So do Judaism, Chtistianity, Islsm, and orhers. Religions espouse monotheism, yet people believe in additional supernatural and deific entities.
I’m not following: why is venerating a different god not as bad as venerating a polytheim?
one thing too a lot of sex-related “sins” weren’t really considered sins or were tolerated in a “don’t ask/tell” kind of way until the prigs who started the protestant reformation and even later the 19th century “victorian”/eduardian world eras declared them so
It is just as bad.
The sin we’re dealing with here is known in Hebrew as “Avodah Zara”. Literally, that means “foreign worship”, which could be easily misunderstood as referring to any non-Jewish religion in general. Actually it is an umbrella concept comprising two distinct forms: polytheism (worship of multiple gods) and idolatry (worship of a non-god). They are both denials of the most basic beliefs that Judaism has about God, and both are equally abhorrent, and no real distinctions are made between them.
It is generally accepted that Islam’s concept of God is the same as Judaism’s in this regard (though there are obviously disagreements about what God did and said and commanded). That does NOT mean it’s okay for a Jew to convert to Islam, only that he doesn’t have to give his life for it.
Christianity is a lot murkier, mostly because the are so many different denominations, each with its own particular interpretation of the Trinity. Some of them might constitute polytheism and/or idolatry from a Jewish perspective, and others might not. And I know even less about the beliefs of Sikhs and others, so I’m really not qualified to comment.
A Christian’s belief in the Trinity is Idolatry.
First of all, I need to correct something I said earlier - the Biblical prohibition of milk with meat applies only to domesticated mammals (cows, goats, sheep) and the prohibition is Rabbinic not only on birds, but also on wild animals (deer and the like). Thanks to Keeve for the (privately e-mailed) correction.
Also, I found the source of the statement that a man should not have his mind on one of his wives (and certainly not a woman he’s not married to) while he is being intimate with another of them. It’s derived from the phrase in Numbers 15:39, “you shall not stray after your heart.” I realize that that seems vague, suffice it to say the exact pathway from that phrasing (in the original Hebrew) to the specific application is a bit complicated.
septimus:
While I do not know the details of the “Damascus Document”, it’s clear that this idea had not been accepted by the mainstream of Jewish tradition. The Talmud and Maimonides and later authorities all discuss, at length what is required, permitted, and forbidden for men married to multiple wives. Jewish man nowadays are not allowed multiple wives, but this is known to only date back to a Rabbinic injunction from circa the year 1000 and not as far back as the time of Joshua, or of Zadok.
susan:
Supernatural, yes. Deific, certainly not.
Not Deific, but possibly deific. What is there about an angel, say, that makes it not a god (in the lower-case understanding of the term)?
Perhaps, then, I’m not understanding what was meant by “deific.” Laying aside the terminology, the idea is that in Judaism, at least (I’m not in a position to make any definitive statements on the fine points of theology in other religions) no being had power of any sort independently of G-d. There is no area or aspect of existence that G-d did not create and that he does not exercise ultimate control over.
If “deific” does not necessarily imply some sort of independent, ultimate power then I retract my objection to the term.
Thank you Moreh, informative as usual.
Well, that’s the thing. One could interpret the various gods of a polytheistic religion as each having an independent existence, and possibly some domain over which they have exclusive control, where, even if there is some deity among them that is the greatest or chief, that chief is still qualitatively the same sort of being as the others. In this sense, the Abrahamic religions have only one god, who is therefore referred to as God.
One could also, however, interpret a being, created by and wholly inferior to another, but still more powerful than a mortal human, as being a god. In this sense, angels, which are widely accepted as existing in the Abrahamic religions, could be considered gods.
So whether Christians, Jews, or Muslims have “multiple gods” depends on how you define “gods”, and there are definitions which are not obviously wrong which support either answer.
Well, that’s the thing. One could interpret the various gods of a polytheistic religion as each having an independent existence, and possibly some domain over which they have exclusive control, where, even if there is some deity among them that is the greatest or chief, that chief is still qualitatively the same sort of being as the others. In this sense, the Abrahamic religions have only one god, who is therefore referred to as God.
One could also, however, interpret a being, created by and wholly inferior to another, but still more powerful than a mortal human, as being a god. In this sense, angels, which are widely accepted as existing in the Abrahamic religions, could be considered gods.
So whether Christians, Jews, or Muslims have “multiple gods” depends on how you define “gods”, and there are definitions which are not obviously wrong which support either answer.
Thank you! I agree.
Much more about these views and this terminology can be found in a 7-year-old thread titled What is a “god”?