Talk:Monolatrism

Untitled

The gods that he/she... feels membership with... This needs rephrasing—feels an affinity to, or of whose people he/she considers himself/herself a member. To feel membership with a person or god isn't an English phrase.—Copey 2 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Definition

As a former student of Comparative Religion I would like to offer an alternative definition for Monolatry and Monolatrous. These are rarely used terms but I have always used them and heard them used (or so it seemed) in another sense.

Monolatrism (Alternative Definition) is the belief that one singular supreme diety is represented by and acts through several lesser dieties. One example would be Hinduism where all gods are manifestations of Atman.

A better example (and the only one I can find a citation to support my useage) might be Ancient Egypt, where all gods were acting on behalf of Netjer and bore the title "names of Netjer".

[1]

-- But this is not 100% historically verifiable, it is a belief system which Kemetic Orthodoxy has chosen to support. --

If I am not mistaken, "Monolatrism" is not a word; the correct term is "Monolatry," which means the belief that although other gods exist, only one particular god is to be worshipped. Evidence of the pre-monotheistic character of early Hebrew religion can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in e.g. the Ten Commandments' Second Commandment: "You may not worship other gods before Me." 66.108.145.155 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

If we had some dictionary citations to back up the change, it would be very easy to move the article to Monolatry. -Acjelen 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked several dictionaries at work (a public library). The results clearly support having monolatry as the word. The OED 2nd ed. (1989) gives monolatry and not monolatrism, as do the second editions of the New Oxford American Dictionary (2000) and the Random House Dictonary of the English Language (1987). The fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (2005) gives neither. Webster's Third and the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion both have a see reference at monolatry and do not give monolatrism.

If we want to move to Monolatry, we'll have to request a move or get an admin to do it. -Acjelen 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Thou art God alone." How does that prove existence of othergods?I believe it contradicts it.New Babylon.

The "Thou art God alone" actually comes later in the Hebrew Bible where the monolatry of the people has transitted or is in the transition to a fully realized monotheism. The texts of the 10 Commandments do clearly show that the earliest Israelites do have some form of monolatry. This can also be called henotheism as mentioned below. --

To the student of comparative religion: Would that not be a form of henotheism or polytheism, even? What about those who believe there is more than one deity but that deity is supreme above all others and have little to no connection to the rest of them?

Monolatrism in early Hebrew belief

Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, as the early Hebrews did, is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article. Abe Froman 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal

Is there any difference between monolatry and henotheism? If, as it seems, the meaning is the same but they're used in different contexts, I think we should merge the two. Any comments? --Εξαίρετος (msg) 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea, because henotheism is a neologism coined by a contemporary scholar. Abe Froman 17:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally see how it could be a problem. According to this article, and comparing it to henotheism, monolatry may even be a younger word than henotheism. Aside from this, henotheism describes monolatry as an aspect of henotheism. 74.77.124.236 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

two sections

While the article has seen great improvements lately, the sectons In ancient Israel and In Judaism need to be combined as they cover the same topic. -Acjelen 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually the two are related but do not refer to the same. The former is the very early stages of a development that would lead, among other things, to the latter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1 Cor 8:5 - two versions

I was just reading the article today and saw that the Mormonism section and the Christianity section both quote 1 Cor 8:5, but they read differently. The LDS version is the King James Version of the New Testament; what is the other?

Also, we should never quote scripture and assume that everyone interprets the verse the same way; i.e. do not use primary sources. This current situation is a perfect example. What is needed in both sections is a quote from a reliable source that provides an interpretation for both sections. Thoughts?--Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LDS section moved here

I have moved the following section here until such time as there is something that makes it of value:

"The Apostle Paul indicated that although there are gods many and lords many, to Christians there is but one god (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6). This appears to be a proclamation of monolatry rather than monotheism."

"Jews at the time of Jesus were not monotheists, that is, only believed in the existence of one god, but were instead involved in monolatry, that is, the worship of one god. The distinction is important. In many places, the Bible tacitly acknowledges the existence of more than one deity, but does not sanction the worship of more than one god."

First of all, the editor has quoted a book review. The book review is not a statement about LDS beliefs, but a critique of an article that a critic of the LDS Church attempts to describe the concepts of Christology in the Book of Mormon, part of the LDS canon. Second, it seems unhelpful to quote the article, but then say nothing; as if the quotes are self explanatory. I find them insufficient. Third, the topic is monolatrism and this section should explain why it belongs or how it is applicable to the topic. Does anyone have any ideas? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rashi and the Shema ?

I think it's absolutely relevant to explicitly look in the article at whether the Shema, the most prominent declaration in Jewish practice of the Oneness of God, is compatible with Monolatry rather than out-and-out Monotheism.

But at the moment I am not clear what exactly thesis Rashi's comment

The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9).

is being used to support.

A quote in the article claims "there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C." Then we blithely continue "This was recognised by Rashi..."

But as somebody wrote above, "Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, ... is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article".

Different readings I guess are:

"YHVH is our God, YHVH alone"

"YHVH is our God, YHVH is the only [God]"

"YHVH is our God, YHVH is unlike any other" ?

I'm not sure that Rashi is incompatible with (2).

IMO it would indeed be good to look at this example more closely, and at what various commentators (particularly those not necessarily just "teaching the party line") have had to say about the Shema, if [[WP:RS]s can be found. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In ancient Israel

"However, due to lack of understanding of the original text, most points are considered invalid and not congruent with Jewish teachings."

This sentence is biased, because it looks like it implies that the points are considered invalid because they are incompatible with Jewish teachings.

Considered invalid by whom? By Jewish teachings? Of course they are. Biblical criticism is a scientific approach, Jewish teaching is a religion.

I think the author should add WHO considers those points invalid and also separate that from the fact that they are incompatible with Jewish techings.

Yingele (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This article misses the point...

Monolatry is being treated as one of the -isms. It is NOT and the correct article should be at Monolatry, not monolatrism. The 'isms' all deal with belief, not practice. So if the opposite of theism is atheism, then one could say the opposite of monolatry is idolatry . So to say that someone who practices monolatry worships only one god, but believes in te existence of more than one god is reading more into the statement than is there. Consider the examples below:

• Adam believes in one god and worships him (or her).
• Brian believes in more than one god, but worships only one.
• Charlie isn't sure if there is a god, but worships God out of faith.
• David believes in God, but really doesn't practice any faith.

So given the examples above, Adam, Brian, and Charlie all practice monolatry (that is they all worship one god) even though Adam is monotheistic, Brian is henotheistic, and Charlie is some sort of theistic agnostic. David; like Adam, is monotheistic but doesn't practice monolatry because he is irreligious.

Bottom Line: Monolatry = single worship greek: mono(single) + latreia(worship). I do acknowledge that monolatry is often used to refer to those who believe there may be (or are) more than one god (because monolatry is a 'weaker' term than monotheism), but this article needs to acknowledge the differences. VictorianMutant (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian section

Why is there a random section on Christianity? It doesn't really add anything to the article on monolatry. Shouldn't really be there. ArdClose (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the New World Translation indicate a stong POV that is unencyclopedic. 75.201.3.191 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I second the above. There needs to be a flag inserted there indicating that a citation is needed. --Sierkejd (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I came onto this talk page solely to see what was up with that JW section. I'll be bold and delete it--even if it's true, the article gives us no reason to believe such. Discuss here. --Mrcolj (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)