I am concerned at the tone of this message, because it makes statements, without bothering to provide justification, that can certainly apply to members of IFF.

There is no question that many of us have quite different systems of belief. There is also no question that these are very often incompatible with one another. But at the end of the day, each of us comes to his or her beliefs through processes that seem reasonable to us, and that for the most part work for us.

I am posting this here (publicly) because I think it's time to remind all members, once again, that while we may disagree, we must find ways to disagree that do no violence to the dignity of other members.

It is perfectly justifiable to say, for example, that "I do not believe that polytheism makes sense because..." and then to provide reasons for your position. If, and only if, your correspondent chooses, he or she may reply and tell us something about how they came to their views.

It is generally not respectful of others, however, to say that something is "intellectually backward" or "intellectually irresponsible," and simply leave it at that. Any position that was thought out may be wrong for any number of reasons, but it cannot be said to be intellectually irresponsible.

(Edited for grammatical error. I'm so ashamed!)

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Thank you, EH, well said! Everyone is on their own individual path, it is not our job to take offense or chastise anyone for their path. No matter what path someone is on, I would place bets that they could teach me something.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

Great post E.H. and thanks for bringing that to light : )
I just ask myself does that not go for moderators too?

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Wait a minute, vivamis, I thought you were against rules and regulations!

Shalom,
Vern

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

O.K. You got me. I am against rules and regulations, but I am for equality for all.

BTW if you are looking for contradictions...you will find them : )

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

let me correct you sir, polytheism is contrary to monotheism, polytheist means"The one who worship of or belief in more than one god"

Monotheist means "Worship of or belief in single",so even from the words you cannot make both of them similar.

According to Islamic Concept of God which is purely based on monotheism, God is unique not only in number but also in attributes and power.

According to the Islamic Concept of God, He has following attributes:

Unity in existance:

1)God is single and there is no more than 1 true God,He is absolute and eternal and no one is like Him.

Unity in Power:
1) God doesnot share His power with any other being neither their is any other diety that could share his power with Him. He independently makes decision and makes laws for the Universe.

2) He is alone the authority of the entire Universe and runs the affairs of the Universe through his special servants(angels) that follow His commandments.


Unity in Attributes:

1) God is most gracious and merciful.

2) God is Omnipotent

3) God is Omniscience.

4) He is alone the Sustainer and Benefector

5) He communicates His special servants(Prophets and Messengers) through divine revealations and will alone be the Judge on the Day of Judgment.


The concept of Polytheism means to believe in more than 1 God but even their is difference among many Polytheist groups regarding concept of God.

Some Polytheists(Hindus) say that everything is God and others consider the angels of Gods as minor Gods.

Some even claim that these angels are daugthers of God.


So the difference is evident.

Maybe with the transition from modernism to postmodernism we are entering a Viconian ricorso that brings us back to polytheism.

Relying on a complex etymology, Vico argues in the Scienza Nuova that civilization develops in a recurring cycle (ricorso) of three ages: the divine, the heroic, and the human. Each age exhibits distinct political and social features and can be characterized by master tropes or figures of language. The giganti of the divine age rely on metaphor to compare, and thus comprehend, human and natural phenomena. In the heroic age, metonymy and synecdoche support the development of feudal or monarchic institutions embodied by idealized figures. The final age is characterized by popular democracy and reflection via irony; in this epoch, the rise of rationality leads to barbarie della reflessione or barbarism of reflection, and civilization descends once more into the poetic era. Taken together, the recurring cycle of three ages — common to every nation — constitutes for Vico a storia ideale eterna or ideal eternal history.

Giambattista Vico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia