If I could find the rec button, I'd give you a rec!

I think he missed serveral points and also overlooked the utter brutality of pagan groups throughout history. Also, he seems to be trying to claim monotheism is actually polytheism, which is odd, but I think he does so to reconcile his own feelings against major religions, particularly Christianity. The article was long and convoluted and a bit confusing.

I also think his "conclusion" in the excerpt about tolerating polytheism in Euro-Americans is flawed. Also: "Monotheisms marked the first totalitarian effort to impose a way of thought on people who had other ideas." That is just laughable. He needs a better understanding of history.

I can understand some of his points because new cults/religions are often looked down upon because they don't have "street cred" (history), but in reality, all religions started as cults, some survived and thrived, others died out; it will be no different now with the exception that many are leaving religions all together and opting for forms of individual spirituality or secularism.

Just my thoughts. It was a long article and I had to read the whole thing twice and several parts I read multiple times because I had trouble following them.

(Sorry for spelling errors..6 languages and I can't spell in any of them very well! I can't wait for the return of spell check!!!)

Reading your reply, I gather that you disagree with the author and the way that this article was wrote.
I was wondering if you were familiar with the myth about the Hebrew Goddess. There is a book on this subject: http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Goddess-3rd-Enlarged/dp/0814322719
Have you read this?

It was in the very early starts of Judaism. In fact, most Jews aren't even aware of it at all. Of course, most people aren't even knowledgeable of Adam's first wife, Lilith. I don't think it is really that unusual to be honest. Judaism was one of the first monotheistic religions, especially in that area, so I wasn't surprised there was a "transition" period, especially in the early, early days. Christianity and Islam didn't experience that transition because, IMO, they arose from an already monotheistic religion.

As for his "Christianity is really polytheism," again, I think this is his way of placing his own belief system on another in order to make sense of it or reconcile it in some fashion. The Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same G-d. While it appears He is different, He really isn't. Think of G-d as an iceberg. Only a fraction appears above the water, but it also has many sides. So, how one precives it may be determined by what "side" the observer is seeing (or not seeing), but it is still the same iceberg.

Again, thanks for saving this group.

What are your opinions on the piece?

Work is being extra busy at the moment. I like your iceburg anology. I need some rest right now and I got tomorrow night off. I'll be back then.

I look forward to your comments.

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.

is the only belief system spread by war and conquest. Even atheism has been imposed by war and conquest.

However, several times the state or dictator became the highest object of reverence, causing the persecution of religions that could compete with that reverence.

Some have called it atheist, but it's really the state as a non-supernatural religion. North Korea is an extreme example, where the Dear Leader of that nominally atheist state is really seen as a god. They've even started to spread into the supernatural, where ol' Kim Jong-Il was supposedly an expert in everything who shoots four holes-in-one every time he plays golf.

I could be missing an instance, but I can't think of one where the spread of atheism itself was the goal.

in any way "supernatural?" It might serve as an embellishment of a persons abilities in order to up that person's legacy, but hardly supernatural. It would physically be possible for such a thing to happen, though not probable. Every culture has its folk heroes. Americans have Washington who "never told a lie", Davey Crockett, who killed a bear at age three, Johnny Appleseed, etc. But certainly not supernatural - well - maybe Lincoln's ghost in the White House.

But, to say that, "atheism itself was ever imposed" is factually false. Imposition of "scientific atheism" was actively, enthusiastically, and forcibly imposed on populations by groups doing so in the name of atheism.

He and his dad have god-like status in North Korea. At least the image the state pushes, and failing to at least fake belief can get one sent to those famous deadly prisons.

"Imposition of "scientific atheism" was actively, enthusiastically, and forcibly imposed on populations by groups doing so in the name of atheism. "

I said I couldn't think of one instance, you haven't yet provided one.

Feel free to do so.

behind legacies that could be termed god-like. Their pictures are hung in classrooms and other places of honor, sometimes being draped in flowers. There are countless folk heroes whose lives have been blown out of proportion to their actual deeds in any culture. I doubt very seriously that Kim is anymore immortalized than Elvis.

You said, "you haven't yet provided one" - but you listed the one I did provide, what gives? The League of Militant Atheists were one of several groups of declared atheists that heavily and violently imposed the policy of "scientific atheism." The "Cult of Reason" was another.

We admire. They literally revere as deities. Apparently ol' Jong-Il could control the weather by his mood. Is that supernatural enough for you?

"The League of Militant Atheists were one of several groups of declared atheists that heavily and violently imposed the policy of "scientific atheism."

As I noted, many states required the placement of the state above all others, pretty much as a religion in itself, competition not allowed. The Soviet Union was certainly one of the main practitioners of this ideal. The League of Militant Atheists was simply the state's tool to wipe out competing religions in the earlier, more fanatical days. Eventually the state realized that it could retain power while individual religious belief was allowed to exist, the power of established centralized churches having been crushed. Thus the state disbanded the LMA as unnecessary, and even counterproductive to a degree.

I can give you the Cult of Reason as a small, short-lived group of fanatics. However, the French dechristianization was basically a revenge attack on the Catholic Church that had been a big part of the Ancien Regime. Don't forget, the Protestant Huguenots were allowed back and granted full citizenship right in the middle of this, so you can't say it was an atheist effort to wipe out religion overall.

Washington's ghost. It's called folklore. As far as as the L of MA goes, you need to do your research. the movement morphed. It did not end. The same policies continued under Khrushchev and beyond under other names and they still exist today in China and Tibet. And, yes, much was done specifically in the name of atheism. Atheist groups existed in Russia before Communism and after.

It's the official party line that's taught in school.

After its official disbandment, the LMA was just a bunch of people who didn't like religion. That exists today too.

But that's not the question, which is atheist movements that "spread by war and conquest."

The spread of atheism must be the goal as compared to the spread of religion being the goal as has been the case countless times in history.

The goal being the spread of Communism or cementing the absolute power of the state doesn't count.

"The League of Militant Atheists comprised workers, peasants, students, and members of the intelligentsia. Organizations were founded at plants, factories, kolkhozes, and educational institutions. By early 1941, the league consisted of approximately 3.5 million working people of 100 nationalities. The number of groups reached 96,000. Guided by Leninist principles of antireligious propaganda and by the party’s decisions on these principles, the league dedicated itself to ideological struggle against all forms of religion and the development of a scientific world view among working people."

"The league maintained extensive international ties; it belonged to the International of Proletarian Freethinkers, and then to the World Union of Freethinkers. In 1947 the league turned over its tasks of disseminating scientific-atheist propaganda to Znanie (Knowledge), a newly created all-Union society."

REFERENCES
Konovalov, B. N. “Soiuz voinstvuiushchikh bezbozhnikov.” In the collection Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, no. 4. Moscow, 1967.

"On Jan. 1, 1972, Znanie numbered 2,457,000 members, including 1,700 academicians and corresponding members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Union republics, including branch academies, and 107,000 doctors and candidates of science, professors, and docents. The society was awarded the Order of Lenin in 1972." - The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979).

They can't be counted as imposing atheism by "war and conquest."

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

in a gulag?
"The League of the Militant Godless (LMG), under Emelian Yaroslavsky, was the main instrument of the anti-religious campaign and it was given special powers that allowed it to dictate to public institutions throughout the country what they needed to do for the campaign [40].
After 1929 and through the 30s, the closing of churches, mass arrests of the clergy and religiously active laity, and persecution of people for attending church reached unprecedented proportions.[62][65]. The LMG employed terror tactics against believers in order to further the campaign, while employing the guise of protecting the state or prosecuting law-breakers. The clergy were attacked as foreign spies and trials of bishops were conducted with their clergy as well as lay adherents who were reported as 'subversive terroristic gangs' that had been unmasked[66]. Official propaganda at the time called for the banishment of the very concept of God from the Soviet Union[67]. These persecutions were meant to assist the ultimate socialist goal of eliminating religion[68][67]. From 1932-1937 Stalin declared the 'five year plans of atheism' and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country[67].

"During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, over 100,000 were shot."
[70]


http://www.scribd.com/doc/40973100/Persecution-of-Christians-in-the-Soviet-Union-The-Anti-Religious-Campaigns

Yes. Clergy represented an opposing power structure.

As an atheist movement bent on spreading atheism in itself, no. They were just one of Stalin's tools to consolidate his power.

People were not killed and jailed because they were not communists. Most were not. But because they were not atheists. The Komsomol, Young Pioneers, and 96,000 local groups of the League pushed the ideals of Scientific Atheism, not Communism. Millions died in the process.

A popular Young Pioneer banner in 1929 said, "Pioneers - Sound the alarm if your parents believe in God!"

It also doesn't fulfill your criteria, because they were not conquered in the name of atheism.

They were already conquered before this, by the communists. They were already members of the communist state.

This was part of internal cleansing, not atheism "imposed by war and conquest"

as Joseph McCabe stated in 1936 -
“No wonder they hated and libeled Russia! For the news is spreading, and is triumphing even over reactionary opposition that Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism.”

And as Bertrand Russell wrote,"Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind." In reality establishing and enforcing state atheism was a major objective. Atheists outnumbered Communists.

campaign began under Lenin and the process continued into the 1980's. Communism was the vehicle for the atheist movement in Russia. Communism fell but there is still a very active atheist movement in the country.

Communism was the movement.

Communism is atheistic in nature, but atheism is not the purpose, communism is.

declared communism, BUT as it was people were killed because they refused to accept atheism, not communism. In fact, becoming a communist was not required, accepting atheism was required.

Something that the communists felt threatened their absolute power.

The religious can be swayed by a power structure other than the communist state, the religious can be swayed by the dictates of a book not written to enhance the power of the communist state.

It's about the absolute power of the state.

And even if it weren't it still didn't meet your initial statement of spreading atheist by war and conquest. This was suppressing internal dissention AFTER communism had already conquered.

speaks volumes.

and worshippers killed doesn't meet the the standards of war and conquest, I don't know what does. And the Chinese were no different. You seem to have a poor understanding of what actually happened.

Here, use my brick wall to bang your head on, the results are much, much better.




Your partner in conversation there just will not accept the fact that Communism was responsible for all of that, not the lack of belief in a god.

The original intent was to promote a discussion of polytheism/monotheism, not how atheists can cause war and destruction. I don’t mind people having a clean discussion, but this one is going in circles. Please return to the original intent of the article.

"Democratic People's Republic of Korea (since 1948); Workers' Party of Korea, removed Marxist-Leninism references and officially follows Juche."



"Juche or Chuch'e (Korean pronunciation: [t&#597;ut&#597;&#688;e]) is a Korean word usually translated as "self-reliance." In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), "Juche" refers specifically to a political thesis of Kim Il-sung, the Juche Idea, that identifies the Korean masses as the masters of the country's development. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Kim elaborated the Juche Idea into a set of principles that the government uses to justify its policy decisions. Among these are independence from great powers, a strong military posture, and reliance on Korean national resources. "Juche" has sometimes been translated in North Korean sources as "independent stand" or "spirit of self-reliance", and has also been interpreted as "always putting Korean things first."[1]:414 According to Kim Il-sung, the Juche Idea is based on the belief that "man is the master of everything and decides everything.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#List_of_current_communist_states

and what they stood for, but not deification. North Korea is still considered as a state atheist nation.

That is what everybody who escapes says is the norm there.

Now I am going to go pray to my statue of Elvis. It sits right next to my picture of Geo Washington. His ghost was seen at the battle of Gettysburg, you know. Are you sensing a trend here?

And about Scientific Atheism, the museum referenced is dedicated to Scientific Atheism - not Communism. There were several set up around the country.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/376765112/

It's right in the name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

See much democracy there lately?

It's also called a republic when in reality it acts like a hereditary monarchy.

It's not really the "people's" either, since they are repressed under the absolute authoritarian rule of the few.

About the only thing correct in the name of the country is "Korea."

Be wary of labels authoritarian regimes give themselves, as they tend to not be true.

Sounds pretty atheistic and materialistic to me.

Back in reality, he set himself up as a god, and in his estate planning ensured the government pushed his son as a god before his death.

Seriously, trusting the words of the Kim family?

Fact: It is a totalitarian government

Fact: It is run by a hereditary monarchy, who are revered as deities

The only thing in opposition to this you have is the words of the insane leaders?

at the end of WWII. Absolutely atheistic.

And in practice it involves making a god out of Dear Leader.

This seems to be clearly known by everyone but you.

stipulates state atheism. They are an atheist state. There is no getting around it. And one with its own folk heroes, just like the U.S. and the USSR.

Khrushchev also rejected Stalin, but solidly clung to Marxist-Atheist principles and the Soviets pushed those ideals onto their satellite nations.

The OP was an article about how monotheism is actually polytheism. How did that discussion become an argument about whether atheism caused atrocities? It seems that you guys need to vent, but your discussion seems to be moving in circles. Please respect the original intent of the OP.

for such atrocities, but not atheism - it is quite necessary to set the record straight. Simple as that.

The article was found at a pagan web site and was geared toward that audience. His mentioning In nearly every instance a form of monotheism... seems to me that he acknowledges that other systems, religious or not, can be blamed for these atrocities. Militant atheists seem to be fairly recent phenomena and maybe that is the reason why the discussion of Kim Jong Il (now known as Kim Jong Dead) and his atheist state may not be a suitable topic of the Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality Group. There is no necessity to set the record straight in this group. We pagans already know the violence which ignorance, intolerance, and bigotry create.

Let's look at the Muslim conquests: Purpose, to spread Islam

Let's look at Charlemagne's campaigns in Germany: Purpose, to convert them to Christianity

Let's look at the USSR: Purpose, to maintain state supremacy over the population, force everyone to believe in communism

Let's look at the expansion of the USSR's influence: Purpose, to spread communism

Let's look at Spain's conquests in the new world: Purpose, gain money and territory

Now the Spanish spread religion at the same time, and used their religion to justify what they were doing, but the actual purpose was to enrich the crown and enhance Spain's power.

The question is if it would have happened absent the philosophy. Spain would have still plundered the new world without religion because it had a state purpose. The USSR still would have done what it did even without atheism because it had a state purpose.

"Storming the heavens!"

Religion competes for the minds of the people.

A totalitarian government can be one with the religion, the religion is the reason and the cause. The most a secular totalitarian government can tolerate is the established religious power structure being subordinate to the state. Or it can eradicate religion as competition to the total power of the state.

Governments for thousands of years have chosen the former paths. The communists tried the latter. In any case, the goal was the spread of Communism.

Do you think the goal of the Spanish was to spread Christianity? Sure, they had a state-supported contingent trying to convert the heathens, and kill them if necessary. But the goal of the state was not the spread of Christianity. They didn't conquer the New World to add to the numbers of Christians.

When Muslims looked at Persia, India, and pretty much the rest of the world, they were saying "We are going to force you to become Muslim."

When the Spanish looked at the New World, they were saying "We are going to force you to become Spanish."

When the Communists looked at those countries they conquered, they were saying "We are going to force you to become Communist." Just forcing people to be atheist wouldn't work because they could be like me, atheist and against Communism. They needed people to be Communist.

The question way back when meant when did conquest result from someone saying "We are going to force you to become atheists."?

You still don't have a good example.

atheism in the Soviet Union and that expressed during the the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Vienna Circle, And today.

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

But it didn't, and a major, declared purpose expressed several times over 80 or so years, was to eliminate religion and to establish state atheism. you are doing everything you can to spin the story differently, but the fact still remains that establishing state atheism was a high priority, high enough to warrant its own 5-year plan.

Seriously. If you were a god, wouldn't you?

Well, and to talk to and shit. You know.

or pantheistic, panentheistic, what ever, includes but is not limited to number theory. If God is bigger than math, then why the fuzz about counting god as one, many, etc.?

some rebuttal from that perspective.