|
I was reading the chapters about the early Christian church in the book Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and it got me interested in polytheism. The West has been dominated by monotheistic religions for so long that it is actually novel to think that there may be gods who do not claim exclusive rights to existence and worship. I especially like the idea that each region and people have gods that are native to them. Thus it is as silly to impose the desert dwelling god of Israel onto the frozen regions as it is to imagine proselytizing for Thor and Odin among the tribes of Africa.
Anyway a really fascinating character in that book was the Roman Emperor Julian, nephew of the first Christian Emperor Constantine. Julian was raised with a mixture of Christian theology and Greek philosophy, and upon becoming emperor, he tried to revive worship of the Greek and Roman Gods. He even wrote a three book treatise "Against The Galileans", which the Church later destroyed all copies of. Fragments survive quoted in the rebuttals of Christian writers, but even these responses to his book were mostly destroyed in order to wipe out all trace of his arguments.
Julian died young in battle, and soon all the work he did to try and revive the old religion was undone, and the rest is history. I wonder how different the world might have been if it were Roman polytheism that conquered Europe and then spread throughout the world instead of Christianity? I think one sure result would have been more polytheistic traditions surviving conquest, such as those of the Native Americans/Hawaiians, Scandinavians, Druids etc. They may still have been wiped out, but not as surely as when a single jealous god makes it a sin to acknowledge the existence of other gods.
  
|
Papua New Guinea1054 Posts
The week minded would then believe in group of gods jealous of other religions instead of one. Nothing would really change.
|
I've heard that having a monotheistic state religion greatly aids in the administration of a multi-ethnic empire thus giving empires so endowed an advantage in the contest of civilisations.
It also seems interesting to me that I can not think of any society that has transitioned from mono- to polytheism, it seems to be a one-way street.
Note also that great quantities of sub-deities, such as angels, demons, jinni, bodhisattvas and the like sprung up, although they tend not to be emphasised that much these days.
|
|
|
United States889 Posts
The answer is simple. The Islamic conquests would have overrun Europe. However fragile the frequent unions among Christian leaders in the early modern period, it was only their uniting - in large part because of their shared beliefs - that stopped the frequent Muslim incursions into Europe.
|
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. What is it about Christianity that allowed it to expand beyond its ethnic and cultural borders?
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local.
...what? That's not true at all.
|
On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. What is it about Christianity that allowed it to expand beyond its ethnic and cultural borders?
Christianity expanded because the God of Israel never intended his relationship to be with just Israel. It was meant for all nations. Israel was just chosen to bring others to him (but they failed a lot). Then comes Jesus way later who reiterates what Israel was supposed to be doing then gives the "great commission" for his people to go out to all the nations and make disciples.
So basically, it expanded outward because that's what it was designed to do from the beginning.
|
On October 04 2016 06:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. ...what? That's not true at all.
Care to give a counter example?
|
On October 04 2016 00:46 Arrian wrote:
The answer is simple. The Islamic conquests would have overrun Europe. However fragile the frequent unions among Christian leaders in the early modern period, it was only their uniting - in large part because of their shared beliefs - that stopped the frequent Muslim incursions into Europe.
I doubt that. France had a long alliance with the Ottomans and the coalition that defended Vienna were mostly hostile neighbors of the Ottomans (who had a lot of infighting btw). There were also Christians who sided with the Ottomans even in their largest invasion.
On October 04 2016 10:28 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. ...what? That's not true at all. Care to give a counter example?
Artemis was a Greek goddess that spread through the entirety of Persia. The original Roman pantheon is essentially the Greek one. Adad/Hadad, later Ba'al was originally a god the Amroites prayed to in Syria, then it spread to Babylon and Assur and from there to the Phoenician cities across the Mediterranean (like Carthage). When Christianity reached Rome it was full of small Religions and sects.
And that's just some gods, don't get me started with all the associations and symbolism. Some of which we still have in Christian mythology.
@topic
Polytheism has some major disadvantages. The biggest one is that a bunch of quarreling gods is less useful for promising protection, salvation and unity/community, which are the big selling points of "modern" religions. The Emperors abandoned polytheism because the populace abandoned it, leaving them no real choice, so bringing it back was a foolish project.
I kinda prefer polytheism more as I find it more believable. But that's a minor point for most people.
|
On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. What is it about Christianity that allowed it to expand beyond its ethnic and cultural borders?
I don't think it's a notion of polytheism being a harder sell than monotheism, I think its more of a technology thing where the later empires have a much greater scope to conquer areas, and there was a larger gap in technology.
If we lived in the ancient world, I'm sure we would think the Greek and Roman pantheons were very widespread because of the distances people were able to reasonably go back then.
If that argument doesn't hold up, I guess its because Christianity and Islam have kind of a mandate. In Christianity, you believe you must spread the word of God or they're going to Hell. I don't know much about Islam but I know they were big into converting people for kind of that same purpose.
|
Each god of polytheistic religion is representative of some artisan skill. The greatest polytheistic religions like hinduism are available to everyone. But it is common in my experience to see some members as friends and other members as not friends or enemies. It is usually characteristic of the higher God to be incarnated of everything.
|
The reason for Christianity becoming big was the problem of multiple different polytheistic religions in one empire. If you do a decree that anybody that owns land has to be part of a the military for 5 years to keep ownership you face consequences you can't keep track of. Religion 1 might hail you as a hero since they now get to force their friends to go to war with them. Religion 2 hates war and does passive resistance. Religion 3 only feels the religion should have standing armies so they rebel.
Then the same thing for every single decree in a big empire. If you have one religion be it mono- or polytheistic you can keep the empire stable and stop many rebellions. Christianity came at the right time and had many values that lends to a stable government, which is why other countries also took it up.
|
United States889 Posts
On October 04 2016 13:47 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 00:46 Arrian wrote:
The answer is simple. The Islamic conquests would have overrun Europe. However fragile the frequent unions among Christian leaders in the early modern period, it was only their uniting - in large part because of their shared beliefs - that stopped the frequent Muslim incursions into Europe. I doubt that. France had a long alliance with the Ottomans and the coalition that defended Vienna were mostly hostile neighbors of the Ottomans (who had a lot of infighting btw). There were also Christians who sided with the Ottomans even in their largest invasion.
It's not that simple. The French sided with the Ottomans because the Valois hated the fact that the Hapsburgs had the title of Holy Roman Emperor, a distinctly Christian title. They rendered nothing more than political support and some small provision of arms.
I'm not talking about Vienna, per se. I'm noting that Europe, until the golden age of Hapsburg military success in the early modern period, only really had victory over the Muslim world when they acted as a whole. Without a common religion that demanded them to unify (especially as it was embodied in the papacy, I might imagine), that brought together far away powers like the Nordic countries, England, and Portugal to fight the combined might of Islam, they would have lost, even if it was a slow withering away. I mean, look, the Russians and the Ottomans were constantly at odds in that period, and the mere fact that they were separated by the Catholic/Orthodox divide meant that the Hapsburgs and the Russians never came together to fight the Ottomans, at least, not until the first world war of all things. Neighbors with a mutual interest might assist each other, like the Poles and the Hapsburgs, but adding faraway forces from the English, the Portuguese, and the Nordic countries, that took a unifying vision of Europe in that time. And there was only one big thing that had the ability to unify them, and that was their common religion.
|
On October 04 2016 13:47 Archeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 00:46 Arrian wrote:
The answer is simple. The Islamic conquests would have overrun Europe. However fragile the frequent unions among Christian leaders in the early modern period, it was only their uniting - in large part because of their shared beliefs - that stopped the frequent Muslim incursions into Europe. I doubt that. France had a long alliance with the Ottomans and the coalition that defended Vienna were mostly hostile neighbors of the Ottomans (who had a lot of infighting btw). There were also Christians who sided with the Ottomans even in their largest invasion. Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:28 Jerubaal wrote:On October 04 2016 06:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. ...what? That's not true at all. Care to give a counter example? Artemis was a Greek goddess that spread through the entirety of Persia. The original Roman pantheon is essentially the Greek one. Adad/Hadad, later Ba'al was originally a god the Amroites prayed to in Syria, then it spread to Babylon and Assur and from there to the Phoenician cities across the Mediterranean (like Carthage). When Christianity reached Rome it was full of small Religions and sects. And that's just some gods, don't get me started with all the associations and symbolism. Some of which we still have in Christian mythology. @topic Polytheism has some major disadvantages. The biggest one is that a bunch of quarreling gods is less useful for promising protection, salvation and unity/community, which are the big selling points of "modern" religions. The Emperors abandoned polytheism because the populace abandoned it, leaving them no real choice, so bringing it back was a foolish project. I kinda prefer polytheism more as I find it more believable. But that's a minor point for most people.
This all seems like superficial name changing to me. The Greek and Roman gods are the best example for this sort of syncretism. They literally looked at the gods, decided they had similar characteristics and copy/pasted the names. I think the exceptions to the rules are very telling. The fact that the Romans continued to retain some animistic elements suggests that this was merely a cultural exchange and did not represent a paradigm shift in Roman religion.
It looks like Artemis is just a stand in for a dozen other variations of a major female goddesses/maiden goddesses. The Persian goddess Anahita is often portrayed as a virgin, so it's easy to see how they'd latch onto Artemis for that role. They then assigned to her aspects like fertility that she never had in Greece. Not too dissimilar than what happened with the Virgin Mary in the New World.
|
ya and there are other caricatures and gods like charlie x of star trek who charged out mindlessly to be blown to bits whenever his name was called
|
it really is a mess isn't it. i've found that almost no westerners attempt meditation pre-LSD for instance. (....) but ya it's a long damn story aye
edit: ya what if meditation was as powerful LSD (it isn't????)
i dunno how you would find out but good post :{D
meditators so passive
|
On October 04 2016 22:55 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 13:47 Archeon wrote:On October 04 2016 00:46 Arrian wrote:
The answer is simple. The Islamic conquests would have overrun Europe. However fragile the frequent unions among Christian leaders in the early modern period, it was only their uniting - in large part because of their shared beliefs - that stopped the frequent Muslim incursions into Europe. I doubt that. France had a long alliance with the Ottomans and the coalition that defended Vienna were mostly hostile neighbors of the Ottomans (who had a lot of infighting btw). There were also Christians who sided with the Ottomans even in their largest invasion. On October 04 2016 10:28 Jerubaal wrote:On October 04 2016 06:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:On October 04 2016 06:10 Jerubaal wrote:
You have correctly noticed that it is strange for the gods of polytheistic religions to migrate. Polytheistic gods are almost by definition local. ...what? That's not true at all. Care to give a counter example? Artemis was a Greek goddess that spread through the entirety of Persia. The original Roman pantheon is essentially the Greek one. Adad/Hadad, later Ba'al was originally a god the Amroites prayed to in Syria, then it spread to Babylon and Assur and from there to the Phoenician cities across the Mediterranean (like Carthage). When Christianity reached Rome it was full of small Religions and sects. And that's just some gods, don't get me started with all the associations and symbolism. Some of which we still have in Christian mythology. @topic Polytheism has some major disadvantages. The biggest one is that a bunch of quarreling gods is less useful for promising protection, salvation and unity/community, which are the big selling points of "modern" religions. The Emperors abandoned polytheism because the populace abandoned it, leaving them no real choice, so bringing it back was a foolish project. I kinda prefer polytheism more as I find it more believable. But that's a minor point for most people. This all seems like superficial name changing to me. The Greek and Roman gods are the best example for this sort of syncretism. They literally looked at the gods, decided they had similar characteristics and copy/pasted the names. I think the exceptions to the rules are very telling. The fact that the Romans continued to retain some animistic elements suggests that this was merely a cultural exchange and did not represent a paradigm shift in Roman religion. It looks like Artemis is just a stand in for a dozen other variations of a major female goddesses/maiden goddesses. The Persian goddess Anahita is often portrayed as a virgin, so it's easy to see how they'd latch onto Artemis for that role. They then assigned to her aspects like fertility that she never had in Greece. Not too dissimilar than what happened with the Virgin Mary in the New World.
IIrc Greek and Roman gods share a lot of backstories. Yeah most religions spread by adopting gods into their pantheon or getting merged with other gods, which restricts their possibilities for spreading. Virgin Mary got loads of symbolism from other religions attached to her in the ancient world as well. Hell most Christians I know define god as "their own god" as in their own take of him. I doubt that is different in polytheistic religions, especially in times when most people were illiterate and most gods as a result are vague figures only known by hearsay.
Monotheistic religions spread likely more than getting attached to other pantheons (which still happened, YHWE f.e. became part of the Babylonian pantheon) because of their "one god"-rule.
|
Let me give a serious answer to this difficult question. In modern times most men regard the world as their wife. So in some sense each male is monotheistic, taking his monogamous beloved to represent the world. The Virgin Mary and so on are an interesting alliteration to some kind of theory regarding stability, society, wistfulness, and the pleasures of youth. Most people are idiots and associate monogamy with a charitable version of Christianity. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on which are all apparently monotheistic seem to set a high price on the joys of monogamy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
