This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monolatry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The gods that he/she... feels membership with... This needs rephrasing—feels an affinity to, or of whose people he/she considers himself/herself a member. To feel membership with a person or god isn't an English phrase.— Copey 2 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a former student of Comparative Religion I would like to offer an alternative definition for Monolatry and Monolatrous. These are rarely used terms but I have always used them and heard them used (or so it seemed) in another sense.
Monolatrism (Alternative Definition) is the belief that one singular supreme diety is represented by and acts through several lesser dieties. One example would be Hinduism where all gods are manifestations of Atman.
A better example (and the only one I can find a citation to support my useage) might be Ancient Egypt, where all gods were acting on behalf of Netjer and bore the title "names of Netjer".
-- But this is not 100% historically verifiable, it is a belief system which Kemetic Orthodoxy has chosen to support. --
If I am not mistaken, "Monolatrism" is not a word; the correct term is "Monolatry," which means the belief that although other gods exist, only one particular god is to be worshipped. Evidence of the pre-monotheistic character of early Hebrew religion can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in e.g. the Ten Commandments' Second Commandment: "You may not worship other gods before Me." 66.108.145.155 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
If we want to move to Monolatry, we'll have to request a move or get an admin to do it. - Acjelen 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Thou art God alone." How does that prove existence of othergods?I believe it contradicts it.New Babylon.
The "Thou art God alone" actually comes later in the Hebrew Bible where the monolatry of the people has transitted or is in the transition to a fully realized monotheism. The texts of the 10 Commandments do clearly show that the earliest Israelites do have some form of monolatry. This can also be called henotheism as mentioned below. --
To the student of comparative religion: Would that not be a form of henotheism or polytheism, even? What about those who believe there is more than one deity but that deity is supreme above all others and have little to no connection to the rest of them?
Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, as the early Hebrews did, is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article. Abe Froman 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any difference between monolatry and henotheism? If, as it seems, the meaning is the same but they're used in different contexts, I think we should merge the two. Any comments? -- Εξαίρετος ( msg) 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't comment on a merge proposal made over a decade ago but apparently the last two years have seen user trying to add (supporting or opposing) votes to that. I don't think this is a valid mode of dealing with such questions. Don't have such "votes" have deadlines?
Nevertheless, without attempting to cast a vote, I'd like to add my two cents to it. The merge between the two articles would be wrong because "Monolatry" and "Henotheism" are two different concepts. They do overlap and might often be encountered together but they're not the same:
Str1977 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
While the article has seen great improvements lately, the sectons In ancient Israel and In Judaism need to be combined as they cover the same topic. - Acjelen 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading the article today and saw that the Mormonism section and the Christianity section both quote 1 Cor 8:5, but they read differently. The LDS version is the King James Version of the New Testament; what is the other?
Also, we should never quote scripture and assume that everyone interprets the verse the same way; i.e. do not use primary sources. This current situation is a perfect example. What is needed in both sections is a quote from a reliable source that provides an interpretation for both sections. Thoughts?-- Storm Rider (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Psalm 82:1; Psalm 138:1; Judges 11:24; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Egon20 ( talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the following section here until such time as there is something that makes it of value:
- "The Apostle Paul indicated that although there are gods many and lords many, to Christians there is but one god (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6). This appears to be a proclamation of monolatry rather than monotheism." [1]
- "Jews at the time of Jesus were not monotheists, that is, only believed in the existence of one god, but were instead involved in monolatry, that is, the worship of one god. The distinction is important. In many places, the Bible tacitly acknowledges the existence of more than one deity, but does not sanction the worship of more than one god." [2]
First of all, the editor has quoted a book review. The book review is not a statement about LDS beliefs, but a critique of an article that a critic of the LDS Church attempts to describe the concepts of Christology in the Book of Mormon, part of the LDS canon. Second, it seems unhelpful to quote the article, but then say nothing; as if the quotes are self explanatory. I find them insufficient. Third, the topic is monolatrism and this section should explain why it belongs or how it is applicable to the topic. Does anyone have any ideas? -- Storm Rider (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
References
The amount of discussion of Mormonism is arguably disproportionate to its relevance to monolatry. The insinuation that Mormonism is monolatrist is contentious. Statements are made to give the impression that Mormonism is monolatrist without openly arguing such. What would be more appropriate is to summarize and cite research on the question and note that the inclusion of Mormonism in this article is controversial. Contributors shouldn't assume that their point is self-evident from the selected bits of info given. Biogenicsilica ( talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's absolutely relevant to explicitly look in the article at whether the Shema, the most prominent declaration in Jewish practice of the Oneness of God, is compatible with Monolatry rather than out-and-out Monotheism.
But at the moment I am not clear what exactly thesis Rashi's comment
The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9).
is being used to support.
A quote in the article claims "there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C." Then we blithely continue "This was recognised by Rashi..."
But as somebody wrote above, "Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, ... is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article".
Different readings I guess are:
I'm not sure that Rashi is incompatible with (2).
IMO it would indeed be good to look at this example more closely, and at what various commentators (particularly those not necessarily just "teaching the party line") have had to say about the Shema, if [[WP:RS]s can be found. Jheald ( talk) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"However, due to lack of understanding of the original text, most points are considered invalid and not congruent with Jewish teachings."
This sentence is biased, because it looks like it implies that the points are considered invalid because they are incompatible with Jewish teachings.
Considered invalid by whom? By Jewish teachings? Of course they are. Biblical criticism is a scientific approach, Jewish teaching is a religion.
I think the author should add WHO considers those points invalid and also separate that from the fact that they are incompatible with Jewish techings.
Yingele ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Monolatry is being treated as one of the -isms. It is NOT and the correct article should be at Monolatry, not monolatrism. The 'isms' all deal with belief, not practice. So if the opposite of theism is atheism, then one could say the opposite of monolatry is idolatry . So to say that someone who practices monolatry worships only one god, but believes in te existence of more than one god is reading more into the statement than is there. Consider the examples below:
So given the examples above, Adam, Brian, and Charlie all practice monolatry (that is they all worship one god) even though Adam is monotheistic, Brian is henotheistic, and Charlie is some sort of theistic agnostic. David; like Adam, is monotheistic but doesn't practice monolatry because he is irreligious.
Bottom Line: Monolatry = single worship greek: mono(single) + latreia(worship). I do acknowledge that monolatry is often used to refer to those who believe there may be (or are) more than one god (because monolatry is a 'weaker' term than monotheism), but this article needs to acknowledge the differences. VictorianMutant ( talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a random section on Christianity? It doesn't really add anything to the article on monolatry. Shouldn't really be there. ArdClose ( talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And why is there even a random section on Egypt and Israel? Why no Asian religious beliefs? The Christianity section ONLY discusses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which is barely mainstream Christianity. If this article is even on Wikipedia, then Catholicism and mainstream protestant beliefs should be included. Frankly I'm not sure why this page exists. Seems it is taking an opportunity for a little bit of proselytizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnigfreitag ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The current iteration of the "In Christianity" section refers to Monolatry and Monotheism but, in my opinion, is from a personal POV interpretation without citation. It argues for a certain interpretation of a translation that is already a translator's or publisher's interpretation. While I do think it's important to include Christian ideas in the article, there is very little there. Some early Christians believed in varying kinds of theism, or even something not exactly like theism. Some Gnostics might have, for example, believed in good gods vs. evil gods; some might not have thought of some (or all?) of them as "gods" at all. There is a LOT of history there missing. I have seen some references to this in other articles, but which those were are not coming to mind at the moment, or I might include some of that here myself. Today, there are a bazillion different permutations of theism among those who call themselves Christian. Relatively few might be Monolatrists, but are some. I'd like to see references to actual Monolatry within Christianity throughout the ages. :) Misty MH ( talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clear the bible dopes not refer to any "other Gods"
It speaks on the topic clearly by saying "gods" to refer to the blindness induced by sinfullness. It uses it as a sort of distinguisher between the one true God, and those which are a figment of mans sinful puzzle-lie formations. TO say that ancient Israel supported many gods as in the same category of the one true God is incorrect. The topic is discussed by the Apostle Paul as well as by Moses and the word of God himself in the Old testament.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).</ref>
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8-6.htm</ref> — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.249.65.78 (
talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Monolatrism →
Monolatry – As has been suggested earlier (under
#Alternative Definition), this article should be moved to the more common term.
So it's obvious that "monolatry" is the more common term. Hence, this page should be moved to "monolatry". Str1977 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monolatry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not happy with the MOVE to "Monolatry" from "Monolatrism".
Monolatry smacks of reference to the word idolatry, and therefore seems like some religion's preferred term to dismiss other forms of theism.
When I first encountered this article, I just took the word monolatrism to refer to a theological word for another form of theism, comparable to the words monotheism or pantheism, etc. Now, as monolatry, it seems more like an opinion that relegates the belief or practice to a form of idolatry.
Don't like it at all.
We are not likely to find the finer distinctions (or words) like this in TYPICAL dictionaries. They aren't theological dictionaries! And as we see from the discussion in October 2017,† each of these words might not even be found in such a dictionary! Both words were missing from some!
Whether intended or not, the move – to what is being taken here as the same word in a different form – seems to be a move to a more sectarian designation, possibly referring by sectarians to idolatry, rather than a theological word referring to an important type of theism.
I strongly urge that this word be changed back until we (or someone) can do further research among theological dictionaries and such, rather than relying on everyday-dictionaries.
Please.
Suggestions for theological dictionaries are welcome. But let's move the page back for now (someone who knows how to do that).
The move details from View History: "10:57, November 6, 2017 Jenks24 (talk | contribs) m . . (19,535 bytes) (0) . . (Jenks24 moved page Monolatrism to Monolatry: per requested move discussion, see talk) (undo | thank)"
Misty MH ( talk) 02:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Misty MH ( talk) 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The lead states that "monolatry is distinguished from henotheism", but I think the article completely fails to show how the two are distinct from each other. Who can work that out? Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kpkp2vxX3I That kind of addresses this topic. And sure, it can't be used as a source, and heck, its sources are books etc that can't be used as a source either directly. But perhaps someone digging deeper can find more sources about this topic by going down that rabbit hole? Things like online references to the books used as sources or even the books themselves being online somewhere? Or perhaps there's something else that would qualify as a source? Anyway, just thought I should let you all know about the video and the sources mentioned in the description field as it might be a good starting point for beefing up the source section of this article a bit if anyone is willing to go to the effort of looking through it all. Luredreier ( talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
In this article one reads about henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity., whereas in the article Henotheism it says: Henotheism (from Greek ἑνὸς θεοῦ (henos theou) 'of one god') is the worship of a single, supreme god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other lower deities..
This seems like an open contradiction. Which article is right? -- ♦ Xarioti ( talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monolatry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The gods that he/she... feels membership with... This needs rephrasing—feels an affinity to, or of whose people he/she considers himself/herself a member. To feel membership with a person or god isn't an English phrase.— Copey 2 22:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a former student of Comparative Religion I would like to offer an alternative definition for Monolatry and Monolatrous. These are rarely used terms but I have always used them and heard them used (or so it seemed) in another sense.
Monolatrism (Alternative Definition) is the belief that one singular supreme diety is represented by and acts through several lesser dieties. One example would be Hinduism where all gods are manifestations of Atman.
A better example (and the only one I can find a citation to support my useage) might be Ancient Egypt, where all gods were acting on behalf of Netjer and bore the title "names of Netjer".
-- But this is not 100% historically verifiable, it is a belief system which Kemetic Orthodoxy has chosen to support. --
If I am not mistaken, "Monolatrism" is not a word; the correct term is "Monolatry," which means the belief that although other gods exist, only one particular god is to be worshipped. Evidence of the pre-monotheistic character of early Hebrew religion can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, in e.g. the Ten Commandments' Second Commandment: "You may not worship other gods before Me." 66.108.145.155 12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
If we want to move to Monolatry, we'll have to request a move or get an admin to do it. - Acjelen 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
"Thou art God alone." How does that prove existence of othergods?I believe it contradicts it.New Babylon.
The "Thou art God alone" actually comes later in the Hebrew Bible where the monolatry of the people has transitted or is in the transition to a fully realized monotheism. The texts of the 10 Commandments do clearly show that the earliest Israelites do have some form of monolatry. This can also be called henotheism as mentioned below. --
To the student of comparative religion: Would that not be a form of henotheism or polytheism, even? What about those who believe there is more than one deity but that deity is supreme above all others and have little to no connection to the rest of them?
Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, as the early Hebrews did, is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article. Abe Froman 15:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any difference between monolatry and henotheism? If, as it seems, the meaning is the same but they're used in different contexts, I think we should merge the two. Any comments? -- Εξαίρετος ( msg) 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't comment on a merge proposal made over a decade ago but apparently the last two years have seen user trying to add (supporting or opposing) votes to that. I don't think this is a valid mode of dealing with such questions. Don't have such "votes" have deadlines?
Nevertheless, without attempting to cast a vote, I'd like to add my two cents to it. The merge between the two articles would be wrong because "Monolatry" and "Henotheism" are two different concepts. They do overlap and might often be encountered together but they're not the same:
Str1977 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
While the article has seen great improvements lately, the sectons In ancient Israel and In Judaism need to be combined as they cover the same topic. - Acjelen 07:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just reading the article today and saw that the Mormonism section and the Christianity section both quote 1 Cor 8:5, but they read differently. The LDS version is the King James Version of the New Testament; what is the other?
Also, we should never quote scripture and assume that everyone interprets the verse the same way; i.e. do not use primary sources. This current situation is a perfect example. What is needed in both sections is a quote from a reliable source that provides an interpretation for both sections. Thoughts?-- Storm Rider (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Psalm 82:1; Psalm 138:1; Judges 11:24; 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Egon20 ( talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the following section here until such time as there is something that makes it of value:
- "The Apostle Paul indicated that although there are gods many and lords many, to Christians there is but one god (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6). This appears to be a proclamation of monolatry rather than monotheism." [1]
- "Jews at the time of Jesus were not monotheists, that is, only believed in the existence of one god, but were instead involved in monolatry, that is, the worship of one god. The distinction is important. In many places, the Bible tacitly acknowledges the existence of more than one deity, but does not sanction the worship of more than one god." [2]
First of all, the editor has quoted a book review. The book review is not a statement about LDS beliefs, but a critique of an article that a critic of the LDS Church attempts to describe the concepts of Christology in the Book of Mormon, part of the LDS canon. Second, it seems unhelpful to quote the article, but then say nothing; as if the quotes are self explanatory. I find them insufficient. Third, the topic is monolatrism and this section should explain why it belongs or how it is applicable to the topic. Does anyone have any ideas? -- Storm Rider (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
References
The amount of discussion of Mormonism is arguably disproportionate to its relevance to monolatry. The insinuation that Mormonism is monolatrist is contentious. Statements are made to give the impression that Mormonism is monolatrist without openly arguing such. What would be more appropriate is to summarize and cite research on the question and note that the inclusion of Mormonism in this article is controversial. Contributors shouldn't assume that their point is self-evident from the selected bits of info given. Biogenicsilica ( talk) 14:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's absolutely relevant to explicitly look in the article at whether the Shema, the most prominent declaration in Jewish practice of the Oneness of God, is compatible with Monolatry rather than out-and-out Monotheism.
But at the moment I am not clear what exactly thesis Rashi's comment
The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the other nations-He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord” (Zeph. 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zech. 14:9).
is being used to support.
A quote in the article claims "there is no clear and unambiguous denial of the existence of gods other than Yahweh before Deutero-Isaiah in the 6th century B.C." Then we blithely continue "This was recognised by Rashi..."
But as somebody wrote above, "Acknowledging other people worshipped other gods, ... is not necessarily an endorsement of those faiths or a belief in their gods. The rhetorical character of the translated passages can be argued either way, and this should be reflected in the article".
Different readings I guess are:
I'm not sure that Rashi is incompatible with (2).
IMO it would indeed be good to look at this example more closely, and at what various commentators (particularly those not necessarily just "teaching the party line") have had to say about the Shema, if [[WP:RS]s can be found. Jheald ( talk) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"However, due to lack of understanding of the original text, most points are considered invalid and not congruent with Jewish teachings."
This sentence is biased, because it looks like it implies that the points are considered invalid because they are incompatible with Jewish teachings.
Considered invalid by whom? By Jewish teachings? Of course they are. Biblical criticism is a scientific approach, Jewish teaching is a religion.
I think the author should add WHO considers those points invalid and also separate that from the fact that they are incompatible with Jewish techings.
Yingele ( talk) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Monolatry is being treated as one of the -isms. It is NOT and the correct article should be at Monolatry, not monolatrism. The 'isms' all deal with belief, not practice. So if the opposite of theism is atheism, then one could say the opposite of monolatry is idolatry . So to say that someone who practices monolatry worships only one god, but believes in te existence of more than one god is reading more into the statement than is there. Consider the examples below:
So given the examples above, Adam, Brian, and Charlie all practice monolatry (that is they all worship one god) even though Adam is monotheistic, Brian is henotheistic, and Charlie is some sort of theistic agnostic. David; like Adam, is monotheistic but doesn't practice monolatry because he is irreligious.
Bottom Line: Monolatry = single worship greek: mono(single) + latreia(worship). I do acknowledge that monolatry is often used to refer to those who believe there may be (or are) more than one god (because monolatry is a 'weaker' term than monotheism), but this article needs to acknowledge the differences. VictorianMutant ( talk) 22:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a random section on Christianity? It doesn't really add anything to the article on monolatry. Shouldn't really be there. ArdClose ( talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
And why is there even a random section on Egypt and Israel? Why no Asian religious beliefs? The Christianity section ONLY discusses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which is barely mainstream Christianity. If this article is even on Wikipedia, then Catholicism and mainstream protestant beliefs should be included. Frankly I'm not sure why this page exists. Seems it is taking an opportunity for a little bit of proselytizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnigfreitag ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The current iteration of the "In Christianity" section refers to Monolatry and Monotheism but, in my opinion, is from a personal POV interpretation without citation. It argues for a certain interpretation of a translation that is already a translator's or publisher's interpretation. While I do think it's important to include Christian ideas in the article, there is very little there. Some early Christians believed in varying kinds of theism, or even something not exactly like theism. Some Gnostics might have, for example, believed in good gods vs. evil gods; some might not have thought of some (or all?) of them as "gods" at all. There is a LOT of history there missing. I have seen some references to this in other articles, but which those were are not coming to mind at the moment, or I might include some of that here myself. Today, there are a bazillion different permutations of theism among those who call themselves Christian. Relatively few might be Monolatrists, but are some. I'd like to see references to actual Monolatry within Christianity throughout the ages. :) Misty MH ( talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It is clear the bible dopes not refer to any "other Gods"
It speaks on the topic clearly by saying "gods" to refer to the blindness induced by sinfullness. It uses it as a sort of distinguisher between the one true God, and those which are a figment of mans sinful puzzle-lie formations. TO say that ancient Israel supported many gods as in the same category of the one true God is incorrect. The topic is discussed by the Apostle Paul as well as by Moses and the word of God himself in the Old testament.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).</ref>
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8-6.htm</ref> — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.249.65.78 (
talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 18:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Monolatrism →
Monolatry – As has been suggested earlier (under
#Alternative Definition), this article should be moved to the more common term.
So it's obvious that "monolatry" is the more common term. Hence, this page should be moved to "monolatry". Str1977 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monolatry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not happy with the MOVE to "Monolatry" from "Monolatrism".
Monolatry smacks of reference to the word idolatry, and therefore seems like some religion's preferred term to dismiss other forms of theism.
When I first encountered this article, I just took the word monolatrism to refer to a theological word for another form of theism, comparable to the words monotheism or pantheism, etc. Now, as monolatry, it seems more like an opinion that relegates the belief or practice to a form of idolatry.
Don't like it at all.
We are not likely to find the finer distinctions (or words) like this in TYPICAL dictionaries. They aren't theological dictionaries! And as we see from the discussion in October 2017,† each of these words might not even be found in such a dictionary! Both words were missing from some!
Whether intended or not, the move – to what is being taken here as the same word in a different form – seems to be a move to a more sectarian designation, possibly referring by sectarians to idolatry, rather than a theological word referring to an important type of theism.
I strongly urge that this word be changed back until we (or someone) can do further research among theological dictionaries and such, rather than relying on everyday-dictionaries.
Please.
Suggestions for theological dictionaries are welcome. But let's move the page back for now (someone who knows how to do that).
The move details from View History: "10:57, November 6, 2017 Jenks24 (talk | contribs) m . . (19,535 bytes) (0) . . (Jenks24 moved page Monolatrism to Monolatry: per requested move discussion, see talk) (undo | thank)"
Misty MH ( talk) 02:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Misty MH ( talk) 02:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The lead states that "monolatry is distinguished from henotheism", but I think the article completely fails to show how the two are distinct from each other. Who can work that out? Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 06:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kpkp2vxX3I That kind of addresses this topic. And sure, it can't be used as a source, and heck, its sources are books etc that can't be used as a source either directly. But perhaps someone digging deeper can find more sources about this topic by going down that rabbit hole? Things like online references to the books used as sources or even the books themselves being online somewhere? Or perhaps there's something else that would qualify as a source? Anyway, just thought I should let you all know about the video and the sources mentioned in the description field as it might be a good starting point for beefing up the source section of this article a bit if anyone is willing to go to the effort of looking through it all. Luredreier ( talk) 15:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
In this article one reads about henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity., whereas in the article Henotheism it says: Henotheism (from Greek ἑνὸς θεοῦ (henos theou) 'of one god') is the worship of a single, supreme god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other lower deities..
This seems like an open contradiction. Which article is right? -- ♦ Xarioti ( talk) 17:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)