Learn More About monotheism. Time Traveler for monotheism The first known use of monotheism was in See more words from the same year. Style: MLA. English Language Learners Definition of monotheism. Get Word of the Day daily email!
Test Your Vocabulary. Test your visual vocabulary with our question challenge! A daily challenge for crossword fanatics. Org www. Com www. This work represents a translation of the divine words as revealed by the Almighty over , years ago and in no way is the translation itself divine or perfect.
We are working hard to have the most accurate translation available, and thus will be regularly updating the work. The print version may be slightly behind in updates compared to the online version. The online version may be found at www. Should you find an error, please notify us at free free-minds. With so many English translations of the Qur'an available, it is inevitable that the reader would ask "why make another one? As such, all translators have belonged to one school of thought or another which clearly comes across in the interpretation of and choice of translation for specific words or verses.
The Qur'an: A Monotheist Translation is the result of a group effort by people who do not belong to any denomination, and, for the first time in many centuries, are simply proud to call themselves "Muslims," submitting to God alone.
He is the One who has chosen you, and He has made no hardship for you in the system, the creed of your father Abraham; He is the One who named you 'those who have submitted' Muslimeen from before and in this. So let the messenger be witness over you and you be witness over the people. So hold the contact prayer and contribute towards purification and hold tight to God, He is your patron.
What an excellent Patron, and what an excellent Supporter. Also, while many translators have been sincere in their rendering of the Arabic meaning of the words, they have been unable to refrain from adding comments in the form of "parenthesis" within the text of the translation or in the form of footnotes and appendices to reflect their views on certain verses or the views of the denomination they adhere to.
The Qur'an: A Monotheist Translation is unique in the fact that it uses neither footnotes nor comments letting the text speak for itself and delivering to the reader a rendition of the pure message of the Qur'an which is in itself a 'fully detailed' Book.
And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. Finally, no matter how much can be said about this translation or any other, it is imperative to point out that guidance cannot come from any text or human being, rather, true knowledge and guidance can only come from the One who initiated the heavens and the earth. It is He alone that we seek. Al-Baqarah The Heifer 3. Younus Jonah Yousuf Joseph Al-Ra'ad Thunder Al-Hijr Al-Hijr Valley Al-Nahl The Bee Al-Kahf The Cave Maryam Mary Al-Hajj Pilgrimage Al-Noor Light Al-Naml The Ant Al-Qasas History Al-'Ankaboot The Spider Al-Room The Romans Al-Sajdah Proxstration Saba' Sheba Faater Initiator That I am obligated to worship both deities thus seems to entail that I can worship both deities.
The inference from 6 to 7 seems sound. Another possible problem concerns the truth of Thus, Thomas Morris has objected that one could be unconditionally committed to each of two distinct beings provided that their wills were necessarily harmonious. For if their wills were necessarily harmonious, they could not require of us conflicting acts. This objection should be discounted, however, because the wills of distinct persons are necessarily opposable. See discussion in section 5 above.
But the best answer is probably this. The devotion that God requires appears, then, to be inherently indivisible. In sum, neither of the two problems presents an unsurmountable difficulty for the argument from total devotion. No discussion of monotheism would be complete which failed to note that some major theistic traditions contain strands which, on their face, seem at odds with their commitment to monotheism.
Consider the Kabbalah, for example. The Zohar after identifies the first principle with the En Sof or infinite unlimited. Because it lacks attributes, the En Sof is incomprehensible and thus, in a strict sense, non-personal although it reveals itself as personal. The hidden God manifests itself in the sefirot, however. A brief discussion of the first three will be sufficient for our purposes. The first is, perhaps surprisingly, characterized as Nothing or the Abyss.
Both Wisdom and Intelligence emerge or emanate from the Crown. The idea exists at this stage in a confused and undifferentiated form, however. Wisdom is sometimes pictured as a fountain which springs out of Nothingness the Crown and from which the other sefirot will flow, sometimes as a seed or germ from which everything develops, and sometimes as a point.
But matters become still more problematic in an influential treatise that was composed in Provence around , and falsely ascribed to Hai Goan. Whatever one thinks of this, there are striking similarities between the two doctrines. But there are also important differences. Nor was this criticism easily laid to rest. Rabbi Azriel of Gerona d. Still, the Kabbalah is only one strand within Judaism. By contrast, the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the divinity of both Vishnu and Lakshmi, are firmly rooted at the very heart of Christianity and Shri Vaishnavism, respectively.
Perhaps as a result, these traditions have devoted much more thought to reconciling monotheism with elements which, on their face, seem at odds with it. Or, alternatively, a causally necessary condition of the existence of every contingent being and the causally sufficient condition [in the strong sense] of the existence of at least one of them. For the sake of brevity we will focus exclusively on the simpler case, however. The argument from sovereignty can be deployed against the Trinity only if the relevant property is regarded as an attribute of each member of the Trinity rather than of the Trinity as a whole that is, of the Trinity considered as a single concrete entity.
The Western or Augustinian Tradition does not. Another view, though, is implicit in the position of many second and third century church fathers, some western Christian Platonists, and the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole. But all share a common specific or generic essence namely, divinity , so that each member of the Trinity is eternal, necessarily existent, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the like.
Because the creative volition of any member of the Trinity entails that the other two will the same thing, if any one of them wills the existence of a contingent being, then they all will it. And, of course, the creative volition of any member of the Trinity is also a necessary causal condition of the existence of contingent beings. It would seem, then, that there are three creative volitions, each of which is a causally sufficient and causally necessary condition of the existence of contingent beings.
There are thus three sovereign creative wills, and this appears to contradict the monotheistic claim that sovereignty is necessarily unique. Appearances may be deceiving, however. It is therefore not causally sufficient for the occurrence of s in the strong sense of sufficient condition employed in the argument from sovereignty, namely, that x is a causally sufficient condition of y in the strong sense if and only if, given x alone , y exists or occurs.
In that sense, there is only one causally sufficient condition of the existence of contingent beings, and that is the joint operation of the necessarily concurrent wills of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Either there is only one will which is part of the one divine essence or the distinct wills of the three hypostases necessarily concur.
Finally, the third argument precludes the existence of the Trinity only if each member is, in abstraction from the others, an appropriate object of total devotion and unconditional commitment. Christian attitudes towards the Father, for example, are inseparable from Christian attitudes towards the Son. Christ is worshiped as the Son of the Father, for instance, and the Father is worshiped as the one who fully reveals himself in Christ.
The Shri Vaishnavas identify Vishnu with the Brahman. According to Ramanuja ? Indeed, he is the supreme person paratman , creator and Lord, who leads souls to salvation. He is also advitya without rival. They have the same status, in short, that angels have in the western religious traditions. The space-time world with all it contains is thus related to God as our bodies are related to our souls. The Shri Vaishnava picture of reality is thus clearly monotheistic. Problems are created, however, by the fact that the scriptures on which the Shri Vaishnavas draw closely associate Vishnu with his consort Lakshmi.
Again, while Ramanuja and his great predecessor, Yamuna, have little or nothing to say about Lakshmi in their philosophical writings, she plays a significant role in their devotional works, where she is described as Mediatrix between Vishnu and his devotees.
There were two major resolutions. The first is represented by Lokacarya — Venkatanatha — offers a different resolution. Moreover and most important for our purposes , there is no real or ontological difference between the divine father and the divine mother.
Lakshmi is an inseparable attribute of Vishnu. In short, Venkatanatha preserves monotheism by denying that God and his divine consort are ontologically distinct. An Argument from Omnipotence 6. An Argument from the Demand for Total Devotion 7. Zagzebski , 10—11 Is this argument entirely compelling, though? His argument is roughly this: Necessarily, if anything is a god, its creative volition is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of every other concrete object.
Suppose, then, that Contingent beings exist and there are two gods. It follows that Each is the necessary and sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings. From 1 and 2. Therefore, The first is a sufficient causal condition of the set of contingent beings.
From 3. Hence, The second is not a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. From 4. Again, The first is a necessary causal condition of the set of contingent beings. So The second is not a sufficient causal condition of the existence of the set of contingent beings. Celtic Frost's return should satisfy even the biggest cynics with the scope of its imagination and sheer audacity. Those qualities, as much as great music, have always represented the cornerstone of Frost's unique body of work, and Monotheist -- unrealistic listener expectations or not -- is a more than worthy addition to it.
Japanese Bonus Tracks 2 included! Posted by H.
0コメント