Forum:Believers and non believers. Does your religion see other religions as actually being religions?

This is following from Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive169

Do fundies even see other religions as being religions? I had a discussion with a Muslim in relation to Ireland's new blasphemy law, and he seemed incapable of understanding that his religion (whose adherents in Ireland couldn't fill half of our largest football stadium) would potentially suffer as a result of being in a predominantly Catholic country. The impression I got from him, and fundies who argue that they are for freedom of religion is that other religions are not religions in the same sense as theirs, so a Catholic alleging Islam to be blasphemous would find their case thrown out of court when because it would be obvious that Islam is a proper religion. I'd be interested in knowing how current and former hardcore believers see this? I was never really aware of other religions back when I would have been a believer, and I've no idea how I really felt about this.

Do you (or did you) view other religions as being religions in the same sense as yours, or were they more comparable to an Elvis fan club? -- 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From an Atheist Perspective
A corollary of this is the question "What makes a religion?" All those people who put their religion down as Jedi Knight in the UK census were joking but what makes them - and the Flying Spaghetti Monster - a joke and not, for example, Catholicism? We atheist can't see the difference beyond one of the attitude of the 'faithful'. Is the sincerity of the believers enough? How many believers are required? Jack Hughes (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the issue of atheism it gets complicated because many fundies consider atheism to be a religion. Whether they really believe that to be the case or they use it solely as some sort of debating tactic, I can't say, although I'm sure mainstream Christians and Muslims do not take that position. 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may depend on the lens you hold up to life. If you have never eaten rice as a desert then you're probably going to consider it odd when you encounter someone eating rice pudding. Religion provides a world view and a philosophy to live by, so atheism being the alternative to belief could easily be construed as providing the same things as a religion would. The uncertainty plays in to it as well, since no atheist can reasonably claim that there is definitely no god, and so religious believers can attempt to describe it as being faith comparable to their own. -- 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From an atheist perspective, I find the title of this thread oxymoronic. If I'm a non-believer, then I don't have a religion. I don't follow anybody else's belief but my own. I personally find it incredibly offensive when people try to label atheism as a religion.
 * To answer the question anyway, as an atheist, I see all religions as actually being religions. I also see them as all being equally wrong and would be equally unhappy were any one of them to attempt to evangelise on my door step at 10am on a Saturday morning. Bondurant (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheism, fundamentally, is not a religion in any way, shape or form. But if I have to call it a religion to get equal treatment from the govment and crazies, I have no problem doing that. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply provide Richard Dawkins' quote: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Some religions hold onto beliefs, but are still atheistic about a vast majority of other deities. Whether atheism is a religion is only applicable to the person who states such a belief; to those who don't hold religious beliefs, it does not compute that such a non-belief would be considered a belief. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This all comes back to where we come in. If we take C:R's "world view and a philosophy to live by" then atheism comes under that very broad umbrella. If we narrow it down to a belief in an invisible friend a deity then, by definition, it doesn't.
 * Then there's the question of what sort of deity one believes in. Most fundies of all colours believe in an interventionist god. Where does that leave Buddhism? Is Buddhism a religion? As far as I am aware it has no deity as such. On the other hand most people understand it to be one.
 * Part of the problem is that religion is like porn. We all know it when we see it but it's very hard to define. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of Buddhists I've conversed with online have said that the religion is really more of a philosophy than a religion like Christianity or Islam. It quite possibly is, but then there's that whole what-happens-when-you-die thing and karma-gets-imposed and it tends to blur the line between a philosophy and religion. Lack of deities makes it difficult to categorize, perhaps? Then what happens with shintoism (spirits rather than deities), voodooism (rituals and channels to the dead), and so forth?
 * Atheism lacks any of these by definition, but that doesn't mean all atheists are devoid of beliefs in spirits, deities, rituals, prayers, etc. How many atheists think that aliens abduct humans for experiments? --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can be an atheist but still have some ideas about what are and aren't valid religions. I see religions such as Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., which have hundreds of years of heritage, as much more legitimate than recent cults like Scientology & Raelism which are dreamt up out of nowhere. It's like the difference between a monarchy & a dictatorship - one is outdated but has some credibility because of its past value, while the other seems like a strange & sinister development. However, there's a lot of grey area - e.g. I regard Young Earth Creationism as among the new & cultish movements rather than old established religion, even though it obviously has roots in traditional Christian beliefs. 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that argument works (that newer "religions" aren't as valid as older ones) because historically, each of the religions was a "new religion" and had few followers. How new something is shouldn't be a factor in whether it's a valid religion; and technically each religion was dreamed up by one or several people based on their beliefs. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But most religions date from times when people understood much less about the universe, and so it was logical for them to rationalise it in terms of unseen forces or symbolism. When new religions start suddenly in the modern world, we can't attribute it to the same thing, or not to the same extent.  Sure, people still look for a hidden meaning behind things, & this explains part of the appeal of both old & new religions, but there's something very artificial and inorganic about the some new religions.  I'm thinking particularly of Scientology here.  It has its own set of stories, but they're not folkloric like most religious mythologies: they just come from one guy & his cronies.  & I can only see that in terms of either deliberate deception or extremes of delusion.   20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A slight tangent, but...
...I've wondered how religionists of one sect view other religionists as compared to non-religionists. For example, do christians think "Well, those muslims believe in the wrong god, but at least they believe in some god, not like those stupid atheists". Or do hard-core religionists view members of other religions far worse than they view atheists (Well those atheists don't believe in my god, but at least they're not worshipping some stupid false god like those muslims!") 13:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read a commentary on the Quran that said Mohammed approvingly noted that the Greeks had won a battle against pagan invaders - his sympathies lay with the Greeks for being monotheist. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is some solidarity amongst monotheists, as they assume that there's only one god so they must all be worshipping the same entity. Of course the mainstream groupings appear to think that any religious belief is better than none, a bit like the oil companies preferring that you consume some hydrocarbons, even if it's from a competitor, rather than adopting some self-sufficient, low-energy, alternative life-style. We might even consider religions to be "brands" of belief, vieing with each other to be the next Apple. Anyone want a shiny new iBible? 14:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "one god" idea may explain why the Qur'an proscribes tolerance towards people of the book. I suppose Islam has the advantage of being later to the game. The "brands" idea is interesting. It sounds a bit like preferring Cadbury, but being friendly towards anyone who eats chocolate in some shape or form. Practicality may also come in to it, since there's no easy way to explain why the majority of people in the world do not accept your one true faith. -- 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This - was just going to make same point but hit an EC. Compare Islamic attitudes to toward "people of the book" and those outside, it is quite marked, despite Judeo-Christian claims that Muslims "always" hated Jews/Christians. Muslims granted them protection provided they accepted Muslim rule. The defeat of the Arabian pagans and the coming of the crusades changed that dynamic in the mid-east, but it persisted in Muslim ruled India up until relatively recently.--[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 14:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the way some Islamic countries treat Bahá'ists does make you doubt this. CS Miller (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From an Egyptian Recon Perspective
Yes, we do. Mine is not the only religion, it's one of many. Because your set of religious beliefs are different to mine doesn't mean they don't constitute a religion. This view is based on the history of my religion in relation to it's contact with others. Specific references are made to this point and it's more or less the very common (at the time) "You have your gods ad I have mine" view. Foreign gods were occasionally incorporated into the pantheon in an Egyptianised form as well, and Egyptian gods likewise appeared in Levantine pantheons (during the New Kingdom, the Ptoelmaic experiences were very different) but that's a separate issue. -- 14:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit off-topic, but do you have a link providing the background to your religion? It sounds interesting, and comparable to what we saw in ancient Roman and Greek traditions. -- 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(UNDENT)I did have an article on this, but the website it was on has gone now, so here is a brief rundown anyway. There are a few parallels between Egyptian and Greco-Roman belief, in that both are polytheistic traditions without a set core of “canonical” texts like the Bible or Qu’ran, and having a contrast between a very eleborate State Religion, and a low-key Personal Religion. But, there are some key differences too, perhaps the most important being that there are relatively few cases where there is “A God Of…” situations. Most gods in the Egyptian pantheon have a broad range of responsibilities and powers, and it can tend toward the henotheistic, whereby the worshipper of an otherwise minor local god can assume much greater importance. For example, Ptah is sometimes written in the west as a “Patron of Craftsmen”, which is true, he is. But, in Memphis, his cult centre, he was involved in the creation of the world, and a close relationship with Horus and so on and so forth. Thoth is “Patron of Scribes”, but in Hermopolis, his cult centre, again he becomes a de-facto creator of the universe. Similarly with elements of nature, while a god might embody an aspect of nature, that is very rarely the limit of their nature, or their influence in the cosmos. Amun (apparently a "Wind god") is a very good example of this.

Also, Egyptian religion has many theological schools. Because local gods become elevated, there are several different versions of various myths floating around, including the order of creation. I’m a Heliopolitan (centred on Ra and the Heliopolitan Triad), and I keep to the Heliopolitan theology regarding creation and a few other details, but there are others, such as Memphite (centring on Ptah), Theban (centring on Amun-Ra) and so on. Generally the different schools don’t conflict, it’s accepted that across the religion there are differences and it’s left at that. Historically, this was in part because the Pharaoh was the supreme priest of every cult, and every offering and ritual was performed by him. The priests actually doing this are, theologically speaking, simple stand-ins for the Pharaoh, so every cult enjoyed Royal patronage, however minor it was.

Unlike the Greeks, and in a different way to the Romans Egyptian religion also has a Royal cult, which interacted with all the theological schools (including Heliopolitan). It’s much more prominent and more central to the beliefs of the religion than it’s Roman counterpart, because it’s been there from the beginning, rather than as a later addition. It was also more strongly focused on bloodline, which the Roman cult was less focused on, as well as elevating the Pharaoh during life as well as after death.

Worship today is split between those who incorporate Egyptian themes (i.e. pretty pictures and cats) into a modern religious framework (i.e. Wicca), and the more “hard-core” reconstructionists who seek to rebuild as much of the original religion as possible, with the newer phrase of “revivalists” being somewhere in the middle (usually like reconstructionism, but run into problems with some of the more contentious aspects of the religion such as Royal cult, and non-child friendly bits of the mythology, and fairly intense devotions when it comes to State Religion). -- 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that people tinker around with Norse and Greek mythologies, but the Egyptian one is news to me. I suppose Egyptian belief, unlike the claimed roots of Wicca, must be a bit easier to piece together, what with the Egyptian habit of writing things down. Thanks for the info. -- 15:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. A lot of people are suprised when they do find out there are people who follow it, though I dont know why, as it's not sooper seekrit or anything. I guess Greek, Roman and Norse are familiar to most in the west as part of the cultural heritage which isn't shared with the Egyptian beliefs, so it's regarded as more "out there". Having texts really does help a lot, and "canon" or not, we would be lost without the texts. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes absolutely - but obviously wrong
If my religion is correct then all other religions worshipping a GOD must by definition be wrong, because MY God is the ONE true God and all others are False. Some nature worship or ansestral spirit worship may be tolerated if they dont compete but they are wrong as well. Hamster (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From a liberal Christian Perspective
This is a question I've given a lot of thought to, and I've never really come up with an answer I'm satisfied with. My very selfish side wants to say "we Christians have it right, no one else does, ha ha", but I don't think that's the attitude God wants us to have. My somewhat selfish side says "I find I have more in common with liberals of non-Christian religions than with conservatives of my own faith." I want to believe "God loves everyone, He's revealed himself to them differently, but as long as you've led a good life, there's a reward for you afterwards", but I can't quite convince myself that's the case.

I'll admit, that's one thing I kinda sorta envy the fundamentalists for -- its all so bloomin' simple for them. I actually try to use the mind God gave me and think about things rather just accept whatever I'm told. That's not easy, dang it. MDB (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about your fellow bible-lovers saying you are not one of them? And I have to admit, if you're gonna be a religionist, the fundies have got it right - that's what the books say!  15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From the outside this seems to be one of the biggest dilemmas facing the modern religionist. Either you follow the books and the religious leaders to the letter or you have to compromise. And if the creation story is a myth then why not the rest of it? Do you only believe what you want to believe? Sorry, that came out a bit accusatory - it wasn't meant to be. I mean it as a real request for how you feel. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see it going either way. If you believe in magic, you can believe it's true forever or you can believe it's supposed to adapt to the times. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I find I have to believe that people are inherently decent (i.e. not sociopathic), but I wouldn't necessarily search for evidence to back this up. I accept that people can do bad things, but I'd end up paranoid if I had to stop and weigh-up all of the possibilities when meeting new people. I don't think that this would equate religious belief, but I find myself becoming very cynical when this belief wanes. -- 15:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)
 * I take the philosophy a former pastor of mine takes -- "no one takes the Bible as 100% literally true. Some of us are just honest about it."


 * Now, I have the advantage of being raised a Methodist, which does not teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or even Prima Scriptura. It teaches the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" (though it wasn't until I started attending a Metropolitan Community Church that I heard that specific term), which says you look to Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience to evaluate your faith. And though they may not use the term, that's pretty much mainstream to liberal Protestantism, and probably much of American Catholicism, with a higher emphasis on "Tradition".


 * As for what parts of it are myth... well, ultimately it comes down to faith. I know that's an unusual thing to say on Rational Wiki, and I realize that ultimately, my belief is not a logical one, but I have faith that there was a Jesus Christ, and that his teachings were pretty good ones. Was there a Virgin Birth, a Resurrection, all the miracles, etc? I tend to think the "broad strokes" are true, but ultimately, its the lessons Christ taught that matter, not the stories about Him. I think that if, when I'm dying, I can say I've tried to live by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and "whatever you do unto the last and the least of there, you do unto me", I'll be confident I'm going to someplace better.


 * If you're going to discuss Christianity, you pretty much have to discuss Paul. (The mainstream to liberal churches pretty much ignore Revelation, and when it is discussed consider it allegory, not prophecy. You can't ignore Paul.) Paul can be troubling for a liberal Christian. You pretty much have to eventually say "Jesus' teachings of love trump Paul's legalistic stuff" and "Paul was writing for his time, so the stuff about women and gays doesn't apply anymore". And sometimes, "Paul was just plain weird." (Plus, if you want to get into more advanced study, some scholar's will argue that not all of the stuff attributed to Paul was actually written by Paul. This gets into linguistic analysis and the fact it wasn't forgery to sign someone else's name to an essay in First Century AD, it was honoring them.)


 * As for DeltaStar's question... well, first, I'm not a Bible-lover, I'm a Jesus-lover (and I get uncomfortable with that term, too, because of the English language's lack of words for the different types of love.) In my more bitter moments, I'll accuse fundamentalists of being Bibliolaters, not Christians, but I try to not think that way. And if they say I'm not one of them, well, sometimes, I think they're not one of "us", either. But as I said, ultimately, I believe that God cares for everyone, even if their wrong about Him. But then, I figure only one person ever understood exactly what God was like, and He got nailed to tree for it. MDB (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed reasonable to me that if I was going to be in for a penny, I had to be in for the pound. If some of the Bible was true, all of the Bible was true. God probably wouldn't be fucking around, especially with simple people. I think fundies got it right, but it's also clear that the whole thing is bollocks. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But you only have to take the position that if some of the Bible is true, its all true if you accept the fundamentalist proposition that it's all the direct word of God, a position I obviously reject. If you believe, as I do, that it was written by men, through the distorted lens of history, etc etc etc, then you can throw out anything you don't like use your own mind to understand it. MDB (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But in that case then you are not a christian!. I have to side with the fundies on this one, if you're going to believe that your particular fairy-story book was written by the creator of the universe, then you can't simply say "oh, that bits not true".  I'm not meaning to have a go at you personally; but I feel that 'religious moderates' (ie non-fundamentalists) contribute to the whole problem of religion just as much as fundies, in that if we (as society at large) are expected to respect and accept the just as ludicrous but not as aggressive view of the moderates, then society cannot object to those hold the same views but take it all the way.   (I may return and format this rant slightly better....)  17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This only applies if ones religion holds that the texts are divinely authored and infallible to begin with. Not all religions do this. I am aware this is under a Christian subtopic, but you appear to be referring to religious moderates and fundamentalists in the universal sense in the statement above. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair one, I am refering mainly the the Abrahamic religions here... 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume it's OK to resurrect this old thread here. DeltaStar, but American fundy version of Christianity is but a minority view. Biblical literalism as a dogma is relatively recent invention (even though there probably were always literalists). I still might consider MDB "possibly not a Christian", but on the basis of Nicean Creed, not literalism. One arguably need to subscribe to Incarnation and Resurrection to qualify as Christian. OrthodoxBeliever (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My take, as both a semi-practicing neopagan and a former fundamentalist Christian
As a neopagan, yes, obviously, all other religions count as religions, and most are mostly equal. (I do reserve the right to look down on any religion or version of a religion that either destroys lives or makes its people act like assholes. Looking at you, quiverfull movement.)  Mine's completely made up, just like everyone else's.  There is no room for arrogance there.

As a Christian, it was much harder, but I was brought up in some of the only fundamentalist churches to believe in full separation of church and state. (Well, not including things like the origins of the world, but they did their best.) My bible school teachers were convinced that it would be really easy for the government to oppress them just as easily as any other sect, and so it did leave me to understand the importance of other religions. They were competition, but they were still religions and deserving of liberty. Researcher (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Life, Religion, And Virtual Reality
Life is a virtual reality affair for sensing, self-cognizant, organisms, regardless of size or shape.

Religion is a specific cultural virtual reality tool for going through life.

Members of cultural virtual reality affairs should see other cultural virtual reality affairs as being other cultural virtual reality affairs.

Science vs. Religion Again And Again And...

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/320/122.page

A. "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Elaine Howard Ecklund" http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60362/t...hink_by_Elaine__Howard_Ecklund

B. "Inception And Prevalence Of Western Monotheism"

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU/blog/articles/53111

Several additional science/religion titles are included in the link

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU/blog/articles/53049

some dealing with the role that AAAS (90-yrs old "scientists" trade-union) has been playing in the science/religion subject...

Dov Henis

(Life is, by our sensory conception, a virtual reality affair; religion is a virtual reality tool for going through life)

Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Atheist perspective
This is pretty complicated for me, so explaining the heading first, the farthest I ever got into religion was Deism and Buddhism,, but I grew up in a strange situation religion-wise. One side of my family is Jewish and the other is Christian. There are two sects in either side as well. On the Jewish side, there's a split between the hardcore Reform Jews and cultural/secular Jews. This came about as a result of the family history, as the Jewish side escaped from Nazi Germany before WWII to Brazil. They left Brazil for the US, New York specifically, after the military coup in the early '60s. Because of the strength of the Catholic Church there, there was also a strong anti-Semitic sentiment in parts of the country. This led some of the members of my family to become cultural but agnostic/atheist Jews or outright renounce Judaism and religion in general as a means of oppression at worst or bullshit at best. The end result is something out of a Woody Allen movie. The hardcore Jews are very insular, which tends to be true of the religion as a whole (it's very hard to convert if you're not born into it). There's a lot of latent bigotry and whispering about the "goyim" and "shiksas." Some of them really hate the fact that some of the family married outside of the religion instead of a "nice Jewish girl." I think there's a general sentiment among some of them that Christianity is a perversion of the Jewish tradition. The Christian side of my family is much more sane. The older generation is basically Roman Catholic apatheist -- my grandfather on that side only converted to marry my grandmother and I've never seen either of them go to church or even talk about god or religion. The rest are all either Quaker (they're all Pennsylvania Dutch) or Protestants. The Quakers are mostly apatheists as well and I suspect most of them are Quakers only because the religion is highly supportive of tolerance and pacifism, being staunchly anti-war. They seem to be more interested in that side of things than anything theological. The Protestants are really hardcore true believers, but they're also all ecumenicists and they don't really push their religion. The worst they do is just saying grace at meals or prayers, etc. I think the main focus for the Protestants as well is charity and community work, but they take their Bible seriously (not fundies, though), though they're very tolerant of other religions.

So I still "do" Christmas, Hannukah, etc. for social reasons. Fortunately, though, the two sides of my family live in different states because no one deserves some of the batshit insanity coming out of the Jewish side. As for me, I was agnostic/deistic before I gave up on the god thing altogether. Being caught between two religions claiming to worship the "one true god," deconverted Jews railing against the evils of religion, and reading ancient mythology, they all seemed like deranged "Elvis fan clubs" hawking their own brand of fairy tale even when I was still in elementary school. And I always did and still do think that some of the Quakers are closet atheists anyway.

I went through a brief Buddhist period in high school as well. There are some sects of Buddhism that are theistic, but most are simply agnostic/atheistic, although they do believe in souls, reincarnation, etc. The general attitude, like someone pointed out above, is that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, somewhat like Confucianism, and they tend to see other religions as simply another path to enlightenment. In fact, the more liberal, Westernized sects of Buddhism aren't really incompatible in any way with other gods and religions. Buddhism is also something of the skeptic's religion, as the Buddha specifically tells his disciples to question his teachings. The literal truth of Buddhist scripture is irrelevant as well -- it's his teachings that were considered to be the important part. That's why it's much closer to a philosophy than a religion.

Anyway, that's basically my journey through the wide wacky world of religion. I hope that made some sense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

World religions course
The Catholic school I attended had a world religions course that taught about Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam. Of these, two are closely related to Christianity and basically considered to be the same God worshiped in different methods. The other two were used as study to assist in showing how religions became structured (e.g. Hinduism involved the concept of Karma). The ultimate goal of that course was to get a better understanding of Christianity, by observing how other religion developed, although I never saw as much history about the Christianity where the early worshippers generally had to use secret societies, and that it was more effectively spread than Judaism due to the newer invention called a book.

Still, Christianity and Judaism are monolatristic - there's other religions but you're supposed to worship one god. --Sigma 7 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)