Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

icymist

(15,888 posts)
8. Okay, here are some of my comments:
Mon Dec 12, 2011, 03:44 AM
Dec 2011

This author can be a bit confusing at times, as are a lot of the writers on witchvox. This is because there are a bit of amateur (if you will) writers that get posted at that site. It’s the ideas within their essays that I look for when I explore their writings about various pagan subjects. The idea of the Judaic-Christian religion(s) being polytheist is a thought that I, myself have often wondered. I agree that the author has a tendency to wonder off subject in that he seems to have a list of the sins caused by these institutions. I do hear what the author is saying in that the monotheist ‘one true god’ outlook creates those in one branch of, say Christianity to view another branch as being in error because it rubs the wrong way of their interpretation of that god. As pointed out in the article: <snip> One would think a single God supreme above all others, interested in human history, demanding we all worship Him and Him alone, and concerned with people’s salvation would intervene to bring His sincere followers clarity. Such intervention has never happened. I kind of have to agree with him here.

I must admit that I chuckled when I first read this line: <snip> It is difficult to see how Jonathan Edwards can be said to worship the same deity as is described in this Episcopal hymn, unless the ultimate God is the God of Multiple Personality Disorder. The idea of this god having a multiple personality disorder fits in with your iceberg analogy as the other (personality) traits are hidden when the dominate voice is speaking.

The sense I get most in the argument that Christianity is not a polytheistic religion is in the claim that there is one true god and no other while simultaneously professing belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Yet with its devil, angels, and demons, the Christian god seems to have both, allies and a vital competition in a formidable foe. Comparing this to other (pagan) religions such as the Egyptian pantheon for instance, we can see similarities in the Osiris, Horus, and Set myths where Osiris judges the dead while Horus, as the force of good, battles Set, the force of evil.

I also share the authors’ view that there is an abundance of feminine imaginary within the scriptures that isn’t noticed by most Christians. As you have said that most Jews are not familiar with the Lilith myth. This brings to my mind the stories of the Shekhina and the myth of the Hebrew Asherah as discussed in The Hebrew Goddess. This book is a really good read and you may want to check it out sometime.

These are some of my thoughts of the monotheist actually equals a polytheist theme.

As always, Icymist, you educate with truth. yellerpup Dec 2011 #1
I didn't care for his analysis. Behind the Aegis Dec 2011 #2
I welcome your thoughts here. icymist Dec 2011 #3
I haven't read that book, but I am familiar with the myth. Behind the Aegis Dec 2011 #4
I'll be getting back to you soon. icymist Dec 2011 #5
Take your time. Behind the Aegis Dec 2011 #6
Okay, here are some of my comments: icymist Dec 2011 #8
You are only fooling yourself if you think monotheism humblebum Dec 2011 #7
I don't think atheism itself was ever imposed DissedByBush Dec 2011 #10
Just how is being "expert in everything who shoots four holes-in-one every time he plays golf." humblebum Dec 2011 #11
He was portrayed as super-human DissedByBush Dec 2011 #12
"god-like status?" That's a pretty ambiguous description. Washington, Lincoln, even MLK have left humblebum Dec 2011 #13
Nothing even close DissedByBush Dec 2011 #15
"Apparently ol' Jong-Il could control the weather by his mood." And people have still observed humblebum Dec 2011 #17
It's not folklore DissedByBush Dec 2011 #20
"LMA was just a bunch of people who didn't like religion." Alrighty then! humblebum Dec 2011 #24
Pretty much DissedByBush Dec 2011 #25
Do you have any idea how many died at the hands of these people or were sent to their deaths humblebum Dec 2011 #27
As part of Stalin's crackdown on possible opposition to his state DissedByBush Dec 2011 #29
"As an atheist movement bent on spreading atheism in itself" - Yes. That was the stated objective. humblebum Dec 2011 #31
Again, because the religious were thought to be a threat to Stalin's power DissedByBush Dec 2011 #34
Much was done specifically to impose atheism and in the name of atheism as the the facts prove. And, humblebum Dec 2011 #35
And the process did not just happen under Stalin. The "Storming the Heavens" humblebum Dec 2011 #37
Other way around DissedByBush Dec 2011 #48
If communism had been the "purpose", then all of the signs and slogans would have humblebum Dec 2011 #49
People were killed because they adhered to something DissedByBush Dec 2011 #51
And a huge part of it was done in the name of atheism, not Communism. That humblebum Dec 2011 #52
If the fact that entire villages were overrun and the religious structure in the villages destroyed humblebum Dec 2011 #56
I applaud your effort, but you are dealing with someone who does not want to hear what you say. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #38
Yes, objective proof is a bit hard to accept for some, even when it is overwhelming. nt humblebum Dec 2011 #39
See what I mean? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #41
You guys are straying off the subject of the OP icymist Dec 2011 #42
I agree 100%. It was hijacked with the same old, tired nonsense, that poster spews in R&T. cleanhippie Dec 2011 #43
Where is there any mention of Kim as a deity? Marxist-Leninist governments are categorically atheist humblebum Dec 2011 #14
Research "cult of personality" regarding Jong-il and Il-sung n/t DissedByBush Dec 2011 #16
Cult of personality is not deity. It is reverence for the achievements and greatness of the person humblebum Dec 2011 #18
Yes, deification DissedByBush Dec 2011 #19
The country officially declares itself to be state atheist. Always has. humblebum Dec 2011 #21
The DPRK also officially declares itself to be democratic DissedByBush Dec 2011 #22
According to Kim Il-sung,"man is the master of everything and decides everything." humblebum Dec 2011 #23
Oh yes, leaders always live by their own words DissedByBush Dec 2011 #26
Now you are grasping at straws. humblebum Dec 2011 #28
And you're believing the words of maniacs over everyone else DissedByBush Dec 2011 #30
It's also a government based on Marxist-Leninist ideals and installed into power by Stalin humblebum Dec 2011 #32
As you note above, they renounced Stalin and came up with their own homegrown idea DissedByBush Dec 2011 #33
In that case Lincoln and Washington were gods. But in truth, their constitution still humblebum Dec 2011 #36
Both of you guys have strayed off topic icymist Dec 2011 #40
When it is being implied that monotheism and religion in general are responsible humblebum Dec 2011 #44
The absence of mentioning atheism did not mean that the author was ignorant to violence by such. icymist Dec 2011 #45
It's not so simple DissedByBush Dec 2011 #50
A major declaration of Lenin concerned the importance of establishing state atheism. humblebum Dec 2011 #53
So that the state will be god DissedByBush Dec 2011 #54
In that case, atheism is a religion. Regardless, there is no philosophical difference between humblebum Dec 2011 #55
"The USSR still would have done what it did even without atheism because it had a state purpose." humblebum Dec 2011 #57
Fuck all of that. Don't you think a single god would create another just to fuck? HopeHoops Dec 2011 #9
All-mighty God tama Dec 2011 #46
The subject of the criticism is monotheism, therefore you must expect humblebum Dec 2011 #47
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality» Well, here's a little li...»Reply #8