight into monotheism is just so..., well, insightful".

But with that said I'll try and answer the question. I would put it down to power. The OP has already admitted they're only talking about monotheism in power (in particular I'm thinking theocratic power, because even though many Western countries today are majority Christian, they are based on secularism and democracy, rather then theocracy).

So let us examine any culture they has spread itself with the sword. All of them had an underlying desire for more power, land, wealth, resources. It's just the tools that differed. If those in power were polytheistic then when they were conquered they'd keep their beliefs because many gods is not a problem. If those in power were monotheistic, then belief was squashed because there is (in their belief) only one true God.

But at the end of the day, the underlying reason/s was power, not belief.

[Zaphod222]

I have a feeling this thread was started so they people could say "wow. Geez, OP, you are so right. Your insight into monotheism is just so..., well, insightful".

LOL, err yes, I have a similar feeling.

So let us examine any culture they has spread itself with the sword. All of them had an underlying desire for more power, land, wealth, resources. It's just the tools that differed. If those in power were polytheistic then when they were conquered they'd keep their beliefs because many gods is not a problem. If those in power were monotheistic, then belief was squashed because there is (in their belief) only one true God.

But at the end of the day, the underlying reason/s was power, not belief.

Well, so far so good. But what if the belief system INCLUDES power? What if the belief includes specific rules that discriminate against the non-believers? What if the belief system divides the world into the "house of war" (the areas not ruled by this laws of the belief system) and "the house of peace" (the areas ruled by the laws of this belief system)?

Are you then still so sure about your separation between "belief" and "power"?

Methinks you are forgetting that a belief leads to action. So it does matter what people believe in.

[Purplos]

when any one is in power, some one is going to be oppressed..

This. This is such the right and obvious answer and all the rest of the 'that group is meaner than the other group!" mentality is just silly, in my opinion.

And what's the point of the OP anyway? To create or enforce prejudice against the people who practice these religions?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Blame cannot be placed on a faith. You are anthropomorphisizing the faith. Responsibility of wrong lies upon the person committing it not a group that they belong to or a doctrine. If you truely believe religions are entirely fiction and you want to blame that fiction, then you must also blame rap music for gang violence, television snd video games for gun violence, and pornography for rape.

I do not see those analogies at all, as there is no similarity between porn or violence to religion. The problems caused, for instance, by Christianity have occured mostly in the past, a time when the religion was so bound to the people that there was no difference. In Europe before enlightenment, and for some time after, all were Christians, all believed and went to church. The state in all countries was heavily influenced by the religion,and in some states at various historical times was religious, the various Prince Bishops in German lands for instance. It is this total intergration of the religion with the people that set it apart from your examples, and that it was a monotheistic religion sets it apart from the Pagaism that preceded it. People, in my opinion, who rape, do so because it is inate within them to rape. If pornography was the cause, then due to huge amount in existence, I think we would be overwhelmed with rape. And I think the same with computer games. Because I kill hundreds in Stalker does not make me kill anybody in real llife, people who do that are already damaged.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

What truth?

Are the Copts in Egypt oppressing anybody?

Are the Christians in Nigeria oppressing anyone?

Are the Catholics in the Philippines oppressing anyone?

This bone-headed relativism is really getting about about as ridiculous as 9-11 troothing.

Get real! There is one particual religion that stands out all over the world by its demand to take political power and replace the constitutions of countries with its holy book.

Not "all Abrahamic religions". That is such a pathetic politically correct excuse.

You misunderstand me 100%

And I have total contempt for American political correctness or this bizzarre desire to see conspiracies everywhere. You say to me "get real". well. I am real. You do not have to read every thread of course, but if you had read the thread on "Who was Jesus", you would have understood the context behind my post here. But instead you go off about Copts etc. If you had read other threads by me in this forum, you would see that I fear for their safety. If you have to resort to twisting what posters say or mean to suit your needs, then you already lost

Edited August 2, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

...

Edited August 2, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Elfin]

The problem with monotheism is that it is totalitarian. It cannot accept any deviation. There is one true god, and one true way of worshipping him. Hilariously, of course, there are a countless multitude of one true ways, all differing slightly, and all fighting each other. This alone should be enough to set off alarm bells. They all have a holy book, and they all claim the right to tell people how to think.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I rather think that various "defenders of the faith" have simply proved the OP by their replies, such as they are.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Rap music is made up, do we blame rappers for inner city violence?

When my kids started listening to it after about an hour I wanted to kill somebody. My wife saved their lives by making them to use headphones when Dad got home from work.

I think religion is a little different. It has an effect on core moral philosophy. With Abrahamic religions IMO have a rather confusing morality which can be interpreted in many different ways that can range form the insanity of Westbero Baptist to the peaceful spirituality of Quakers. Many Abrahamic religions demand indoctrination of children from the get go that amounts to brainwashing and not giving them to tools to learn to think for themselves.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The problem with monotheism is that it is totalitarian. It cannot accept any deviation. There is one true god, and one true way of worshipping him. Hilariously, of course, there are a countless multitude of one true ways, all differing slightly, and all fighting each other. This alone should be enough to set off alarm bells. They all have a holy book, and they all claim the right to tell people how to think.

Are you aware that most Christian denominations accept each other? It's only the extremesthat demand that they have 100% truth and everyone else is wrong. Many denominations do not dogmatically assert themselves add the only one. For many, 90% similarity us enough. Sometimes even less. As long as the core doctrines are the same we can agree to disagree on minor issues. As said, there are some who think this way but in general the view they there are thousands of denominations all claiming to be the "one true belief" is simply a lie. Most groups have no problem with alternatives, as long as it doesn't affect core doctrines (who is God, who is Jesus, what is sin and salvation, that kind of thing).

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

The problem with monotheism is that it is totalitarian. It cannot accept any deviation. There is one true god, and one true way of worshipping him. Hilariously, of course, there are a countless multitude of one true ways, all differing slightly, and all fighting each other. This alone should be enough to set off alarm bells. They all have a holy book, and they all claim the right to tell people how to think.

And I have understood that you are not specifically writing about Christian denominations and the differences between them, severe enough of course in the past to wage war, but about all religions, that all have a god and usually a book and a path. And I understand that when you write about monotheism, it is disengenous of others to bring in minority faiths who are monotheistic, when there are only two main monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam.

Having read a book about the emperor Justian (the apostate), I was curious about learning more of why he wrote what he did, about what formed his opinions. So, I am reading a new book "The Myth of Persecution" by Candida Moss. Even in only the introduction is sufficient information to expose many lies and intellectually barren arguments put forth by some Galilaeans...

Edited August 2, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Guest]

Are you aware that most Christian denominations accept each other? It's only the extremesthat demand that they have 100% truth and everyone else is wrong. Many denominations do not dogmatically assert themselves add the only one. For many, 90% similarity us enough. Sometimes even less. As long as the core doctrines are the same we can agree to disagree on minor issues. As said, there are some who think this way but in general the view they there are thousands of denominations all claiming to be the "one true belief" is simply a lie. Most groups have no problem with alternatives, as long as it doesn't affect core doctrines (who is God, who is Jesus, what is sin and salvation, that kind of thing).

i think thats a little bit rose tinted when applied to the history of christianity.

Br Cornelius

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I have a feeling this thread was started so they people could say "wow. Geez, OP, you are so right. Your insight into monotheism is just so..., well, insightful".

But with that said I'll try and answer the question. I would put it down to power. The OP has already admitted they're only talking about monotheism in power (in particular I'm thinking theocratic power, because even though many Western countries today are majority Christian, they are based on secularism and democracy, rather then theocracy).

So let us examine any culture they has spread itself with the sword. All of them had an underlying desire for more power, land, wealth, resources. It's just the tools that differed. If those in power were polytheistic then when they were conquered they'd keep their beliefs because many gods is not a problem. If those in power were monotheistic, then belief was squashed because there is (in their belief) only one true God.

But at the end of the day, the underlying reason/s was power, not belief.

At the end of the day the underlying reason for Christianity and Islam to be spread, by the sword or any other means, was for the religion. If an army destroys my city and they have a white flag with a red cross and say they do this in the name of Christ, or they have variously green or black flags with a crescent and say they do this in the name of Allah, then I assure you I am not going to doubt for one nanosecond that they have not done this for their religion. Again the constant disengenuous mantra that no wars are religious, particularly when waged, as they were, in the name of Christ or Allah, and that it is all the fault of "the people". This cuts no ice at all, if somebody does anything in the name of Christ or Allah, then that is the reason they do it, it is not for anybody now to say they were not "real" believers, this is no different to Mormons wanting to make the dead Mormons.

And I repeat, yet again, did Egyptians wage war with Hittites to make them worship Ra?, did Greeks war with Persians to make them worship Zeus?, did Vikings go to war with nearly everybody to make them worship Odin? The answer, as nobody ever has the decency to reply to these questions, is no. All there are are ridiculous arguments that because these various peoples had a religion, then they must, as they were Pagans, have waged war because of their religion, and not the normal reasons of power and recources. We are told time and again that the Crusades were nothing to do with religion, but only about power and pillage. This is laughable, though also tragic. Perhaps those who lie and say Crusades were not about religion, or the crusaders were not "real" Christians, will explain the Children's Crusade. Was this about "power and pillage", were the Muslims in fear of a ragged army of waifs come to steal their treasures? Well, we know it was as the result of a religious indoctrination, and shocking that nobody stopped it, and that those poor misguided children met terrible fates before they even left Europe. That crusade, and the others, was in the name of god, and it is hideous and a damn lie to say otherwise. This agument I put forth is well considered, is shown in the historical record to be the truth, is intellectually honest, yet here it is brushed aside with barely concealed contempt and even hatred from some. I am not wrong, the weight of history and commonsense is behind me. Against me, the forces of denial, anti-intellectualism and reaction.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Frank Merton]

The days of spreading a faith by the sword are long over; nowadays different tactics are needed. Indoctrination of children, however, remains, so some religions try to out breed others and keep control of the schools and public media.

I think the only genuinely valid way to spread one's religion is to not try to spread it.

[+Link of Hyrule]

i think thats a little bit rose tinted when applied to the history of christianity.

Br Cornelius

Perhaps as history goes. However, the post I was replying to was written in the present tense - there ARE countless denominations (not "were"), all differing (not "differed"), all fighting (not "fought"). The poster was clearly and unambiguously referring to the thousands of denominations and beliefs in the modern religious landscape.

And onthat stand by my comment, of the thousands of Christian denominations, it is fair to say that most of them embrace each other as fellow Christians. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Assemblies of God, Hillsong, Church of Christ, Uniting Church, thousands of non-denominational churches, heck even the Roman Catholics are often seen as holding the core truths of Jesus (though some protestants aren't so forgiving). Though some are possibly not truly teaching Christ (some pentecostal churches measure salvation by the expression of the Holy Spirit rather than faith in Christ, for example). Only the fundamentally incompatible beliefs like Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses are actively . And sure there are always exceptions, where one independent church will say they are the ONLY church with the truth. But to point at the large number of denominations and say that they're all fighting to show themselves the one and only is just wrong. Either a complete lack of understanding of what churches and denominations believe, our a flat out lie.

[+Link of Hyrule]

@ Tutankhaten - There's a computer game (several years old now) called Total War. Set in mediaeval times you take control of an empire with the goal of total dominance. As the ruler, you choose what wars to campaign, and which to leave. You also choose how that war is fought. A normal war against tribal neighbors has your army travelling through the land, every note and then as you pass a village our town someone volunteers to conscript. However, if you market the war as a holy crusade, you'll get an almost uncontrollable mass of people clamouring to join.

I know this is just a game, but it reflects what happened during that time period. Market a war as a border dispute, hardly anyone shows. Market a campaign for God and a multitude shows.

Is religion the cause of the war, or the justification for the war? To the common pleb, the cause. To those who start it, it's a power grab, and religion was a useful tool to achieve that goal.

Power, that's what it comes down to.

[Elfin]

Perhaps as history goes. However, the post I was replying to was written in the present tense - there ARE countless denominations (not "were"), all differing (not "differed"), all fighting (not "fought"). The poster was clearly and unambiguously referring to the thousands of denominations and beliefs in the modern religious landscape.

And onthat stand by my comment, of the thousands of Christian denominations, it is fair to say that most of them embrace each other as fellow Christians. Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Assemblies of God, Hillsong, Church of Christ, Uniting Church, thousands of non-denominational churches, heck even the Roman Catholics are often seen as holding the core truths of Jesus (though some protestants aren't so forgiving). Though some are possibly not truly teaching Christ (some pentecostal churches measure salvation by the expression of the Holy Spirit rather than faith in Christ, for example). Only the fundamentally incompatible beliefs like Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses are actively . And sure there are always exceptions, where one independent church will say they are the ONLY church with the truth. But to point at the large number of denominations and say that they're all fighting to show themselves the one and only is just wrong. Either a complete lack of understanding of what churches and denominations believe, our a flat out lie.

Your grudging recognition of Catholics, with lots of caveats, plus your less than overwhelming acceptance of others, and rejection of yet others, rather confirm my point than otherwise. Christians are all about proclaiming who is, and who is not a Christian. Methodists, Anglicans, ok, perhaps even Catholics if we're feeling generous, Pentacostalists, maybe, but definitely not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, this, that and the other. I'm sure they have their opposing opinions too. Pathetic.

[Elfin]

@ Tutankhaten - There's a computer game (several years old now) called Total War. Set in mediaeval times you take control of an empire with the goal of total dominance. As the ruler, you choose what wars to campaign, and which to leave. You also choose how that war is fought. A normal war against tribal neighbors has your army travelling through the land, every note and then as you pass a village our town someone volunteers to conscript. However, if you market the war as a holy crusade, you'll get an almost uncontrollable mass of people clamouring to join.

I know this is just a game, but it reflects what happened during that time period. Market a war as a border dispute, hardly anyone shows. Market a campaign for God and a multitude shows.

Is religion the cause of the war, or the justification for the war? To the common pleb, the cause. To those who start it, it's a power grab, and religion was a useful tool to achieve that goal.

Power, that's what it comes down to.

It's probably best not to get one's history from games.

Pagan empires, like Ancient Rome before it was taken over, never invoked religion in their conquests. Chistian empires regularly did. Why is this?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

@ Tutankhaten - There's a computer game (several years old now) called Total War. Set in mediaeval times you take control of an empire with the goal of total dominance. As the ruler, you choose what wars to campaign, and which to leave. You also choose how that war is fought. A normal war against tribal neighbors has your army travelling through the land, every note and then as you pass a village our town someone volunteers to conscript. However, if you market the war as a holy crusade, you'll get an almost uncontrollable mass of people clamouring to join.

I know this is just a game, but it reflects what happened during that time period. Market a war as a border dispute, hardly anyone shows. Market a campaign for God and a multitude shows.

Is religion the cause of the war, or the justification for the war? To the common pleb, the cause. To those who start it, it's a power grab, and religion was a useful tool to achieve that goal.

Power, that's what it comes down to.

So that's it then, no wars ever fought for religion, Crusades were fought for power and loot, including Children's crusade, now clearly composed of professional soldiers out for power and loot, no religion involved whatsoever, eh......

Never in my experience have I found this bizzare view about Crusades and other obviously religious wars. Nobody, no books, no documentaries, nothing, repeat this twisted view that religion, and specifically the Christian religion, does not go to war because of it's religion. It is only here on this site from a handful of people that I have encountered this counter-factual view. People here can continue to believe the unbelievable if they wish, but for the sake of my sanity I now distance myself from this "Alice through the Looking Glass" world I seem to have entered here.

As for Total War, I still play it, Shogun II at the moment, and eagerly await Rome II shortly.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[+Link of Hyrule]

Your grudging recognition of Catholics, with lots of caveats, plus your less than overwhelming acceptance of others, and rejection of yet others, rather confirm my point than otherwise. Christians are all about proclaiming who is, and who is not a Christian. Methodists, Anglicans, ok, perhaps even Catholics if we're feeling generous, Pentacostalists, maybe, but definitely not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, this, that and the other. I'm sure they have their opposing opinions too. Pathetic.

And none of that takes away from the point I made - most Christian denominations allow for differences in non-essential doctrines. To say otherwise is simply wrong. You are, of course, free to your opinion that it is "pathetic". As long as you are aware that it is just an opinion.

It's probably best not to get one's history from games.

Pagan empires, like Ancient Rome before it was taken over, never invoked religion in their conquests. Chistian empires regularly did. Why is this?

I'm not taking history from computer games, I was citing a well known game that portrays a truth about calling for a holy war.

As to your second question, I already answered that in the very first post I made in this thread. It's back on page 4, I'm posting from my phone and it's simply too time consuming to go beck and repeat it. Go back and check it out, it explains why God was used as a tool of conquest in monotheism but not polytheism.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

So that's it then, no wars ever fought for religion, Crusades were fought for power and loot, including Children's crusade, now clearly composed of professional soldiers out for power and loot, no religion involved whatsoever, eh......

Re-read my post, I think you're overlooking my point. I'm saying that for the ruling class, it was about power. For the regular pleb ("pleb" - commoner), they viewed it as a religious war and so it was sent down in history as such.

About the Children's Crusade, a quick search made it seem like the stories are apocryphal and refer to a movement of both adults and children. And if I read correctly, the origin of the idea was to be a peaceful missionary act they led to child slavery. Ergo, the intention was that no one would commit violence. The fact that people did, is that religion or people?

Never in my experience have I found this bizzare view about Crusades and other obviously religious wars. Nobody, no books, no documentaries, nothing, repeat this twisted view that religion, and specifically the Christian religion, does not go to war because of it's religion. It is only here on this site from a handful of people that I have encountered this counter-factual view. People here can continue to believe the unbelievable if they wish, but for the sake of my sanity I now distance myself from this "Alice through the Looking Glass" world I seem to have entered here.

I'm not saying religion played no part. What I'm saying is that religion was a tool used to justify war. Those in power wanted more power. They did this by eliminating the competition. For those in power it was a political decision, for everyone else it was about religion.

But if those in power didn't manipulate the situation, would it still be seen today add a religious war? Sure, it's a tragic part of history. We should learn from it and move on, rather then pointing the fingers and playing the blame game.

As for Total War, I still play it, Shogun II at the moment, and eagerly await Rome II shortly.

Didn't know there was a Rome II. I've been out of the PC market for a while. If I do play these days it's almost always console.

[Elfin]

And none of that takes away from the point I made - most Christian denominations allow for differences in non-essential doctrines. To say otherwise is simply wrong. You are, of course, free to your opinion that it is "pathetic". As long as you are aware that it is just an opinion.

I'm not taking history from computer games, I was citing a well known game that portrays a truth about calling for a holy war.

As to your second question, I already answered that in the very first post I made in this thread. It's back on page 4, I'm posting from my phone and it's simply too time consuming to go beck and repeat it. Go back and check it out, it explains why God was used as a tool of conquest in monotheism but not polytheism.

"Non-essential doctrinal differences"? As defined by who?

The monotheistic so called "God" has been used in holy wars because he inspires murderous intolerance in his devotees.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Re-read my post, I think you're overlooking my point. I'm saying that for the ruling class, it was about power. For the regular pleb ("pleb" - commoner), they viewed it as a religious war and so it was sent down in history as such.

Well, I rather think that your position in this affair is that of a very tiny minority. I think if anybody on the street were asked why the crusades took place, you would find it difficult to find any in agreement with you. I would like to see a poll of historians over this affair. There were plenty of wars about power, but the crusades were unique, the Thirty Years Wars was unique, and what set them apart from all the other countless wars is that they were specifically about religion, without religion these wars would not have taken place. How is it that on this forum this is ignored or twisted to a degree that I find very shocking. Anybody will of course defend their own religion or political position, but you seem to be defending Christianity to such an extent that reality is thrown out the window, I really cannot say more on this, it is simply too bizarre. This for me is a zero sum game, so, knowing the weight of history is behind me, I leave this to others.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri