Talk:Monotheism

1. June 2006 – May 2009

Subjective vs Objective comments

I would stay away from comments like this:

the distinction between worshipping the divine nature of Jesus but not the human nature of Jesus can be difficult for non-Christians (and even Christian laity) to follow.

Personally, I find all the -isms confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deaism

Does not Deaism (as can be defined at ( http://www.mother-god.com/catechism.html ) deserve a place here somewhere? As well perhaps in other articles, such as the one for God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.90.38 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

whether to include "oneness of a God" in the definition

In this edit, EGMichaels changed the opening definition "from the belief in the existence of one deity, or in the oneness of a God" to "the belief that only one Deity exists", with the edit summary "Corrected the meaning of the term". But the original wording was a direct quote from the given source, Encyclopedia Brittanica. I don't know whether Brittanica is correct, but we should either use their definition or use a different source. --Allen (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly article

Any enclypopedia article is supposed to reflect the latest scholarly research. Here the author accepts traditionalist dating of biblical authorship, which is now comprehensively rejected by both Jewish and Christian scholars. The author betrays his literalist position with the passage 'if Deuteronomy is taken as part of the original text as it generally is by those who use it as scripture'. This is a statement of faith, not fact. Scholars date Deuteronomy centuries later. Similaraly he quotes from the prophet Isaiah to demonstrate that the Bible predates Zoroastrian monotheism. In fact Chapter 44, from which he quotes, has long been ascribed to a second author (Deutero Isaiah), who was writing after the Babylonian empire had been destroyed by Cyrus in 537 BCE. By this time Hebrew religion had been heavily influenced by Mesopotamian and Persian religion. Deutero Isaiah's hymn of joy 'Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill made low' could just as well have been written by Zoroaster himself. Doubters are refered to Norman Cohn's authoratitive Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come. Yale 2001.

This article contrasts sharply with other scholarly Wiki offerings on religious developments in this early period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.248 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoroaster Not a Monotheist

I removed the demonstrably untrue statement that suggested Zoroaster could have been the first monotheist. Zoroastrianism was explicitly a dualist religion. Zurvanism is often confused with Zoroastrianism but was NOT the doctrine of the Gathas. CF Boyce *History of Zoroastrianism* Yonderboy (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh PS looks like time to archive this discussion page... Yonderboy (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Zoroaster was a Monotheist

Dear people who are ignorant about the subject, please stop trying to change the facts.

There is less dualism in Zoroastrianism than in Christianism. Indeed, there is no "devil" in Zoroastrianism. The "devil" is "Ahriman", which is actually an "evil spirit". It faces "Spenta Minyiu", which is the "good spirit" (but not God). So the "evil spirit" does not confront God. God is the only supreme Being and its aspects are represented by the seven angels and by the good spirit. Against this good spirit, there is an evil spirit, that man cultivates by doing bad things (cheating, lying, killing, etc.) Man can cultivate this spirit because God created the man free, so it's the man's role to choose between good and bad.

Then, there is no reference to "OTHER AHURAS" in the Gathas. This "other Ahuras" should actually be translated into "the ahuric rays" (the 7 angels). The ONE and ONLY divinity accepted by Zoroaster was Ahura Mazda, The Only Creator. The sentence "You are The Mightiest Ahura" is actually "You are the Mightiest, Ahura Mazda !" exactly like Muslims say "Allah Akbar" saying "Allah is The GreatEST". It only means that there is nothing better than God.

The word "Yazata" is not used one single time in the Gathas.

The "fake gods" is the translation of "daeva", word that still exists in our current Persian (deev) meaning "demon". "Fake gods" is a translation based on the Bible, where the idols, etc. are called "fake gods".

So the one who says Zoroastrianism isn't monotheistic by bringing these irrational and incoherent arguments should also go and claim the Abrahamic religions are not monotheistic.

"Additionally, the Zoroastrian faith includes characteristics different from those found in purely monotheistic worldviews, including the acknowledgment of subordinate nature-spirits and the aspect of the fire being very holy." Come on, most experts claim that your "purely monotheistic worldviews" directly come from Zoroastrianism http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm http://www.buzzle.com/articles/zoroastrianism-the-foundation-of-monotheism.html

Fire is VERY holy ? No, fire is just holy because it is a symbol of light and pureness. In the later Avestan writings (Yasht), the spirit symbolizing it (Arta) is not even quoted as an "angel" or "yazata". Acknowledgment of subordinate nature-spirits ? It is the opposite. Before Zoroastrianism, Iranians (Aryans) venerated nature-spirits like Anahita, etc. Zoroaster came and changed this and did not want anyone to venerate any nature-spirits anymore, it's actually them he called "daevas".

If you don't know the subject, please stop writing articles. Thank you very much and best regards.

--RaheZartosht (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not edited that section and I have not yet reviewed it. However, it really does not matter what editors think, what matters is what experts think and statements made supported by reliable references. If you have them, use them. IF you don't, then it is just bantering opinions, which is not fruitful. -^StormRider 13:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there better sources than http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm and http://www.buzzle.com/articles/zoroastrianism-the-foundation-of-monotheism.html ? Neither seem to fulfill WP:RS. Gabbe (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible and monotheism

I shorted the first paragraph, but the entire section needs to be edited - it's far too long and diffuse. I think, if I were writing it fro scratch, I'd set out the gradual development of monotheism from polytheism, beginning with those passages in Psalms and elsewhere which are clearly polytheistic, then discussing the development of monolatry in passages such as the shema, and finally the emergence of genuine monotheism in the Persian period. I'd also discuss the forces which formed this history - the original Levantine pantheon, the emergence of Yahweh as the god of Israel in the late 7th century, and the impact of the Josianic reforms and then the Bablylonian and Persian period. But perhaps the first step really is to identify sources? - Anchor Bible Dictionary, Day, that sort of thing. PiCo (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is someone else "editing" but I just want to say that this is completely true and Zorastrianism is in fact the first monotheistic religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.251.49 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're probably right, but you'll need a good source to support that. By the way, there were strong elements of quasi-monotheism in ancient Egypt and elsewhere too (actually henotheism and monolatry). Plus perhaps worth mentioning that Islam doesn't regard Christianity as a monotheistic religion. All this needs to be covered. PiCo (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian View?

At the end it say: "Some groups that are self-identified as Christians eschew orthodox theology; such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, the Unitarians, Christadelphians, Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith), Socinian and some of the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists), do not teach the doctrine of the Trinity at all." Are not all Christian groups "self-identified"? Why are we say that some are Christian and some are only "self-identified"?--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That does sound a great deal as if someone is writing from a particular perspective. I am going to be bold and change it to read, "Some Christians eschew orthodox theology...--^StormRider 02:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that "eschew orthodox theology" may also seem to be coming from a particular perspective by some.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

you should be even bolder and remove such obviously essayish bits. If it isn't clearly encyclopedic and clearly dealing with monotheism, it needs to go. This article is a pov-magnet as it is. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Only one faith of one God can exist?

Is there any truly monotheistic religion in the world, which is NOT derived from or connected to the YHWH faith? It appears that all proven unconnected faiths, like hindi, buddhism, shinto, maya, inca, australian aboriginal, etc. are all politheistic.

I would guess that jews' claim to be the one and only "chosen people" means, if true, that there cannot exist any monotheistic religion besides YHWH faith and its derivatives? 91.83.16.58 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)