Why don’t the Jews believe…I guess you got your answer. If you choose to believe in Jesus then you also choose to believe in “the one god”, the god who cannot be named, the creator. If you choose to follow the teachings of the Qu’ran you choose to believe in “the one god”, the god whose name cannot be spoken, the creator. If you’re born a Jew (people can convert but Jews don’t actively seek converts) you believe in “the one god”, the god who’s name cannot be spoken, the creator. It’s just that simple.
Monotheism was in ancient times unique. Even though I may not be able to always reconcile my beliefs to the proven history, I do find it intersting that this “one god” idea caught on so well. What is it that humanity found so appealing about the idea of “the one god”? Was it easier than worshiping many gods? Was it because this god from the beginning supposedly had a very personal relationship with his people? Was it because the doctrines handed down by the Jews were basically pacifist and appealed to a world that otherwise found pleasure in the physical suffering of others? Who knows? But the root that formed these three religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) has caught on, grown and survived for thousands of years. Perhaps they are all “divinely inspired”.
I wouldn’t mind a discussion as to why or why not Norton’s claims were anymore or less valid than the claims of seperationists such as the freemen, the Hawaii Seperationist movement etc.
That said, Zeb your statement was that you would be the only emperor to claim to be the emperor of the US, I was simply pointing out that Joshua was first. It could be argued that SF’s attitude towards him gives a little legitimacy towards his claims, but again that is for another thread if desired.
But I do have to agree that this doesn’t really refute your point. The claim that Jesus was the only messiah to die and return is predicated on the claim that he was in fact the messiah. And if the person was trying to claim that Jesus was the only person to die and return, well, western and easter culture has many ressurection figures in their myths.
>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry…unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<
What did humanity find so appealing about one god? Good question. First, it’s not just the one god idea that caught on so well, look at Hinduism. One could even make the case that all the saints and so forth in Christianity are an attempt to return to polytheism. (I don’t buy it, but I have heard compelling arguments in favor of this theory)
To answer your question about Monotheism I’m going to quote extensively from Karl Kautsky’s “Foundations of Christianity” it has several chapters on the development of monotheism. ”The gods had originally served to explain what happened in nature, whose laws were not understood. These events were extremely numerous and of all kinds. To explain them all sorts of gods had to be postulated, the dreadful and cheerful, brutal and tender, male and female….over time…. ‘they changed from being constant comrades of men to extraordinary marvelous phenomena, from dwellers on earth to dwellers in supermundane regions, in heaven; from being active, energetic workers and fighters, tirelessly moving the world, to contemplative onlookers of the world theatre.
In the end, the progress of natural science would have completely done away with them, had not the formation of the large cities and the economic decline, which we have described, caused men to turn away from nature and thrust the study of spirit through spirit into the foreground of thought; that is, instead of scientific study of mental experience and events as a whole the individual’s own mind became the source of all wisdom generally. No matter how variegated and changeable the movements and needs of the soul might be, the soul itself seemed to be something simple and indivisible. The souls of others proved to be just like one’s own soul. A scientific study might have concluded from all this that all metal activity followed regular laws. But just at that time there began the collapse of the old moral supports, and that lack of support that appeared to men as freedom, freedom of the will for the individual. The unity of mind in all men seemed explicable only on the hypothesis that it was everywhere a portion of the same mind, the one mind whose emanation and copy forms the indivisible and incomprehensible soul in each individual….In this way the concept of a new deity arose. This could only be a single once, corresponding to the unity of the soul of the individual, in contrast to the plurality of the gods of antiquity, which corresponded to the multiplicity of the natural events outside us….
The course of political development gave support to this way of thinking. The downfall of the republic of gods in heaven went hand in hand with the downfall of the republic in Rome; God became the omnipotent emperor of the other world, and like Caesar he had his court, the saints and angels, and his republican opposition, the devil and his legions …
We see the picture of a single God, that took form in Christianity, received as large a contribution from imperial despotism as from philosophy, which had been tending towards monotheism more and more ever since Plato. …
A good explanation, I feel.
I suppose that’s a good explaination if Islam wasn’t developing independently of what Constantine was doing in Rome. Am I wrong about this? I am no scholar by a long shot. Haven’t read a lot of these books. Heard of this one though. I can understand now why many people believe that historians have a certain amount of tunnel vision. As though Rome was the only civilation thriving during this time. I could have the idea of my dates wrong. Can’t really remember when Christianity was made the official religion, was it the 4th century or a little later? Do know that Islam began in the 6th, and they were still worshipping multiple gods then. Oh well, I can’t say anything with any certainty. I’ve just been dabbling, don’t have time for serious study.
Nice quote though.
Needs2know.
Minor quibble: in Biblical literature, both Elijah and Elisha raise someone from the dead, and in the Old Testament, so does Jesus. Hence, Jesus ain’t the first to die and come back, even within that literature/mythos frame-work.
What you’re doing is conflating several different time periods. Several points of clarification on my earlier post.
I was referring to the development of monotheism, not Christianity in particular.
It does apply to the development of Christianity (we’re not talking about the adoption by the empire, we are talking about it’s growth). You will notice my reference to Julius Caesar.
I do believe it was the 4th century when Christianity was made the official religion.
So Islam wasn’t developing independently. It was based on Christianity.
Also although I used Rome as an example, this wasn’t limited to Rome. Look at the development of Monotheism in Greece, in Egypt, in Persia.
I was pretty much under the impression that Greece, parts of Persia, and Egypt were under Roman domination during this time period. I could again be wrong.
Look…the idea that monotheism developed so nicely might just be wishful thinking on my part. A little idea that fits in well with my desire to be tolerant of others beliefs and still hold onto what I’ve been trained to hold dear. Like I said before I’m no scholar and don’t profess to be, just a regular person who like many others wants to believe in something so I won’t have to accept the fact that death is absolute and means nothing but you wink out and rot.