The “diversity” of the monotheistic religions (supposedly evident in its many different sects and factions) is their failure, not their credit – because their intention is not plurality but singularity, mono-ism. Their failure to agree on philosophical points or on practical implementations, or just on political power issues, is what caused the so-called “diversity.” It is not diversity really, it is fracturing.

To defend monotheism, one might appeal that it is not sects and factions which evidence its diversity. Rather it is the growing sense of inclusiveness and plurality we see in many churches, mosques, etc. My reply is that this is also their failure, their compromise – though it is a welcome “failure” and one I would be happy to see more of. Monotheism, by definition, is “mono-” dimensional. Inclusiveness and plurality is anathema to the singularity of anything monistic. The core of monism is exclusive and singular, it permits no variance or diversity. This is why we only see inclusiveness and pluraity being added to it – it is not a part of its original core. It is a dilution of monotheism, which will eventually cause it to fade into a lose and unorganized soup of polytheism that is ashamed of itself and in constant strife with itself.

By contrast, polytheism, has inherent, inbuilt, intentional diversity. Their fundamental idea that different people have different interests and aptitudes and therefore should follow different paths towards different divinities.

So, we cannot equate the value and utility of monotheism with polytheism. Monotheism is clearly and utterly a huge degradation. It is the hallmark of kali-yuga religion.