Fair enough. It's a case, although the strength of it depends on
whether of not it is enforced.
Plenty of self-referred Christian and Jewish sects (I don't know
about Islamic sects) through the many centuries were fine with
accepting a form of pantheism.
Considering that there's a severe lack of worldwide definitive
authority that is universally acceptable in all of these cases,
depending on who you ask, your milage may vary.
A simple synonyming or metaphorical interpretation of "You shall
have no other gods before Me" - allows room for much
interpretation, including many who are fine with substituting
"Universe" for "God". Or "Human" for "God" in humanism.
The absolute domination of a central figure / person (whether
conceptual person like Logic or Money or another form of
deification in an ideology that was brewed within Western
Civilization likely traces directly back to this
conceptualization and really should be given proper credit.
I suppose the same case could be made for Ra. But it strikes me
as a retroactive interpretation of history in that case,
considering quality/lack of primary source material for proper
analysis of the concept of "singular central 'something' that
cannot be denied" in the time of Ra, versus the very strong
quality of source material for Torah-based. *SO* many copies
were made and generally with great precision, which is why it
remains with us to this very day, thousands of years later, even
before archeology was a "thing".
