From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The introduction[edit]

please exclude "advaita, dvaita and visishtadvaita" out. Monotheism isn't just the belief in one God. Pantheism and Monism and several other forms of theisms also believe in "one God". The word "God" has numerous definitions. Monotheism is characterized by Abrahamic religions. Advaita, Dvaita, Visishtadvaita are all philosophical schools of thought and none of them fall within Monotheism. Advaita is Monism, Visishtadvaita is Qualified Monism and Dvaita perhaps is arguably Monotheism. But that is not the case because within it as well there are multiple Gods and Goddesses who have a heirarchy in which Vishnu stands the Highest. These Gods and Goddesses are represented by idols. They are anthropomorphic-zoomorphic. They copulate and reproduce. They interact with each other. Sometimes engaging in fights etc. They manifest to ordinary mortals also. These are all considered to be against Monotheism. Therefore it is improper and misleading to include them. Furthermore in the Dvaita tradition, its founder, Madhvacharya, is considered to be an incarnation of Vayu or Hanuman, who is a God but subordinate to Vishnu along with others.

Monotheism is the belief in a single God. There is a strict distinction between the Creator and creation. No images are allowed. God is single, with a unity is His being, and without any likeness. Jews and Muslims speak of God, Yahweh or Allah, as a single God. A Supreme Being. And would see the aforementioned Hindu beliefs as idolatry, polytheism and heresy.

In the Puranas, the Hindu Gods and Goddesses command each other, usually the respective Deities who are central to a specific Purana being superior and the others being inferior. Like for example in the Shiva Purana, Shiva commands Brahma and Vishnu and they obediently oblige to his authority and supremacy. Whereas in the Devi Bhagavata Purana, Durga says all other Gods are created by her and are all due to her lila(divine play) etc

Therefore it is beyond any doubr that atleast these schools of thought within Hinduism do not fall under Monotheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend only the 'major' religions are listed here in the introduction (major defined by number of practising believers from definitive statistical sources - e.g. UN, etc.). Otherwise there are raft of syncretic and 'modern' monotheistic religions that have not been listed here (e.g. the syncretic Christian religions of the New Zealand Maori, etc.). I have no sources for this proposition; it is axiomatic. cocosmooth (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Subjective vs Objective comments[edit]

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 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Does not Deaism (as can be defined at ( ) deserve a place here somewhere? As well perhaps in other articles, such as the one for God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether to include "oneness of a God" in the definition[edit]

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)

Monotheism does not deny existance of other gods, but emphasises the importance of one over all others. This should be included in your definitions. (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Christianity, Islam, and Mosaicity (Judaism) are not monotheistic but are monolatric. (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a scholarly article[edit]

Any encyclopedia 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 (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoroaster Not a Monotheist[edit]

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[edit]

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

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 and ? Neither seem to fulfill WP:RS. Gabbe (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Source about monotheism or pantheism of Zoroaster[edit]

Please give a source about Zoroastrianism being pantheic or monotheic. In the following source monotheism is evident.

from [1]:

Zoroaster’s teachings were a sharp break with previous local traditions, including:
  • Ahura Mazda was the only god to be worshipped. The previous tradition was polytheistic.
  • Wisdom being a defining trait of the new supreme god. Traditionally, local gods were nature-gods primarily defined by strength and power.
  • The new religion was to be a religion of righteousness. It specifically focused on correct living and genuine piety rather than stringent ritual aimed at placating the gods.

Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that early Zoroastrianism could be different to what practised later (Sassanids) Sohale (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible and monotheism[edit]

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 (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?[edit]

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)

Is Christianity Monotheistic?[edit]

Monotheism means believing that there is only one God. Leaving aside the question of the Trinity, if Christians believe in other spiritual powers whether good (eg angels) or evil (eg demons) how can they be said to be monotheistic? Isn't Satan a kind of evil god? Or does being a monotheist depend on whether you worship such an entity or not, rather than believing in its existence? I find this perplexing. (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Monotheists such as Jews and Christians believes in an Almighty God who never had and will never have any peer. Psalms 82:6 is one of several scriptures which refer to angels as "gods" to emphasize that a mere angel (literally "messenger") of the biblical God is as powerful as any of the so-called gods of the pagans.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
...and yet recognises the existance of other gods. There does not exist any religion that believes that only one god exists. Insistance upon the superiority of a god should not be rewritten as belief in the existance of one god, regardless of what the lay person has been taught or believes. (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing "monotheism" and henotheism. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Christianity is more henotheistic than monotheistic, but still is monolatric. That monotheistic religions even exist is a misconception by the masses--which does not make it correct. Though common education is made avaliable today, common belief does not supercede fact. (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have concluded, in my unstudied manner, that modern Christianity is not monotheistic but dualistic as much (perhaps more than half) of the world's events are attributed to Satan. One could objectively quantify this by questioning Christians not on their dogma but on their interpretation of the ultimate causes of their worlds -- I would guess that those in my childhood Nazarene church would attribute far more of the world to Satan than to God. It seems that to modern Christians God is only the God of Good and Love, and has been separated from the terrible events of the world that the Old Testament God, and perhaps the American God-to-be-feared of only several generations ago. As I see it, somebody has to pick up the causal slack, and once again old Lucifer is willing to do the dirty work, and so most Christians now are solidly dualistic. I guess this argument suggests that one can define a god by duck-typing rather than questioning one's explicit belief structure in abstract terms: if it quacks like a God, walks a God, and swims like a God, it is a God. (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Trinitarian Christianity[edit]

Mainstream trinitarian Christianity does not qualify under the definition given for "an exclusive monotheism". There is postulated a unity among the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, but still there are three persons in the trinity. Trinitarian Christianity does not qualify in the way Judaism and Islam does. -- (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Only one faith of one God can exist?[edit]

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? (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism is not a "faith", it is a theological position. It is the very simple concept that the an absolute notion of a "supreme being" is meaningful and that it does have an application to a real being. What sort of "faith" you want to attach to that, i.e. worship, celebration, prayer, folklore, claims of incarnations, avatars, historical miracles or what have you goes beyond the theological claim. These are other aspects of religion unrelated to whether the religion under consideration is monotheistic.

So yes, there is only one kind of monotheism in the same sense that there is only one kind of proton. If you come up with another 'sort of proton', you should call it something different. While there is only a single concept of monotheism, there are of course any number of religions that are monotheistic, because any religion is much more than its mere theology. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an answer! The question was: did monotheism develop anywhere else in the world, in a way that had proven absolutely no connection to jews and their YHWH faith? For an absurd example, did the antarctican penguins develop monotheism millenia before any explorers arrived? It does appear there is no monotheistic religion on Earth, which is proven underived from the YWHW / Moses system!
The thing that comes nearest, the short-lived egyptian Sun God religion, artificially created by the pharaoh to unseat the politheistic priest class, appears to be a direct copycat of the YHWH faith as practiced by the jews in egyptian captivity.
The wikipedia article should make it very clear whether or not there exist any created-from-zero monotheistic religion, which is proven unconnected to the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is a totally important issue! (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an academic question, but one example of a monotheistic religion that predates the Abrahamic religions is Zoroastrianism. In fact, some scholars state very clearly that Zoroastrianism influenced the Abrahamic religion. Which was the very first monotheistic religion? You might want to read The Great Transformation - The Beginning of our Religious Traditions by Karen Armstrong. Monotheism is one of its topics. I hope this helps. --StormRider 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
How does 5th century BCE predate monotheism???EGMichaels (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There was the short-lived reform by Pharaoh Akhenaten in Egypt, who made Aten (the sun disc) the only god. It is unclear whether it predates Judaism or not, and connections between them are debated. Contrary to what the anon said, this was not fully artificially created, since the solar aspects of religion became already more and more emphasized under Akhenaten's predecessors, it's only that the solar religion reached its pinnacle under his reign. – Alensha talk 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You will find that some scholars debate the monotheism of early Judaism. I am not reflecting my own opinion but the statements of scholars as I remember them or as I read them. --StormRider 00:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

First Monotheistic Religion & History of Monotheism[edit]

I have two matters to bring up about this page.

The first is a question: what is the first monotheistic religion? When I was younger, I was under the impression that Judaism was the first religion to believe in only one god, or at least the first one to have any sort of broad significance (by which I mean that, although statistically Judaism has always had a relatively small percentage of followers, its derived religions Christianity and Islam have had huge influences on the world). Then I learned of Zoroastrianism, which I was told had influenced many of the beliefs of Judaism. Which religion came first, Judaism or Zoroastrianism? And were they possibly preceded by a less prominent monotheistic religion?

The second issue I'd like to bring up is a suggestion: I think it would be a good idea to have a section detailing the history of monotheism. Any feedback regarding this would be nice.

--The Self Devouring Snake. (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


It should be stated that the majority of Vaishnavites believe in Vishnu as the supreme God. The post on Krishna is a purely ISKCON perspective.Domsta333 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oneness Pentacostal under 'christianviews'[edit]

"The Oneness Pentecostals believe the doctrine of the Trinity is not orthodox theology, and they adhere to the teachings of the Apostles from the times of the New Testament writings before the Council of Nicaea, which taught that God is a Spirit and is one, and Jesus was the visible manifestation of that Spirit"

This obvious POV, as well as factually in error, I am editing to something along the lines that 'Oneness Pentecostals accept the deity of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit they beleive that there is one God, a singular spirit who manifests himself in many different ways, including as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This contrasts with the creedal formulation of three distinct and eternal persons in one being'. This info is off of the 1nes pentecostal intro so assume it is correct, the 'teachings of the apostles from the NT' and God is a spirit and is one, Jesus is a manifestation of said God is an interpretation, it may or may not be true, but it is an opinion. And also as for 'ante-nicaea writings' there was far from unanimity ast to the nature of the relationship with God and JC, there were theologies of every kind including proto-trinity like Origen, modalist (sim. to oneness) like sabellius, and arian with its namesake and probably a plethora of other theologies. a side note 'orthodox' is also not the best word as today it connotes 'traditional' as opposed to back then orthodox meant within acceptable range of beliefs, today unorthodox means untraditional rather than condemned. before the pertinent creeds both arianism and sabellianism were 'orthodox'Enedra (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite urgently required[edit]

Parts of the article lack any syntactical structure, parsing or punctuation, rendering the overall sense of the subject-matter and intent of the author(s) opaque in the extreme. (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is especially true for the section "Siberian traditions". I am shocked by the fact that its first sentence, a totally uncomperehensible concatination of English words, has been virtually unchanched since the 4th of December 2010. The remainder of the section is hardly any better, consisting of completely ungrammatical sentences. Additionally, even the little bit of content that seems to be extractable from this gibberish lacks any citations and is not supported by the main article that the section links to, so that it might well completely contradict the facts too. The following section ("Indigenous American tradition") consists of one uncited fact followed by one grammatically flawed sentence without any relevant content. Hence I decided to provisionally make these two sections invisible by HTML-comment brackets. They should either be completely rewritten or be permanently removed. Marcos (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Content from "Unity"[edit]

The following has been removed from the coat-rack article Unity. It talks about "oneness of God", a term which currently redirects here. (References have been inlined to avoid having side-effects on this talk page.) I hope someone will take the time to examine this material, extract anything that can add value, and include it in this (or another) article. -- Perey (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Within the Ahmadiyya understanding of Islam, the Islamic concept of Unity of God, often referred to as Oneness of God, in application to humans, inculcates in man the realisation of the oneness of the human species, and does away with all such barriers as divide man into racial, ethnic and colour denominations. This gives birth to the universal concept of equality in Islam. Hence from the vantage point of God, all human beings, wherever and in whichever age they were born, stand equal in His sight. "THE BELIEF IN THE UNITY OF GOD". Retrieved 2 September 2010. 
The Qur'an views that in the history of mankind prophets or messengers were sent to every nation or society to guide people towards God in every age. For this reason, with support from theological study, Ahmadis recognise many of the world faiths as having divine origin and their founders as divinely appointed individuals, such as Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna and Confucius. The founder of the Ahmadiyya community, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad explained how the teachings of various faiths all converged to Islam as a universal religion. "An Overview". Retrieved 6 September 2010. 
Three core assertions of the Bahá'í Faith, sometimes termed the "three onenesses", are central in the teachings of the religion. They are the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion and the Oneness of Humanity. Hutter, Manfred (2005). "Bahā'īs". In Ed. Lindsay Jones. Encyclopedia of Religion. 2 (2nd ed. ed.). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 737–740. ISBN 0-02-865733-0. 
They are also referred to as the unity of God, unity of religion, and unity of mankind. The Bahá'í writings state that there is a single, all powerful God, revealing his message through a series of divine messengers or educators, regarding them as one progressively revealed religion, to one single humanity, who all possess a rational soul and only differ according to colour and culture. This idea is fundamental not only to explaining Bahá'í beliefs, but explaining the attitude Bahá'ís have towards other religions, which they regard as divinely inspired. The acceptance of every race and culture in the world has brought Bahá'í demographics an incredible diversity, becoming the second most widespread faith in the world, and translating its literature into over 800 languages. "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0-85229-486-7.  The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States (2006). "Bahá'í scripture". Archived from the original on 2006-08-05. Retrieved 2006-08-03. 
In Kabbalah, unity amongst people is a method for achieving spirituality. Kabbalist Yehuda Ashlag stated in his article, "Unity of Friends," that “the important thing that stands before you today is the unity of friends. Toil in that more and more, for it can compensate for all the faults.” His son, Kabbalist Baruch Ashlag, also emphasized a method among friends that involved unity to reach the spiritual. Ashlag, Yehuda. "Society as a Condition for Attaining Spirituality". Laitman Publishing. Retrieved 2009-06-11. 
In previous generations Kabbalists such as Rav Abraham Kook argued that the affirmation of God aspires to reveal unity in the world as it is the basis of all spiritual knowledge and one the highest notions which mankind can perceive. (Abraham Isaac Kook: The lights of penitence, The moral principles, Lights of holiness, essays, letters, and poems By Abraham Isaac Kook, Translated by Ben Zion Bokser, Published by Paulist)

Was Islam a "reaction" to Judaism and Christianity ?[edit]

In the "Abrahamic religions" section, the author suggested that islam was a reaction to Judaism and Christianity. However, this needs to be historically proved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

First, there are multiple authors in almost all articles. Second, the Qur'an and traditional Islamic stories admit that Muhammed was born well after Judaism and Christianity were around, and that he was exposed to both religions before having his revelation. Whether the reaction was human or divine, Islam came about as a response to the then-current state of Judaism and Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all Islam cannot be a reaction to the original Judaism and original Christianity since the source of revelation in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is one, Allah that is, according to Islamic theology. Now, speaking regardless Quran was a divine revelation or not, If the claim is that the source is one, then definitely Allah is not reacting to himself. However, according to Quran " To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety..."(Surah 5, verse 48, Yusuf ali translation) Quran is a confirmation of the previous revelation. Indeed the Quran was responding to many issues related to the Jews and the Christians as they have corrupted the Holy Scriptures and the righteous religion, according to Islamic theology. It is also true that Muhammad was exposed to both Judaism and Christianity before the revelation of Quran. But to say that the Religion of Islam was a mere reaction to Judaism and Christianity is not a fully correct statement. Besides, The most common belief at that time among the majority of Arabs was neither Judaism nor Christianity, but paganism or Idolatry and a tremendous portion of Quran was discussing and refuting these beliefs/claims and it makes much sense to say that Quran is a reaction to Idolatry or any form of worship of multiple deities(polytheism) or any God but Allah "(1). A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail,- from One Who is Wise and Well-acquainted (with all things)(2) (It teacheth) that ye should worship none but Allah..."(Surah 11, verse 1-2, Yusuf ali translation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Worship of the One God in Monotheism[edit]

Regarding the top three religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is clear that all three worship the Creator and not the creation. With these three religions monotheism is not only a belief in the one uncreated God, but also a belief in only offering worship to that one uncreated God. Judaism and Christianity are both resolute in that only the Creator is to receive worship."Deuteronomy 4:19; Romans 1:25"

 "Muslims are taught to worship only the Creator and not His creations...".

Zoroastrianism however cannot be compared to Judaism, Christianity, and Isalm in regard to worship due to the Younger Avestan Yashts clearly promoting the worship of the lesser dieties. While Mary Boyce asserted that Zoroaster proclaimed Mazda as the one uncreated God,"Zoroastrians Their Religious Beliefs and Practices" in the Gathas, the Gathas interpreted by the whole of the Zoroastrian scriptures allow worship of the created gods.TruthCkr (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources? Wikipedia doesn't take original research or interpretation. There's also the issue of whether or not asking servants of the one God to do something for you really counts as worship, or having multiple titles for the one God really counts as polytheism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Zoroastrianism as monotheistic. This is an interpretation by Mary Boyce. And I am simply stating that the three main religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam interpret monotheism as not only a belief in the one uncreated God but also the solitary worship which is afforded to the one God. Simply stated, monotheism from the point of view of the three largest religions of the world, is worship of the Creator and the not the created. Zoroastrianism falls outside of this definition "interpretation" because it allows for the worship of the lesser created gods.TruthCkr (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and you are not a WP:RS. Mary Boyce's work does meet WP:RS, which is why her "opinion" (which has somehow time travelled centuries before her birth) is allowed.
Again, there is also the issue of whether asking the servants of the one God to do something for you really counts as worship, or whether having multiple titles for the one God really counts as polytheism, which is where Zoroastrianism confounds your definition of monotheism. The Amesha Spentas are aspects of Ahura Mazda (like the members of the Trinity in Christianity, in fact Spenta Mainyu can be translated as "Holy Spirit,") and the Yazatas are treated in a manner similar to angels and saints have been treated in historical Judaism and Christianity: beings to be appealed for God's blessing.
There's also the mistaken assumption that an outsider's modern interpretation of the scriptures is representative of the "true" form of that religion. Max Muller's interpretation of the Vedas, while interesting, bears little similarity to modern Hinduism and is useless in describing modern Hinduism. Those outside the Abrahamic religions (and some within them in competition of other Abrahamic religions) have tried to pick apart the Bible and the Quran to portray those works as inherently polytheistic, but that is not at all representative of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Likewise, your personal interpretation of the Gathas is useless in describing modern Zoroastrianism, which is why we don't take original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


The most that can be said with some degree of certainty is that the standard Hebrew text of Genesis places Abraham in the earlier part of the second millennium BCE. This is Middle Bronze age in the Ancient Near East. Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham. Those primarily being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. TruthCkr (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aspects of God: "Plurality" in Judaism, Christ., and Islam[edit]

There is no meaningful discussion on the expositions of the Logos by Philo, which is identified as the creative impulse of the one God in the writings of that Jewish sage. Also, the Memra of Rabbinic tradition, the Sephirot of Kabbala, and the Angel of the Lord, which many interpret as a theophany, are not discussed. These are all important Jewish concepts regarding the nature of God, and there are many historic views to be considered (such as those of Philo). In Islam, Allah is an absolute one, yet he has a Holy Spirit which is personal and visible (which is identified in Islamic tradition as the Angel Gabriel, but this is not explicit in the Quran). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • In Islam, Angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) is just an angel, not a personal and visible part of Allah. An angel is a creation of Allah just like humans, planets and plants. Angel Gabriel (Jibra'il) is not part of Allah. He is not an extension of Allah. He is not a dimension of Allah. He is not a personality of Allah. He is one of Allah's creations. There is no Trinity in Islam.-- (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship of God with Creation[edit]

There are many definitions of God in the article. But thre is no proper section for the relationship of god with creation. There must be a section for such a categorization.

Regarding this classification or categorization, only monism (pentheism, panentheism) is mentioned in the article. Other views are not named or mentioned in the article. Those views are mentioned without a name in various sections associaited for specific religions. But these views are not mentioned with their names in a proper section.

For example, Islam is a monotheistic religion but it is not monist. In Islam, it is believed that God and creation are not separate. Therefore there is god and there is creation (creatures, sum of created things). This view is called tawhid. So, this view is in contrast with monist views like panthiesm and panentheism.

Threfore, I suggest a section for Relationship of God with Creation-- (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


Akhenaten and the worship of Aten not mention? Is he consider to be a monotheist??

Henry123ifa (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition to lede[edit]

I have reverted a recent addition to the lede made by User:Pass a Method which added that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion. This might be true, depending on the definition of monotheism used, but there are more than one and I do not believe that the definition seemingly used in the source is the same one as used in this article. As per the "Zoroastrianism" article in the World Religions Reference Library of 2007, available on the HighBeam Research site, Zoroastrianism is called a monotheistic religion, based on the definition it gives after that word, "a religion that worships one god". That however is not the same definition as the one used in this article. This article is about monotheism as a religion that believes in the existence of one god, not a religion that only worships one god. There is a difference. For this material to be included, I believe that it is incumbent upon anyone seeking to make such changes to meet [{WP:BURDEN]] requirements to have the material added to the article. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"....references to Al-Lat, Al-’Uzza, and Manat which were redacted from later Korans"[edit]

Okay, this idea is debated between non-Muslim scholars, while Muslims reject it wholly. The sentence appears as if it 100% actually happened, so I modified the sentence to include both ideas.--BelalSaid (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indented line

Actually, I would not say Muslim scholars reject it wholly. Did this story not originate from a Sunni hadith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Himba Religion[edit]

I reverted the first version of the section entitled "Indigenous African religion" for lacking proper sources. Hyperlinks to other articles in Wikipedia are not sufficient, inline citations are required: Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.(wp:proveit) When reinserted the citation was transferred from the article on Himba people but a check on the page given shows it covers only the second part of the statement: there is no mention of monotheism. Hence the insertion of "citation needed" Jpacobb (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The map[edit]

In which way does the map show "Indo-European religion"? Even the caption is wrong, for it links to an article on Proto-Indo-European religion. I suggest just deleting the map, as it adds nothing to ideas of monotheism (or any other religious ideas). Herbgold (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitions in lead[edit]

I'm never very happy with using dictionaries in this way rather than specialist sources. Why are we doing it here? It may not be the case here, but I've seen dictionary definitions which while perhaps reflecting common usage are in conflict with the way scholarly sources use the word. I've just been reverted because evidently "belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God" is a quote from the Britannica so should use the same case (and it is, I've checked) although not in quotation marks, which is when I realised what this article is doing. I'll add that I still think that if it wasn't a quote I'd be right, but that's a different issue. I don't know if this lead was a compromise or just an easy way out, so am not going to try to change it right now. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who reverted you, after checking the source. Perhaps I can help explain the capital. In the first half of the definition it means "one god" as opposed to many gods. In the second half it refers to those believing in one god, who is for them the God, and their belief in god's oneness, which for them is God's oneness. I have no opinion as to the use of dictionary definitions on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of the world's population that are adherents to Abrahamic religions is 54%?![edit]

That figure is probably 4 times too high. Complete nonsense.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Christianity makes up about a third of the world's population, and Islam makes up about a fifth, so some figures between 50-55% seems about right. Judaism and Baha'i are comparatively small, but still large enough to make it worthwhile to round up. See Religion#Religious_groups and Major religious groups. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect you should say "Christians" not "Christianity" one is born to that position and or practices it and the other practices. Be very careful how you use these words. It is misleading. Just because you are born in a country of a particular faith you should not be branded that way. If you were to include the people who believe in a true monotheistic religion of Father Christmas (which would mainly be children) who do practice their belief, you probably would have a reasonable percentage. Would I be right in saying the English make up about a third of the world's population? (Darmech (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC))
Wow, there's so much wrong with your post that I don't know if you're trolling or just incompetent.
Christianity is not an ethnic religion, so no one is born into it. The figures "one third" are based on the same standards that other percentages are gathered, censuses, polls, and so forth. While that would include the children in Christian households, that would also mean that children in other religions (and non-religious households) would be included in those figures, so it cancels out.
The comment about Father Christmas is ridiculous, whether made out of willful ignorance or out of a desire to troll.
Christianity also isn't the same as being English, and being English does not make one Christian. To equate the two is just ignorant.
Also, I'm not making stuff up. The articles Christianity, Islam, and Major religious groups, list Christianity at about 2.2 billion members (about around 33% of the world's population) and Islam at 1.3 billion (around 20%). These articles cite the CIA factbook, Foreign Policy, and, and many other sources. If you want to say that those sources are wrong, then you're welcome to leave.
Christianity and Islam make up just over half of the world's population by themselves, and are not the only Abrahamic religions that exist. Changing the article is not going to change that. Just deal with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
To believe people are not born into a religion is nonsense, any reasonable scholar would agree. Of course religion is mainly based on geographical regions. I pointed out that you used the word Christianity when you should have used Christian. Children (under 17) are about one quarter the world’s population most of which would be incapable of making an educated choice of their own. Going on your figures from the CIA there are nearly one hundred and eighty five million Christian children and a large portion of those practice in the belief of Santa. It wasn't a joke and I'm not trolling. What is the difference between Santa and another God. Which brings me to another point, the definition of a god? If it was any creature with extraordinary powers then Christianity would be a polytheistic religion. If it were based on a creator of everything then maybe Gaia in Greek mythology would make this a monotheistic religion, which we both would agree is not correct. Christianity is not a true monotheistic religion. To say one religion has the same percentage as the other of children cancels each other out would then challenge the figure of 54% and make it only 40% at the most. It seems I did not explain myself properly, when I stated if you speak English you are English, which is not true by the same way if you are born geographically in a Christian region you are not necessarily a practicing Christian. Also I was not rude to you, good manners is a better persuasive tool than your diatribe. Darmech (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Read them, and quit posting here. Your statements are just plain ignorant borderline bigoted, and do not try to improve the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Darmech: Please understand that Wikipedia is not a blog or discussion page but an encyclopedia with the precise function of summarizing what reliable sources have to say about any particular subject. The figures as given on this page reflect conclusions drawn by reputable bodies and students. The criterion used is one of self-definition (note the words "consider themselves" in the article). Also, many children are born into a religious community and, until they opt out of it, they accept its norms to a greater or lesser extent and consider themselves members of it. Links to full definition of one methodology can be found at and You may feel that many people are mistaken in their appreciation of the situation because they show no convincing signs of behaving in accordance with their professed beliefs; but, unless you can come up with alternative and statistically reliable figures as to which religion people consider themselves to belong, you cannot reasonably suggest changes here and interventions like your last are going to cause a good deal of irritation. Jpacobb (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay understood. My point was initially challenging his wording but also the inclusion of children as religious followers. It was not a blog. Thank you for your response Jpacobb. Darmech (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging Criticism of monotheism with monotheism to create a single article with a NPOV instead of 2 different articles on the same topic. The article Criticism of monotheism is very small and can easily merge into the article monotheism, I propose the following strat:

  • Section 1 - Contradictions - this can go in the definition section. since the contradiction is talking about a contradicition in definition.
  • Section 2 - Forcing one belief - this can go either in monotheism or in Religious violence it could fit in either place there.
  • Section 3 - Success of monotheism - the title is somewhat confusing but the content in the section is just about the effect it has on peoples behavior so we can easily place it in monotheism under a section like "Effect on behavior"
  • Section 4 - See also - the only "see also" is Paganism, which is a bit odd, I think if we just directed them to "religion" they can pick any other religion to go to from there. we can send them upstream instead of a random lateral movement that is out of the current topic.
  • Section 5 - References - can just be merged with these references

This is a very small merger, by accomplishing this we can create a single strong NPOV article and avoid giving undue weight to any topics. any assistance with the move, suggestions, or feedback are both welcome and appreciated. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Monotheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Islam does not worship the same God as Christians (and Jews on a side note).[edit]

Here is a link that proves my point. Seth Red Star (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Seth Red Star

That isn't proof, religion is belief based on mythology, nothing is provable in it. The article is just an opinion, it might carry some weight with some people and no weight with other people, I can't see how it helps in any way Unibond (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be talking about a complex theological issue that has no relevance in this article. This article is about monotheism. It is not about whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Besides, as Unibond has pointed out above, the whole dispute is really more a matter of opinion than objective fact. Wikipedia is supposed to deal with verifiable facts; we do not deal with people's opinions. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The lede lists traditions that are monotheist by the "broader" definition; it should list those that classify under the "narrower" one too[edit]

At the moment, we start by defining monotheism both narrowly and broadly, which is fine. Then we have a list of the traditions that classify under the broader definition, which is also fine:

"(t)he broader definition of monotheism characterizes the traditions of Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Islam, Judaism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Ravidassia religion, Seicho no Ie, Shaivism, Shaktism, Sikhism, Tengrism (Tangrism), Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Vaishnavism, Yazidism, and Zoroastrianism"

What is missing is a lis of the traditions that count as "monotheist" under the narrower definition. Mhairis (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Jewish/Muslim bias[edit]

On the introduction to the section titled "Abrahamic religions", I added in the Christian point of view so as to disperse some Jewish or Muslim bias that had clearly been present before my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooters 1563 (talkcontribs) 03:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I restored the previous version, which was sourced. Please show consensus for your opinion that the present version constitutes a bias. I for one do not think there is any bias evident in the text, in addition to it being sourced. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)