Hello soulcalm17

[Paleophyte]

I guess I should elaborate on what I was calling monotheism earlier. I talked about this a little in regard to Indian religion.

We'd need to differentiate between big-G God and small-g gods. The Hindu pantheon is full of small-g gods who get up to all kinds of things and act naughty sometimes. But they are essentially posterior to Brahman, which is what I think of as a monotheistic concept. This would be true also of a version of later Roman thinkers who take Jupiter as Prime Mover, but accept the continued existence of the small-g gods as well.

Strictly speaking that's henotheism, polytheism with a chieftan. The ancient Greeks and modern Hindus didn't and don't, respectively, think in terms of "small-g gods". They were all full-Caps-G Gods and nobody with any sense of self-preservation wandered around Athens telling them how much better Zeus was. Rule 1 of polytheism: Do not annoy the gods, any of them, no matter how small, unless you relish eternity as a cricket, or an echo, or something truly horrid.

With variations, the Prime Mover concept is called the One by Plotinus (who accepts many lesser spirits), Brahman by the Indians, and 不二 by the Chinese. You could have all kinds of small-g gods doing their thing while being essentially posterior to this highest thing.

Some pretty important variations there. The Abrahamic Prime Mover has personality, intention, and, traditionally, testicles. By contrast, Brahman simply is. Some traditions worship and pray to Brahman, after a sense, but endowing it with personality or human attributes would just be weird.

Well, the Jews got kind of mad when the Romans insisted on putting a statue of one of their gods in the Temple.

Largely because the Romans couldn't figure these weirdos that tried to make do with a single god. Nobody else made a fuss.