Talk:Monotheism

message: Nearly the entire article is heavily biased toward the aim of glorifying the Abrahamic branch of religions, to the point of nonsensical self-contradiction.  Notably, there is a clearly concerted effort to claim Judaism was the first monotheistic religion in history.  The dismissal of Zoroastrianism as supposedly not being truly monotheistic due to a dualistic cosmology, but Christianity is also dualistic.  Nevertheless, Christianity is explicitly cited by the article as supposedly being monotheistic.  The monotheism of Zoroastrianism is further called into question on account of Zoroastrians worshiping "lesser divinities" but this is also found in Christianity, if not also Judaism and Islam.  The article needs to be reworked to apply consistent standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B078:6C00:99A9:7F8A:D244:C8D5 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: {u| 2600:4040:B078:6C00:99A9:7F8A:D244:C8D5}} Zoroastrianism has at least thirty gods, which aren't seen as extensions of the primary monarchic god I'm not sure that counts.. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy pro-Abrahamic bias 

message: According to scientists, Judaism started as a Monolatry. And the mention of Judaism not considering Christians as monotheistic is irrelevant: or should we include, that Islam doesn't recognise Judaism and Christianity as monotheistic and that Christianity doesn't recognise Judaism as monotheistic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.62.121 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientists don't study history. I'm also very sceptical of the claims about Jewdaism. Them slipping away from the practice into idolotry isn't the same thing. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism didn't started as a monotheistic religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monotheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018000746/http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/120570/96db5654f2d3025b46454ace91716506.pdf to http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/120570/96db5654f2d3025b46454ace91716506.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.multifaithcentre.org/sikhism/71-a-short-introduction-to-sikhism-
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The section of this article on Monotheism entitled "The Chinese View" is completely misleading and mischaracterizes the whole of Chinese civilization. The one reference the writer referred to in claiming that Chinese culture has had a monotheistic view was from 1959. Since then more accurate cross-cultural studies of the traditional Chinese worldview by Chinese scholars both East and West have made it abundantly clear that China never had anything resembling monotheism - that the claim of Chinese monotheism was made by Western scholars who knew little of the Chinese language, worldview, translation issues, and the like. Thus they took Chinese words out of context and attached them to the closest words in Western languages they thought they referred to, such as the term "Tian" in Chinese, translated as "Heaven" in English. Any sampling of the literature on Chinese studies will verify this. A very short list of books that would put this claim to rest are:
The series by Chinese scholars David Hall and Roger Ames:
1. Thinking Through Confucius (SUNY Series in Systematic Philosophy), 1993;
2. Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, 1995; 
3. Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture, 1998.
Other Books by Chinese scholars:
1. Ziporyn, Brook: Beyond Oneness and Difference: Li and Coherence in Chinese Buddhist Thought and Its Antecedents (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture)Jul 2, 2014;
2. Ziporyn, Brook: Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought; Prolegomena to the Study of Li (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture)Jul 2, 2013;
3. Angle, Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy 1st Edition, 2012;
4. Graham, A.C; Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China April, 1989.
I suspect this section of the Wikipedia Monotheism article has made a such an unwarranted claim of Chinese monotheism for global political purposes, to make monotheism appear as some universal cultural standard and thereby raise the credibility of the Western monotheistic view of religion, or it is just plainly out of touch with current cross-cultural scholarship on the nature of the Chinese worldview. Integraldude (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conspiracy it is simply the nature of mythology that it is interpreted in differing ways. This isn't science, you cannot assert as a fact that it is or isn't monotheistic. There are arguments here that it is, there are other arguments in wikipedia Chinese folk religion that it isn't. It's exactly the same with Christianity, some believe it to be monotheistic others don't.  Unibond (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You absolutely *can* claim that a religion is monotheistic or that it is not, without any subjectivity at all. A monotheistic religion is any religion in which there is exactly one god (with one or more mainfestations). If a religion has more than one god, it is plainly not a monotheistic religion. It doesn't matter if people only worship one god or if they worhship no gods or an infinite many number of gods. The existance of exactly one god is what matters. This is the definition that this article starts with and it leaves no room for interpretation. If any argument exists that more than one god exists, at all, then that settles that a religion is _not_ monotheistic. The only hope to restore the idea that a religion is actually monotheistic means disproving those arguments, not bringing up new arguments to the contrary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese civilization has never been monotheistic 

message: The addition of this hatnote has now been reverted twice  :
:
producing:
:Monotheist" redirects here. For the death metal band, see Monotheist (band). For the album by Celtic Frost, see Monotheist (album).
The edit summary used for removal was "not notable and unlikely to be confused". Both these articles Monotheist (band) and Monotheist (album) are notable. If they are not they should be nominated for deletion. There is likely to be confusion. The template used is  for situations where one article redirects to another. In this case Monotheist redrects to Monotheism. Anyone clicking a link to Monotheist, or searching for monotheist, will end up at this article. They would absolutely be confused if there is no hatnote to the existing Monotheist articles. This is all laid out at WP:HATNOTE, specifically in the very first paragraph:
:Hatnotes are short notes placed at the very top of an article or a section, like a hat is placed on the very top of a head. (See the note in italics immediately preceding the box above.) Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because:
 
:* they were redirected,
So as this is an addition well in line with hatnote editing guidelines I'd be interested in any policy based reason not to do it. Tassedethe (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the band article has already been tagged as not noteable and the album is also of very little substance. It is highly unlikely that anyone would be searching for them let alone be confused by this article. Unibond (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The band article has been tagged as possibly not notable, i.e. "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music". If your opinion is it isn't notable then you should nominate it for deletion. "[A]lso of very little substance" is something new to me, it smacks of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Either way I note that you still don't provide any links to any policies, guidelines or precedents for your opposition to this change. I will post a note at WP:HATNOTE and see if anyone there can weigh in on this. Tassedethe (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#To_hatnote,_or_not_to_hatnote.... Tassedethe (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Situations like this—hatnotes for popular culture topics on top of articles for what most would consider weightier topics—are often resolved by creating a dab page, in this case Monotheist (disambiguation), and having a hatnote that points there.—ShelfSkewed Talk 22:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

text:  is right here: the hatnote is valid all the time those target articles exist. A disambiguation page for 3 entries could be created in theory but a hatnote does the job just as well, because there would have to be hatnote to the disambiguation page anyway. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should have said: One way or another, a hatnote in some form is required here, and concensus on that is long established. I just meant that I've seen this situation before, in which some editors object to a hatnote pointing to what they consider trivial topics on top of an article of unquestioned importance. A hatnote pointing to a dab page is usually a solution that, if imperfect, is acceptable to all.—ShelfSkewed Talk 20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the further comments. On the basis that those comments have consensus that a hatnote is correct I will be restoring the hatnote at this article. Tassedethe (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheist hatnote 

message: After 1 Etymology, I would like to insert the following items.
=== Regarding established types ===
In history, the following three species can be distinguished
# Monotheism (single)・・・・I omitted it.Tokinokawa (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for editing 

message: In history, the following three species can be distinguished
# Monotheism (single)・・・・I omitted it.Tokinokawa (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding established types 

message: It is biased-filled and why the heck you keep it by beginning with "Why the Jews and moslems do not aknowledge Christian Trinity  Monotheistic."?
It is biased due because the same "Jewish and Moslem rejection" is being repeated in "Judaism" Section and "Islam" section within this Article. 
Call it 'mass-removal of POV-filled sources' but I improved it by making the "Abrahamic Religions" Section free from Apologetics and Missionary-motivated editing. Royalistandlegitimist (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say seems like WP:RGW/WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

text: E.g. the existence of hell isn't acceptable to all Christian denominations. Stating it in the voice of Wikipedia violates WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abrahamic Religions" Section in Wikipedia Article "Monotheism" 

message: (i'm too shy and uninformed to edit myself but) this statement "Gathered statistics shows the number of adherents at as many as 3.5 million" in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Zoroastrianism' contradicts this statement "According to a study in 2012 by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America, the number of Zoroastrians worldwide was estimated to be between 111,691 and 121,962." in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Demographics'. while the latter source at 'http://fezana.org/downloads/ZoroastrianWorldPopTable_FEZANA_Journal_Fall_2013.pdf' is not exactly a renowned source, at least it seems an honest effort, whereas the source for the former seems to link to a payday website (https://www.adherents.com/payday-loans/#Zoroastrianism), and the poster should probably be ashamed of themselves.
:Wow - adherents.com domain must have lapsed. You can look up the archived versions of the cite on the wayback machine - the link was very likely added before the site changed. I'm pretty sure adherents.com has been used on several other wp articles. Even then, it was still a slightly questionable source. Still, we should be using the most up-to-date reliable sources we can find. History.com - Zoroastrianism (2019) puts the estimate at around 200,000 adherents, so I'm guessing it's somewhere in-between. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrian Demographics 

message: Monotheism marks the great division between our egalitarian fully-loving matriarchal deep human history; destroyed recently by Adam’s sin; and patriarchy’s genetic destruction of that which makes us human. Empathy. As a matter of science we know monotheism will destroy the genes that render us human.  
    Adam’s sin was to see himself as a self. Husbandry of animals and women soon followed. Patriarchal culture is sustainable for our species, as we see in chimps. But what you don’t know is chimps lost their capacity to boce human and only bobobos retain that. Chimpanzees epigenitcallyost the genes for empathy after a million years of being patriarchal.  Chimps can’t share with strangers. Only humans and bonobos have that capacity. Bonobos are matrilineal. There is no violence.  Love is the authority in bonobo culture as it was for humans before we adopted patriarchy; which requires violence and rules to sustain. But scientifically we see that, in our species,  violence grinds humanity out of our genes. When our species introduces patriarchy we lose our capacity to share with strangers. Monotheism launched the notion of male superiority.  Scientifically we see it will grind empathy out of our dna. It did for chimpanzees.  Monotheism destroyed our human wisdom that Nature is in charge. It created the starkly ridiculous notion of a “god.”   
 Monotheism installed a little person with a penis as the new thing called a “god.” No one worshipped,in general, before the notion of a god was thrust on them by a violent male leadership. Matriarchy ruled by love, and with the sanity of knowing nature is in charge.   It was fully effective for 300,000 years as the purest of foragers and gatherers. Monotheism is not sustainable. Ownership is driving the end of the Earth. Ownership, superiority, and violence are the monotheists tools for enforcing its violent rulership. It can’t exist without shame.  Patriarchy, monotheism, enslavement of women, and militarism are all one thing. Male violent takeover of women and children. It’s not sustainable genetically nor can we sustain our habitat with monotheism running the show. For humans to remain human, we require the rule of love. With no person in charge.  Humans can only remain human if we see the other the same as ourself. If wwe persist in the insanity of monotheism and its patriarchy, then we genetically will lose the capacity to be human. Scientifically we know that because chimpanzees lost what made them human when they adopted patriarchy.  Bonobos share with strangers. Humans for now still have that capacity.  But chimpanzees epigenetically lost that capacity after adopting patriarchy in ecological conditions of scarcity. Humans newly murder. Very newly.  Only since adopting monotheism.  Before monotheism we didn’t need any Angel to tell Abraham that killing his baby (the patriarchy’s way to keep the wife in line) was not “good”.  We were all angels before monotheism introduced violence and power. The longer humans remain in this new state of patriarchy; the more likely we also will genetically lose what makes us human. When we see humans as things we are no longer human. We made people into things by establishing patriarchal hierarchy. When people are no longer equal they become as things.  So here we are; about dead from the effects of owning. Owning led to the total destruction of nature.  Patriarchy put men at the top and divided the women from one another, and made them into owned things enslaved by men. Monotheism is nothing more than an excuse for the violence of holding slaves in whatever form, and calling oneself superior. Monotheism is the irrational  belief that something akin to a human mind is great enough to be the one who conceived of and created the universe.  Male power is not sustainable because it grinds out the genes we experience as empathy.  Only matriarchal culture can fully propagate and maintain humanity as it’s meant to be lived. When chimpanzees became patriarchal they epigenetically lost the capacity to share with strangers. Now that is pure science.  It will happen to humans too.  We just crossed into patriarchy 25,000 years ago. There is still time to safeguard our humanity.  But we must become matrilineal again. Thank you. 208.126.44.104 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriarchy